Talk:Euphoria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exaggeration

"great (usually exaggerated) elation" Is this meant to imply that people usually exaggerate, even when nobody's around? That they aren't as elated as they seem? Why? Euphoria is a feeling, isn't it? How can one exaggerate something purely internal? Does the exaggeration make the feeling more or less intense, and why? It sounds like utterly incomprehensible nonsense to me. Unfree (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I too think that the use of the word "exaggerated" could be made clearer. Exaggerated in what way? If you mean that drug-induced euphoria is more intense than euphoria achieved through more "natural" means (e.g. winning a race) then that should be made clear. As it is now it would be easy to confuse the intended meaning.74.108.34.227 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Medicine

Why "medically recognized"? Why is "medically" a link, redirected to "medicine"? Is euphoria unknown outside the field of medicine? More nonsense? Unfree (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Use in definition

"the term is often colloquially used to define emotion as an intense state of transcendent happiness combined with an overwhelming sense of wellbeing" How preposterous! How often, in colloquial speech, do we attempt to define "emotion"? Never! If one ever attempted to do such a thing, wouldn't it depend on the sentence we used "euphoria" in? How can one be "overwhelmed" by a sense of being well? What does happiness transcend? Since when does "emotion" have any such definition? Gosh, this gobbledygook is driving me nuts! Unfree (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfree, you do not seem to understand the Wikipedia Talkpage guidelines. Are you really trying to bring clarity to the subject, or just venting? This works for me: "the term is often colloquially used to give verbal expression to an emotion which is experienced as an intense state of transcendent happiness combined with an overwhelming sense of wellbeing" Yes, Unfree, no one is trying to "define emotion". It is clear in the context that someone is trying to give verbal expression to an emotion that they are experiencing. I have been "overwhelmed" many times in my life, sometimes by sadness, but often by euphoria. The sense of overwhelm means that the experience is inexplicable, often uncontrollable, and beyond comprehension. This feeling can be expressed in various ways such a person experiencing euphoria saying that they "felt oneness with god and all life". This is what is meant by "transcendent". It means that the experience transcends common human comprehension, and is beyond the normal experience of "happiness". This is not meant to be the definition of "emotion", but rather the experience of one type of emotion, commonly referred to as "euphoria". This might seem like gobbledygook to the naive or inexperienced. 72.83.77.21 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actual meaning

Thanks to the link to the Online Etymological Dictionary at the bottom of the page, I found a more reasonable meaning for "euphoria":

1727, a physician's term for "condition of feeling healthy and comfortable (especially when sick)," from Gk. euphoria "power of bearing easily, fertility," from euphoros, lit. "bearing well," from eu- "well" + pherein "to carry" (see infer). Non-technical use, now the main one, dates to 1882.

That's more like it. Incidentally, from my Greek-English dictionary (not under "euphoria", which doesn't appear at all there, but under "euphoros"), I found "borne well", indicating that "bearing easily" above doesn't refer to childbearing, but rather to the more general sense of "enduring", "suffering" (in the old sense), or "holding up under". I don't have an ordinary dictionary at hand, but I understand the word to be used nowadays not only to mean "feeling healthy, especially when sick", but "feeling happy, marvelous, great, fantastic", and not meant to imply any sort of mental or psychiatric pathology at all. I feel sorry for anybody who, when experiencing a state of euphoria, considers it a pathological condition and rings up emergency services. Unfree (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Victory

"Euphoria is generally considered to be exaggerated, resulting from an abnormal psychological state ... not typically achieved during the normal course of human experience. However, some natural behaviors, such as activities resulting in orgasm or the triumph of an athlete, can induce brief states of euphoria." I see. The article tells us that when a swimmer wins a race, he may experience an "abnormal" (pathological?) "state" "not typically achieved during the normal course of human experience". Having won many, many such races myself, I don't know whether I ought to display my medals under bright lights or to hide them, to exaggerate or to underplay them. (Perhaps my experience is super- or subhuman.) Will Wikipedia *please* take a stand on my dilemma, and generally consider it to be exaggerated? Unfree (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could Gaming be mentioned as another source of Euphoria, I know personally that I've achieved a state that I would consider Euphoria (similar to orgasm or a state achieved through psychoactive drugs) when achieving victory in certain games in similar situations to athletic victory. Applepwnz 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepwnz (talk • contribs)

Citation

"Euphoria has also been cited during certain religious or spiritual rituals and meditation." I doubt the source will support that statement, being familiar with meditation (and "certain religious and spiritual rituals") myself. When I'm meditating, I have more pressing concerns than to go about uttering citations to anything, much less to words devoid of contexts. Where in the Latin Mass does the expletive "Euphoria!" creep in? In the Dies Irae? Unfree (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Common

Following that psychiatric gateway link, I discovered that the page uses the word to introduce "affect":

"Common affects are euphoria, anger, and sadness."

