User talk:Looie496

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for giving ratings for the article on William McDougall. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Input on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page

Hi Looie, Could I get your input on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page. There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I'm also asking Tesseract2 for some input. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine

The talk page of Caffeine has a lot of people posting anecdotes about supposed sedative or relaxant effects of caffeine, particularly in people with ADHD. I couldn't find any solid studies to support this claim on Google Scholar, but it can't be a coincidence. I really want to get to the bottom of this mystery so I can include something about it in the article. I have a few working theories; it's a known fact that Adderal and Ritalin are stimulants (nearly chemically identical to crystal meth) that are used to treat ADHD by means of increasing concentration. It could be that after the caffeine wears off they are left with a brain that is much more sensitive to adenosine, which would certainly make a hyperactive kid sleepier. Maybe children metabolize and get rid of caffeine faster, while at the same time adapting to it by creating new adenosine receptors faster? Caffeine definitely enables me to concentrate on my homework better, but I have a hard time seeing how this could be confused with sleepiness. I will continue searching. What are your thoughts on this?

--SuperEditor (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems plausible, but I don't know any literature relating to this either -- and of course without literature it's impossible to put anything in the article. Caffeine clearly has a very different pharmacological action from the psychostimulants that are commonly used in ADHD. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ADHD meds are reuptake inhibitors of dopamine and norepinephrine. Maybe there's actually something adenosine-related going on in the brains of kids with ADHD already that causes them to react differently to caffeine. It should be noted that sleeplessness is not a primary symptom of ADHD.

--SuperEditor (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hey, do a Google Scholar search for "adenosine adhd" and "adenosine adhd sleep". I think I've got it. A widely accepted theory of the nature of ADHD is that sufferers exist in a perpetual state of abnormally low arousal, so they are driven to seek intellectual and emotional stimuli more strongly than people without the disorder. Adenosine is know to suppress arousal, so when adenosine is inhibited by caffeine, a subject's arousal levels return to normal and they are less driven to seek stimuli from the surrounding environment.

http://The_ADHD_and_Sleep_Conundrum__A_Review.11.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981738

http://journals.lww.com/behaviouralpharm/Abstract/2009/03000/Adenosine_receptor_antagonists_improve_short_term.2.aspx

and others.

--SuperEditor (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity

Hey there, thanks for your comments on neuroplasticity. Over time hopefully some of the pop science stuff can be addressed (not eliminated without comment, because it is a central feature of a lot of the pop science views on neuroscience.) I'd also like to see better use of sources and references to multiple studies.

I'm also not sure how strong the statement is that non-neuroplasticity was the main consensus view throughout the 20th century. I'm no science historian, but this does imply that the large number of papers touching neuroplasticity made no impact. Perhaps that's exactly what happened?

I'm vitally interested in these topics, in practical applications of the empirical evidence as well as doing what I can to contribute here. Drop me a line sometime in email, I'm easy to find.

Dan Shearer (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "monster" article about ULAS J1120+0641

What an interesting object -- I wanted to create an article about it today but I saw you beat me to it! This is exactly the kind of interesting science that makes a great front-page feature at Did you know ...? so I would like to help get it expanded up to the right size and shape to be featured. Thanks for creating this and thanks also to the mysterious IP who added so much good techy information. Sharktopus ^talk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the topic is currently being considered at WP:ITN. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it gets ITN, I think it will be ineligible for DYK, sad to say. As a DYK enthusiast, I'm disappointed but wish you good luck with ITN. Sharktopus ^talk 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"William Satire" link

Thanks for posting the link to Hofstadter's satirical piece. I'd never seen that before, and am very glad to have read it now. LadyofShalott 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

okay.. i semi get it!

hi! I definately agree that the music that Scotty sings isn't all Christian although he is a Christian. Thank you so much =) Now I get it because I'm really new to this whole wikipedia thing :) So are you saying not to say that Scotty is a christian american singer... and just instead and american singer because then people will think that he only sings Christian songs? okay thanks! I'll do what u say! sorry cause I didn't really understand thats what it means when you say Christian american country singer. Thanks!