The author seems to suggest that orgasms are bad. That’s where I kind of checked out.

I think there is a lot of useful advice in here but it needs to be filtered against the cognitive biases of the author, who comes off as extremely obsessive and judgmental. These are useful traits to someone laser focused on controlling their own impulsive behavior but possibly not generally applicable to others in such an extreme sense.

Really? I didn't pick up this sentiment at all.

I think him even hinting at it being bad triggered the rationalization behavior in you that he talked about in the article.

Hence why you just rationalized why you didn't need to listen to certain advice given in the article...

I didn’t say not to listen. I’m actually quite fond of the points brought up here. I’m just saying it’s taken to an extreme, which is likely justified by the level of addiction that the author is guarding against.

Coffee and orgasming is arguably not bad (there are health benefits to both). No one would dispute that the author’s kleptomania _is_ deviant behavior though. So I disagree that the goal should be to purge _all_ addictions, the goal should be to live a good life and eliminate addictions that obstruct this. The article still has good advice when viewed through this lens.

By definition yes. Compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse effects.

I drink coffee non-compulsively once or twice a week, without bad effects.

> Are all addictions bad?

Anything that meets the old diagnostic criteria for addiction or the current ones for even mild substance use disorder is bad, or at least on a very clear road to badness, yes.

Lots of people use the term “addiction” for any habitual pleasure seeking activity, which is both wrong and, yes, includes lots of things that are not bad.

One way I use figure out if addiction is harmful is to consider: if I could freely edit my brain to make this thing no longer pleasurable, would I do it? I think some of the activities that are generally labelled as addictive can still be genuinely meaningful or have some instrumental value for some people.

a good criterion is whether it's pathological i.e. do you incur in self-harm in order to satisfy your habit?

do you pass up on opportunities because of it? e.g. would you pass up a chance to engage in some activity because you know there won't be any coffee?

He addresses exactly what you’re talking about near the beginning of the article.