Not even Captain America can cut down on porn

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Last edited by Lira on Jun-29-2012 at 06:35

What a load of crap. How stupid do you have to be to take this guy seriously? It took me about ten seconds of listening to this guy ramble to figure out that he's a nutbag pseudoscientist. A quick internet search confirmed the obvious.

According to his own web page, his credentials are:

• He has taught anatomy and physiology labs at Southern Oregon University. (He's not currently in their faculty directory and probably made less than minimum wage doing so, like most adjuncts at public universities of which nobody has ever heard. Assuming he's not making it up, that is.)
  
• He "taught anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, and pathology at vocational schools in California and Oregon." (Oh, wow, unspecified "vocational schools.")
  
• He "attended nursing school, and has continued to take university courses in microbiology, cell biology, immunology and genetics." (Notice how he didn't mention actually earning any degrees from any of these places? Me too.)
  
• Finally, his "passion is neuroscience, he spends many hours scanning the Web and integrating the latest discoveries." (My personal favorite.)
  

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter conning people into thinking he's some kind of expert

Long cons and porn? I have the weirdest boner.



Quite a fun series... they do all sorts of cons, although I'm not sure porn was among them. Which is a shame, because the girl in blue would make it well worth it

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Actually seems pretty reasonable to me. I deleted all my porn torrents and I'll give it a shot for a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter What a load of crap. How stupid do you have to be to take this guy seriously? It took me about ten seconds of listening to this guy ramble to figure out that he's a nutbag pseudoscientist. A quick internet search confirmed the obvious. According to his own web page, his credentials are: He has taught anatomy and physiology labs at Southern Oregon University. (He's not currently in their faculty directory and probably made less than minimum wage doing so, like most adjuncts at public universities of which nobody has ever heard. Assuming he's not making it up, that is.) He "taught anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, and pathology at vocational schools in California and Oregon." (Oh, wow, unspecified "vocational schools.") He "attended nursing school, and has continued to take university courses in microbiology, cell biology, immunology and genetics." (Notice how he didn't mention actually earning any degrees from any of these places? Me too.) Finally, his "passion is neuroscience, he spends many hours scanning the Web and integrating the latest discoveries." (My personal favorite.) Does he even have a degree? Has he ever conducted any actual research? Published any scholarship? Done anything what-so-ever to qualify him as an expert in anything? If so, he doesn't bother to mention it. Apparently, his Madd Googling Skillz are the highlight of his résumé. What a fucking joke. I guess since he couldn't seem to pass enough of those courses he took to ever become a real, actual scientist, he came up with an easier way to make a living: passing himself off as one, conning people into thinking he's some kind of expert, and convincing them that internet porn is to blame for all of their problems (Could he have picked a more hackneyed scapegoat?) The only thing more pathetic than actually being this guy is being dumb enough to fall for his shtick. Look, it's very simple. If you're impotent, go see a real doctor. If you're just a general loser or think you're "addicted" to internet porn, go see a real psychologist. If you have a problem you need help with, there are real, genuine experts who can help you with that. You know, as opposed to pretend experts who are really just amateur wanna-be scientists.

375 words and not one of them was used in an attempt to prove the guy wrong. You could have saved yourself some time and calories by just saying he was a nutbag and leaving it there.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT 375 words and not one of them was used in an attempt to prove the guy wrong.

Why would I? I'm not qualified to address the substance of his "talk" (for that matter, neither is he). Unlike some people, I don't pretend to be an expert on subjects I'm not.

On the other hand, I am indeed qualified to assess his credibility--which is precisely dick, as explained above.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Why would I? I'm not qualified to address the substance of his "talk" (for that matter, neither is he). Unlike some people, I don't pretend to be an expert on subjects I'm not. On the other hand, I am indeed qualified to assess his credibility--which is precisely dick, as explained above.

All of what you just said aside, was there anything specific that he said that you know to be false?

I admire your skepticism and debunking of his credentials and "evidence". If I think a talk isn't worth my time within a few seconds, I simply dismiss it.

quote:

Look, it's very simple. If you're impotent, go see a real doctor. If you're just a general loser or think you're "addicted" to internet porn, go see a real psychologist. If you have a problem you need help with, there are real, genuine experts who can help you with that. You know, as opposed to pretend experts who are really just amateur wanna-be scientists.

This looks bad, but the gist of his claims are true and that's why I shared this. The communities he pointed out in his presentation do exist and this problem isn't extremely rare (r/NoFap).

My opinion is that pornography addiction is more common and severe today because of continuous access and novelty. I think more young men might be affected privately but don't report it out of shame. Exactly why, how, or how isn't completely clear (and all evidence presented in his speech is crap, according to your post...), but this problem does exist and I have a strong feeling that is growing and getting worse.

I had no idea would anyone was going to thoroughly attack the video so scientifically. I wouldn't have posted the video if I did.

I didn't post this out of blind belief, and not because of his identity or evidence. I treated the speech like an anecdote and I personally agreed with the gist of his speech, because I've had similar suspicions recently. I thought his claims were so general and obvious, that they didn't merit any scrutiny.

Last edited by Anxieties on Jun-29-2012 at 07:34

The video compresses many words into small ideas, I admit, and Arbiter thoroughly attacked everything about it before anyone else could state an opinion. I expected most people to separate the signal from the noise, but it's my fault for presenting a long speech with no clarification.

If you want to be scientific about this, that's fine, but I am letting you know this was intended to be a regular discussion involving opinions. The speaker wasn't the focus, I can see how you would assume that, but it wasn't my intention.

But as an aside, I'm curious: do you have a negative opinion of TED talks in general and are you always this skeptical and diligent about everything you view?

Anxieties, I think you are giving Arbiter more credit then he deserves. He did attack the speaker but that was pretty much it. He pointed out the speakers credentials but didn't attack anything that the speaker actually said in attempt to prove any of what was said to be false. The speaker actually did dive into some science in the video and explained things in a clear and concise manor. I'd be very interested to see Arbiter attack the words that came out of the speakers mouth over what the listed credentials on his web site are.

It's not about anyone getting credit, it seems like I'm misrepresenting myself here. None of this has to do with the people in question, but the statements made and the reputation of who made those statements. I regarded some information as irrelevant but I didn't make that clear and this derail happened. That was my fault entirely.

His skepticism was rational (and scathing). If his criticisms are correct, then I must agree. I try to avoid incorrectness and associations with incorrect people to the best of my ability. The Speaker's background, credentials and evidence used in the Speech are problematic. The Speaker has little to no credibility. The speech itself could still be solid, but that's unlikely so it was dismissed with good reason. There's no need to view the rest after dismissing it. Most people wouldn't need to watch most of the speech. It should have been omitted. But it was late when I made this, and I'm not fully focused.

That being said, I didn't want this reaction but I could've avoided it if I was paying attention. I made a mistake. I should be more cautious when sharing anything claiming to be scientific evidence because it's only reasonable for others to assume that I whole-hardheartedly believe the Speaker's claims or blindly respect the Speaker (being fooled by false credentials). But if I do something as careless as this, the ridicule is to be expected.

Last edited by Anxieties on Jun-29-2012 at 08:17