Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 10 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual addiction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sexual addiction. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Sex addiction is not an accepted diagnosis.

This article fails to acknowledge that regardless on how strongly the authors believe in sex addiction, sex addiction is not a scientific term nor is it a diagnosis that has been accepted by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. It perpetuates the myth that sex addiction is a recognized diagnosis within the scientific community. Although recognized as such by almost every other civilized country on earth, the APA is still studying the matter at present.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.126.97 (talk)

See ΔFosB for a summary of the state of biomedical research on addiction to drugs and natural rewards. There's actually a very large body of research supporting reinforcement effects in sexual reward/addiction; that single transcription factor plays a crucial role in its development. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that there's a mountain of neuroscientific research on drug and natural reward addiction and how they're mediated through ΔFosB, I felt it prudent to update this article. The signaling cascades between chronic amphetamine use and excessive sexual reward are apparently very similar, but not identical. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder section

This section doesn't seem to be integrated into the rest of the article and barely refers to sexual addiction -- I'm not sure why it's included in this article. BPD is already mentioned in the Causes section.TBliss (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5 quote

The general background info is: DSM-5 states the medical consensus in US psychiatry. I offered a direct quote from DSM-5, now it passes very well WP:VER. So, both parts of the claim are thoroughly supported. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5 is the US medical consensus, as far as sex addiction is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your latest edit is obviously different from your first edit, which basically stated that the medical consensus disproved sex addiction. That the DSM5 found insufficient peer-reviewed evidence is the reason it wasn't included, and sounds more like a quote from that document. It also doesn't invalidate the theory of sex addiction -- just there isn't enough evidence yet. I think it might be noted that "medical consensus represented by DSM5" tho.TBliss (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:BALL, there is now no way to know the medical consensus from 2023 or 2033, we just know the US medical consensus from 2013. That the DSM-5 is the Bible of psychiatry (in US and some EU countries) is already sourced inside the article. And sex addiction would be treated by psychiatrists, if it were acknowledged as a real addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not implying that it could not be treated by psychologists, it is just that most psychologists aren't MDs, so the term medical consensus does not apply for them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're parsing words. Why not just state "medical consensus represented by the DSM-5" - ? - that's the first mention of DSM-5 in the article. The idea is to provide accurate encyclopedic information to the public. The burden is now on the reader to ferret out the truth of this information because you are obscuring it. And most readers aren't familiar with the DSM-5. BTW anyone can currently treat sex addiction -- psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, life coaches, sexologists -- there is little regulation or requirements. Inclusion in the DSM-5 chiefly means insurance would cover it. You really need to provide a page number for the DSM-5 where the quote comes from and format the citation correctly for such a document. I'm surprised you haven't done so since you're such a prolific editor who cites rules at the drop of a hat. Is that only when it suits your agenda?TBliss (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious! Page numbers are provided in the reference. It's editing 101. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I have no radical agenda in respect to this article. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am only a supporter of medical orthodoxy. If sex addiction will become part of medical orthodoxy, I will support its labeling as an addiction inside this article. But not before it belongs to orthodoxy. Now it is just a contested, purported addiction, as far as the APA is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well this isn't the encyclopedia of APA terms, is it? Or the encyclopedia of your personal version of orthodoxy. There's more to sex addiction than the one paragraph in the DSM-5 as numerous citations here affirm. And misquoting the DSM-5 to say it disproved sex addiction doesn't do anyone any favors, least of all the public. I'm still surprised your pointing fingers at me, trying to have me banned no less, without manning up and admitting your own mistake.TBliss (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5 and APA are representative for the medical consensus in this matter from a large part of the world (US and some EU countries which abide by the DSM, perhaps some other regions, too). And practically every significant piece of medical research is published in English, so APA is aware of all research that matters. The difference between and is so subtle that it practically means nothing, since there is no essential epistemic difference between them. That's why I got the impression that you would be trolling and believe me, it is frustrating to see one's good faith contributions getting trolled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Science customarily rejects hypotheses for which there is no convincing evidence, so I don't see the big difference with either. Splitting hairs, there could technically be a difference between unproven and rejected, but as far as the scientific method is concerned, they mean the same thing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Moving on -- What do you think of moving the Borderline Personality Disorder section from Medical Models to a subsection under Causes? Maybe cutting half of the first paragraph -- the part which focuses on different manuals' language for BPD which is out of place in a sex addiction article, and maybe including the last half of that paragraph. Then also deleting the last paragraph focusing on famous people with BPD and their paraphilias, as sex addiction and paraphilias are different topics even though they may interrelate. Also I wonder if there should be a new section to talk about all the recent neurological studies that are finding evidence in support of brain addiction to sexual behavior -- there's a big one coming out on Friday.TBliss (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Pathophysiology" section