Further down the page, it suggests that it isn't so normal. Strange. Surely they must have cures for all common affects. Unfree (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC

I thought it was a good article. It had a few words I needed to look at to make sure I was understanding the meaning. It has lots of different references I could check out. It also gave a few different ways euphoria can be achieved. I'm sure the article could have videos and charts and other things to make it even more informative, but it does tell you the basics. Stabers (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Biology

Succeeding the obvious fact that euphoria occurs within someone, the biological processes associated with euphoria should be expanded upon. Neuroscientific research should be included in this article. Arossomanno (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a good addition to the article. --MTHarden (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Achievement

Through meditative or spiritual processes, the practices of attaining this state should be recognized as well as those who attempt or succeed in attaining it. What they have done, how they have done it, etc. Arossomanno (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to be careful with how you add this to ensure an encyclopedic quality. --MTHarden (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Research

^ a b Deshmukh, Vinod (16). "Neuroscience of Meditation". TSW Holistic Health & Medicine 1: 285. doi:10.1100/tswhhm.2006.244. Retrieved 27 July 2011. ^ Hockenbury, Don, Sandra (2011). Discovering Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers. pp. 54. ISBN 978-1-4292-1650-0. ^ Boecker, Henning; , Sprenger, Spilker, Henriksen, Koppenhoefer, Wagner, Valet, Berthele, Tolle (21). "The Runner's High: Opioidergic Mechanisms in the Human Brain". Oxford Journals 18 (11): 2523-2531. Retrieved 27 July 2011. ^ Jasinski, DR; Nutt, Haertzen, Griffith, Bunney (11). "Lithium: effects on subjective functioning and morphine-induced euphoria". Sciencemag 195: 582-584. doi:10.1126/science.319532. Retrieved 27 July 2011.

Arossomanno (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Passion Flower listed as a euphoric?

"Passion Flower (Passiflora incarnata) is widely used as a sedative that has calming effects on the nervous system and acts as a sleep aid. One harmala alkaloid present in this herb in the form of harmine is thought to induce meditative and euphoric effects.[13]" Passion Flower listed as a euphoric? I seriously doubt a medical reference would list it as such. Even the statement refers to it as calming (anxiolytic) and sleep aid (sedating), neither are directly euphoric (psychoactive tied to the pleasure system of the human body, commonly dopamine releasers). The Harmine page (Harmine) makes no mention of the term euphoria. 67.167.106.3 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse, addiction, and dependence

The article states:

Some euphoriants are notorious for their problems with abuse, addiction, or dependence; most euphoriants possess reinforcing effects through their activity in the reward system of the brain.

This statement, IMHO, does not do justice to euphoriants. To understand why, let's address each of the three issues:

• Dependence, like for coffee, for all practical intents and purposes, is a non-issue. It is by never a problem in itself.
• Addiction is more a feature of the individual than it is a feature of the substance. Some individuals, in the context of their medical, social and environmental conditions, are much more predisposed to particular addictions than others. From this perspective, addiction is best viewed as an adaptation. In other words, like dependence, addiction is a feature, not a bug. Reinforcing effects driving addictions simply don't happen to everyone. No matter the substance, the reinforcement is conditional.
• Abuse is something that next to no one who is not suicidal will choose to do intentionally if have foreknowledge of what to expect from the administration of a particular substance or interaction. It occurs, in effect, due to a knowledge gap. The gap can come to exist if a substance of an unknown concentration or unsafe dose is used, or if substances are used without an understanding of their interactions over time, idiosyncratic or not as such interactions might be.

I can only hope that someone will rewrite the quoted statement to describe euphoriants more neutrally, and perhaps look beyond presenting them as "notorious". --IO Device (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably should have rewritten the whole lead instead of kept some sentences when I went through it... Abuse is just a cultural term as opposed to a medical one, so that should definitely be cut. Dependence technically isn't that notable of an issue in certain types of euphoriants (e.g., addictive stimulants), so I agree. The one thing that virtually all euphoriants have in common is that they're addictive (or satisfy the definition of that term: being both rewarding and [positively] reinforcing).

That said, I've edited the page per your request and revised the statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced info

Much missing information about euphoriants was added by 69.95.162.168. Unfortunately, the added information was not sourced, and was therefore difficult to verify. For this reason, the edit had been reverted. Perhaps some of it can be re-added but with sources. The purpose of this post is to help preserve a better memory of the edit. --IO Device (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with barbiturate pharmacodynamics as I am with that of benzodiazepines, but I know benzos aren't really rewarding/addictive and therefore wouldn't be a class of euphoric drugs. I know they're both GABAergics which produce similar forms of psychoactive effects though, so I doubt barbiturate would be a euphoric drug class either. They're both likely to induce dependence syndromes, but that's not a necessary characteristic of euphoriants. Individual cholinergic drugs may be euphoriants (e.g., nicotine), but not the class as a whole. I agree that, as you noted, referencing for each drug would be necessary in that case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines and other GABAergics

Many GABA-ergic drugs, including phenazepam (and generally almost all benzodiazepines), phenibut, baclofen, pregabalin may induce "uplifting" and euphoric feel by unknown mechanism, and these medications are often abused as some kind of "recreational drugs".

Sources are in Wikipedia on each drug mentioned above. I think this information ca be added to Euphoria article

109.229.158.33 (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Max-Msk

The Z-drugs (nonbenzodiazepines) could also be considered here. 73.153.214.54 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Colloquial vs clinical definitions in lead

I want to propose some revisions to the lead. For reference, this is what it says right now,

Euphoria[note 1] (pronunciation: /juːˈfɔəriə/) is a mental and emotional state in which a person experiences intense feelings of well-being, elation,happiness, excitement, and joy.[3] Technically, euphoria is a psychological affect,[4] but the term is often colloquially used to define emotion and an intense state of transcendent happiness combined with an overwhelming sense of contentment. It has also been defined as an "affective state of exaggerated well-being or elation."[5]

Certain drugs, many of which are addictive, are known to produce a euphoric state. Certain natural rewards (associated with addictive behavior) such as physical exercise can also induce a state of euphoria.[4] Euphoria has also been cited as being experienced by those participating in certain religious or spiritual rituals and meditation.[6] Euphoria is also known to occur as a symptom of mania.[7]

In a nutshell, I think it's redundant in a few places and unnecessarily wordy. Here are the changes that I'm proposing:

Euphoria ( /juːˈfɔːriə/) is used colloquially to refer to an emotional state characterized by intensely positive feelings of elation, absolute contentment, and transcendent happiness. In casual use, euphoria is frequently associated with the effects of certain types of drugs, positive emotions elicited from physical exercise (sometimes called runners' high), and participation in spiritual rituals or meditation.

In psychology, euphoria is used to describe unrestrained and inappropriate expressions of overly positive emotions that are disproportionate to the situation and often based on distorted perceptions of reality.[1][2] It's commonly used in reference to symptoms of a manic episode.

Thoughts? PermStrump(talk) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"often based on distorted perceptions of reality" makes euphoria sound like it's a (mildly) psychotic state as opposed to just an affective state; I don't think I've ever seen a medical reference describe euphoria that way. I suppose it might be reasonable to define a "drug-induced euphoria" or mania-associated euphoria as "unrestrained and inappropriate expressions of overly positive emotions that are disproportionate to the situation"; however, I don't think that's appropriate for a general definition of euphoria because it's not an inherently pathological state – it also occurs physiologically (e.g., see this ref). The definition in the lead should probably should indicate that it's a form of pleasure though, since both the review on drugs that I've quote here and this review on the neuroscience of reward/pleasure indicate this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the general definition is positive and associated with pleasure and that pleasure is a good word for it that should replace one of the adjectives in the current version of lead. In the clinical practice of psychology, which is what I meant by "in psychology," it's almost always used to refer to a somewhat delusional state associated with mania or psychosis, which is exactly the distinction I was trying to make between the general/casual/colloquial use versus its use in psychology/clinical psychology/whatever you want to call it. Happy and sad are affective states too, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "it's just an affective state." Affect is basically a synonym for mood or emotional state. If you're talking about someone else, you call it their affect. "He had a bright/depressed/irritable/euphoric affect today." or "his affect was bright/depressed/irritable/euphoric." If you're talking about how you feel, it's your mood, "I'm in a bright/depressed/irritable/euphoric mood today." Of course in casual conversation, people almost always say "mood" for both. That distinction is only made in clinical contexts, but I was just trying to clarify how I'm understanding the phrase "affective state" because it doesn't seem like we're using it the same way. I think we keep having this problem :-P PermStrump(talk) 12:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My intended meaning when I wrote "it's just an affective state" is simply that it is (analogous to) a mood and nothing else. Anyway, since the lead mentions that euphoria is a symptom of an affective disorder (specifically, mania) without covering this in more detail in the article, it might be best to create a new section (titled "Affective disorders" or something along those lines) on this topic to cover what you're thinking. It's definitely notable enough to merit such coverage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: new section-- Yeah, that makes good sense. Tbh, my original motivation was that I was looking at the articles on bipolar disorder imagining what someone would learn if they didn't know what euphoria meant and clicked on the wikilink from the bipolar article. Clearly, I wasn't thinking big-picture-euphoria article. You snapped me out of it though. :-P PermStrump(talk) 13:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to have helped. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Euphoria in the context of a manic episode

This is in response to Seppi333's question about sources on Talk:Bipolar Disorder#Mania-induced euphoria. Here are some sources talking about euphoria in the context of a manic episode:

• Bipolar I Disorder, DSM-5 (google books link)
• Plasma cortisol in first episode drug-naïve mania: Differential levels in euphoric versus irritable mood
• Beyond a single index of mania symptoms: Structure and validity of subdimensions
• Clinical characteristics and temperament influences on ‘happy’ euphoric and ‘snappy’ irritable bipolar hypo/manic mood states

Can you access the full text or do you need me to paste some of the relevant lines? I haven't read them thoroughly yet, but I'll look through them later and come up with some ideas if you haven't added anything new already. PermStrump(talk) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Thanks for the refs – I appreciate it. I'll probably need text quotes from the latter 2 sources if you're able; otherwise I can just go through WP:RX. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure see below. Graham et al didn't seem so useful, but Ruggero et al was interesting. PermStrump(talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotations and references

Ruggero et al “Euphoric Activation” factor contained content primarily related to increased energy, elevated mood and heightened activity. Scores were significantly higher for three subscales in patients with current mania compared to patients without current mania – the largest effect was for Euphoric Activation In two independent samples, the present study detected and replicated three subdimensions unique to mania (Euphoric Activation, Hyperactive Cognition and Reckless Overconfidence). A fourth dimension (irritability) also was a clearly distinct and relevant construct, but was not as unique to mania and likely cuts across disorders. Moreover, assessing distinct types of symptoms has important clinical implications: not all subdimensions affect functioning equally. In the present study, Euphoric Activation had marginal associations with functioning compared to other symptoms. Of note, the Euphoric Activation factor was substantially elevated in manic patients, but was not associated with worse functioning, unlike other factors. In this respect, euphoric activation symptoms may be more prominent in hypomania, where dysfunction is a basis of exclusion in DSM-5. Moreover, it may be more specifically tied to dysregulation in appetitive systems and reward processing compared to other dimensions. References

@Permstrump: Do you know of any sources that support the statements about stages of euphoria in Euphoria#Mania? From what I gather, the current refs essentially use "hypomania" to describe an intermediate stage of symptom severity between "normal" and mania. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: I noticed the new mania section yesterday and wondered how I missed it in my watchlist. From the edit logs, looks you added the mania section with a "needs expansion" note after you and I had that initial discussion about it and then 2 IP editors contributed to it without sources. Does that sound right? I've never heard of any official stages of euphoria. I tried a bunch of search terms in the database I have access to through work and couldn't verify those statements. I work at a university hospital and use the medical school library and I couldn't find anything there or on google to support those statements or anything remotely similar. So I went ahead and removed it. I found some other interesting stuff while I was looking into it though. One is this source:

• Figueira ML, Madeira, L, (2011) Time and Space in Manic Episodes. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental & Neuro Sciences. Volume 4, Issue 2, p. 22.

