Basman

The idea that men are picky is really funny and untrue. I've seen bridge trolls get hit on by conventionally handsome men. Guys will fuck peanutbutter jars and melons. Most guys don't have crazy standards. Of course, everyone likes hot chicks but that is another story.

Judging purely by his appearance he does look like the king of groupies and like he experiments a lot with drugs. Wouldn't let him near me daughter.

Brain scans don't lie or make up stuff. In fact, they don't say anything at all. It is just data. To extrapolate any kind of conclusion requires interpretation. What annoys me the most about porn haters is that they present themselves knowing what is best for you when in reality their priority is their arbitrary moral convictions. The veneer of medical authority is a trojan horse to convince you of their ideology and there isn't enough push-back to it. Porn very well may be harmful to a certain extent if presented with the evidence but there is no diligence at all. Maybes are turned into absolutes. I'm most worried about young guys whose head gets filled with this nonsense and are being misinformed. It distracts from proper self-improvement which entails meaningful action. Not magical thinking and half-baked science. Never take medical advice from people that can't even get basic science right.

Wilson's argument boils down to applying the coolidge effect unto humans which is controversial because it is essentially argues that novelty seeking is the root of "porn addiction". But how do you differentiate between "porn addiction" and "internet addiction". Are you a porn addict or actually just an internet addict? It's the same issue as with the previous example, porn could potentially be the cause of brain deterioration but it can't prove definitely that porn is the cause due to lacking that evidence. It is therefor pseudoscience to claim that it does anyway. Wilson has made it his career peddling pseudoscience to an audience of mostly moralists who have already made up their mind on porn. His theories lacks empiricism to support the claims he makes and he isn't academically supported. That's why I don't consider him serious evidence. I don't need to justify myself to anyone unlike moralists who need that justification to feel ideological congruence. The thing is, it doesn't even matter. It's not even a problem to make a value judgement but a lack of transparency is. Misinformation should be treated as such. Here's a good read that criticizes Wilson's theory on porn addiction: https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Between_platonic_love_and_internet_pornography/23449100?file=41265894

You don't think that your response can itself be considered trolling?

Yes. You don't know what you don't know. None of the resources you shared is serious evidence. If porn use has serious medical consequences, then why aren't we seeing a proportional response from the medical community or governments? If it so bad, then why aren't we seeing people's lives ruined relative to the amount of porn being consumed, like for example the opium wars in China? Why not? How do you know that that wouldn't work and what is informing your perception? Keep in mind that perception isn't pure data but an interpretive process, so if you see a street orgy and you feel that is bad, how do you recognize the effect that preconceived ideas about social norms and chastity aren't influencing your view? How do you know whether or not it is actually unethical? Ethics is a serious matter that demands diligence and critical thinking. Postulating and assuming the conclusion isn't wholly sufficient for leading to a healthy society nor should the goal of society be to perpetuate a particular religious/conservative identity.

You shouldn't make a strong empirical claim like that porn destroys your brain if you can't provide serious evidence. It's essentially misinformation. It's fine to a have hunch about porn being bad but the lack of transparency comes off as deliberate and misleading. This is a different argument, that porn is a distraction. You would have a much stronger case against porn use if you focused on lifestyle over pseudo-science. In my own experience, overindulging on porn is bad not for health reasons but because it is an unproductive waste of time. Though I think there is still a degree of moral attitude steering the conversation. The problem with moralizing is that it's an arbitrary attitude relative to the individual/culture which is not inherently accurate of reality or applicable/desirable to everyone since people are different. Why even rail against porn so much if you don't have a moral conviction about it? If young men are not taking their lives seriously and wasting their time watching porn, what else are they missing in life? Too much porn is just a symptom in the majority of cases in my opinion.

The rare times that I spar with girls during my kickboxing training it's like sparring with a kid due to their lack of size and strength and they are really slow and bad at coordinating complex moves even those that trained longer than me. You can really feel their frailty and you have to put the kids gloves on to not hurt or scare them.

Teal Swan talks a lot about "containment" and how necessary it is for women in dating. It's basically just a fluffy way of saying to take care of women's survival needs and make them the focus of your attention. Remembering their birthdays and shit.

An idealistic perspective alone isn't sufficient for meaningful dialogue because we live in a non-ideal world. Society is a cooperation which necessitates the existence of different perspective. There needs to be room for conversation, which an idealistic perspective isn't equipped to deal with. It just wants to push its conclusions. Assuming meaningful dialogue is the goal.

This is sloppy stuff... Finding less grey matter in heavy porn users doesn't directly conclude that the cause is porn. That is an assumption. What if a lack of grey matter is the cause of heavy porn use? Or another example, what if a lack of grey matter is due to a lack of brain stimulating activities like learning or exercise that could correlate with heavy porn use? This is a good example of porn addiction lacking evidence. There is not enough evidence to make a conclusive statement here. Doesn't mean it can't be true but you are assuming the conclusion. The irony of porn haters is that you don't even need to make the argument that porn is addictive to make a value judgement, however that would instantly just make it "your opinion" and less of a political tool. That doesn't mean that porn can't be potentially addictive but what is going on here most likely is that people already have the conclusion in hand that porn is bad and are backwards rationalizing their moral belief. The biggest predictor of self-reported porn-addiction is in fact religiosity (religiosity can cause various sexual problems in fact). Another fact is that porn-addiction isn't an addictive disorder but an impulse-control disorder in the case of genuine "porn addiction" in the medical sense (excluding moral conflict during diagnosis). Here's a good read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction#Diagnostic_status

I found this great video by Vlad Vexler (great channel as well, especially his political analysis's) talking about emotional intelligence but from the understanding of it being able to perceive how other's experience reality. He makes distinctions between psychological, aesthetic and intellectual emotional intelligence. He also underscores emotional intelligence being in part genetic (in my words) as an ability that you may or may not intuitively posses and able to cultivate. The bigger takeaway from this video for me is the idea that you might not be able to see things that other's are seeing which then doesn't mean that there is nothing there. A good example is not seeing any aesthetic value in an abstract paining versus someone who genuinely does. If you can't see an abstract painting having any aesthetic value whatsoever then that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any value there but perhaps you just lack the aesthetic emotional intelligence to recognize the experience that the artist is trying to convey. "You just don't get it". I find it important that we learn to at least appreciate that people can experience realities that are completely different from your own, something which we lack in today's culture in my opinion. For me it's not even a question of haves or have-nots in terms of specific kinds of intelligence but just understanding that A) there are different kinds of intelligence, and B) you might lack a certain kind of intelligence but that doesn't mean that there then isn't any truth or value inherent to a specific thing, like a painting. You might just not "get it". Another great example are economically driven politicians who don't get that unemployed parents still generate value for society even though they don't contribute to direct profits. Or an older parent that doesn't get it when their child wants to become an artist. It's a problem if you become arrogant and dismissive when you don't "get" something because of your lack of a specific kind of intelligence. It makes you a worse person in my opinion.

Information that your AI spews out you can just copy-paste into your CPJ. Good organization should make it plenty easy to find your notes in addition to the fact that many note taking apps have a search function. I can see the appeal of giving an AI prompts to find and create novel information based on its memory on you though. It would have to be a regular note taking app with an AI feature rather than the other way around in my opinion.