Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 February 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 9

Neurotransmitters, part 3

Does prolactin counteract the effects of dopamine (either through suppressing its release, through blocking its signalling and/or through exerting an opposite effect on the brain)? Does it counteract the effects of oxytocin? 2601:646:8080:FC40:B8B0:B42B:BB0C:97BA (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oxytocin stimulates prolactin secretion, while prolactin, once a threshold is reached, stimulates dopamine release, which has an inhibitory effect on prolactin secretion (PMID 22129099, PMID 18477617).  --Lambiam 14:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And a related question: does prolactin then inhibit D4 receptors? (Yes, this has to do with my personal research about introversion -- I'm trying to see whether or not increased prolactin levels would be pleasurable for an introvert from the deep end of the scale!) Also, does prolactin either stimulate or inhibit oxytocin? 2601:646:8080:FC40:9D4E:C237:28BF:6A78 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Autism vs. introversion

Two questions in one: (1) how can they tell for sure between autism and just an extreme case of introversion (given that 3 of the 4 diagnostic symptoms, of which only 2 are needed to diagnose autism -- in fact, all of them except stimming -- can also be associated with introversion)? And (2) how does autism specifically affect oxytocin signalling in the brain? 2601:646:8080:FC40:B8B0:B42B:BB0C:97BA (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As to (2), here is a review article, "Oxytocin and Autism Spectrum Disorders", PMID 28766270. Several studies have reported a tendency of lower oxytocin levels in children on the autism spectrum, but the causal connection is not clear. In summary, autism is not well understood, and more research is needed.  --Lambiam 14:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why the two should be confused at all, they're very different. Being an introvert is something they would diagnose for? Do they diagnose being an extrovert as well? What is the opposite of autism if they think that way? NadVolum (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you not think a psychiatrist would never mistake an extreme case of introversion (a normal condition) for autism and misdiagnose someone when in fact the person doesn't actually have anything to be diagnosed with??? After all, as I pointed out, 3 out of the 4 diagnostic symptoms for autism can also be observed in introverts -- and now that I think of it, even stimming might not always be a reliable symptom of autism, in some cases (although uncommonly) what is thought of as "stimming" might actually be just a reflexive pain response (because, in introverts, over-stimulation -- such as being at a big loud party -- can in some cases cause physical pain, such as a headache!) Not to mention that there's also the possibility of malicious diagnosis (although that's probably another topic for another time)! 2601:646:8080:FC40:8443:5BCE:DED0:5463 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that autism is an all-or-nothing condition; but Biology is complicated and messy.

It's often thought (rightly or wrongly) that everyone is on a "spectrum", with most (the "neurotypical") at various low values on it and some at higher values which correlate with greater interactional (with the material world and/or other people) difficulties.

If this is so, inevitably the threshold value for "having autism" (or whatever) will in part be a matter of subjective judgement that may vary between medical practioners, and will evolve as medical science advances. Moreover, some people (including myself) may consistently exhibit some cognition and behaviour which, if more pronounced, would qualify as autism. Lastly, I doubt that anyone scores exactly the same "spectral value" all the time. 90.199.107.217 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, and that brings us back to the same question: where exactly is the line between just strongly pronounced introversion on one hand and high-functioning autism on the other? 2601:646:8080:FC40:99FE:A33D:618C:8AB5 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