I think the full text is free. Is it? I don't know how common some of the ideas in that article are, so I'm not sure whether or not it's DUE for this article, but it was interesting at least (IMHO). I'm making a new section for the other interesting thing I found. PermStrump(talk) 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm more or less just trying to cite what the IPs wrote. I'll take a look at that source later tonight when I have more time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the notion that mania is associated with alterations in perception of time is really worth adding to wikipedia unless it's mentioned in a few medical reviews. It's plausible considering that synaptic dopamine levels in the dopamine pathways that originate in the midbrain are positively correlated with faster mental chronometry and euphoria; the ref I've cited here mentions this phenomenon in the case of PD (not quoted), but it isn't mentioned in the PD article, so an altered perception of time might not be notable enough to mention in the mania article anyway. An altered perception of space sounds like a hallucination or psychosis – that seems to be consistent with the statements about mania and hallucinations in the bipolar disorder article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Market euphoria

I stumbled across multiple papers talking about economic/market euphoria. Here's one example from google books. I never heard the term used that way before. Anyone know if this is a common enough usage that should be mentioned in the article? PermStrump(talk) 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... IDK about that. I have degrees in economics and finance, but I never heard that term used in an economic context when I was in college. It also doesn't really seem to make sense in a few instances in that textbook if the definition of euphoria in that context is the same as how it's defined on this page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Class of euphoriants" or I missed that day in class.

I'm not challenging that Mu opioids or CB1 cannabinoids etc. tend to cause euphoria—are euphoriants. But where does "class of euphoriants" come from? Where else is it used and how frequently? While "class of hallucinogens" or "...anxiolyics" etc. aren't uncommon I can't find examples of "class of euphoriants". The term seems to sneak in to accommodate a string of examples or categories. Given the constraints of Wikipedia (cart not horse) shouldn't we say, for example, "MOR agonists are a class of euphoriants that and include drugs such as..."? A side issue, does listing 12 MOR agonists seem appropriate or excessive?

I continue to worry about psychoactive drug copy being accessible to more people. — Box73 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize this, but your proposed version still refers to MOR agonists as a class because you use the phrase "and include", followed by a list. The only difference is the statement is less clear in your version because it refers to the drug class as a class without actually calling it a class. The article explicitly refers to mu opioid agonists as a class because it's a drug class. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not referring to "drug class" but "class of euphoriants". No sources have been provided for "class of euphoriants" but for some reason the inline tags were removed, somehow single handedly resolving the issue. I believe until verification for this is provided, the "class of" should be deleted. As for MOR agonists, they are a "class of opioids" but not a "class of euphoriants". Isn't there another way you can clarify without coining new terms. On second look, the use in re depressants is appropriate because it refers to depressants as a class. — Box73 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC) fixed typos — Box73 (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If a number of drugs having an identical pharmacological or chemical property is described as producing a certain effect, in this case being "euphoriants" by causing euphoria, one doesn't need to cite the descriptor of a set (e.g., "class of euphoriants", "group of euphoriants", "set of euphoriants", "family of euphoriants", or "[whatever the fuck you want to call a group here] of euphoriants") if all the elements in that set are described that way in a source because that satisfies WP:V for "class of said elements". If your issue is that you can't find "class of euphoriants" in a body of literature, you're being obscenely pedantic, but I'll go ahead and vary the set descriptor to appease you instead of revert your edit since the current version reads retardedly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add the page numbers to your book references. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"These refs don't support this statement." Really?

Let's take a look:

"Occurring in less than 0.5% of persons with epilepsy,..."

• "Pleasure as an ictal emotion is reported by less than 0.5% of epileptics." — Salloway & Malloy, p 200, top col 2
• If you have issues with the percentage, which is logically true, the term rare works.

"...such ecstatic seizures have been closely associated with religious or mystical experiences."

• "Ecstatic seizure experiences, ictal and peri-ictal, have been especially closely linked to religious experience." — Salloway & Malloy, p 200, col 1, 2nd full para
• "The term ecstatic seizure... Ecstatic seizures of either type are rare." — Salloway & Malloy, p 200, col 1, 3rd full para+ (after quote). The term exists; here it is the euphoric sense, indicated by "such".
• "During the first seconds of these seizures, ecstatic auras provoke feelings of well-being, intense serenity, bliss, and “enhanced self-awareness.” They are associated with the impression of time dilation, and can be described as a mystic experience by some patients." — Gschwind & Picard, abstract.

Ecstatic auras are ecstatic seizures because auras are seizures, ie, partial seizures occurring before either (1) consciousness is lost and a clinical seizure occurs or (2) the aura stops without developing into a clinical seizure. In re limbic seizures (and insular seizures), "ecstatic" is synonymous with "euphoric".

I can certainly find other refs.

This warranted inline tags and/or the talk page, not reversion.

In the lede, I would like to change: "Euphoria has also been cited as being experienced by those participating in certain religious or spiritual rituals and meditation" to, "Euphoria has also been cited asmay being experienced by those participating participants in certain religious or spiritual rituals, and meditation". In fact, either "religious" or "spiritual" should be cut. There is no reason to say that it is cited. Cut "also" since it is used in the next sentence. "Those participating in" are "participants". But then why does this sentence exist without the topic being covered in the body? Will this sentence, needing but not attracting attention, suddenly be targeted if I touch it? — Box73 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) edit Box73 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ecstasy is not euphoria. Pleasure is not euphoria. Euphoria is a form of pleasure just like an orgasm is, but an orgasm is not euphoric nor vice versa. I agree, the lead component should be deleted. Unless a ref says "euphoria" or "euphoric", don't cite it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Euphoria is typically an element of ecstasy. An orgasm may certainly be euphoric. It is not necessary that a ref must say euphoria or euphoric, but that the ref uses a reasonably synonymous definition or description, and is appropriate to the use. If this rule were the case, it would be impossible to paraphrase our sources' content. It is also not appropriate that an editor create such a hard rule.

See the following post... Box73 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your brain has multiple pleasure centers. Neurons in those pleasure centers are believed to fire in distinct patterns to mediate different sensations of pleasure. This is why eating food doesn't feel euphoric and why that doesn't feel like an orgasm. If you re-add that statement here, I will revert you. If you don't want to be reverted, add it to the correct (Ecstasy (emotion)) article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

see below — Box73 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision re ecstatic seizures

Here is my revised sentence re ecstatic seizures, with supported rationale and rejection of a narrow definition of euphoria.

This euphoria is symptomatic of a rare syndrome called ecstatic seizures, itself closely associated with religious and mystical experiences which are often euphoric.

Compare:

The article defines euphoria as "an affective state and a form of pleasure in which a person experiences intense feelings of well-being, happiness, and excitement."

In medical literature ecstatic seizures are described, "provoke feelings of well-being, ... bliss", "include intense positive affect, feelings of ... enhanced well-being", "experienced ... intense feelings of well-being", "experience a strong sense of happiness". (Several other symptoms may occur.)

Compare again:

Oxford dictionary defines

• euphoria as "a feeling or state of intense excitement and happiness," and
• ecstasy as "an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement."

Cambridge defines

• euphoria as "a feeling of extreme happiness or confidence," (US version) and
• ecstasy as "a state of extreme happiness or pleasure:" (US version)

Shultz's use of euphoria

Shultz (cited) assigns euphoria to an affect of psychoactive drugs. I believe his intent is not to define euphoria (he never uses the term again) but merely to distinguish flavors of pleasure.

• "There are different degrees and forms of pleasure. ... The feeling of high that is experienced by sports people during running or swimming, the lust evoked by encountering a ready mating partner, a sexual orgasm, the euphoria reported by drug users, and the parental affection to babies constitute different forms (qualities) rather than degrees of pleasure (quantities)."

Also cited are Bearn and O'Brien who actually say

• "Eating, drinking, sexual activity, and parenting invoke pleasure, an emotion that promotes repetition of these behaviors, are essential for survival. Euphoria, a feeling or state of intense excitement and happiness, is an amplification of pleasure, aspired to one's essential biological needs that are satisfied."

The includes the first sentence—truncated in the the ref's quote—which counters Shultz's seemingly narrow definition.

If Shultz was trying to strictly define euphoria itself to drugs, which I doubt, his definition is not shared and is not a neutral point of view. Consider:

• "Long-distance runners have described a runner’s high as a sudden pleasant feeling of euphoria, anxiolysis, sedation, and analgesia". and "These acute effects of running, together with a feeling of euphoria, were earlier termed a runner’s high in humans."
• "Further evidence suggests that running is associated with endorphins and cannabinoids thus explaining the "runners high" or euphoric feelings that may lead to exercise addiction."
• "We report a 41-year-old woman with complex reflex epilepsy in which seizures were induced exclusively by the act of tooth brushing. All the attacks occurred with a specific sensation of sexual arousal and orgasm-like euphoria that were followed by a period of impairment of consciousness."
• "Cocaine is described as producing a sense of mental clarity and a state of euphoria ... Acute intravenous administration of cocaine induces a highly pleasurable feeling ("rush") that some individuals equate with sexual orgasm."
• "There are no recognized definitions or diagnostic criteria for "love addiction," but its phenomenology has some similarities to substance dependence: euphoria and unrestrained desire in the presence of the love object or associated stimuli (drug intoxication)"
• "Euphoria" defined in YourDictionary provides a sample sentence: "An example of euphoria is how you feel after your new baby is born."

In an emotional sense, euphoria and ecstasy are very similar, with definitions practically synonymous. Ecstatic seizures commonly have euphoric effects per the article's definition, and this is regardless of the meaning of ecstasy. The narrow view of euphoria is seemingly based on Shultz. It is either a misunderstanding of Shultz or else Shultz's definition is contrary to wider conventional use raising NPOV issues. This is apparent as Shultz divorces runner's high from euphoria yet exercise-induced euphoria is present in the article.

In conclusion

Previous objections to ecstatic seizures should be withdrawn and the reworded sentence added.

(Excepting vandalism and blatant errors,) rather than acting as trigger-happy authorities, editors should utilize the talk page and present supported arguments. The burdens are not voluntary, rather editing is.

Lastly, I chose not to use this short paper here but some editors may find it useful: How Happy Is Too Happy? Euphoria, Neuroethics, and Deep Brain Stimulation of the Nucleus Accumbens. — Box73 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Source correction Box73 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) typo Box73 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Well Seppi, I understand what you will do. That's probably not a good idea. No editor owns these articles. No editor will bully another.

Now, I am not addressing orgasms or consuming food, or even ecstasy per se; I'm addressing what neurologists have labeled "ecstatic seizures." As far as I know, the word euphoria predates identification of specific mesolimbic pathways or pleasure centers. The definitions of euphoria and the descriptions of ecstatic seizures match: euphoria is clearly an element of ecstatic seizures. Perhaps the neurologists who coined "ecstatic seizures" don't understand the neurologic distinctions as you do, but it doesn't matter, the term is established. (For that matter, euphoria originally meant a "condition of feeling healthy and comfortable" when ill.) Lookit, we are talking about the meaning of words, not mechanisms or maps.

Since you demand the literal, see Insular cortex activation in a patient with "sensed presence"/ecstatic seizures. An addiction analog exists in persons with "ecstatic seizures", almost all being medically non-compliant as anti-seizure drugs would rob them of the ictal highs.

Can we consider this resolved? — Box73 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that I'm asking you to do is satisfy WP:V by citing a reference that uses the term "euphoria". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Orgasm and euphoria without OR

Articles must be directly based on reliable sources. Assertions without refs are original research.

• Recent discussion disputed euphoria in orgasm without supporting refs. PsychCentral provides this definition of euphoria: "Intensely elevated mood, beyond realistic levels of happiness. Can be caused by drugs, orgasm, religious fervor, or various forms of psychopathology."
• This agrees with a previously noted source: "We report a 41-year-old woman with complex reflex epilepsy in which seizures were induced exclusively by the act of tooth brushing. All the attacks occurred with a specific sensation of sexual arousal and orgasm-like euphoria that were followed by a period of impairment of consciousness."

Articles must be directly based on reliable sources. Assertions without refs are original research.

• Can refs be provided for dissenting assertions?
• Will these represent a conventional definition of euphoria? — Box73 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Orgasms are not euphoric. The article doesn't say that, so I don't understand what the point of this section is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

article text

Some of these refs define "euphoria" differently than the way the term is defined in this article. That needs to be placed in context in the body of the article, not stuffed into the lead in a way that suggests the specific definition from the 1st sentence is analogous to the catch-all form of pleasure as defined in the "psychiatry" reference below – it's misleading and hence an NPOV issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing: it's really not that fucking hard to follow WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Since refs were added back in that I initially removed for failing WP:V, I removed them again. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sexual arousal, orgasm, and the refractory period that follows can produce euphoria, as can romantic love.

I wasn't finished yet. Nor are most articles in Wikipedia. The way (you assume) euphoria is defined in this article might also be the NPOV issue. The definition of euphoria is somewhat fuzzy and this article needs to deal with this. There is no obvious conflict but for the "form of pleasure" bit which itself is assumed, not defined. Schultz doesn't say orgasm isn't euphoric. (Regardless Schultz would be one of many views.) So tell me how the euphoria article defines orgasm as not euphoric; not your simple assertion, but what ref (text) clearly excludes orgasm.

I want to be cooperative and positive but I have never experienced any other editor like you. You are aggressively practicing ownership. Why aren't we talking about how we can improve the definition and accommodate reasonable material? Why are reasonable edits being treated like vandalism? (Immediate reversions.) Is this the purpose of TW?

I would like to return the sex/love material and work on fitting it. Please don't start an edit war or making threats again but invest in cooperation and accommodation with myself and others. — Box73 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's good that we agree that it is an NPOV issue. The current article almost entirely follows the narrow definition. I can address this later today when I have time unless you'd like to go ahead and clarify the problem I've pointed out beforehand.

You are making accusations about my intent and my behavior; focus on article content, not me (see the 2nd sentence of WP:NPA; WP:AGF and WP:TPG are also relevant behavioral guidelines for talk pages). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

1. I am frustrated having constructive edits immediately reverted.
2. I am trying to understand your critique and rejection of my edits and whether they are entirely valid. It isn't obvious that they (all) are, so I struggle to understand your interpretation of those refs (eg, Shultz).
3. Practice what you preach! Seppi, you use "f***/ing", threaten to re-revert my edits, treat my reasonable edits like vandalism, guard pages you've worked on, discount my discussions, make terse responses and unsupported assertions with me. That isn't good faith and erodes my good faith. It will burn me out. I'll willingly let a third party judge. (I'm not degenerating every action, some are very appropriate and appreciated.)
4. Having said that, I'll certainly try again but it's a two way street. Is that fair?
5. What am I missing? The ecstatic seizure/religious/euphoria refs were reasonable and true. I don't think my text crossed into OR. The (a) euphoria-ecstatic seizures connection was supported, (b) that ecstatic seizures include mystical experience is supported and (c) the mystical experiences being euphoric is true, and if not ref'd, can easily be. I suppose that goes back to the euphoria definition. I thought the euphoria – ecstatic seizure connection was the issue.
6. There are no precise bounds of euphoria IMO.

