• TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

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

              Of course not. Stop being reductive.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

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

                  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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…

        • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.