Revision as of 23:15, 9 September 2023 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,152 edits →Pseudoscience: "addiction" is a concept of pop psych, not of mainstream psychiatry← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:03, 10 September 2023 edit undoTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,152 edits →Pseudoscience: I just don't see how that bolsters the case for NoFap being science-basedNext edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::::::Misplaced Pages sides with ]. There is no way around that. | ::::::Misplaced Pages sides with ]. There is no way around that. | ||
::::::But, technically, that's right: "addiction" is a concept of ], not of mainstream ]. ] (]) |
::::::But, technically, that's right: "addiction" is a concept of ], not of mainstream ]. I just don't see how that bolsters the case for NoFap being science-based. ] (]) 00:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023 == |
Revision as of 00:03, 10 September 2023
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of NoFap was copied or moved into Gary Wilson (author) with on 7 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Pseudoscience
Lets talk about it your all Informations are incorrect No-Fap originally originated from Celibacy more than 5000 years before when people were believing in flat Earth theory. Giving more information about that I was myself a porn addict but after leaving it I experienced change in my life you can ask my Psychologist. Even today's Neuroscience agree to it! Another thing is that before industrialisation even your forefathers including mine when there were no smart phones and TV's. They didn't know too much about faping. They were mentally and physically strong if you still don't believe you can ask Dr. Trish Leigh about this!
https://www.facebook.com/drtrishleigh 106.207.36.194 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Trish Leigh is:
- not a scientist;
- not a medical researcher;
- not a psychology researcher;
- not a sexology researcher.
- And porn addiction is a bogus diagnosis, source: DSM-5-TR. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, my evidence for my claims is this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=leigh+pornography . And neurofeedback is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the "theory" of "porn addiction" is clearly a crude case of religious hysteria masquerading as science for political purposes. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu I don't think my talk page contributions are recognised as RS by Misplaced Pages quite yet. Though obviously they should -- maybe we should start a RFC to enshrine me in the list of reliable sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know what it's called when a simple phrase like Master of Your Domain propels a formerly niche sitcom into the number one show on television? It's called porn addiction being globally recognized as real. That doesn't mean it's physiological but words have many meanings at the same time. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:DEM: the large popular masses do not make the call. WP:MEDRS make the call. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nope. English is a descriptive language. If you want "addiction" to always mean something medical, you would've had to be around hundreds of years ago to stop millions of people from using it to describe things that are not always medical. Connor Behan (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages sides with WP:BESTSOURCES. There is no way around that.
- But, technically, that's right: "addiction" is a concept of pop psych, not of mainstream psychiatry. I just don't see how that bolsters the case for NoFap being science-based. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the article it says "NoFap was founded in June 2011 by Pittsburgh web developer Alexander Rhodes after reading a thread on Reddit about a 2003 study, (which was retracted in 2021)". However, this is incomplete as it makes it seem like the retraction was due to a scientific error. On the retraction, it says that it was retracted because it "significantly overlaps with a previously published article in Chinese" Source. Can the line be edited to say "(which was retracted in 2021 due to overlap with another published article in Chinese)"? This helps clarify that it was retracted for reasons other than a scientific error and was just retracted because it was a duplicate of another paper. InTheEnd322 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yup, and generally speaking scientific papers are not retracted for "scientific errors" but for things such as fraud or ethical violations. Bona fide papers do not get retracted, even if considered debunked. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in nofap
The 2014 internet poll cited for the 99% male demographics in nofap is marked as an unreliable source. The other source is an academic paper which cites the poll. A more recent source (2019) is this reporting from the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/09/whats-causing-women-to-join-the-nofap-movement), perhaps this should be updated. Kleinhern (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Neuer Slate artikel über neue wissenschaft und selbstmord
Ist Slate eine zuverlässige quelle? WP:RS? https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/07/nofap-masturbation-reddit-forum-suicide.html. Angurispome (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Pornography articles
- Low-importance Pornography articles
- B-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles