Talk:Euphoria

Definitions and etymological content

I'm placing this section here for now so that it can be added to the wiktionary entry at some point. This type of content isn't appropriate for a WP article on euphoria, but is well suited for the wikt:euphoria entry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is is giving undue weight to certain views (Berridge, affective neuroscience) and ignoring others. While one policy [WP:NAD] says Wikipedia is not a dictionary, MOS Medical states that an etymology may be helpful. This section summarizes a variety of historical views that are attributed; it is essentially a history and is encyclopedic. As such I will revert your good faith edit and retitle the section as "history". Rather than removing and moving the section, I am willing to discuss it, seek other opinions if desired and find a reasonable compromise. — βox73 (৳alk) 11:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology section

A 1706 English dictionary defined euphoria as "the well bearing of the Operation of a Medicine, i.e., when the patient finds himself eas'd or reliev'd by it". In the 1860s, the English physician Thomas Laycock described euphoria as the feeling of bodily well-being and hopefulness; he noted its misplaced presentation in the final stage of some terminal illnesses and attributed such euphoria to neurological dysfunction. Sigmund Freud's 1884 monograph Über Coca described (his own) consumption of cocaine producing "the normal euphoria of a healthy person", while about 1890 the German neuropsychiatrist Carl Wernicke lectured about the "abnormal euphoria" in patients with mania. A 1903 article in The Boston Daily Globe refers to euphoria as "pleasant excitement" and "the sense of ease and well-being,". In 1920 Popular Science magazine described euphoria as "a high sounding name" meaning "feeling fit": normally making life worth living, motivating drug use, and ill formed in certain mental illnesses. In 1940 The Journal of Psychology defined euphoria as a "state of general well being ... and pleasantly toned feeling." A decade later, finding ordinary feelings of well being difficult to evaluate, American addiction researcher Harris Isbell redefined euphoria as behavioral changes and objective signs typical of morphine. In 1957 British pharmacologist D. A. Cahal did not regard opioid euphoria as medically undesirable but an affect which "enhance[s] the value of a major analgesic." The 1977 edition of A Concise Encyclopaedia of Psychiatry called euphoria "a mood of contentment and wellbeing," with pathologic associations when used in a psychiatric context. As a sign of cerebral disease, it was described as bland and out of context, representing an inability to experience negative emotion. In the 21st century, euphoria is generally defined as a state of great happiness, wellbeing and excitement, which may be normal, or abnormal and inappropriate when associated with psychoactive drugs, manic states, or brain disease or injury. Since the latter 20th century, the term has also commonly been applied to highly bullish economic behavior as financial- or market euphoria, such as used in John Kenneth Galbraith's 1994 book, A Short History of Financial Euphoria. (This use is not otherwise addressed in this article.)

Section reflist
References

Three issues

1. The statement that euphoria is a form of pleasure isn't supported. First, euphoria of drugs is but one form of euphoria. (That editor is misreading the cited article and unaware of others.) Second, some forms of euphoria aren't necessarily pleasurable, e.g., when euphoria results from a dysfunction of negative emotions. I will provide support for both issues.
2. Whether excitement remains in the lead sentence should be debated. Opioid euphoria and generally cannabis euphoria doesn't contain excitement but contentment. Excitement in mania also applies to anxiety and agitation. However, excitement opens the door to crowd euphoria, sports euphoria, market euphoria, the euphoria of winning or success, and anticipation.
3. Elsewhere the examples of opioids probably shouldn't include methadone which often produces no euphoria in persons exposed to other opioids. It might wrongly suggest that methadone replacement is just another way for addicts to get high. — βox73 (৳alk) 11:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple references in this article which assert that euphoria is a form of pleasure. However, if you have a reliable source handy which explains how a euphoria is not necessarily pleasurable, that would probably be worth covering in the article.