• Is euphoria exclusive of elation or ecstasy? exclusive of pain or negative emotions?
• Can euphoria be a mood, or merely an affect?
• What are examples of minimal euphoria?
• Are sensations of euphoria the same as euphoria?
• Since euphoria occurs with many addictive drugs (initially) should neuroscientific drug research (mechanisms) define euphoria?
• Are distinctions made by drug researchers relevant to drug research or generally?
• Do other (immediate) pleasures occur with addictive drugs?
• Is euphoria confined to a medical-biological topic? (Why WP:MEDRS isn't necessarily central.)
• Is market euphoria a form of euphoria?

These are questions I have from researching sources. There are no clear answers. But I am concerned because repeated Google searches (widely, not specific to euphoria) show Wikipedia definitions are influencing others. I think we need a middle ground, somehow being focused but comprehensive. We can't make the definition or advocate one definition.

I'll return tonight — Box73 (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

How can you be confused as to the grounds on which you're being reverted when I explicitly state it both in edit summaries and on the talk page? I don't see how I could possibly make it any more clear. V, MEDRS, NPOV. Read those policies if you haven't done so already and it should be entirely clear. You may wish to also familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, which covers reverting and discussing on talk pages.

Market euphoria is a distinct concept from what is being described on this page. The same is true for what is being described in the psychiatry ref. If this page uses an excessively general definition of the term "euphoria", I'm inclined to propose merging the entire article (including the articles on synonyms listed in the psychiatry ref, like ecstasy (emotion)) into pleasure due to the completely redundant scope.

The topic on this page should be defined by researchers who study affective neuroscience. Kent berridge is probably the world's leading expert on the neuroscience of pleasure, so ideally we would use a definition given in one of his reviews, if one exists. Schultz works in this field as well, but he focuses on the slightly more general concept of reward.

While this has no bearing on the current article content, I frankly think euphoria should be subjectively defined by how a sensation feels in relation to a drug high. Objectively, it would be measured based upon brain scans of pleasure centers while experiencing various forms of pleasure in relation to brain scans of individuals experiencing a drug high. If this convention is not followed, I pose to you this question: how is euphoria qualitatively distinct from pleasure? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Box73:: It would probably be best to hash this all out in a discussion so that we're on the same page. We first need to find a definition or set of definitions in high-quality reliable medical sources that adequately address(es) the relevant concerns about the specificity of the current lead definition that you've posed to me as questions and that I've posed to you; this is important because we need to determine how to appropriately define euphoria in the lead or whether the article should just be merged+redirected to pleasure.

Your questions to me:

1. Is euphoria exclusive of elation or ecstasy? exclusive of pain or negative emotions?
2. Can euphoria be a mood, or merely an affect?
3. What are examples of minimal euphoria?
4. Are sensations of euphoria the same as euphoria?
5. Since euphoria occurs with many addictive drugs (initially) should neuroscientific drug research (mechanisms) define euphoria?
6. Are distinctions made by drug researchers relevant to drug research or generally?
7. Do other (immediate) pleasures occur with addictive drugs?
8. Is euphoria confined to a medical-biological topic? (Why WP:MEDRS isn't necessarily central.)
9. Is market euphoria a form of euphoria?

The question I posed to you:

• how is euphoria qualitatively distinct from pleasure?

Most of your questions seem to focus on the distinction between euphoria and other forms/types (and possibly synonyms) of pleasure, like what the specific distinguishing aspects of a euphoric stimulus are or what constitutes a boundary between euphoric vs. not-euphoric stimuli. In contrast, the question I've posed to you focuses more generally on what the distinction is between euphoria and pleasure.

Answering your questions: in regard to #1–4, I don't know, although I'd guess no for #1, yes for #2, and I don't understand the questions in #3 and #4. I've stated my position on #5 above. As a corollary to my answer to #5, the answer to #7 would be no. As for #6, I don't see why the distinctions wouldn't matter: affective neuroscience is the only current and objective scientific study of affect. As for #8, the vast majority of the article discusses either a symptom of various medical conditions or a side effect of various drugs, so MEDRS is clearly required for every one of these statements. As for #9, I answered this in a previous talk page section, but to be clear, it's not an affective state or form of pleasure because it's referring to asset prices (specifically, a bullish or excessively bullish market), not market participants who are experiencing euphoria. In economics, "the XYZ market" or just "the market" is rarely, if ever, used to refer to the individual market participants instead of a collection of assets and associated asset prices.

Since our personal views about how euphoria should be defined are irrelevant, what we need for the article is 1 or more MEDRS-quality references that support a definition of euphoria or set of definitions that can be included in the lead and preferably are specific/precise enough to address the above issues that are posed as questions. Assuming more than one definition is used, it should be clear in the body of the article where the more general vs. the more specific definition is being applied (this would address NPOV). If an excessively general definition is used, it should be made clear in the lead how euphoria in that sense is distinct from pleasure. I'll look to see if a more precise definition of euphoria has been published in literature from affective neuroscience researchers (e.g., Berridge) to see if I can address your concerns about the current lead definition. If we include a more general definition than the current one in the lead, we will want to use a definition that makes a qualitative distinction between euphoria and pleasure (note that the psychiatry ref below indicates that there is no qualitative distinction – that's problematic); otherwise, that definition implies that all pleasurable stimuli are capable of causing euphoria; that definition of euphoria also implies that any "highly pleasurable stimulus" is a "stimulus that can induce euphoria", and vice versa. If we assert that pleasure and euphoria are by definition just synonyms that differ only by quantity (amount of pleasure), euphoria should be merged/redirected to a level 2 section (e.g., Pleasure#Euphoria) in the pleasure article because the scope of these articles would be identical.

