Supernormal stimuli are those things which encourage us to do something that was historically very useful, but in an artificial and supercharged way. Think of the way junk food hacks our appetite.
> In essence, “Life is a game of turning energy into kids”
If that was true, I would expect lines to have a privilege to become a sperm donor.
> With this explanation in place I think the idea that pornography is a supernormal stimulus should be self evident.
The Bailey
> Pornography is only getting more realistic, which means it’s potential as a supernormal stimulus is only going to increase.
The Motte
But OK, what about future VR? I think it needs more than visual component to be true superstimuli rather that more convenient but less satisfactory substitute. But in principle I think it's a fair precaution. Arguably heroin is such superstimuli - it completely turns off libido for some people. Or at least would much more prefer to have another high even if they have a partner who wants to have sex with them in the same room.
It's fine to hate pornography, but please, use honest arguments.
First just because life is a game of turning energy into kids doesn't mean that our evolutionary impulses are perfectly tuned to that actual game. It was enough that they were tuned to the "have lots of sex" game.
For the rest, I don't think I did much to disguise the fact that I think pornography is bad. Nor do I claim to be free of bias. You'll notice that in that first quote I said "I think the idea..." I was offering my opinion, and I am genuinely surprised when I explain the concept of supernormal stimuli and then add that I think pornography fits the definition and people think I'm being dishonest (I'm a little unclear on how my argument isn't honest.) Or that there's no way it could be.
I didn't include this graph in this post, but I've included it elsewhere.
The rise in virginity is staggering, and it tracks pretty closely to the ubiquity of porn. This seems to classically fit the "birds will sit on comically large eggs" model of supernormal stimuli.
What is your explanation for the rise? Is there anyway to tell whether my explanation or your explanation is more correct? Could we operationalize it as a bet? If so let me know. I'll happily put down money.
> First just because life is a game of turning energy into kids doesn't mean that our evolutionary impulses are perfectly tuned to that actual game. It was enough that they were tuned to the "have lots of sex" game.
So why you didn't choose the "have lots of sex" in a first place? Seems like a description closer to reality. Still not great, but better than "kids", if you disagree I would like to imagine a bet.
> For the rest, I don't think I did much to disguise the fact that I think pornography is bad. Nor do I claim to be free of bias.
Then why use Motte and Bailey with Future-VR-pornography and pornography-as-of-now?
> You'll notice that in that first quote I said "I think the idea..." I was offering my opinion, and I am genuinely surprised when I explain the concept of supernormal stimuli and then add that I think pornography fits the definition
Future-VR-pornograhy - maybe! But it's not superstimuli today.
> The rise in virginity is staggering, and it tracks pretty closely to the ubiquity of porn. This seems to classically fit the "birds will sit on comically large eggs" model of supernormal stimuli.
It also fit with "people are lazy and perfectly willing to substitute with cheap facsimile"
> What is your explanation for the rise? Is there anyway to tell whether my explanation or your explanation is more correct? Could we operationalize it as a bet? If so let me know. I'll happily put down money.
"People are lazy and perfectly willing to substitute with cheap facsimile". Parents and teachers stopped alowing kids to have unsupervised play and rapid decrease of neutral 3-rd spaces. So, if some states would relax laws on negligence and would subsidise clubs, workshops, mixed gender sports, I think we could see an effect. You could directly teach how men could ask women out, if such program would be widespread, that would be noticeable. How do you want to operationalize such bet - take all effects together or hope that some state would change one thing, but not another?
A more interesting bet would be when future-VR-porn would be a superstimuli. If such tech would materialize, I would expect prostitution to become non-existent
> In essence, “Life is a game of turning energy into kids”
If that was true, I would expect lines to have a privilege to become a sperm donor.
> With this explanation in place I think the idea that pornography is a supernormal stimulus should be self evident.
The Bailey
> Pornography is only getting more realistic, which means it’s potential as a supernormal stimulus is only going to increase.
The Motte
But OK, what about future VR? I think it needs more than visual component to be true superstimuli rather that more convenient but less satisfactory substitute. But in principle I think it's a fair precaution. Arguably heroin is such superstimuli - it completely turns off libido for some people. Or at least would much more prefer to have another high even if they have a partner who wants to have sex with them in the same room.
It's fine to hate pornography, but please, use honest arguments.
First just because life is a game of turning energy into kids doesn't mean that our evolutionary impulses are perfectly tuned to that actual game. It was enough that they were tuned to the "have lots of sex" game.
For the rest, I don't think I did much to disguise the fact that I think pornography is bad. Nor do I claim to be free of bias. You'll notice that in that first quote I said "I think the idea..." I was offering my opinion, and I am genuinely surprised when I explain the concept of supernormal stimuli and then add that I think pornography fits the definition and people think I'm being dishonest (I'm a little unclear on how my argument isn't honest.) Or that there's no way it could be.
I didn't include this graph in this post, but I've included it elsewhere.
https://www.kvakil.me/posts/2022-05-15-young-male-virgins-washington-post.html
The rise in virginity is staggering, and it tracks pretty closely to the ubiquity of porn. This seems to classically fit the "birds will sit on comically large eggs" model of supernormal stimuli.
What is your explanation for the rise? Is there anyway to tell whether my explanation or your explanation is more correct? Could we operationalize it as a bet? If so let me know. I'll happily put down money.
> First just because life is a game of turning energy into kids doesn't mean that our evolutionary impulses are perfectly tuned to that actual game. It was enough that they were tuned to the "have lots of sex" game.
So why you didn't choose the "have lots of sex" in a first place? Seems like a description closer to reality. Still not great, but better than "kids", if you disagree I would like to imagine a bet.
> For the rest, I don't think I did much to disguise the fact that I think pornography is bad. Nor do I claim to be free of bias.
Then why use Motte and Bailey with Future-VR-pornography and pornography-as-of-now?
> You'll notice that in that first quote I said "I think the idea..." I was offering my opinion, and I am genuinely surprised when I explain the concept of supernormal stimuli and then add that I think pornography fits the definition
Future-VR-pornograhy - maybe! But it's not superstimuli today.
> The rise in virginity is staggering, and it tracks pretty closely to the ubiquity of porn. This seems to classically fit the "birds will sit on comically large eggs" model of supernormal stimuli.
It also fit with "people are lazy and perfectly willing to substitute with cheap facsimile"
> What is your explanation for the rise? Is there anyway to tell whether my explanation or your explanation is more correct? Could we operationalize it as a bet? If so let me know. I'll happily put down money.
"People are lazy and perfectly willing to substitute with cheap facsimile". Parents and teachers stopped alowing kids to have unsupervised play and rapid decrease of neutral 3-rd spaces. So, if some states would relax laws on negligence and would subsidise clubs, workshops, mixed gender sports, I think we could see an effect. You could directly teach how men could ask women out, if such program would be widespread, that would be noticeable. How do you want to operationalize such bet - take all effects together or hope that some state would change one thing, but not another?
A more interesting bet would be when future-VR-porn would be a superstimuli. If such tech would materialize, I would expect prostitution to become non-existent