|
[NEWS] Porn Makes You Go Blind
|
View this Thread in Original format
| AssyrianTrancer |
RESEARCHERS have proved what mothers have been telling their sons all along – erotic images can make you go blind.
A study by US psychologists found people shown erotic or gory images could not process what they were seeing immediately afterwards.
Researchers believe emotion-induced blindness could mean drivers simply do not see another car or pedestrian if they have just witnessed an "emotionally charged" scene.
The work, published in the Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, helps shed light on how motorists are affected by the use of sexy billboards.
It also found that some people were more prone to be affected by the phenomenon known as emotion-induced blindness.
Researchers from Vanderbilt University in Nashville and Yale University in Connecticut showed hundreds of images to volunteers.
Most of them were "neutral" scenes but a few showing violent or sexually provocative scenes were also included.
"We observed that people failed to detect visual images that appeared one-fifth of a second after emotional images, whereas they can detect those images with little problem after neutral images," researcher David Zald told New Scientist magazine.
"We think there is essentially a bottleneck for information processing and if a certain type of stimulus captures attention, it can jam up the bottleneck so subsequent information can't get through."
This appeared to happen involuntarily, Mr Zald said. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| lol..does this mean the palm of yur hands will start growing hair as well? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| Complete horse. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Complete horse. |
Lemme guess, you read the title without even reading the text? Or else, can you give a single logical argument to back that up? That research is perfectly credible and legit. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
If so: that sucks!
Wouldn't this mean that someone who witnesses sex in real life would go blind too?
What's going on here??
If my brain is overwhelmed with erotic images, I won't be able to understand what I'm seeing afterwards??? |
|
|
| smokeape |
Nothing new. Sex sells. They normally don't post fat women up on the billboards...
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Wouldn't this mean that someone who witnesses sex in real life would go blind too?
What's going on here??
If my brain is overwhelmed with erotic images, I won't be able to understand what I'm seeing afterwards??? |
It essentially means that after seing sexually provocative images, your visual alertness is significantly diminished. You can see everything clearly but you're not observant to it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
That research is perfectly credible and legit. |
Well I'm glad that you've taken the time to analyze the data, methodology, and findings of these "US psychologists" so that you could confirm the credibility of their work for us. I myself was unable to locate enough specific information in the Psychonomic Bulletin and Review without purchasing a subscription to draw such a firm conclusion.
Since you must have quite an intimate and detailed knowledge of the specifics of this study in order to be so certain of its credibility, perhaps you'd be willing to answer a few preliminary questions I have:
What type of control groups were used in this experiment? What set of criteria was used to measure the inherent violence or eroticism of a particular image? Were the effects observed universal? Predictable? Or merely indicative of a statistical correlation? How was the path of the signals for the images apparently not detected traced through the retina, along the optic nerve, into the lateral geniculate nucleus, and finally to the visual cortex in order to determine what factor(s) physiologically caused the apparent blindness? For that matter, what means was used to determine whether or not the subject actually saw the image in question? After all we can't simply rely on asking them, because that would leave ambiguous whether or not the problem was with visual perception or memory storage/recall regarding those images.
I sincerely do look forward to being enlightened regarding these important issues so that I can share in your confidence of the legitimacy of this research. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well I'm glad that you've taken the time to analyze the data, methodology, and findings of these "US psychologists" so that you could confirm the credibility of their work for us. I myself was unable to locate enough specific information in the Psychonomic Bulletin and Review without purchasing a subscription to draw such a firm conclusion.
Since you must have quite an intimate and detailed knowledge of the specifics of this study in order to be so certain of its credibility, perhaps you'd be willing to answer a few preliminary questions I have:
What type of control groups were used in this experiment? What set of criteria was used to measure the inherent violence or eroticism of a particular image? Were the effects observed universal? Predictable? Or merely indicative of a statistical correlation? How was the path of the signals for the images apparently not detected traced through the retina, along the optic nerve, into the lateral geniculate nucleus, and finally to the visual cortex in order to determine what factor(s) physiologically caused the apparent blindness? For that matter, what means was used to determine whether or not the subject actually saw the image in question? After all we can't simply rely on asking them, because that would leave ambiguous whether or not the problem was with visual perception or memory storage/recall regarding those images.
I sincerely do look forward to being enlightened regarding these important issues so that I can share in your confidence of the legitimacy of this research. |
Join a class, read a book, but it's not my job to educate you. The guy just came in and called the research 'bull', and I wanted to know why. Usually when you object to something, you give a reason for it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
Join a class, read a book, but it's not my job to educate you. The guy just came in and called the research 'bull', and I wanted to know why. Usually when you object to something, you give a reason for it. |
Well it most certainly is not your job to educate me.
The "guy" did call the research "bull" on dubious grounds. But I'm more interested in the reasoning behind that guy who just came in and called the research "perfectly credible and legit." After all, usually when you profess to know of the "perfect" credibility and legitimacy of something, you give a reason for it - even if it's not your "job."
So can you answer my questions, or was your declaration of the credibility of the research every bit as baseless as Mr. Akridrot's declaration that it's bull? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: |
"We observed that people failed to detect visual images that appeared one-fifth of a second after emotional images, whereas they can detect those images with little problem after neutral images," researcher David Zald told New Scientist magazine. |
Wow, a fifth of a second.........sounds like a real crisis in lost time.:crazy: |
|
|
| Massive84 |
And smoking can cause Long cancer.
I don't think anyone would care.
But intresting. I wonder when the first American that goes blind will sue a porn company. |
|
|
|
|
