Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

Copyright Co-Action Publishing 2014

Abstract

The validity of an argument depends on the soundness of its premises. In the recent paper by Steele et al., conclusions are based on the initial construction of definitions relating to 'desire' and 'addiction'. These definitions are based on a series of assumptions and qualifications, the limitations of which are acknowledged by the authors initially, but inexplicably ignored in reaching the firm conclusions the authors make. Yet, the firmness of these conclusions is unwarranted, not only as a result of conceptually problematic initial premises but also due to problematic methodology.

Citation: Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2014, 4: 23833 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v4.23833

This is a Commentary on ''Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images'' by Vaughn R. Steele, Cameron Staley and Timothy Fong, Nicole Prause, published in Volume 3, 2013.

Details

Title
'High desire', or 'merely' an addiction? A response to Steele et al.
Author
Hilton, Donald L
Section
Brain and Addiction
Publication year
2014
Publication date
2014
Publisher
Taylor & Francis Ltd.
e-ISSN
20009011
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
1629934688
Copyright
Copyright Co-Action Publishing 2014