The occurrence of euphoria as a result of a neuropsychiatric condition and the induction of euphoria by various drugs does not occur in isolation; so, I don't understand why you think that these examples that you've provided establish that there are different "types" of euphoria when there are a host of co-occurring neuropsychological symptoms that arise simultaneously in both instances (e.g., one can be angry, anxious, and depressed all at the same time; all three of those are affects). What you're asserting is exactly the same thing as trying to define "happiness" as an affect which is unique to every possible stimulus which makes one "happy", like "social approval happiness", "job promotion happiness", "victory happiness", "won the lottery happiness", etc., because they also induce other affects simultaneously. IMO, that's absurd.

In any event, this article covers the topic of a single psychological affect which people call "euphoria". I don't disagree that the article's lead sentence should probably be tweaked a little to better convey what the topic of this article is about; however, adding an entire section with a history of varying definitions isn't helpful in conveying what that affect (i.e., euphoria) is to our readers. More importantly, covering an array of different definitions for an article topic isn't encyclopedic unless the article is a WP:broad-concept article, which this article is clearly not. A section with a list of definitions like the one you've added clearly does not conform to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which is a content policy and not merely a guideline or an essay. You need to heed this policy. If your desire is to more accurately define euphoria, this needs to be done in the very first sentence of the article's lead, because the first lead sentence defines the topic and scope of an article (see WP:LEAD#First sentence).

I'm entirely willing to work with you to revise how euphoria is defined in this article. However, this has to be done in the lead and not in the manner that you're attempting to do it in because the section you've added is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I can't emphasize that last point enough. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm placing this here due to an edit conflict. This adds to above.

Follow-up...

1. Form/forms of pleasure etc

• "A form of pleasure". This is a misunderstanding of the cited source. Schultz is not referring to euphoria generally but to "the euphoria reported by drug users," and not "the euphoria reported by manic persons" or "the euphoria reported by long distance runners". If he is qualifying euphoria per se, why would he separately list runner's high, which is also euphoric? (Orgasm and a new mother's affection (p 1246) may be euphoric as well.)
       Euphoria actually represents forms of pleasure, as Panksepp refers to, "the diverse forms of affective distress and euphoria that can arise from the basic emotional circuits of all mammalian brains."[1]
• "Euphoria, not pleasure". Alcaro and Panksepp actually say, "a feeling of excitement/euphoria (not ‘pleasure’) repeated below, see ref below.

2. No excitement

Euphoria without excitement: heroin & cannabis

Do either of these sound excited? Heroin Abusers typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a "rush." The intensity of the rush is a function of how much drug is taken and how rapidly the drug enters the brain and binds to the opioid receptors. With heroin, the rush is usually accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, dry mouth, and a heavy feeling in the extremities, which may be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and severe itching. After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours; mental function is clouded; heart function slows; and breathing is also severely slowed, sometimes enough to be life-threatening.                          — NIDA: What are the immediate (short-term) effects of heroin use? Right after taking heroin, you get a rush of good feelings and happiness. Then, for several hours, you feel as if the world has slowed down. You think slowly and may walk slowly. Some users say you feel like you're in a dream.      In an Illinois study of suburban heroin users, some described the feeling as “covered in a warm blanket, where worries are gone.”                          — WebMD: Heroin: What You Need to Know: How Does It Make You Feel? Subjects mentioned as the most pleasant effects the "rush" (glow or warmth), the sense of distance from their problems, and the tranquilizing powers of the drug. Pleasure that was experienced as bodily sensation often expanded into a feeling of psychological well-being.                          — Norman Zinberg. (1984) Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis of Controlled Intoxicant Use, Yale Univ. Press. p 119 Cannabis The 'high' is a complex experience, characterized by a quickening of mental associations and a sharpened sense of humour, sometimes described as a state of 'fatuous euphoria'. The user feels relaxed and calm, in a dreamlike state disconnected from real world. The intoxicated subject often has diffculty in carrying on a coherent conversation, and may drift into daydreams and fantasies. Drowsiness and sleep may eventually ensue.                          — Iversen L. Cannabis and the brain. Brain. 2003 Jun;126(Pt 6):1252-70. Review.