Off-topic discussion about editing behavior and user contributions (collapsed by Seppi333)

Lastly, FWIW, I honestly think you've added useful encyclopedic information to articles in which we have had content disputes, including both amphetamine and this article. I almost never discuss my intentions or address allegations about my behavior because I think it's off-topic/irrelevant to the topic at hand (article content) and I really don't want to spend my time/energy reassuring every editor with whom I have a content dispute. Focusing talk page discussions on article content instead of editors is also the intended purpose of the WP:No personal attacks policy (the second sentence literally states with emphasis: Comment on content, not on the contributor.). However, I'll make an exception and discuss my intent and editing behavior just this once: my opposition to your additions is not based upon a dislike of you or a perception of low-quality writing/content; in nearly every dispute that I can remember, the primary issue with the content you added was that it didn't conform to a content-related policy (e.g., RS/MEDRS/V). I've tried to make this clear in edit summaries or on the talk page when it occurs. There were a few instances in which I reverted you because of the addition of uncited non-medical statements or table entries that I knew to be incorrect or potentially incorrect (e.g., the columns from template:Amphetamine base in marketed amphetamine medications that were omitted following our discussion on the template's talk page) or the removal of a cited statement which was asserted to be incorrect (e.g., the amphetamine [Evekeo] indication for obesity). I've never reverted you simply because I don't like you or because I want an article to be "my way" and reflect my personal opinions (WP:OWN). The only thing I generally want when it comes to article content is to ensure that it adheres to content policies/guidelines. I generally don't really care as much about whether non-medical statements satisfy content guidelines unless they're in a GA or FA-class medical article. If you strictly adhere to WP:V and WP:MEDRS (i.e., ensure that any statements you write are unambiguously supported by what is written in a reference and that the cited reference is a current medical review or medical textbook), you'll find that I'll rarely revert any content that you add to articles that I actively edit; the majority of content disputes that we've had (excluding the current dispute, the past dispute about substituted amphetamines [partly involved NPOV], and the dispute about if/where content about benzyl methyl carbinamine should be included [only involved NPOV]) have only involved either 1 or both of those policies. Like most editors, I prefer to (at least temporarily) remove disputed content from an article during content disputes because the temporary omission of quality encyclopedic content is preferable to the temporary inclusion of potentially biased/misleading or incorrect statements, especially if the disputed content includes medical statements. I apologize if reverting you comes off as aggressive, but it's a fairly common practice during content disputes; in the majority of instances in the past when I've added article content and another editor disputed its addition, I've been reverted prior to a discussion on the talk page. Don't take immediate edit reversion prior to a discussion personally; it's just how Wikipedia works (i.e., WP:BRD). The talk page discussion should be focused on reaching a compromise revision which is mutually satisfying to all involved editors or, if a compromise can't be reached, should attempt to obtain a wider consensus about the inclusion/omission of content (e.g., using a WP:RFC or by asking for input from relevant wikiprojects and uninvolved editors). I realize that ignoring your comments about my intent and/or editing behavior might be considered rude. However, if you assume good faith on my part as I've tried to do with you, we can avoid having a pointless tangential discussion about my+your editing behavior, since such a discussion has nothing to do with the content dispute and hence shouldn't be an issue that is discussed on an article talk page. Moreover, since neither you nor I have even come close to blatantly/unequivocally violating a behavioral guideline/conduct policy, there's no cause to start a discussion about my/your editing behavior to begin with. Nonetheless, if you think you'd be more receptive to my feedback or a discussion about content if I interacted with you in a different manner during content disputes, I'm willing to discuss that on your talk page or my talk page, but not here. Sorry. I had some crashes, lost some writing, but I'm catching up. Two points: Personal views are not just personal beliefs, but approaches to a topic. And this is what I was asking about. Not discussed, different approaches produce static conflict. Discussed, the dam can be broken, bad feelings avoided and the approaches can enrich an article. So IMO these are reasonable to discuss. Further, the talk page (process) is not the article (product). Mathematicians have a terse, reductive style of writing/commenting (generally). That baffles some of us who aren't, leaves us scrambling, invites misunderstanding and loquacious responses. I appreciate your current comments and guidance. I'll defer other matters to our talk pages. — Box73 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I'll reincorporate the uncontested part of the material that you added back into the article while we look for better sources for definitions of euphoria. I'm hoping that doing this will help focus our efforts and this conversation on addressing the problem we face with the relevant content guideline (WP:NPOV) as opposed to a discussion about you/me or personal opinions about article content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Discussion

I remembered that I added a ref to Talk:Reward system about euphoria and its relationship with pleasure system activation a while back – the bolded portion of what I've quoted here addresses what likely occurs in hedonic hotspots within the reward system when an individual experiences euphoria (i.e., all the hotspots activate simultaneously). This is also one of the references/quotes that I was paraphrasing earlier when I said "your brain has multiple pleasure centers. Neurons in those pleasure centers are believed to fire in distinct patterns to mediate different sensations of pleasure." IMO, the bolded segment should be covered in the lead. Also, Berridge's most recent review mentions euphoria a few times and includes a phrase that I don't entirely understand ("an aura of euphoria" – based upon the context, I'm guessing he means a sensation associated with the anticipation and/or expectation of experiencing euphoria); unfortunately, this review doesn't include a definition of euphoria either. I'm still going to look for a descriptive definition of euphoria in reviews authored by him or other researcher in his field though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late follow-up, I've been sick the last few days and so have been a bit preoccupied. I'll get around to addressing this sometime this week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Never got around to doing this before, but it's still on my to-do list. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References