Chapter 1: The Impact of Information Overload

The advent of social media has significantly distorted our informational landscape. Nearly everyone has felt the repercussions, but did we genuinely think it would be without consequences?

When we allowed relentless sensationalized content to bombard us, driven by algorithms aimed at maximizing emotional reactions, it was inevitable that there would be repercussions. One area where this onslaught of misinformation strikes close to home is in our health.

How many of us have experienced a minor ailment only to spend hours scouring WebMD or Healthline, exploring every conceivable symptom?

If you've ever searched for a simple headache online, only to convince yourself of dire illnesses like cancer or stroke, you aren't alone. This phenomenon is fueled by a negativity bias—the human tendency to focus more on negative information, often overlooking the positives.

Historically, this trait helped our ancestors to survive by allowing them to detect threats more effectively. However, in today's technologically advanced society, where we enjoy conveniences like airbags and air conditioning, this survival instinct has morphed into debilitating anxiety.

The constant barrage of negative news and search engines prioritizing SEO over factual accuracy creates a precarious situation.

Fad diets have been a part of our culture since the late 19th century, emerging alongside the rise of department stores and magazines that allowed people to compare themselves with unfamiliar faces. Today, some experts argue that we are not merely dealing with fad diets but are also venturing into the realm of fad diagnoses.

A prevalent example is the emergence of various “behavioral addictions,” where individuals engage in repetitive actions despite the adverse consequences.

Recently, I had the privilege of hosting Dr. Nicole Prause, Ph.D., on my podcast, The Science of Sex, where we debunked the widespread belief in “porn addiction.” Dr. Prause operates the only lab globally that observes participants in real-time while they engage with pornography, asserting unequivocally that pornography is not addictive.

Despite the existence of groups and therapists promoting the idea of “porn addiction,” it remains absent from the DSM-V, the authoritative manual for diagnosing mental health issues.

Moreover, during a recent episode featuring Dr. David Ley, we discussed the concept of “sex addiction,” which also lacks scientific backing.

Neither porn nor sex qualifies as an addiction according to stringent scientific criteria, which surpass the thresholds for both compulsive and impulsive behaviors. Yet, countless individuals are convinced they are afflicted by one or both.

This isn’t to suggest that some people don't develop problematic habits related to pornography or sex. For some, these actions can stem from deeper issues. For instance, if someone turns to pornography as a distraction from the pain of a breakup, the real issue is the underlying depression, not the pornography itself.

As Dr. Justin Lehmiller, a sexologist at the Kinsey Institute, noted on his podcast Sex & Psychology, research consistently reveals that those who identify as having a porn addiction tend to watch less porn than the average individual. This finding has been corroborated by numerous studies.

This raises a crucial question: are we convincing ourselves of the existence of mental illnesses that may not even be real? A research paper posits that this is exactly the case, with scientific researchers playing a significant role in this phenomenon.

The study titled “Are We Overpathologizing Everyday Life?” does not deny the existence of behavioral addictions. Still, it critiques two decades' worth of research for its circular reasoning.

Researchers often start with the assumption that benign behaviors, such as having too many offline friends, are addictive, leading them to find evidence that supports their initial hypothesis.

In 1990, around 200 papers were published on behavioral addictions; by 2013, that number skyrocketed to over 2,500. Consequently, nearly every behavior imaginable has been pathologized and classified as “addictive” by some study, which can undermine the credibility of scientific knowledge, especially in an era rife with conspiracy theories.

The aforementioned study, highlighting the supposed addiction to offline friends, was published in 2020, indicating that this trend persists.

Another notable example is the supposed “Facebook addiction,” which has garnered considerable attention, with numerous studies investigating whether social media use can be likened to drug addiction. Anyone familiar with substance abuse knows that these two experiences are entirely different.

With sufficient ingenuity, one can create a questionnaire to frame almost any behavior as an addiction through data manipulation.

The field of psychology currently faces a “replication crisis,” where numerous flawed studies are published, raising concerns about the validity and reproducibility of findings. For instance, Diederik Stapel was found guilty of fabricating data in 58 peer-reviewed articles.

The authors of the recent study emphasize that they do not aim to downplay the genuine negative consequences and psychological distress that may arise from unhealthy engagements in certain activities. However, one must question how much of what we label as “addictive” is substantiated by solid evidence.

The takeaway is clear: be cautious about what you believe from sources like Google or Facebook. In the realm of psychology, much of the research lacks rigor, with only a fraction being replicated.

We may identify a “link,” but its authenticity or significance remains uncertain. True scientific progress occurs when findings are independently verified by diverse research teams globally. A singular study offers limited insight.

Establishing scientific consensus is fundamental to the scientific process.

Get my emails here. Visit The Science of Sex on Substack, where we delve into human sexuality through a scientific lens.

Chapter 2: The Dangers of Overdiagnosing

In this video, Dr. James Davies discusses the intricate relationship between psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies, shedding light on how this connection impacts mental health diagnoses.

This video features Dr. Marc Feldman and Dr. Janet Cahill exploring Munchausen syndrome, providing insights into this complex psychological condition.