• Excitement is characteristic of stimulant euphoria and Bearn & O'Brien's cited article is from a dedicated volume of the International Review of Neurobiology entitled: "The Neuropsychiatric Complications of Stimulant Abuse".
• Excitement is characteristic of so called anticipatory pleasure. Elevated well-being / happiness / joy is characteristic of consummatory pleasure. (This fits with dopamine stimulants & excitement.) Writing of seeking / appetitive incentive states / dopamine Alcaro and Panksepp actually say, "a feeling of excitement/euphoria (not ‘pleasure’)" Parenthetical phrase is verbatim.

3. Done. Changed methadone to fentanyl. — βox73 (৳alk) 12:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Accounting for all the proposed descriptions of euphoria from the references that you provided really only required changing an "and" to an "or" to the lead. The schultz ref isn't the one that describes euphoria as a form of pleasure. The addicted to euphoria ref is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Box73: FWIW, I still think that the content/definitions that you previously added under the etymology section would be ideal for the wikt:euphoria entry. This article contains a link to the Wiktionary entry for euphoria, so those definitions will be accessible to readers of this article if you re-add them there.

I can help you if you're interested in adding the definitions to wikt:euphoria since I've created and edited a few Wiktionary entries in the past; just let me know if you'd like me to do so. If you add the definitions, I'm willing to reformat the definitions you've added so that they're consistent with Wiktionary's layout standards and then add the references that cite each of your definitions with the correct formatting for a Wiktionary entry.

If you'd like to do it yourself, the style guideline for Wiktionary is located at wikt:Wiktionary:Entry layout. In the event that you're not familiar with Wiktionary, the wikt:Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians page covers the main differences between Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Allowing typical definition content in the article body

I believe that my historical treatment of euphoria (below) would improve the article and seek to have it included. My rational / my response to @Seppi333::

• My copy doesn't fit at Wickionary and making it fit wouldn't convey the historical coherence but would break it into a list of disconnected definitions.
• Meanwhile the euphoria article, begins with a constructed, synthesized definition, then essentially becomes a list. This is less than what an encyclopedia can be.
• I wrote this based on similar Wikipedia articles. This is a survey of views that will enrich readers' understanding. We aren't here to homogenize these views but to present them.
• Such treatment is encyclopedic. Look at the articles art or love or happiness. These expanded presentations exist in the article body. Would these treatments not seem contrary to WP:NAD? What I have done is simply more summarized.
• Limiting a subjective topic to a singular "good definition" produces bias and/or a convoluted lede sentence. This is not the intention of WP:NAD.
• In the perspective of IAR, WP:NAD should not be used to bar improvement of articles. (We're not dealing with more objective/problematic copyright or sourcing issues.) So without resorting to WP:NAD, how is this not improving the article?

I seek to have this included. I invite the opinion and consensus of others. — βox73 (৳alk) 00:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition section

A 1706 English dictionary defined euphoria as "the well bearing of the Operation of a Medicine, i.e., when the patient finds himself eas'd or reliev'd by it". In the 1860s, the English physician Thomas Laycock described euphoria as the feeling of bodily well-being and hopefulness; he noted its misplaced presentation in the final stage of some terminal illnesses and attributed such euphoria to neurological dysfunction. Sigmund Freud's 1884 monograph Über Coca described (his own) consumption of cocaine producing "the normal euphoria of a healthy person", while about 1890 the German neuropsychiatrist Carl Wernicke lectured about the "abnormal euphoria" in patients with mania. A 1903 article in The Boston Daily Globe refers to euphoria as "pleasant excitement" and "the sense of ease and well-being,". In 1920 Popular Science magazine described euphoria as "a high sounding name" meaning "feeling fit": normally making life worth living, motivating drug use, and ill formed in certain mental illnesses. In 1940 The Journal of Psychology defined euphoria as a "state of general well being ... and pleasantly toned feeling." A decade later, finding ordinary feelings of well being difficult to evaluate, American addiction researcher Harris Isbell redefined euphoria as behavioral changes and objective signs typical of morphine. In 1957 British pharmacologist D. A. Cahal did not regard opioid euphoria as medically undesirable but an affect which "enhance[s] the value of a major analgesic." The 1977 edition of A Concise Encyclopaedia of Psychiatry called euphoria "a mood of contentment and wellbeing," with pathologic associations when used in a psychiatric context. As a sign of cerebral disease, it was described as bland and out of context, representing an inability to experience negative emotion. In the 21st century, euphoria is generally defined as a state of great happiness, wellbeing and excitement, which may be normal, or abnormal and inappropriate when associated with psychoactive drugs, manic states, or brain disease or injury. Since the latter 20th century, the term has also commonly been applied to highly bullish economic behavior as financial- or market euphoria, such as used in John Kenneth Galbraith's 1994 book, A Short History of Financial Euphoria. (This use is not otherwise addressed in this article.) References

I'm sorry for the late response. While I appreciate your desire to convey historical information, this isn't something we can do with definitions. I frankly don't really care one way or another as long as it doesn't obfuscate the topic, but Wikipedia has an entire policy page dedicated to saying we don't do this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on adding the definitions to wiktionary. One way to "date" the definitions for historical purposes is to add a reference to each definition. E.g., see wikt:enantiomeric ratio. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333:: I disagree. This material improves the article. It occurs in other articles. I appreciate your work and passion. But saying "obfuscating the topic" really means doesn't fit what you believe is appropriate; doesn't present a view based on contemporary neuroscience. This is not neutral. Wikipedia is not a neuroscience encyclopedia but a general encyclopedia.

I want to assume good faith but... the move to Wiktionary is clearly a means to keep it out of this article. "It's at Wiktionary, the article even links to that, so there's no need to have it here." If we don't agree, we can seek consensus or dispute resolution. Let's take that path. Please don't take it on yourself to do this. — βox73 (৳alk) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: Please for the love of god don't argue with me - just start an RFC. I really don't care one way or another, but I can't just ignore a policy unless we have community consensus. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333:: I don't like being treated this way. You do care very intensely. And I will start the RFC. — βox73 (৳alk) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't have anything else to say, which is why I'm asking you to do this. My only concern is that this article adheres to policy. If you completely borked the layout of the article and insisted on that formatting, I'd be doing the same thing even if I thought it looked reasonable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't notice you'd (reverted by) commented out the section until after placing the anchor then manually cutting. The RfC follows. — βox73 (৳alk) 09:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Definition/history section

There is a clear consensus that the inclusion of the proposed section improves the Euphoria article. RfC participants have suggested improvements like renaming the section to "History of the term", which has been done, and the removal of the "market euphoria" sentence, which has been done. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would this definition / history section improve the Euphoria article?

• Is the improvement sufficient (WP:IAR) to overcome WP:NAD?
• Does it obfuscate or benefit the topic?
• Being a subjective topic, can the article successfully present both scientific and historical material?

Thank you — βox73 (৳alk) 10:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I feel there is more to this RfC than meets the eye, but at face value I have to say I find that section very informative and certainly deserves a place here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I intended.

Interesting and maybe even useful to readers: Later the article mentions "euphoria sclerotica", a euphoric state in persons with MS. The symptom is much less common now. Mysterious? No, over the past hundred year the definition has narrowed. — βox73 (৳alk) 05:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Not much fussed. WP:NAD seems to me irrelevant. I see no reason why scientific and historical material concerning an important subjective matter should be excluded, as long as it is in context and provides relevant perspective. However, I suggest that a brief statement be prefixed to the definition section, possibly something along the lines of:

Because of the subjective nature of the symptoms and signs of observed or reported euphoria, no single definition has yet satisfied all parties, and it is not even clear that the apparent effect has a single uniform basis. This might explain differences of opinion and emphasis between, for example, authorities dealing with narcotics, those dealing with affective psychology, and those dealing with the physiological effects of exertion. The following citations represent some of the dates and trends of views during the last three centuries or so. JonRichfield (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You are saying that because the section is "Definition" that readers should be told diverse views exist so no one single proper definition exists; these definitions are competing with the lede definition and some notice should occur. This might be considered.

I hoped this section would be seen as a historical procession of definitions. Could something like this work, incorporated in the final paragraph? (After moving financial euphoria up one.) But I'm assuming a singular final definition...

