Talk:Euphoria (emotion)

The mentioning of "God"

Links of GTFO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.37.85.219 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use, not abuse

not all substance use is abuse, some of the wording needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.97.180 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't

Shouldn't something about serotonin be mentioned in here? Dopamine plays a part, but serotonin is what will give you the euphoric, happy feeling (and is the main neurotransmitter that the mentioned "illegal" drugs help release).

Just a note to help the next person update the page, I would myself if I had the time!

this should be about the feeling of euphoria and the effects it has

Anonymous, 2008.10.16;

Serotonin should definitely be mentioned here, but not Dopamine. In short, Serotonin=Euphoria/Bliss, Dopamine=Pleasure/Relaxation. The main post-orgasmic agent is, in fact, Dopamine, not Serotonin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.37.85.219 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but colloquially nothing..

I feel that saying that technically euphoria is this but colloquially that is false crap dreamed up by some 13 year old wannabe linguist. Please either correct it or prove me wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.209.250 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affect vs. Effect

Changed "effect" to "affect," as affect is probably what the original writer was intending to say. However, if I am mistaken, then someone should change it. As I understand it, affect as a noun is a psychological term referring to how a person presents him- or herself. This should not be confused with affect as a verb, or effect as a noun. Rockymcrockerson (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual neutrality

"Euphoria has also been cited as a high connection with God."

I personally consider this sentence to be unclear. This sentence appears to be addressing a specific deity. Surely euphoria in a spiritual context can occur with any belief system?

"Prophets and those having seen visions and prophecies [...]"

This seems presumptuous to me. It assumes that things like "visions" and "prophecies" exist. Those individuals haven't conclusively "seen" anything - rather, they CLAIM to have seen visions and/or prophecies.

Does anyone else think this article could be cleaned up for neutrality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.236.158 (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made some quick edits to fix this. Roastporkbun (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]