this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
510 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3024 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Source? From what I’ve heard, recent studies are showing the opposite.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent aggression. The present findings, as well as previous findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g., Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc- ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to do. If followed, such advice will only make people angrier and more aggressive.

Source

But there's a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.

Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior...

it uses the term "arousal", which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.

provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn't work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?

Do you have a source that supports that?

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.

otherwise you've just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic...

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.

That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

but is also entirely off-topic...

No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.

your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.

i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.

so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;

or B: the theory isn't wrong after all.

you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)

so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be ~~wrong~~ irrelevant.

or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

you can't have it both ways, but you're sure trying to.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.

My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.

but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)

When did I claim it was ever correct?

I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.

I don't claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.

Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?

then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I've already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?

The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?

Sorry bud, I know who I'm going with on this and it ain't your academic.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?

Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?

Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you.....

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're still using 5,000 year old Armenian shoes?

Of course not. Stop being reductive.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol, you were the one who first dismissed evidence because it was 20 years old.....

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The point is you can reduce anything to its origin. That does not mean it's still the same thing.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The point is you can reduce anything to its origin.

Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?

I agree you can't reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence......

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know, that's why I have a therapist, I'm not educated in psychology. But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lmao. Says the guy who tried to use a study on aggression to address sexual urges.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

Reading comprehension is still hard for you? My argument was about Cathartic theory, which includes several emotions including sexual urges...... It is a theory from freud, of course it covers sexual urges.

You and the other guy just have no idea what you're talking about. How about providing any kind of source instead of talking out of your ass?

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, but I'm too lazy to sauce everything again. If it's not in my saved comments someone else will have to.

E: couldn't find it on my reddit either. I have too many saved comments lol.