Baffles me how articles like love or art can be expected to conform to WP:NAD. Euphoria the same. — βox73 (৳alk) 05:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC) fixs — βox73 (৳alk) 12:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I explained this issue in more detail below, but there's one sentence in that section which isn't relevant to this article - the one about "market euphoria". On another note, based upon my reading of the sources in the article, there isn't much inconsistency in how affective euphoria is currently defined. It's readily apparent from reading the definitions section that the definitions of affective euphoria have changed over time, but the current definitions of this concept are fairly uniform based upon the more recent references (e.g., ones published within the past 10 years) that are cited in this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Support inclusion and as JonRichfield noted, it should be prefaced with the statement he suggested. I see no reason to omit. Meatsgains (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I can imagine a boxed warning like on a pack of cigarettes! Seriously, I could also imagine this becoming the first paragraph with a little tweaking. Or do you think it would be better as an explicit statement?

This also allows a presentation of current definitions as they differ in various domains. It means information outside the lede definition might be worth presenting. One is that human euphoria is both cognitive and affective: winning an Olympic Medal, a Nobel Prize, selling a book, or getting married. Or that one's interpretation may cause pain to elicit euphoria instead, as when painful chemotherapy indicates tumor cells are dying.[2] Again, Thanks — βox73 (৳alk) 08:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I am not much fussed, not even about whether my off-the-cuff wording is used in whole, in part, or as part, but FWIW I had seen it as an introductory remark within the definition section, not a cigarette-package warning. For my part the format of that section is helpful in supplying perspective to anyone trying to assimilate the significance of the term and its various roles in various contexts, both present and in historically significant documents. 0.02c... JonRichfield (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@JonRichfield:Forgive my attempt at humor but I do appreciate your kind contribution and feedback. Starting from your write-up I produced a single paragraph:

Although a general definition of euphoria exists, the word has been used to describe varied experiences and symptoms by different persons, and for different reasons or causes. No single definition satisfies all parties — it is not even clear that the apparent affect has a single uniform basis. The following represents some of the views expressed over the last three centuries.

I shied away from proposing the explanation. I dropped "or so" at the end by considering the last three centuries as the 18th–20th, and any additional years as the present. Comments, suggestions, revisions please. Gracias — βox73 (৳alk) 08:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: No pain; it was only a suggestion :D JonRichfield (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support - I asked Box73 to create this RFC to ensure that there was consensus for adding this content because I was concerned about a potential conflict with WP:NOTDICTIONARY. With that in mind, I'll address each question/bullet in the RFC individually:

• I don't really have an opinion on whether or not this section should conform to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Based upon my reading of that policy, I don't think that the section actually conforms to the policy; however, I also don't think a section of coherently presented historical definitions actually detracts from the article provided that the definitions of the term are relevant to the article's topical scope which is defined in the lead (i.e., any definitions of euphoria that are relevant to an affective state are acceptable IMO). The sentence that covers "market euphoria" is the only definition in the permalinked article section (definition / history section) that isn't relevant to an affective state. In other words, because neither "market behavior" (note: this term refers to aggregate market price movements - e.g., daily changes in the S&P 500 Index) nor behavior in general are psychological affects, that statement shouldn't be included in the article. As for every other sentence in that section, because those definitions are on-topic, I think WP:IAR is a reasonable justification for the inclusion of that content unless someone presents a cogent argument to the contrary.

I won't fight this one to the death but here's my reasoning. Market euphoria is relevant of a cognitive/affective state. Despite the name market euphoria, its not the market that is euphoric, but the investors in that market. They feel exaggerated excitement, great anticipation and well-being, i.e., euphoria... about that market. (In fact you'll find articles using the term "investor euphoria".) This mental state causes bullish behavior. From this bullish behavior we infer market euphoria (investor euphoria). In the writeup market euphoria should be mentioned, but no more.

