> I say this not to specifically boost Gary's claims, but to encourage us to not wholesale discount anecdotes. They're too often clues to the right path to be ignored.
Right, but there are plenty of plainly stupid ones (“my kid is autistic and, surprise, surprise, had a vaccine weeks before being diagnosed”), and there are plenty of conflicting ones (like on the current subject, but also on things like CBD, though the picture is getting clearer on that front).
They are also unverifiable most of the time, and are commonly just made up.
The only way of knowing whether the anecdotes are significant is to verify them and do some statistical analysis, at which point they are data that we can analyse quantitatively or qualitatively, and not anecdotes anymore.
“Trust my anecdotes” is an argument one makes when reality is inconsistent with one’s position.
> I found the book to be pretty clear in it's wording saying essentially (to paraphrase) If you're not having any problems, then you don'd need a cure.
Which does sound reasonable. But that was not the OP’s message, which was based on the same book. There is no reason to assume that stoping watching porn will help with anything. It’s like homeopathy: sure, trying costs nothing, but it’s still stupid and can occasionally backfire.
Again, watching porn also never killed anyone, costs nothing and has no risk. So why not simply say “do whatever you want to do” and consider those anti-porn arguments for what they are: pseudo-science?