The "Pathophysiology" of this article talks about sexual addiction as if it was a real thing, with real biochemical pathophysiology. However, both of these are things that are far from universally agreed by practitioners: there are multiple theories about what might or might not be the cause of sex addiction, and moreover, serious doubt as to whether sex addiction exists at all.

It's find to talk about the FOSB stuff in the context of it being a theory of how sex addiction might be a real phenomenon, but the views in the section need to be attributed to individual authors who propose those theories, in order to meet WP:NPOV, and they must be explicitly tied to those authors framing those theories in terms of sex addiction, and not just an analysis of sexual reward systems without describing it as sex addiction. To blend together material from sources that do not talk directly about sex addiction risks WP:SYNTH. -- The Anome (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've now removed the section altogether. Renaming it "Biomolecular mechanism", and moving it up the article, makes things worse, not better. There is no consensus that sex addiction exists, and no consensus about what, if anything its cause might be if it does exist. The theory you outline looks quite plausible, but it must be described as a theory, along with all the others, until there is medical consensus as to the existence and nature (if any) of sex addiction

Do you have any named medical researchers who this theory can be attributed to? The nearest medical source I can find from a quick web search on "sexual addiction fosb" is this article, and that's (a) talking about pornography addiction, and (b) doesn't, as far as I can see, quite say it outright. This PMC search doesn't seem to give anything else that directly makes the statement, either. -- The Anome (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Anome: The current lack of diagnostic criteria by practicioners isn't remotely relevant to the existence of behavioral addictions, it merely affects the status of the addiction as being termed a disorder. These facts aren't relevant to the inclusion of the content in this article though.

I'm going to reply with these four points:

1. Every source except one unnecessary source which I marked in the source code meets every requirement listed in WP:MEDRS. Ie., they are ALL very high quality medical secondary sources.
2. This is not a theoretical framework. This evidence is experimentally established via viral vector gene transfer experiments. Read the reviews if you want to know more.
3. There isn't a single sentence that could qualify as WP:SYNTH, because every statement is independently fully supported by each citation. You can delete any source you want until there's only 1 left per sentence, and each sentence will still fully satisfy WP:V. Feel free to check any/every statement for verifiability.
4. Take note of WP:3RR.

To answer your question about researchers, Eric J. Nestler hypothesized that the factor caused addiction over a decade ago. He and many others later demonstrated the role that gene transcription and ΔFosB in particular play in addiction; you could just check FOSB or pubmed if you'd like a partial list of authors publishing literature on it. Publications on the signal transduction pathways and participation of gene transcription factors in human addictions are also hosted on KEGG - they're linked at the bottom of FOSB. Google isn't a suitable search engine for medical sources - WP:MEDRS lists suitable literature search tools if you'd like to use others.

Also, once again, this isn't a theory. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a theory. Please read the scientific theory article for illumination.

Just to take the , the author of the top hit "Molecular neurobiology of addiction: what's all the (Δ)FosB about?" has this to say on the matter:

The transcription factor ΔFosB is upregulated in numerous brain regions following repeated drug exposure. This induction is likely to, at least in part, be responsible for the mechanisms underlying addiction, a disorder in which the regulation of gene expression is thought to be essential.

"May be." "Likely to." "At least in part." "is thought to be." That's four cautious qualifications in one sentence, from a serious researcher who is clearly an advocate of the FOSB connection.

As far as I can see from your userpage, your academic background is in mathematics, statistics, finance, and economics. and you make no claim to be a physician or a biomedical researcher: can you tell me your qualifications on this matter? -- The Anome (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking a user for personal information violates WP:TPG. My userpage indicates I'm a doctoral student in statistics. That's all I'm willing to say on wikipedia. Neither my personal qualifications or your views on the current status of the evidence are relevant to whether or not this goes in the article though. I've made the point about adherence to wikipedia policies being the only relevant criteria twice now; simply because I don't want to, I'm not going to reply to any further comments/questions that have nothing to do with the this section and a particular WP policy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages