Measuring Latent Inhibition?

Post Reply New Topic

both those sites are commercial. the first study from emory doesn't carry much weight because so few people were studied. the second study is chinese. chinese medical research is not thought to be as reliable as that done in the US. i"d give more weight to stuff on sites ending in .org, .edu, and .gov. the info is interesting as a topic for more research. i wouldn't call it gospel quite yet. i'd like to believe it, as it supports my contention, but just can't quite.

talk to you when you're done with homework, work, and sleep.

Low-latent inhibition.

Trying to read it up, this is what I know now:

Latent inhibition is a term that describes that the ability to learn/memorise a reaction to stimuli that are found to be familiar and of little importance is harder and the process of learning is slower compared to the ability to learn/memorise a reaction to new stimuli is easier and faster.

It says that focussing and learning on something that one thinks is boring and "not new" takes a lot effort to stay focussed and interested.

So yeah... I think that's common knowledge. If you absolutely dread something you never wanted to spend time on during the past days/weeks/years, you'll likely have some difficulties focussing on it now that you absolutely have to spend time on it.

Medication can effect/change latent inhibition which points to that neurotransmitters are closely connected to the concept of latent inhibition.


Low latent-inhibition describes that this "delay" in the ability to learn/memorise a reaction to stimuli that should be as familiar and of as little importance as they're to others is not as slow and not as difficult as for those others. That enables a person to learn more independently from their opinions on what they learn/the content and more independently from their previous personal experiences. (That sounds just like creativity and very high associative abilities but I can see this being an impairment too.)


Another thing:

Low-latent inhibition supposedly does not relate to/doesn't make any statements of the overall ability to learn and it does not explain how many stimuli someone is able to take in. (Huh?)

Because in order to figure out if there is a connection between these, it says there first would have to be a way of testing these.

Come to think of it... if you're taking such a test on one day but coincidentally, that happens to be your bad day, is one of your best days or the environment you're tested in makes it easy for you to focus and you're able to function much better than usually, then your results would be fairly meaningless.

Uh, no. It only states in the criteria for schizophrenia that if you have a history of a pervasive developmental disorder (such as Asperger's syndrome), then you need to either have prominent delusions or prominent hallucinations for at least a month. Basically, if you have a history of Asperger's and don't have delusions or hallucinations, then you can't get diagnosed with schizophrenia just based on disorganized speech, catatonia, negative symptoms, etc. You would need to experience actual psychosis.

Isnt that a triple negative?

"Low levels of latent inhibition".

Someone has 'inhibitions' ( that is- they are inhibited in some way).

But their inhibitions are 'latent' - so they are inhibited in their inhibitions.

But on top of that -you can have 'low levels' of inhibited inhibitions.

So -that would mean that you are "inhibited in being inhibited, in being inhibited"!

Sooo...if you're shy about being shy-then you're outgoing. But then if of you have low levels of shyness about being shy-then- you go back to being shy again.

Have I got it right?