As indicated, there isn't a line - see idiot savant. Reticence is not an indicator of anything - for example, an individual may not speak for weeks on end (apart from things like asking for a newspaper in a shop) but may be active on social media. 2A00:23D0:EF3:2001:F9CC:1EC8:88FD:4354 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The big difference is that with autism people tend to lack understanding of other people's feelings and have to follow rules to get on with them, whereas introverts have no special problem that way but feel general socializing is a drag. If 'strongly pronounced introversion' is leading to real problems for a person it would practically always be because of some other problem that has developed from it like being very anxious in social circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, but there's still room for ambiguity: suppose a hypothetical scenario with a person who's not only on the deep end of the scale in terms of introversion, but also has a high score for assertiveness (unlikely because introversion tends to correlate with low assertiveness, but still possible) and low scores for cooperation and sympathy -- might a person with that combination of personality traits not be misdiagnosed with autism without actually having it? Or is this combination of personality traits in itself diagnostic of autism? 2601:646:8080:FC40:A0EA:E55B:2645:FEAF (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of company heads are like that. They can cope with meetings fine because they're achieving something - and they'll push to get things done instead of just waffling. Getting people to work with you when you don't understand feelings is a lot more difficult though. And understanding peoples feelings doesn't necessarily mean having problems firing them if needed and that can be helped by not getting too friendly. NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Socialising is an integral part of our lives. While some of us have no issues around it, for many it can be daunting. Social anxiety can cause symptoms such as feeling sick, trembling, or even dizziness. It is estimated that 12 per cent of the general population is diagnosed with the disorder at some point in their lives. If you are struggling and not sure how to get help, my support pack Social Anxiety has lots of advice. - Deirdre, Sun on Sunday, 28 January 2024. [1]. 2A00:23D0:5D3:5601:71F9:9EF3:5186:F60D (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Planck's law 1901 article conundrum

In my personal popularization of Planck's 1901 paper on Planc's law, I have a sticking point. I am ok up to the equation (9):
(9)     ${\frac {1}{\vartheta }}={\frac {DS}{DU}}$
But between:
$S=k${$(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})log(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {U}{h\nu }}log{\frac {U}{h\nu }}$}
And
Substitution in (9) gives:
${\frac {1}{\vartheta }}={\frac {k}{h\nu }}log(1+{\frac {h\nu }{U}})$
Between these 2 equation I don't find?
(After to the end it is ok)
I arrive to this point:
$S=klog(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})+{\frac {kU}{h\nu }}log(1+{\frac {h\nu }{U}})$
Apparently, that suppose:
$S-klog(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})={\frac {U}{\vartheta }}$
But I'm stuck there and it is not clearer in Planck's following manuscripts.
Any idea ?
Malypaet (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you've made a math error in there somewhere. Taking the derivative of S with respect to U gives:

${\frac {1}{\vartheta }}=k[{\frac {1}{h\nu }}ln(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {1}{h\nu }}ln({\frac {U}{h\nu }})]$

Which only takes a little poking with log identities to yield the desired result. PianoDan (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

An error, sure.

But how do you go from Planck:

$S=k${$(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})$$log(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {U}{h\nu }}log{\frac {U}{h\nu }}$}

to your formula "taking the derivative of S with respect to U"?

${\frac {1}{\vartheta }}=k[$${\frac {1}{h\nu }}$$ln(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {1}{h\nu }}ln({\frac {U}{h\nu }})]$

You cannot simply replace $S$ with ${\frac {U}{\vartheta }}$ to get your result, isn't it?
Malypaet (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I've asked before: Do you know what the derivative of a function is and how to compute it? --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I only ask to relearn, Planck integrates where pianodan takes the derivative? Malypaet (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Planck isn't integrating here either. PianoDan (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

${\frac {1}{\vartheta }}={\frac {{\text{d}}S}{{\text{d}}U}}$

$~~~~={\frac {\text{d}}{{\text{d}}U}}~k\!\left((1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})\log(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {U}{h\nu }}\log {\frac {U}{h\nu }}\right)$

$~~~~=~...$

 --Lambiam 14:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

$=k[(0+{\frac {1}{h\nu }})log(1+{\frac {U}{h\nu }})-{\frac {1}{h\nu }}log({\frac {U}{h\nu }})]$

$=\cdots$

Many thanks Lambiam, that’s all I was missing.
Now with Planck's 1901 paper, for me everything is clear from start to finish and in detail.

I will be able to simplify it and make it more realistic, without resonators.

(°—′)
Malypaet (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)