Talk:Latent inhibition

message: I question the link to a document from the National Institute of Discovery Science, which is a politial advocacy group, not a scientific organization.  The claim sounds rather dubious. ---CH 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS]]

message: I just wanted to add that the main character on the show Prison Break is purported to have Low Latent Inhibition.  This is said to make him a creative genius.
Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller) is said to have LLI paired with a high IQ making him a creative genius.
And this article is, for some parts, an almost word-to-word transcript from the TV show. Is it really accurate?
My bad, I added that to the article too ;\  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison Break 

message: The problem with LLI is that with almost every innovation in the world already figured out in respect to groundbreaking advances in military, art, science, philosophy, psychology, etc., There is not much for a creative genuis to do besides break their brothers out of prison or become a sports guy. The Mayas, and less importantly, Einstein, have figured out the universe and that is why the world is going to be destroyed soon. We have became successful puppets of the Creator and now have no use for it. InternetHero 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: While clinically accurate, the first two sentences of this article utilize very abstruse prose. The central idea is suffocated by multiple lengthy and ponderous subordinate clauses. I don't see how anyone but a highly-intellectual mental health professional can understand what is being communicated here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.230.223 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stopped by this article today, and agree with this statement. I'm going to put on a jargon tag, hopefully someone with more grasp of the subject will take note and tone it down a bit. Rodface (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "In layman's terms, latent inhibition causes organisms to 'tune out' mundane, routine events." Is this (or some cleaner paraphrase) an accurate translation? 220.121.133.174 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks Lucidity 

message: say is that they are less likely to ignore "irrelavent stimuli", and are more distracted by stimuli.  There is no evidence that people with low LI have better memory for boring events, at least in the sources cited in this article (commentary on a blog doesn't count!)  In fact, studies suggest that many people with low LI are quite the opposite, the most famous example are people with bipolar, who tend to have low latent inhibition and high creativity, but poor episodic memory (ability to recall past events)   http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322300009100/abstract
And since a large portion of the creative population seem to suffer from this disorder (more than half of successful artists and writers), this study is a good proxy on the creative population's overall ability to recall trivial events, which is probably poor.  --Jtd00123 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I refined the article to some extent but did not delete the unsatisfactory sentence. Even though I have not deleted it in its entirety, I still think it is susceptible to just deletion. Reading sources on LLI, nowhere did I see mention of heightened trivial recall and so on and so on. Considering the statement has no citation, it can either have a  appended to it or be deleted since it contradicts the information you have posited here. Whoever is venturer enough can take the plunge they choose.—argumzio ϝ  16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to take the dive. Anyway, after a certain period of time, provided that no citation is put forward, it can always be removed from the article.—argumzio ϝ  16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This line is in desperate need for a citation 

message: Perhaps it would be better if there were separate articles for "Latent Inhibition", which is an interesting effect by itself (and about which there is very little information here) and "Low Latent Inhibition" which is a human mental condition, and should be discussed more thorroughly as well.
Both articles should be stubs, and later extended by adding sections about research results, experiments, and explanations (for LI) and about treatment, history and complications (for LLI).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.64.86 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion denied. Look, the article isn't exactly overflowing with all the wealth and information that can be found on either topic. The article stays as is until it becomes too big, at which point splitting can occur. However, that isn't likely to happen. LLI is just a specific variation on LI, and HLI is the opposite to LLI. There's nothing that qualifies LLI or HLI as being "interesting effect by itself". In other words, LI is the general construct, and LLI and HLI are the two variants seen. It would be rather stupid to make an article on LLI (or HLI) and have to run over the same information that needs to be covered for LI in order to discuss LLI (or HLI), when all one has to do is leave things as they are.—αrgumziΩϝ 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Above appreciated, but I must agree with the original comment that this may be two topics.  One is a straightforward experimental psychology finding, the other is a set of observations about humans not yet clearly defined. Hopefully as more well sourced material is added, this can be split into two articles. EtherDoc (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: This article as written spends too much attention on one possible side effect of LLI. Somewhere in this article it should be stated that there are many studies showing Low Latent Inhibition's link to Schizophrenia. I have cited one here.
Lipina, T., & Roder, J.. (2010). A new model of the disrupted latent inhibition in C57BL/6J mice after bupropion treatment. Psychopharmacology, 208(3), 487-98.  Retrieved April 19, 2011, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. (Document ID: 1943705441).
Anyone looking into this should also look at other sensory disorders  associated to sensory overload such as Autisim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.238.32 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less talk about pop culture more facts and citations. 

message: This article should be completely re-written. I have done so, but I can't figure out how to submit it in Wikipedia format. I have posted my edits in text format in my Sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relubow/Sandbox.  Can someone help with incorporating the changes into the article? 
Relubow (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pasted in your content, crediting it to you, but not removed the existing content. That needs to be done in separate edits and separately justified. I recommend following the help links that I've put on your talk page, and inserting the  template somewhere on your user page or talk page, so that you can easily access tools that will allow you to create fully formatted references from the DOI or PMID numbers that academic journals normally have. The next text is lacking in wikilinks, so I advise that adding them is a sensible next step, especially for any technical terms. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewiritng the article 

message: why are people with low LI easily distracted? is it because they frequently resort to fantasy as a way of coping with being constantly overloaded? its not spelled out very clearly i feel. maybe im wrong, maybe im just tired.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.74.42 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification