Talk:Latent inhibition

Latest Additions

The latest additions to this article by OldRightist and 81.206.4.220 are completely uncited and seem unreliable to me. Is anyone able to find something solid article on LLI? I've been looking but there isn't much on Google Scholar. --Brazucs (_TALK | ^CONTRIBS) 07:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

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)

Peterson's work needs citation

Peterson has published work, with colleagues, in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in 2000 and 2002. These papers support the view that elevated openness to experience and creativity are linked with latent inhibition. If I have time to check the references, I shall add them here, as this is a brief article that desperately needs extension (in Wikipedia parlance, a stub). Also, perhaps a biologically orientated psychologist could say something about dopamine in connection with latent inhibition. ACEO 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that dopamine is significantly connected, and have heard the term in connection with ADHD and the dopaminergic systems.

Highly simplified, there is a dopaminergic system that acts as a "filter" for what stimuli require attention; this is hypoactive in people with ADHD, and hyperactive in some subtypes of schizophrenia. There appears to be a significant difference between people that acquire a "weaker" filter late in life, and those who "start out" with one.

The former might have an increased risk of psychosis and mental illness, as described in the article; I have no recollection of having read anything on that association either way.

The latter can sometimes excel, as their brain adapts to dealing with more input at one time, something that is useful if they are put in a situation where they can saturate it with useful input, but it's fairly detrimental otherwise.

Zuiram 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break

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)

-I noticed this when reading the article too. The whole first paragraph of 'Low latent inhibition' needs to be rewritten by someone who knows about the subject, and is not just a fan of the show Prison Break.

Problems

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)

The world is going to be destroyed soon!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherbed (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

     uh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.229.20 (talk) 06:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 

It seems LLI has its uses in terms of formulating creative crackpot theories and dispersing them in inappropiate forums. 137.111.47.182 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Wotan

• what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacks Lucidity

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)

This line is in desperate need for a citation

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)

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 {{cite}} 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)

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)

Update: I've deleted it. If a source comes around, then someone can go ahead and re-add it with the satisfactory reference.—αrgumziω ϝ 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake noticing

"When physics students saw the Aristotelian video with the aberrant balls, their DLPFCs kicked into gear and they quickly deleted the image from their consciousness. In most contexts, this act of editing is an essential cognitive skill. (When the DLPFC is damaged, people often struggle to pay attention, since they can’t filter out irrelevant stimuli.) However, when it comes to noticing anomalies, an efficient prefrontal cortex can actually be a serious liability. The DLPFC is constantly censoring the world, erasing facts from our experience. If the ACC is the “Oh shit!” circuit, the DLPFC is the Delete key. When the ACC and DLPFC “turn on together, people aren’t just noticing that something doesn’t look right,” Dunbar says. “They’re also inhibiting that information.”"

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1 Possibly relevant. --Gwern (contribs) 13:47 22 December 2009 (GMT)

Splitting the article

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)

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.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)