Talk:Misophonia

Some research has been done now

The article states "As of 2014 there was no evidence-based research available on misophonia."

I've found this paper reporting on some research. It's not extensive and it's not a review article, but it's something. I wanted to note this, and i'll add it if i can get to it, if nobody adds it first. SageRad (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And, a good recent source here that could be integrated into the article. SageRad (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

that statement is sourced to the Duddy 2014 review. If you read that review, it cites the paper you link there. A case report with 11 people is not evidence-based research. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Cavanna & Seri (2015) review as follows:

The pathophysiology of the anomalous physiological/autonomic effects in the context of misophonia has recently been investigated: a study by Edelstein et al showed increased autonomic responses to auditory (but not visual) stimuli in six subjects with misophonia, compared to typically developed controls.7 Albeit in a small cohort, findings from this study using skin conductance responses provided an objective corroboration to subjective reports that specific sounds evoke intense emotional and physical reactions.

I think that shows that it's evidence-based research taken seriously by reviewers in a secondary source. We do not make the determination. Experts in secondary sources are qualified to do that. SageRad (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

look at all the things that cavanna says about "evidence". Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you hinting at? Please be more specific. What sort of changes to content do you advocate? SageRad (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not advocating any changes - you apparently are. I am unwatching this article. Good luck with it. I hope you stick around as this article is beset by advocates. You can deal with them now. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this source is interesting. I'm going to look into it. AbsenceOfSound (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem Jytdog had here was that the source seems to be primary. However, Cavanna and Duddy are good resources, this particular report is a first hand account. Perhaps this is where the confusion was? Any thoughts? AbsenceOfSound (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about Over-Reliance on A Source

Bruxner, G (2016), "'Mastication rage': a review of misophonia - an under-recognised symptom of psychiatric relevance?", Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin Of Royal Australian And New Zealand College Of Psychiatrists, 24 (2): 195–197, I understand that there are few sources, and even fewer secondary sources on the disorder, however... this citation has been used quite a few times throughout the article. Currently there are 10 citations attributed to this one source. I am wondering if any one has any thoughts on this. What are the general rules for project medicine and using sources all over an article? AbsenceOfSound (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

By default, I do not care about the sources. If the facts are uncontroversial and correct, there is no use reading the guidelines to the smallest letter, as that may lead us to remove valid information. If there is any particular point, where you think that source gives questionable information, that would be a different matter. Mlewan (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Sounds good. I'll look over the sources to make sure. As for now, I think it's ok. Particularly difficult for a disorder with little sources. Thanks again! AbsenceOfSound (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about "External Links"

I am wondering if the "External Links" should include a link that has been sourced and listed in the text. Is this redundant? Quiet Please has been mentioned heavily, and has been sourced several times. What are the usual policies for external links? Are they usually listed as other sources as well? In particular, I'm asking you, @SageRad after reviewing the Recent Edits. Samara-x (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know. I noticed after my edit that it was mentioned in the text. I wouldn't mind if it were removed from External links section. I also don't know about the categories. I simply wanted to have discussion on those separately if someone wants to remove them for some reason, instead of an IP user making a removal with an inscrutable edit summary. SageRad (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. However, I think it would be reasonable to remove the link now that it's been discussed. I think it has ample mention. Samara-x (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the content about the movie. That was 100% sourced to WP:SPS (the website for the movie, indiegogo, and IMDB) and that is not how we do things in Wikipedia. Please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's extremely useful for readers to see that there is a film about this condition. I think that's a useful external link. I would support adding the external link if it is not mentioned in the article itself. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, it should be an external link. Simply removing it is careless. Samara-x (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about placement of statement

This statement, "It may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders" currently appears under the "Classification" heading. Since it is speculation I am wondering if it would be better off reworded and added to "Research Directions"? Perhaps something like this:

It has been suggested that the disorder----"may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders"

Any thoughts? @Ozzie10aaaa @SageRad Samara-x (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is about classifying it. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you are fine with speculation if it fits YOUR idea of an article, and yet you remove several academic sources by well-respected researchers. I am not talking about the "Misophonia" world, or "research" teams. Samara-x (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

pretty everything about this is speculative as it is not well researched; am following MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional/advocacy editing

I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in. I cleaned it up and am watching this again. Content about the putative condition must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Research should be sourced to secondary sources per WP:MEDRS[, WP:SCIRS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We need to be very careful to source non-biomedical information to high quality reliable sources. If content is sourced only to primary sources, blogs and editorials that is a sign that things have gone off the rails.

As is evident to any independent editor who reviews this Talk page and its archives as well as the article's history, from time to time this article has been skewed by advocacy editing favoring one or more "teams" involved in misophonia treatment and research and criticizing other teams.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a vehicle for advocacy for the condition nor for any teams working on it, per the policy, WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is an actual condition. The article should be useful to readers above all. I would also caution you to be very careful about accusing other people of promotional or advocacy editing, when people may actually be simply trying to improve the content of Wikipedia in a very honest and good faith way. When you say that somebody has a motive that is impure or somehow unwanted on Wikipedia that is quite an accusation. I also would like to say that I find some of your recent edits to be unhelpful to the article and to be decimating the article without just cause. Perhaps you are fighting a demon that is not there. Perhaps you're tilting at windmills that don't need to be knocked down. Perhaps others are trying to improve Wikipedia by adding useful content. Guidelines and policy must be followed but I'd like to see a cooperative process here and you have entered the article brandishing accusations that others are editing for the wrong reasons here. That really doesn't seem to be assuming good faith to me. SageRad (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What "teams" have been advocated? All sources were academic and followed a trail that had been cited between each other. Research Directions are an imperative knowledge for a disorder yet to be classified. It seems you, @jytdog have already made up your opinions based on past experiences. This is NOT neutral. Aside from that, the sections you removed much from ie society and culture had been discussed between other editors, and you decided to remove it without discussion. While you dislike the sources used in society/culture, they were not "scholarly" but this is not what that section is for - it is to teach persons about the culture of the disorder, something that may be useful to those struggling with a disorder they know little about. Please examine source by source, and not your mere "opinion" of the sources. I have spent hours reading each article, and incorporating them. Samara-x (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, instead of any discussion you have stripped the article back to bare bones. I am wondering, what is YOUR aim here? You have accused me of having a motive when clearly you have an idea of just how this page should look. The articles cited are OK but there are several research articles that have amassed on Auditory over responsivity in the past 20 years. This was listed as possible research directions and NOT as main content - which is even stranger that you have removed it without discussion, especially since work on the amygdala has been prominent in science. What do you hope to achieve by keeping the page a bare shell? Instead, shouldn't you allow persons reading the article to draw their own conclusions - especially in regard to academic sources? Samara-x (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Would be fine with "research directions" sourced to a review; it is not OK to build a survey from primary sources. For the society and culture section please do read RS; high quality sources are preferred. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple review articles that survey the literature and describe research directions.
What particular sources did you find to be troubling in terms of quality? SageRad (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of edits from [1] to [2] in 51 minutes: 27. All of them with a similar sort of goal of removing material or making it seem that misphonia is not an actual thing. Edits like this one with edit summary :remove statement that "misophonia is X". not clear that this exists and we cannot treat it as though it does, at this time" seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to reliable sources and is not neutral in point of view. We have a fundamental conflict of perspectives and goals here. I think this version from before the rapid editing by Jytdog is a better than the current version, more useful for a reader, and more neutral. I think the article has suffered a sterilization.
I think we need a good, solid meta-discussion with all cards on the table. Jytdog, what is your goal for the article? How do you want to see the topic treated? Who are you accusing of "advocacy editing" or any other improper motives? Please be specific and do not put out general accusations without objects to be hanging in the air over this discussion. What problems do you see? Do you think there are people with an improper agenda trying to make it "seem" like misophonia is a real condition and can be written about in Wikivoice as such, using reliable sources? If so then state that outright. No more innuendo please. SageRad (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content Sage, please, not on contributors. Your attack on JD above is not the right way to do things here. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What's my "attack" on Jytdog here? SageRad (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Second question: if you think my comment on his recent editing is an "attack" then what is his coment on editing of this article that he calls promotional and advocacy editing and how is that different? I want to understand what's being called an "attack" here. SageRad (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, I described what's been done recently and asked some questions about goals for this article to encourage a high level dialog to guide us forward in cooperation toward a good article. SageRad (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

am happy to discuss specific edits. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then. There's an open question above where i asked what specific sources did you think are unsuitable to use?

Here's another question. With this edit your edit summary seems to say that you oppose saying "Misophonia is..." because it implies that misophonia exists. Is this correct? Do you think the whole article ought to be written as if misophonia is perhaps not a thing that exists? If so, how does this stand up to a number of reliable sources that speak of it as a thing that exists? SageRad (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Per every review cited, it is not a well defined condition. This is not like triple negative breast cancer or even like Bipolar Type II; it is not even classified. It is a proposed condition. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC) (wrong direction Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC))

The review articles that i have read seem to say that it is fairly well defined, and certainly that it exists. It doesn't seem to be "putative" and it is spoken of as existing in this review article for instance. "Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders." for instance. Can we agree that the article could say "misophonia is..." and state something stated in a review article? That seems pretty basic WP:V to me, supported by the first sentence of an abstract of a review article cited in the article itself. SageRad (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any specific content changes to the article to propose? Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you not going to answer any question i've asked? Obviously my recommendation would be to revert the edit you made with that reason. Would you please agree to the reversion of that edit, or else speak to what i've said to clarify your case? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We should deconstruct what you mean by "proposed condition" -- misophonia is not in the DSM yet but it is written about in several peer-reviewed review-level articles in the relevant field. What makes it "proposed"? Proposed into what canon? What makes something "real", Jytdog? What's your criteria? Are you going to oppose this article speaking of misophonia as "a condition"? SageRad (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

whoops, missed it. so you want to see this reverted, and restore "Misophonia is an unpleasant reaction to a small number of specific sounds." which was cited to ISBN 978-0-12-372519-6... Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So Muller is 10 years old. Bruxler handles this in an interesting way. He says "Misophonia is a symptom associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders and may be a syndrome in itself associated with significant distress and avoidance." Cavanna 2015 is even more careful. "Jastreboff et al first reported original clinical observations of subjects complaining of decreased sound tolerance with or without tinnitus. Interestingly, classic descriptions of hyperacusis (as characterized in patients who respond consistently to sounds above a certain intensity and whose reactions can be correlated with the physical parameters of the sound) did not fit majority of the reported cases. The authors therefore proposed misophonia as a new medical entity and defined misophonia as present when an abnormally strong reaction occurs to a sound with a specific pattern and/or meaning to an individual, with the context in which sound is presented frequently playing a role as well." Duddy 2014 goes though a whole song and dance and then writes "The definition of misophonia for purposes of this article is an abnormally strong reaction to certain sounds" The entirety of what Moller has to say is "Misophonia is a dislike of specific sounds. Unlike hyperacusis, misophonia is specific for certain sounds. Little is known about the anatomical location of the physiological abnormality that causes such symptoms but it is most likely high central nervous system structures." That is it, in a 300 page textbook.

None of our three most recent MEDRS sources handle this as simply as the reverted text. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Misophonia is a condition

I made a couple of edits which were promptly reverted here.

I invite all editors to discuss the topic of this article and how it should be represented in Wikipedia.

Looks like we'll have to edit the article body to correct the error that have accumulated, before editing the lead to be more accurate.

Recent review articles that fully with with WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements for biomedical claims state that misophonia is a condition. Therefore, the opening sentence should be a simple definition of what the thing is.

The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief. The article should follow the available reliable sources.

We must also distinguish between biomedical claims (about the existence of misophonia as a condition, symptomology, etiology, and effectiveness of treatments) versus claims that are not biomedical in nature (such as it not being included yet in the DSM, and proposed treatments or strategies of coping -- as long as it is not claiming effectiveness about those treatments -- and coping strategies reported by people in popular press articles). The fact that WP:MEDRS is required for biomedical claims does not mean that WP:MEDRS is a requirement for every single source in an article that also contains biomedical claims.

So, let us discuss and move forward. Let us be open and honest and generous in how we speak with one another, and not tendentious or stubborn. Let us be honest with the goal of writing a good article that follows reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Final sentence of the Cavanna & Seri article:

It is hoped that by combining qualitative and quantitative data from large populations, it will become possible to fully elucidate the hidden nature of this intrusive condition and alleviate the distress that it can cause.

I believe this is sufficient sourcing to speak of misophonia as a condition. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:BEGIN, the best way to start an article is with a concise definition of the topic. A simple "X is..." statement is best if a concise definition can be given. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted by CFCF. I invite you to talk here on the talk page. Obviously there is disagreement about content, and the right way to handle this is to discuss it here, in good faith, with a generous spirit, with the goal of making a good article by consensus if possible. Please discuss. Simply reverting is not good practice. Thanks in advance. SageRad (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As per good practice described by Template:POV, i added a tag to indicate that NPOV of this article is disputed, as it is under discussion here actively and there seems to be editing without due discussion occurring. As per Template:POV, do not remove this until there is consensus that the article is in a good NPOV state. The issue as i see it is that the article should simply define misophonia in the first sentence as a condition as described by recent WP:MEDRS sources. Not doing so strikes me as not being neutral point of view in light of the sources on the subject. SageRad (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Another element of the NPOV issue is that the lede says "Proponents suggest..." followed by a statement that is stated in reliable sources without such attribution, and therefore the "Proponents suggest..." part of that sentence evokes a POV of disbelief / distancing / discrediting through unnecessary attribution. SageRad (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That is really cherry picking, SageRad. Per NPOV we really engage with the sources, and i laid out how our three most recent MEDRS sources enter the subject. Would you please deal with that? Thanks. Saying "it is a condition proposed in 2000" honors all the sources. btw, this is not saying that people don't experience the symptoms. Sure they do. The question is what they call a nosological one - is "misophonia" a thing or is it part of something else. We don't know at this point. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have very seriously engaged with the sources. The recent review articles speak of misophonia as a condition. That is the noun that describes it according to sources. A first sentence defining misophonia accurately would say "Misophonia is a condition which..." You are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN here, drawing your own conclusions from multiple sources and describing the subject as you see it from your own synthesis and processing of the clues in the review articles. That is not our place as editors. The review articles draw the conclusions for us. We report what they say. We favor the best sources and more recent ones. I want the article to do that. Cavanna & Seri 2015 review article is available here. In the above quote, i drew from the conclusion of the paper. Here i quote from the abstract to give another report from the same paper to avoid your accusation of cherry-picking (and don't cite WP:NOABSTRACT to me because that says don't use the abstract only -- abstracts may be used):

Misophonia is characterized by a negative reaction to a sound with a specific pattern and meaning to a given individual. In this paper, we review the clinical features of this relatively common yet underinvestigated condition, with focus on co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders.

Whether misophonia is a standalone condition or a part of another thing or things is beside the point here, as reliable sources call it a condition. Logically, it's also not relevant because it may be a condition even if it's part of another thing or things. So either way... i think we must call it a "condition". SageRad (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please don't revert away the POV tag again as you did here until the conditions in the Template:POV guideline are met. The point of that tag is to flag that there is ongoing discussion about the dispute of NPOV status of the article, so it ought to remain until there is consensus as best we can attain it. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore your citing of the abstract. You have to deal with what the source actually says.

And yes it is clear you are not dealing with what all the MEDRS sources say, but rather just the one you have. That is why I took time out of my day to provide you the quotes. Which you completely ignored. and instead you are talking generally about "nouns" and whatever. Again, all three of the MEDRS sources enter carefully and none of them say it is a defined condition. I will not respond again until you engage the relevant parts of the MEDRS sources. And please deal with what the article actually says now - "Misophonia is a condition proposed in 2000 in which...." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your choice to not respond, but that doesn't mean the dialog is over or incorrect here. By the way, the word we're speaking of is "condition" -- not "defined condition" so that's a straw man of a weasel kind. And the Cavanna and Seri source is one of the three review article in question and i've shown that at least twice it calls misophonia a "condition" and therefore your statement "all three of the MEDRS sources enter carefully and none of them say it is a defined condition" is demonstrably wrong beyond a doubt (unless you insist on the phrase "defined condition" which was not the original question and in that case you're shifting a goalpost). SageRad (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. what the article says now is:

Misophonia, literally "hatred of sound," was proposed in 2000 as a disorder in which negative emotions, thoughts, and physical reactions are triggered by specific sounds.

This is not what you said it says (speaking of the lede) and is not "Misophonia is a condition in which..." SageRad (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the POV tag for the second time by another editor is inappropriate. That editor has been pinged and has failed to discuss yet. SageRad (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• SageRad. Please listen. This is an issue of nosology. Please read that. Then with that in mind, please read all three MEDRS sources (I gave you the key parts of all three above) and how they handle the issue of whether the condition (not the symptoms - no one is denying that people experience these things) - exists. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading the article on nosology, I find you to be incorrect even in the OR/SYN, as that article makes it clear that a condition can still be a condition even if it's currently idiopathic and defined by a collection of symptoms. Therfore in either way of looking at it, whether by OR/SYN which is not correct in Wikipedia, or by following sources, which is correct, it seems clear to me that the condition is a condition and that's the way to describe it. SageRad (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

here is what the three MEDRS sources say, again: Bruxler handles this in an interesting way. He says "Misophonia is a symptom associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders and may be a syndrome in itself associated with significant distress and avoidance." Cavanna 2015 is even more careful. "Jastreboff et al first reported original clinical observations of subjects complaining of decreased sound tolerance with or without tinnitus. Interestingly, classic descriptions of hyperacusis (as characterized in patients who respond consistently to sounds above a certain intensity and whose reactions can be correlated with the physical parameters of the sound) did not fit majority of the reported cases. The authors therefore proposed misophonia as a new medical entity and defined misophonia as present when an abnormally strong reaction occurs to a sound with a specific pattern and/or meaning to an individual, with the context in which sound is presented frequently playing a role as well." Duddy 2014 goes though a whole song and dance and then writes "The definition of misophonia for purposes of this article is an abnormally strong reaction to certain sounds" Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)