Sir John Templeton said: "Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria." — βox73 (৳alk) 06:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• As stated in the previous bullet, with exception for the sentence on market euphoria, I don't think this section detracts from the article because it's a chronologically ordered set of definitions of affective euphoria which illustrates how the definition of the concept evolved over time. If anything, this may help readers better understand how past conceptualizations of this affective state have shaped the present understanding of what euphoria is. The sentence on market euphoria defines a phenomenon that isn't relevant to an affect (i.e., the scope of this article) though; consequently, that's the only statement which shouldn't be included in the article since IMO it does obfuscate the topic/scope of the article.
• Yes, I don't see why not.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me. I'm thinking the lead pronunciation gue is more of a WP:NAD concern than the history. Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's consistent with MOS:PRONUNCIATION. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Bot-summonned) - although the etymology may or may not be appropriate regarding WP:NAD, the change of semantics in the term is certainly worth mentioning. Not sure that was worth an RfC, but a bit of red tape is better than an edit war.Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Seems OK. Does not unnecesarily dominate the article. However must be renamed into "History of the term", to avoid confusion. The modern definition is given in the lede, and the (misnamed) "Definition" section does not actually add much beyond history. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea IMO – I've changed the heading per your suggestion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Areca Nut and Pregabalin

Before posting, I invite comments.

For the stimulants section:

Chewing areca nut (seeds from the Areca catechu palm) with slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) produces stimulant effects and euphoria. The major psychoactive ingredients – arecoline (a muscarinic receptor partial agonist) and arecaidine (a GABA reuptake inhibitor) – are responsible for the euphoric effect.

Changes to pregabalin: (With the additional information conditions and controlled studies are superfluous. The monograph also finds pregabalin associated euphoria in fibromyalgia, and other controlled studies in other conditions. Controlled studies are documented in the refs and can be assumed.)

Pregabalin induces dose-dependent euphoria. Occurring in a small percentage of individuals at recommended doses, euphoria is increasingly frequent at supratherapeutic doses (or with insufflation or intravenous administration). At doses five times the maximum recommended, intense euphoria is reported.

— βox73 (৳alk) 03:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving via car from Washington DC to Los Angeles, CA over a 3 day period; I'm spending between 10-15 hours a day on the road, so I'm a bit too exhausted to do much more than reply to talk page threads at the moment. I'll take a look at the refs for this content after I arrive in LA and get some sleep (i.e., Wednesday afternoon or evening). WRT the text itself, I'd suggest hyphenating the term "dose-dependent". Everything else looks good. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No sweat. Take some good tunes and be safe. (Hyphenation done.) I'll hear from you after you've recharged on the other end. — βox73 (৳alk) 09:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. I arrived in LA late last night after a 15 hour drive from Denver. It's sort of funny how dirty your car will get from driving all the way across the United States (East coast→West coast or West coast→East coast is ~2700 miles). Anyway, sorry for the delay on this; I appreciate that you're willing to work with me again. I did a quick check of the pubmed-indexed journal articles you cited (i.e., the ones with PMIDs - refs 3,5,6, and 10); those are all recently published medical reviews, so they're all MEDRS-compliant. Ref 11 is fine: drugs.com monographs are an acceptable web reference for pharmaceuticals because those monographs are supplied by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (this is why drugs.com is included as a field in template:drugbox). I'll take a look at the others a little later since I need to get a lot of move-related stuff done during business hours today (e.g., get a California drivers license, change vehicle registration, set up mail forwarding, find/set up an appointment with a new internist, etc.). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All the refs are MEDRS-compliant. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to sunny Southern California, the birthplace of Bob's Big Boy! (I've never been out there but Big Boy is my pet project here.) I'm glad you're getting settled in and the refs check out. I'm doing some background work on the epilepsy matter. Don't forget to sleep. — βox73 (৳alk) 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

References

hypnotically induced

This one is missing, surprisingly. I am not sure what research exists on this, but there are plenty of examples on warpmymind.com where some of the mp3s are effectively addictive due to creating a state of euphoria as part of the experience. --Rebroad (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Euphoria is like happiness towards the universe.

As far as i’m concerned i’d say euphoria can make people a lot happy. 86.6.195.25 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)