[VigUi7vv8G2]

> Each time you view something new, your brain gives a hit of dopamine.

Oh dear god. That is not how dopamine works. Dopamine is a chemical that your brain secretes when you are trying to get something, not once you get it - so when you're hungry, for example, you'll have higher dopamine levels. Then when you eat, they go back down. The actual sensation of higher dopamine levels is stress and anxiousness - it actually doesn't feel good at all.

Here's an NYT article talking about the common misconception: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/science/27angier.html?_r=0

> they're addicted to the chemical sensations that their brain provides.

EVERY experience is a "chemical sensation" in the brain. Good. Bad. Whatever.

> In fact, now that I have learned about this, whenever I see a post on HN about how someone has lost their interest in programming or other activities, the first thing I think of is probably this person has a porn addiction.

What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. There could be a million things that cause a loss of interest in programming. Maybe they got girlfriends or started families? Maybe they suck at it, and just realized that?

It sounds like you used to be obsessed with porn, and now you're obsessed with "porn addiction"

[haberman]

Find some decency. Your tone is appropriate for someone who is being argumentative or obstinate, not someone who has made himself vulnerable in a good faith attempt to help other people.

Your content was helpful and your points are important; you could have done the same without being mean.

[jxi]

Just because you made yourself vulnerable doesn't mean it's OK to state incorrect/wrong things. The response to OP's posts are more valid and his tone is appropriate in expressing how wrong some of the original points were (IMHO).

[da3da]

I think people are willing to take criticism much better when it is phrased in a respectfully way, rather than an "I'm right you're wrong, here let me prove it" perspective. The OP may have been incorrect, but the best way to help him realize this isn't by yelling at him across the internet, but by politely pointing him to the science.

[mikecaron]

I agree. If OP is incorrect (I say if because I am not making a statement about his correctness) perhaps he was ignorantly incorrect. It's never good to start off with an arrogant, disrespectful tone without asking questions first. Ignorance is not the same as intentional deception.

[_ddkb]

Thanks for the article. I'm still trying to learn more about it. However, I would appreciate it if you did not judge me and wrote your response in a more polite manner.

[graue]

Thank you for sharing your personal struggle. Also, your restraint here is admirable. I regret that someone chose to reply in such a toxic manner, and am impressed you remained so polite regardless.

[VigUi7vv8G2]

I would appreciate it if people stopped making up or repeating ridiculous pseudo-scientific explanations for whatever it is they want to believe.

[rdtsc]

> I would appreciate it

Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations.

Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else.

They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.

[jaggederest]

They were also clearly incorrect.

No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy.

It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully.

This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

[rdtsc]

They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" .

> Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.

The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.

[apl]

  > They were incorrect on a side detail (...)

Doesn't cover it at all. OP gives a mechanistic account of how the construct of "porn addiction" works and how it affects people; there isn't much to his post other than that. His mechanistic account happens to be incorrect, or at the very least sufficiently misguided to be worthless, and people call him out on that.

[Wintamute]

Couldn't agree more. Well done for stating this. I'm not sure where some of these aggressive comments are coming from, but despite claiming to want to improve the quality of the discussion they achieve precisely the opposite. Compassion/tolerance/understanding and accuracy are not mutually exclusive.

[TeMPOraL]

True, but as many others wrote here, you can correct another person and still be polite about it.

One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing.

I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).

[Sharlin]

This is not a debate on who is right or wrong on the factual matters. Nobody is suggesting that the extremely rude person was factually wrong just because he was extremely rude. As you said, it's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out in a polite way. Nobody disagrees with that, but it's totally beside the point because here the problem was that the calling-out was anything but polite.

[papsosouid]

I find it interesting that you characterize his personal opinion as expecting "everyone on the internet to cater to his expectations", while demanding that he cater to your expectations of "politeness". People posting deliberately misleading pseudo-scientific nonsense do not warrant some false amiability. His nonsense needs a firm rebuttal, just as homeopathy and chakras and crystal therapy and all the other quackery does.

[MartinCron]

The expectation of politeness is a meaningful social norm, not just a personal opinion.

Also, politeness and civility isn't the same as false amiability. You can (and should) give firm rebuttals in a civil way. There's nothing false about it.

[papsosouid]

The expectation of politeness as a meaningful social norm does not apply to con artists.

[jmathai]

I read something on Twitter the other day which reminds me of you.

"I'm a content creator. My content is criticizing other people's content."

https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888

[corwinstephen]

On a forum like Hackernews where the purpose of the entire thing is to gain knowledge and expand wisdom, it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to post things when they have no clue what they're talking about. If the guy had posted an opinion based on fact, it would have been fair game, but this particular opinion was based on nothing more than colloquial beliefs which perpetuate fallacy.

In my opinion, he was right to criticize. If he hadn't, I'd be going around telling people about how my brain is becoming dopamine tolerant due to the bursts of it I get every time I watch porn. I'm glad I know that's not true.

[ohwp]

It's about the tone, not the critique.

What VigUi7vv8G2 is saying about dopamine might be correct but his tone is anti-social.

He could have left "Oh dear god." and "What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while." out of it and it would have been a perfect helpful response.

[jmathai]

Precisely. There's a difference in criticism with the intent of being constructive and that being destructive or only for the purpose of inflating one's ego.

Tone.

[the_cat_kittles]

No need to attack the person, especially when they responded with grace.

[sievert]

I would down-vote you if I had the karma

[nashequilibrium]

These kinds of comments prevent people expressing their feelings because of fear that every word, every technical detail will be analysed and if you are incorrect, someone will come down really hard on you and at the same time take away from the crux of the conversation. You may be right in the issues you point out but you are too harsh and not compassionate. A HN member has taken their time to share something personal, give them some leeway, be understanding and you can go one comment without trying to look smart.

[jrockway]

The problem is the amateur diagnosis, incorrect explanation of brain chemistry and the psychology of addiction, and the ridiculous conclusion. If he just told a story, fine. But that was but a tiny portion of the comment. The rest was hearsay and pseudoscience.

[rimantas]

How about stopping being compassionate to nonsense?

[kerno]

"What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while."

From the guidelines for this forum:

"That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[MartinCron]

What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

Even if someone is incorrect, I think they deserve a more respectful and constructive response than that. We can do better than that here.

[nostrademons]

"The actual sensation of higher dopamine levels is stress and anxiousness - it actually doesn't feel good at all."

Hmm, maybe that explains why whenever I get this rush of anticipation whenever I think about playing Starcraft, but when I actually play it I just end up stressed and anxious.

[saraid216]

You realize that Starcraft is fun largely because it stresses you out and makes you anxious, right? Same with, say, tennis. If you're not stressed and anxious, it's because you're not being challenged by your opponent.

The rush of fiero when you kick ass, or the amazement when you lose, washes over this at the end and gives you an emotional exclamation point to remember for the next time you think about playing: you're anticipating the end of the game.