Timeline for Does porn destroy dopamine receptors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2017 at 14:07 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Fizz - yes, there has always been a designation of both psychological addiction and physical addiction. The problem is when people start making direct, equivalent comparisons between the two very different types. If I engage in two activities, one that creates an addiction, and one that does not, but both give the sensation of pleasure to my brain, a brain scan would show similarities between the two, because they have some similarities. The problem is when people take any expected similarity and assign greater equivalence than is warranted. | |
| Nov 21, 2017 at 2:01 | comment | added | days of love iff good genes | Keep in mind though that the DSM does include a behavioral addiction: gambling disorder psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/… | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 16:00 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | "Awakenings." I highly recommend the book that actual story originally came from - "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" - by Oliver Sacks. A ton of fascinating stories about our nervous system/brain wiring gone haywire. | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 15:57 | comment | added | Omnifarious | @PoloHoleSet - You're right. After reading more about it. :-/ Interesting. I was thinking about the movie about L-DOPA that Robin Williams starred in. It seemed like they could move if the impetus for movement came from outside themselves. But, again, misinterpreting. Neuroscience is hard! :-) :-/ | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 15:55 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Omnifarious - Probably not a great example, because they lose the ability to move because their nervous system can no longer control the movements (why they have the tremors and rigidity which progressively gets worse). It's not like they have the ability to move, but no longer desire to. | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 15:51 | comment | added | Omnifarious | @xrorox - Well, I don't know that that's the correct way to interpret this. Keep in mind as well that I'm a software engineer applying analysis that mixes together knowledge from these answers and other sources, not a trained neuroscientist by any means. But it seems like this would have the general effect of making you less interested in porn unless, for other reasons, porn was really high on your list of things to be interested in. If you look at people who have no dopamine receptors, they aren't interested in doing anything, literally. They don't even move (Parkinson's disease). | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 15:22 | comment | added | xrorox | @Omnifarious. Thanks. I was under the impression that the answer negated this mechanism. In this particular case I don't think we can speak of addiction. If you downregulate your receptors, you are more likely to engage in behaviors that produce higher amount of dopamine. But you are not dependant on any particular source. | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 14:32 | comment | added | Omnifarious | @xrorox - If you remove the value word 'excessive' then I suspect yes. From my understanding of this answer, the dopamine system in the brain is involved in figuring out what it is you want to do, what's important to you. Downregulating receptors is going to cause less things to seem important to you. And if you have a broken idea of what's important, that's going to result on you focusing on more broken behavior. It seems that the seemingly simple idea of addiction is fairly complex. | |
| Oct 31, 2017 at 11:02 | comment | added | xrorox | You are right about the addictive part. But are you claiming that excessives spikes of dopamine do not downregulate some subtype of dopamine receptors ? | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 14:20 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @MrLister - please note the subject tag. | |
| Oct 23, 2017 at 14:19 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @MrLister - Since it talks specifically about addiction, I'm not sure why invoking a magic word makes a difference. The Constitution does not actually mention the word "wall of separation," or "right to a speedy trial." If you ask someone, "what is addition," and their description matches, verbatim, the words in the question, then, yes, they did talk about addiction - "...so he goes back to pornography, but, having fewer dopamine receptors, this time it requires more to get the same dopamine thrill; ... this causes his brain to destroy more receptors; so he feels an even greater need.." | |
| S Oct 23, 2017 at 14:14 | history | rollback | PoloHoleSet |
Rollback to Revision 3 - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator
|
|
| Oct 22, 2017 at 23:15 | history | suggested | iconoclast | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
a gross overstatement of the case
|
| Oct 22, 2017 at 11:44 | comment | added | Mr Lister | While this is a very good and well-researched answer, the question doesn't actually mention the word "addiction". | |
| Oct 21, 2017 at 20:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 23, 2017 at 14:14 | |||||
| S Oct 19, 2017 at 18:50 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Oct 19, 2017 at 18:50 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| S Oct 19, 2017 at 18:50 | history | suggested | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
moved "bold emphasis mine" out of the quote. In the original version it looks like the bold emphasis, plus the "bold emphasis mine" statement, was part of the original text, because all of it is in the quote. It isn't.
|
| Oct 19, 2017 at 18:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 19, 2017 at 18:50 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2017 at 21:09 | history | edited | PoloHoleSet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2017 at 20:56 | vote | accept | Akli | ||
| Oct 18, 2017 at 17:42 | history | answered | PoloHoleSet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |