From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Word disorder removed as it is not one. Sifneos reference added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talkcontribs)

I don't know much about this topic, but maybe someone could put in an explanation as to how this differs from Asperger's and/or autism. Thanks.Amber388 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's and Alexithymia only exist because of Social Conditioning, its a mere useful realization in ourselfs to pretend we can incept other peoples perception to realize their "psychological disorders" e.g ,Alexithymia,Aspergers is a gift from the gods, not a disorder to prescribe some S.S.R.I. anti-depressant! In nature every pussle peace has its place and never does nature say one thing and wisdom another! You are all describing the same thing from different angles and psychology has its many uses differentiating different conditions, but they all share a common root... Isaac Newton was sed to have aspergers syndrome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The way Alexithymia has been described to me (I'm a SSU Graduate with a BA in psych) is that people with the condition aren't aware of their vareying emotions. They have difficulties "feeling" their emototions, or understanding their feelings. Unlike autism where they can't express or put into words what they are feeling, people with this disorder don't realize what they are feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I disagree. It is now recognised that there is overlap between alexithymia and autism spectrum disorders, as Fitzgerald & Bellgrove (2006) point out. Both populations have great difficulty understanding and expressing their emotions. Hill & Berthoz (2006) in response to Fitzgerald & Bellgrove (2006), stated "We agree with Fitzgerald & Bellgrove (2006) that here is some form of overlap between alexithymia and ASDs". In addition, Moriguchi et al. (2006) found impaired Theory of Mind skill in people with alexithymia, there is evidence for neuroanatomical evidence of a shred aetiology (see Fitzgerald & Bellgrove (2006) and Hill & Berthoz (2006) for further similarities). The branched description of the same condition appears to have occurred because some researchers looked at alexithymia from an interpersonal and emotional point of view, its due mother not hugging you enough etc. I have amended the page to reflect recent findings. Diamonddavej 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Diamonddave, Based on the available research, I agree with your response to Amber388. One point I wish to bring to your attention is the doubt now cast on the idea that alexithymic individuals have mind-blindness. A new fMRI study[1] largely debunks this proposition. Also, although it looks like CeilingCrash (self-proclaimed Aspie, see his entries below) may be trying to disprove the whole role of alexithymia in AS, he may nevertheless have a point that Aspies may not have lack-of-ToM. The fMRI study[2] throws the whole lack-of-ToM-in-alexithymia (and in AS) into serious doubt. The findings suggest that alexithymia may be more responsible for the AS-behaviour we have been calling mind-blindness. Just thought you might want to take a look over this study and see if the main article needs adjusting accordingly. PS. you've done a great job constructing the article so far. Soulgany101 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really only the social and emotional parts that overlap, which are the parts in the literal definition, not the psychiatric diagnosis. I think the primary difference between Aspergers and Alexthymia is in imagination. While Alexithymics have restricted imaginations and lack dreams autistic people tend to have extremely vivid and chaotic dreams, and imagine highly detailed inner fantasy worlds. I believe the overlap is where the myth that people with Aspergers lack imagination came from. Also, Autism requires some aspect of observed repetitive behavior or interests. 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue is controversial wrt Asperger's[edit]

It is now debated whether ToM applies to Asperger's (personally I would go so far to say it has fallen out of favor amidst researchers.) I'm adding WP:RS's to light up this emerging controversy CeilingCrash 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (added by ceilingcrash) It seems it would be best to remove mention of Asperger's altogether, and let the article focus on its topic : Alexithymia.CeilingCrash 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash, This page is not about ToM in AS. Its about alexithymia. Alex and ToM involve substantially different and somewhat independent neural networks. So firstly we must leave 'ToM in AS' out of the discussion (thats something to be debated on the AS pages). Secondly, does the research on alexithymia in ASD's specifically include Asperger's individuals? Yes it does. I've seen two studies now (one of which fMRI study I already gave you the URL for on the "AS and Interpersonal Relations page" discussion area) which included Asperger subjects in the research.
See this one, for example, which explores the relationships between ToM, alexithymia, empathy, brain mechanisms, and ASD's: In this study we read: "All participants in the ASD group had previously received a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s Syndrome from an independent clinician according to standard criteria (DSM-IV, APA 1994)" Soulgany101 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also very relevant to point out that alexithymia is found in co-morbidity with other disorders, and as ASD's have the highest prevalence (85%) of alexithymia of any disorder (that I am aware of) then it belongs in the entry as an example. Soulgany101 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Theory-of-Mind in Asperger Syndrome[edit]

CeilingCrash. Your recent entry definitely does not belong on a page about alexithymia. It belongs on pages about AS. So I deleted it.

Here's what you wrote: Other research reports just the contrary, that people with Asperger's do not lack 'Theory of Mind'- [your reference: "Theory of mind" in Asperger's syndrome, Bowler DM, J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;33(5):877-93. PMID-1378848] nor a tendency toward Alexithymia.

Whilst reference to ToM in AS does not belong here, if you do have a reference to there being "no tendency toward alexithymia [in AS]" then that is relevant. If you do have such information then please quote the source and phrasing here for us to look at. I did a brief search for the reference you gave above and found absolutely nothing (online) in it mentioning alexithymia. Also, the study was done in 1992 a full fifteen years ago, and well before the study by E. Hill, S. Berthoz, & U. Frith which found 85% of ASD's are alexithymic [[3]] and before the Geoffrey Bird (et al) 2006 study [4] Obviously any credible, up-to-date offering is of interest. Soulgany101 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Soulgany, I cannot follow your remarks.

To recap, a previous version of this article mentioned Asperger's and also that 85% of ASD's are alexithymic. I countered that the 85% figure has been refuted by other research and suggested the Alex. article simply focus on Alex and omit the murky connection to ASD and Asperger's. Somebody else did just that and I'm happy. CeilingCrash 04:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "POV" that the 85% figure has been "refuted" needs proof, CeilingCrash. Its that Simple. If you can't provide the proof then you are just offering a predictable POV. Its no use giving some fuzzy, unsupported study from 15 years ago as you have done above. That 1992 study does not even refer to the 85% figure, let alone "refute it". Modern (that is recent) fMRI studies need a bit more than CeilingCrash's POV, or some unverified comment from years ago to refute them. (Huh indeed ;-) Soulgany101 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Relational Section not good[edit]

Soulgany, you are pushing POV here to support your pet interest : Autism/Alex impacts couple relationships. The sources you provide for this section are poor, misinterpreted or both. Not every use of the Alex. Scale implies alexithymia, as the article titles indicate. I'll be back later with specifics; but material shd be added when it improves the article in and of itself. mCeilingCrash 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash. The sources are extremely good, and the studies are of extremely high quality and reliable. This is not POV, as citations are provided and checked for reliability. Also, each study cited is not joined with other studies in the same section to form OR. Each study reference stands on its own.
Also, the relational section you dislike doesn't even mention "autism" whatsoever. So you are imagining things that arent even mentioned. Soulgany101 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. Please do come back with specifics, and please back your claims this time. I look forward to discussing it Soulgany101 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind that, you can't keep posting links to your own blogs! C'mon, you know better than that! --Zeraeph 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph. Go ahead and delete the blogs if you wish. But stop deleting the other two outside links to the Alexithymia FAQ and Alexithymia Info. These last two are written by a Sam Brown who has a PHD in cognitive-neuroscience and who technically knows the subject of alexithymia. Please discriminate so that your deleting does not look like vandalism. Soulgany101 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show evidence that this guy has a relevant PHD? This link [5] at the bottom of the page (which seems to be on some kind of freeserver/subdomain) [6] worries me in terms of validity. Also, as they cross link each other, and are by the same person, there is no justification for posting both. Choose one and delete the other while we sort it out please. --Zeraeph 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To be exact- Sam Brown has a PhD in the philosophy of affective neuroscience. He has an MA in Philosophy and an MPhil in Cognitive Science from the University of Dundee. You can check these details with him by email, or you can contact the University of Dundee to confirm if you wish, and can publish his whole resume' next to the link. He also is a manager of the Alexithymia Chatsite under the username of "Hal".
The server Sam uses have corrupted one of his links, which now lead to a server default-page of unrelated links. This fault will be removed or corrected in time. Also, the links between the two pages (Info & FAQ) are not functioning and so both links are needed for access. These FAQ pages are widely recognized as the best overall online intro to alexithymia, and according to Sam have also been endorsed "by the professional body of alexithymia experts". As I say, get in touch either with him or the University of Dundee to confirm. Soulgany101 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Soulgany, no, the link was not corrupted, but was transcribed incorrectly by Zereaph.
I, too, have been tracking down all the credits for Sam Brown and note that he blogs on the specific subject of neuroscience. Kiwi 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the link is at the bottom of one of the pages and is totally correct, anyway, if he isn't formally published and peer reviewed and is just blogging he is not in accord with WP:EL and can go altogether. --Zeraeph 05:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. Please discuss properly here before removing links. The links were not blogs belonging to some blogger service. They are very high quality pages about alexithymia by a person with relevant qualifications. If you mean they were blogs in some technical sense then maybe all websites are blogs. But you have been made aware that the author is highly qualified, and you have been told where to check his qualifications if you have doubts.
Alternatively, if you persist, be there is absolutely nothing to stop me quoting all the relevant quotes from those FAQ and Info pages (which is most of it) and placing them here on the Wikipedia entry! Much of that material can be lifted and mentioned here with citations. I'll be happy to oblige. Soulgany101 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

EG. some material for consideration:


Dictionary definitions

A succinct and accurate definition can be found in the American Psychiatric Glossary. The entry was written by John C. Nemiah, one of the psychiatrists responsible for coining the term, who was acting as a consulting editor.

American Psychiatric Glossary, 7th edition, p.6.

Alexithymia A disturbance in affective and cognitive functioning that overlaps diagnostic entries but is common in psychosomatic disorders, addictive disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The chief manifestations are difficulty in describing or recognising one's own emotions, a limited fantasy life, and general constriction in the affective life.

J. C. Nemiah, R. J. Campbell (ed.), 1994.

A different entry appears in an earlier Psychiatric reference work, also edited by the psychoanalyst R. J. Campbell.

Psychiatric dictionary, 1989, p.28.

Alexithymia Difficulty in describing or recognizing one's emotions; suggested by P. Sifneos to describe those patients who define emotions only in terms of somatic sensations or of behavioral reactions rather than relating them to accompanying thoughts. "They … give the impression that they do not understand the meaning of the word 'feeling'." (Short-term Psychotherapy and Emotional Crisis, 1972). Their emotional functioning in general appears constricted and their phantasy life is limited and lackluster.

Some believe alexithymia reflects an absence of the ego functions that subserve affect and phantasy, but most writers explain it as due to primitive ego defenses that hide and distort the conscious experience of affect and phantasy.

R. J. Campbell, 1989.

By contrast, the following definition is written specifically with the neuropsychological audience in mind:

The Blackwell Dictionary of Neuropsychology, 1996.

alexithymia A disruption of both affective and cognitive processes, alexithymia is a collection of traits rather than a psychiatric syndrome. Alexithymics are incapable of expressing emotions in the sense that, while the emotion may be experienced, the emotion cannot be associated with a mental representation and so formally expressed. Alexithymia has classically been described in patients with psychosomatic disorders, but also in alcoholics, drug addicts, and patients with traumatic stress disorders.

Alexithymia has been reported in commisurotomy patients, and following right hemisphere stroke. These may be regarded as primary alexithymias, while secondary alexithymias may be associated more closely with psychogenic processes of denial and repression. It has also been suggested that alexithymia reflects a variation in cerebral organisation, and that this may be demonstrated by LEMs [Lateral Eye Movements]; others have proposed that alexithymia results from a functional disconnection between the cerebral hemispheres.

The Blackwell Dictionary of Neuropsychology, p.43-4.

The secondary alexithymia mentioned in the entry above corresponds to Sifneos's version of the primary/secondary distinction, referring to neurogenic/psychogenic causes respectively; it does not correspond to the original distinction introduced by Freyberger, between alexithymia as a persistent trait (primary) and alexithymia as a transient state of suppressed emotionality in reaction to immediate psychological trauma (secondary). Krystal represents both versions in the definition below.

Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts, 1990, p.11.

Alexithymia: A cognitive style and affective disturbance commonly found in patients suffering from psychosomatic, addictive, or post-traumatic conditions. The alexithymic state is characterized by poorly differentiated and poorly verbalized affects that do not serve the signal function adequately (do not communicate effectively). Psychosomatic patients, for instance, often ignore psychic and somatic danger signals, presenting a stoical appearance, sometimes with a stiff posture and wooden facies. Addictive patients particularly fear the somatic components of affects and try to block them, especially by chemical means. Post-traumatic patients are often unable to experience pleasure (a condition known as anhedonia).

Individuals suffering from alexithymia think in an operative way and may appear to be superadjusted to reality. In psychotherapy, however, a cognitive disturbance becomes apparent as the patients tends to recount trivial, chonologically ordered actions, reactions, and events of daily life with monotonous detail. In general, these individuals lack imagination, intuition, empathy, and drive-fulfillment fantasy, especially in relation to objects. Instead, they seem oriented toward things and even treat themselves as robots. These problems seriously limit their responsiveness to psychoanalytic psychotherapy; psychosomatic illness or substance abuse is frequently exacerbated should these individuals enter psychotherapy.

The term was introduced by Sifneos in 1967 and further clarified and elaborated by Nemiah and Sifneos in 1970. In the large body of literature that treats the concept, some authors attribute the manifestations to primary neuroanatomical deficits, while others point to various psychological problems, primary and secondary. McDougall and others see the phenomena from a psychoanalytic point of view as a group of developmental defenses closely allied with denial and splitting. A similar group of defenses, described in 1963 by Marty and his co-workers in France, was named la pensée opératoire.

Henry Krystal, 1990.

Online Definitions

The definitions to be found on internet dictionaries are admirably accurate, perhaps because they are simply trying to define the word without pushing a particular theory.

The Glossary

Alexithymia: A disruption in both affective and cognitive processes. It is not treated as a 'true' psychiatric syndrome but rather as a general charactersation of a number of traits which are often seen together in a variety of disorders including those with psychosomatic origins and some addictions and drug-dependency disorders. Typically the alexithymic person has relatively undifferentiated emotions and thinking tends to dwell excessively on the mundane.

Iverson Software Dictionary of Terms & Terminology of Psychology

Alexithymia - A disturbance in affective and cognitive function that overlaps diagnostic entities but is common is psychosomatic disorders, addictive disorders, and post traumatic stress disorder. The chief manifestations are difficulty in describing or recognizing one�s own emotions, a limited fantasy life, and general constriction in the affective life.

Concise Medical Dictionary

alexithymia n. a lack of psychological understanding of one's own emotions and moods. It is considered by some psychiatrists to be a way in which people develop psychosomatic symptoms.

Alexithymia is an inability to recognize, experience and describe feelings. Anhedonia is an inability to recognize, experience and describe pleasurable feelings. There may be degrees of both alexithymia and anhedonia.

Since the capacity to feel emotions is a critical component of empathy, alexithymia can result in a decline in the capacity for empathy. A number of conditions can cause alexithymia including autism, Asperger's Syndrome, development failures, PTSD and injuries from encephalopathies.

Sifneos (1972) coined the term alexithymia to designate a group of cognitive and affective characteristics typical of many patients with psychosomatic illnesses. It is thought to be a personality trait that is characterized by a decreased ability to communicate feelings, a decreased ability to identify feelings, a cognitive tendency toward detail and external operations or events, and a paucity of imaginative thought, dream recall, or fantasy (Taylor, 1994). __________________________________________________________________________________________________

What a gold-mine! Soulgany101 06:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the above has a single thing to do with the notability of the two links, to self published, not peer reviewed, sites, run by the same person that you keep posting. Will you please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote the personal websites of your aquaintances. --Zeraeph 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. Lets just correct your rather characteristic attempts at innuendos before I start editing. Firstly, I am not trying to "promote" any person or website. I'm merely trying to provide good information for Wikipedia readers, and the information on those sites is second to none. Secondly, I am not a personal acquaintance of Sam Brown. I have never met him, and have had only impersonal exchanges with him on a discussion forum. I have not exchanged even impersonally with him for a long time. Soulgany101 08:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:EL on what constitutes "good information". I think you will find that self published work without peeer review does not hack it, nor should it. But even if it DID, two links to the same person's websites is unacceptable and could be considered linkSPAM. --Zeraeph 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly one or two of the links are broken. So if you want to delete it on a technical point go ahead and do so. And thanks at least for discussing it (is good emotional ettiquette, even if you are right). Soulgany101 04:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


We cannot use the word 'comorbidity', as that applies to co-existing diseases or disorders. Alexithymia is neither. CeilingCrash 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted!! Of course we can't. --Zeraeph 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, its hardly an important point, as comorbidity can be applied to the co-presence of two "conditions", and alexithymia can be (and often is) described as a condition, although it is simultaneously a 'trait'. [1] In other words comorbidity need not apply to disorders only.
But I note that in line with your concern about this term, Greame Taylor (The world's leading authority on alexithymia) does not use the term comorbidity in his main book on alexithymia. So I've borrowed his phrase of 'Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness' from his book Disorders of Affect Regulation and used this as the subtitle in place of comorbidity. Soulgany101 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. As an afterthought I suppose dropping 'comorbidity' ensures that people don't get the wrong idea that alexithymia is an extra disorder being tacked onto Asperger's. Thats a valid concern. Soulgany101 08:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

State vs' trait[edit]

CeilingCrash, I removed the following, unsourced paragraph by you: "Alexithymia is not a fixed personality trait, it has been shown to be state-dependent. Objections to its validity have been raised, in particular that it has been applied to clinical populations without correcting for the prevalence of depression in those populations. One study reported that, once this correcting was made, individuals classified as alexithymic by the TOR-20 scale were actually more emotionally expressive than the control - precisely the reverse intended purpose of the test."

You have made several errors here. Firstly your comment is totally unsourced. Secondly it is completely incorrect to state that alexithymia is not a fixed personality trait, when in fact most studies find that it is. There are rarer studies which claim that alexithymia can be "state dependent" and that it disappears after the evoking stressful situation has changed... but if you want to refer to these studies you need to cite them accurately and provide references. Thirdly, there is no such thing as a "TOR-20", I assume you meant the TAS-20??

I have nothing against providing a mention of studies finding examples state-dependent alexithymia, but it is a huge error to offer your unverifiable POV that alexithymia doesn't constitute a fixed personality trait. Soulgany101 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as you know sources for the statement CC made, why didn't you just put the citations in instead of suppressing the paradigm presented altogether? That really IS conscious POV editing on your part, and not remotely acceptable. --Zeraeph 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know his sources at all. Soulgany101 11:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. Your (following) passage needs to be clarified, as it is too vague and generalized- "Alexithymia is not necessarily a fixed personality trait, in some studies it has been shown to be state-dependent. Objections to its validity have been raised, in particular that it has been applied to clinical populations without correcting for the prevalence of depression in those populations"
You need to make clear exactly who applied the alexithymia concept improperly, to which clinical population/s, and in which studies, specifically. Otherwise you make it sound like general practice that the alexithymia concept is always applied incorrectly. If you cannot be specific then the sentence does not belong, and I will remove it as misleading (incomplete).
I don't have to make ANYTHING clear, I just found one citation for cc's statement. You claim to know of others and yet deleted it rather than put them in. --Zeraeph 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It would also be more accurate to say that alexithymia is "not always" a fixed trait, instead of your present wording "not necessarily" which may also mislead readers into thinking that the "trait" idea may be in complete doub't. It isn't! The majority of studies confirm alexithymia as a stable trait. See Disorders of Affect Regulation for empirical proof. Soulgany101 11:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Not necessarily" is a better phrase, simpl because it could mean either way. "Not always" implies that it has been established beyond doubt that there are times when it is a fixed trait, and it has not.--Zeraeph 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've just read that article you cite, and can also see you are not quoting it faithfully. Where does it use the phrase "without correcting"?? Soulgany101 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't *quote* anything, I popped it in as a citation for the existing text, it doesn't need to be verbatum. In fact, too much verbatum is a BAD IDEA vis a vis copyright --Zeraeph 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might be a good idea to at least quote key terms. That was things won't stray too far off the research findings. Soulgany101 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. As I said, I have no problem with the mention of alexithymia as state dependent, in fact I welcome it. I just dont want to see the wording deliberately or accidentally inferring that it must forever be one or the other across the entire range of disorders. It can be either, potentially. When it comes to clinical studies, the trait finding definitely appears more frequently, but the state finding also crops up as a valid finding sometimes. On a tangential issue, I wouldn't be surprised if Berthoz, Hill, or Frith have ascertained whether alexithymia in AS is state or trait. Although one might assume that the alexithymia in AS is enduring, it would be good to see the findings. Soulgany101 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then, let's not state that "most studies" say one or the other, without actually finding 'em all and counting 'em...I was prepared to accept that "most studies" found it stable, until I did a REALLY NARROW search for a certain type "state dependent" and found SO MANY STUDIES. --Zeraeph 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) And what do all those "so many studies" say, Zeraeph?? Soulgany101 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. If you make out that there is an argument about state vs trait alexithymia, I will ask you to prove it, and if you can't I will delete it. Also, if you misquote studies as you did with the alexithymia-depression study, then I will correct or delete it. You wrote a sentence about an "objection" aired by the authors of that study, and when I read the study I saw nothing that strongly worded, and in fact the study was not concerned so much with whether or not other studies had screened for depression, but whether there had been adequate follow-up with the chosen patient group.
There is no real debate about whether alexithymia should be considered either a state or trait. Rather it depends on the individual and context. The experts are not arguing about this as much as you think. All that has to be said in a simple sentence is that there can be state or trait versions of alexithymia. simple. I could probably easily dig up references (which I have frequently come across) to the much more frequent finding of trait alexithymia, but at this stage I don't even consider it that important. There doesn't have to be a big conspiracy, nor a battle between state or trait, nor a battle between various researchers. Lets just keep it simple, clear, and referenced. Soulgany101 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop distorting things, CC wrote those things, you deleted them, while claiming you knew of references for them.[7] which was inexplicable behavior on your part, so I took 5 minutes to dig up a single reference to cover replacing half the statement.
HOWEVER, during those five minutes I found out that there MOST CERTAINLY IS a valid dabate (something I had never heard of until you wantonly deleted CC's text), and I am rather afraid that now I know that, I cannot, in all conscience, allow you to continue POV pushing to distort and suppress that in the article.
I sincerely wish that you would go away, have a little think quietly, and recognise that you might have a far better grasp of the world around you if you looked at it with a view to finding out what IS there rather than with a view to finding evidence to support your, often distorted, pre-formed ideas. As that is unlikely, I am hoping to get a couple of editors who are as impartial as fate, and VERY fond of verifiable facts, and NPOV, to keep an eye on your POV pushing antics that are a lot less subtle than you think they are. --Zeraeph 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. And just to show how ridiculously confusing this has become, I think i just unloaded POV I left in myself on the first try *chuckles* --Zeraeph 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. I'm not even slightly tempted into an argument with you. I think its better to get on with the editing. All I'll do is talk/correct/delete something if its wrong. Alternatively if you write something really representative and faithful to sources then you have my blessing. At this stage I think we just need a simple reference to the existence of state and trait alexithymia, and maybe a brief definition of what each is, rather than introducing some monumental debate about something which will just muddy the waters. I have very good sources for such a statement, and may draft it if nothing better comes along shortly. Soulgany101 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
How about something like this- There are two kids of alexithymia, 'primary alexithymia' which is an enduring psychological trait which does not alter over time, and 'secondary alexithymia' which is state dependent and disappears after the evoking stressful situation has changed. These two manifestations of alexithymia are otherwise called 'trait' or 'state' alexithymia. (PS these terms primary/secondary = trait/state are faithful renditions of how they are used by clinicians).
I don't know..... maybe we could work around that (which is a slightly paraphrased version of how it is written in Disorders of Affect Regulation p.37). Soulgany101 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice as a compromise, but hardly encyclopaedic! :o) ALL points of view must be represented, including the one you cite above, attributed to it's sources, not common belief (so *NOT* encyclopaedic *rolling eyes*) so I suggest you add it under the existing text, with attribution, and place all your quotes in paranthesis in future, as this is a courtesy to the source, in acknowledging that these are their words. --Zeraeph 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just one thing. Dont get offended but I think theres real problems with your reading of the depression-alexithymia study: "Objections have been raised to the methodology used, in particular that studies have been applied to clinical populations without correcting[attribution needed] for the prevalence of depression in those populations." Soulgany101 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
READ MY LIPS - that is NOT my reading, it is cc's, I don't know one way or the othjer, but I don't think it should be deleted until he has been asked for a citation on it. --Zeraeph 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the authors 1. "objected" and I also dont think the authors 2. talked about problems of other studies not "correcting for prevalence of depression". What the study did say was that other studies may not have, according to their knowledge, completed satisfactory follow-up studies with these depressed groups.Soulgany101 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
1. I don't think they "agreed" with it either, besides, that is just the most accessible citation I could find in a 5 minute search, cc may have more and may never even have SEEN the citation I found. 2. Nobody says it did, that part is still waiting for a citation from cc or deletion --Zeraeph 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find that depression is regularly screened for by clinicians studying alexithymia in certain groups. But they may not have (as this study hints) done adequate follow up studies. So I think your statement needs rewording to capture those issues. Soulgany101 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you need citations for those assertions as much as cc needs citations for his assertions--Zeraeph 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This really needs looking at. Also, I don't know if its right to say that other academics "differ" with Taylor and Bagby, but rather that they focus on the state issue. I don't think any of these academics are really "differing" or "disagreeing" on this point, and as far as I know all the academics accept that there is both state and trait. The language of "differ" sounds way too antagonistic and oppositional, and I really don't see that reflected in the literature. Soulgany101 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I VERY much doubt if you have a clue what goes on inside other people's heads at all, let alone academic you have never met, fact is, their findings DO *differ* not only from your own POV but also from the valid source you cite, so that, I am afraid, it must be CALLED "differing" in the name of simple accuracy. Though I agree, without citation "object" really Is a bit POV. (though nowehere near as POV as that which thou seekest to establish ;o) )--Zeraeph 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, if you read thier statement VERY carefully, you will see that they are not "differing". Soulgany101 16:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Apart from being wrong, you will get indigestion bolting your food like that --Zeraeph 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going out to lunch. Soulgany101 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence and gender needs to reflect varied findings[edit]

The 10% figure I previously suggested is from this study Linden W, Wen F, Paulhaus DL: Measuring alexithymia: reliability, validity, and prevalence, in Advances in Personality Assessment. Edited by Butcher J, Spielberger C. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994, pp 125-143 and is representative of the range at which alexithymia is found in the general population (I accidently put the wrong cite previously). But other studies have found:

Because previous studies have shown that the degree of alexithymia may be influenced by age, but not by sex (9)….... In previous prevalence studies in healthy controls, the rates of alexithymia were 8.3% (2 of 24 persons) (7), 4.7% (2 of 43) (8), and 8.9% (16 of 179) (11), respectively. Thus, previous studies have reported that the prevalence rate of alexithymia assessed by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale is less than 10% in healthy controls (7, 8, 11). In this study, the prevalence rate of alexithymia was approximately 7% (4 of 56).

This wide variance in findings for the general population probably needs reflecting in the article rather than choosing one finding alone. Soulgany101 01:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy sentence needs fixing or deletion[edit]

The dodgy sentence needs deleting: "Objections have been raised to the methodology used, in particular that studies have been applied to clinical populations without correcting for the prevalence of depression in those populations.[citation needed]"

  • 1. Who "objected"? (I doubt this word "objected" was ever used in any study!)
  • 2. Which "methodology" was objected to?
  • 3. The methodology was "used" where?
  • 4. The methodology was "used" by whom?
  • 5. Which "studies" have been "applied"?
  • 6. To which "clinical populations" were these mysterious "studies" applied "without correction"?

The inter-relationship between depression and alexithymia has been extensively studied by a huge number of different researchers, and these findings can be found on the www. and throughout the volume 'Disorders of Affect Regulation'. "Not all depressed patients are alexithymic" p.31 (studies cited) "[studies have shown] there is only a weak to moderate correlation" p.71 (studies cited) "factor analysis has provided evidence that alexithymia is a construct that is separate and distinct from the construct of depression" p.72 (sources cited). All these sources clearly show that "depression is not alexithymia" and there are a huge number of clinical studies which screen for depression and alexithymia in the same patient groups...... read the sources and lets get it right.

The ONLY thing I can see that is worth mentioning is that 'follow up' studies have not always been done thoroughly, or frequently. But even in this case there has been no "objection" to the lack of follow-ups, rather it is just casually mentioned that previous researchers "may" not have followed-up and that it is an issue for future researchers to keep in mind so that they can get a better idea of whether the alexithymia (in whatever patient group) is stable (trait) or transient (state). Soulgany101 01:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but give it time for a citation to come up. I also doubt if it is necessary to cite QUITE so much supporting evidence for a single sentence?--Zeraeph 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
True. I'm just trying to highlight the vagueness of it all. As long as someones onto it and that it isn't just going to sit there Soulgany101 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The {{vc}} template is for verifying the credibility of a source; I can't understand why you added five of them to a sentence without a source, particularly when the sentence is already tagged as uncited. This sentence doesn't trouble me at all; ascertainment bias in clinical samples is a common issue plaguing many studies, and I find little reason to doubt the veracity of this sentence. If you have info that contradicts it, you can add that, but I imagine the sentence is likely sourcable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia. Zeraeph did provide the supposed source for this ( [here]), which has since been retracted after I pointed out that the source had been completely mis-represented. Zeraeph then had no choice but to withdraw the faulty cite. I then deleted the sentence in question as sourceless, and Zeraeph wrote "not yet" without further explanation. So in short I used that tag asking for credibility of a source which had been suggested. But because the source was subsequently withdrawn I appreciate that I should have used the basic uncited tag. I do disagree with your assessment (you admit you know little about this subject) that this sentence is likely sourcable. It is not. I have read much on this subject and the literature makes clear (I have given examples a few paragraphs above) of why this is "likely" to be false. The accepted, published information contradicts this completely fabricated, and sourceless POV and for that reason I'm going to delete it very shortly. Soulgany101 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of that the sentence is so damned vague and nondescript with each of its supposed points that it is patently absurd. Depression and alexithymia simply do not overlap as constructs: they are independent [here] and therefore depression cannot be mistaken for alexithymia! Gee.... C'mon, you (Zeraeph) can do better than that, surely? Soulgany101 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia:

SandyGeorgia. Zeraeph did provide the supposed source [here] for that ridiculous POV sentence, which has since been retracted after I pointed out that the source had been completely mis-represented. Zeraeph had no choice but to withdraw the faulty cite. I then deleted the sentence in question as sourceless, and Zeraeph wrote "not yet" and reinstated it without further explanation. So in short I used that tag asking for credibility of a source which had been suggested. But because the source was subsequently withdrawn I appreciate that I should have used the basic uncited tag.
I do strongly disagree with your assessment (you admited you know little about this subject) that this sentence is likely sourcable. It is extremely doubtful, inm the face of contradicing evidence, that any source exists. I have read much on this subject and the literature makes clear (I have given reliable sources in the discussion area) of why this is "extremely likely" to be false. The accepted, published information contradicts this fabricated, so-far sourceless POV and for that reason I'm going to delete it very shortly. Soulgany101 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree with YOUR assertion that "Zeraeph did provide the supposed source [here] for that ridiculous POV sentence" because Zeraeph was only providing a source for the claim that Alexithymia is State dependent and put the source in a slightly misleading, place, but tidied it up within a couple of hours [8], as you well know. As a matter of fact User:CeilingCrash posted that statement, and he does not usually post such bald assertions in the main namespace, without having sources available.
I do not think you should be calling everything you do not agree with "ridiculous POV" either. Paticularly as you are, in all honesty, in a rather delicate position regarding WP:COI yourself.
Leave the statement for a while to see if CC (or even someone else) has a source, if not it SHOULD be deleted, but not without giving it a few days. You are making too big a deal of that particular source, particularly as I made it quite clear that I only spent 5 minutes digging up a source to stop you arbitrarily deleting all mention of Alexithymia as state-dependent [9]. --Zeraeph 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the source was PMID 11351111—a journal-published article (it would be easier to work on these article if ya'll would refer to PMID sources). What's wrong with that source and that statement? You can request a direct quote of that cited text from the source by using the {{citequote}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full text; it doesn't mention bias in clinical samples, but it does mention a correlation with depression. Perhaps the "offending" sentence can be reworded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeings there is little in that sentence which is faithful to the source I agree that not only a rewording, but a basically new wording be drafted representing details of that study. I really don't have any attachment to any particular aspect of alexithymia, and merely want to see a faithful rendition of any research facts. If the study finds that all alexithymics are from outa-space then I'm fine with it, no matter how implausible on the surface. PS. Pardon my frustration, this sentence has really bugged me, and so I do appreciate your friendly gesture of taking an independent look at it. Barnstars to you! Soulgany101 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. Thanks also for mentioning the {{citequote}} which could prove useful (I'm fairly new to all this).
Regarding depression and alexithymia, there are some correlations, but there is nothing significant enough in any study to warrant "construct overlap". I can provide the majority of recognized sources if anyone wants to write up a paragraph comparing the correlations. At best, it might serve to highlight the differences between depression and alexithymia. Over and out. Soulgany101 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


How to reference journal-published articles:

  1. Plug the exact article name into PubMed.
    If that fails, use the Limits drop down button to search on author name or journal
  2. If found on PubMed, the PMID number is at the bottom of the abstract, and can be linked directly on Wiki by typing PMID followed by the number. Example, PMID 11015624 The reference can then be written manually, followed by the PMID, or a cite journal template can be generated.
  3. A cite journal template can be generated automatically for any PMID number by plugging the PMID into diberri's tool, using the dropdown menu for PubMed ID.

If the article can't be located at PubMed, alternately Google Scholar can be searched. Some European articles don't have PMIDs, but do have DOI numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Surname Only Citations[edit]

SOMEBODY needs to read WP:CITE, except, I suspect, the editors who power that *be* work on the assumption that NOBODY needs this one spelling out. If I see ONE more "Smith and Jones, pp. 3,046, (July, 1066)" that does NOT specify the exact work, and ALL authors, I will tie the editor responsible down, and sing "The Best of Abba"...and I JUST BET SandyGeorgia will join in...ideally off-key...

I can't even fix them, because I honestly cannot work out WHICH "Taylor (1997)" (or whatever) we are actually talking about...--Zeraeph 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Until somebody has the courtesy to respond to this, I can only assume that a single surname, and a year, is enough to hold ANY statement? --Zeraeph 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph. You need to copy and past the exact reference/s you are having trouble with here. I may be able to help if you are specific, as I have loads of full references which (detail) can be added. Soulgany101 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are surely not so incapable that you cannot read the list of citations and see, for yourself, those that only refer to a surname, with no details of the publications? --Zeraeph 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If it matters that much, put the full, proper references in, if not, leave it out, your call, I am tired of all this silliness --Zeraeph 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph. Your obsessive blanking frenzy serves little purpose. Please simply note the difference between a completely unreferences statement, and a referenced one. If they are referenced, then leave it for someone to improve the data. If not reference, then please go ahead and delete if you wish. If you want to go on a blanking rage because I deleted one dodgy sentence, then I will simply follow you and restore anything referenced. Soulgany101 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL then WP:CITE. If you consider what you are saying to be worthwhile, please put in proper citations, otherwise, concede that it is worthless and should be deleted. --Zeraeph 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking frenzy[edit]

(please do not remove or vandalize this section heading. Make a new one below if you wish)

Zeraeph. The page has (fortunately) been blocked from further blanking frenzy. It would serve much better to take one paragraph at a time and discussing its merits here rather than deleting huge chunks of the article without genuine discussion and consensus. If citations and references are lacking a detail or two, then please discuss it and we can dig the added details up. If there is no reference/citation provided whatsoever (as with the contentious sentence you drafted without a citation) then I understand it should be considered as POV and deleted.Soulgany101 03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:CIVIL. I think you need to realise that the protocols apply to YOU, not just everyone else, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that your POV is properly cited, in a clear, understandable way, what prevents you from doing that? Because trust me, I am NOT going to do it FOR you. --Zeraeph 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything for anyone, Z. Just relax from you unwarrented blanking spree. It is rash, and you should make a PROPER effort to discuss issues here. I have pointed out about why I deleted one absolutely uncited POV sentence of yours,[Here] and even gave you a week to try and rescue it with a citation. There is no need to blank huge portions of the entire article as a payback. Soulgany101 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just fix your refs so they are clear and consistent, instead of demending that I (who has NO IDEA what goes on in your head) do so, if you respect them they should be worth that, if not, why use them?--Zeraeph 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. I thought I made it clear: "you don't have to do anything for anyone" EXCEPT please don't go on an unwarrented blanking frenzy. Why not gather the references you think are a problem and place them here so I and other editors can tinker with getting the detail perfect. Otherwise I'm not sure which references to look at. Soulgany101 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not just accord with WP:CITE and make you references clear and consistent...if you have any respect for them they should be worth that, if notr they are not worthy of inclusion. --Zeraeph 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Which references? SandyGeorgia fixed most of them. Soulgany101 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Try fixing the ones I was deleting, which you completely ignored all reference to, until I deleted them.--Zeraeph 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned your problem with referencing to SandyGeorgia who may take a look at this issue you raise in the days ahead. Sandy understands this better than I do, and I hazard a guess that she will agree that blanking lots of passages as you have done is not the way to go. Give her some time. I'm out of here, let the article become what it will. Soulgany101 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a 100% guarantee that she will agree that if you have any respect for your sources you should spend you time citing them clearly and consistenly rather than in trying to get others to do it for you. --Zeraeph 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph. I won't be putting in work to improve this entry further only to risk having you blank large portions out. i.e. I do not trust that you are able to restrain yourself. Soulgany101 05:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation method[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is the last good version before you all started edit warring. The citation method employed here is the preferred method for citing book sources on featured articles. Detail about the source is given in References, an abbreviated listing (author and date) is given in Notes for specifying page numbers. It is a common citation method, if not the most common for citing books on featured articles. It makes the text easier to edit, shortens the KB consumed by refs, makes it easier to see how much of the article is cited to book sources, and makes it easier to locate over-reliance on one source. I hope this helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As an example:

References contains:

  • ^ Taylor GJ & Taylor HS (1997). Alexithymia. In M. McCallum & W.E. Piper (Eds.) Psychological mindedness: A contemporary understanding. Munich: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Notes contains:

  • ^ a b Taylor (1997), pp. 28–31

Taylor (1997) is specified in References so all of that info doesn't have to be repeated for each page number citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is the referencing which Zeraeph was upset about (as far as I can guess). But your reason for using it is faultless. I have no problem with a reversion to the last good version you referenced above. That said, I dearly hope that someone has the wisdom to delete the one problematic unreferenced POV: "Objections have been raised to the methodology used, in particular that studies have been applied to clinical populations without correcting for the prevalence of depression in those populations."[dubious – discuss][citation needed] This is the heart of the war! If someone can see how damaging to the integrity of the subject, and how flimsily written and inapropriate it is, then God bless you. I will leave it intact if it means that threats to destroy the entire article are bypassed.
Thank you kindly, Sandy. I really am sticking out of this now. Soulgany101 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how one sentence discussing the all-too-common issue of ascertainment bias in clinical samples can destory the integrity of the article. But I'm done with this, too. I know nothing of alexithymia, and really have no interest in following contentious articles. I sorted out the references hoping that would help you all sort out your differences. That's the best I can offer. <unwatch> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ascertainment bias means this: "In scientific research, ascertainment bias occurs when false results are produced by non-random sampling and conclusions made about an entire group are based on a distorted or nontypical sample."
The problem with the bolded POV I've highlighted above is that there is simply no "sample" in the first place on which these "conclusions" are based! So Ascertainment bias is not relevant and it is clearly an unsourced POV. Soulgany101 07:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it might have helped if you had deigned to explain the particular citation method (which I have honestly never seen before) when I asked, good homouredly? [10]. Though I have to say I was completely bewildered by all the citations in the text that seemed to be to just a name and a date, which I noticed here [11]. As it is the article now uses two, or more, types of citation, which is not very tidy.
I do not think you should be arbitrarily removing anything that does not accord with your POV without waiting for citations, but this was a seperate issue. --Zeraeph 09:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Added back in mention of relationship between alexithymia and psychological mindedness. (and accidently wrote alexithymia and "emotional intelligence" in the changes line). I have nothing more to add at this stage. Soulgany101 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution[edit]

As part of the work on the Asperger syndrome article, I've now reviewed these sources and there is some text to substantiate the sentence in question, although it needs to be rephrased. There is some text in my sandbox; it's not so much that "objections have been raised" as it is a question of causality. The sources clearly discuss that the trait may be linked to comorbid depression and anxiety, and it's not determined that it's a core characteristic of or attributed to Asperger syndrome. If you all are ready to compromise and work on this now, I suggest:

  1. Agree to compromise (as below)
  2. Request unprotection from the admin who protected the article
  3. Revert to the last good version [12] before the confusion about the citation method
  4. Resolve the sentence in question with some version of the text in my sandbox

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, the article hasn't been protected since 19th...I think the admin recognised that my post crash, shiraz induced *confusion about the citation method* was the main issue, and estimated the time it would take me to get through a 3 liter box with remarkable accuracy, *chuckles*. You pop in whatever you think best and I will happily stand by it.--Zeraeph 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PS I would love a peek at Baskin some time, just for interest.--Zeraeph 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
ah, I didn't realize; I'll revert to the good version then and add something in there. Here's the full text from Baskin on alexithymia (the crux of the matter comes from Tani):
  • Difficulty in relating socially may be considered similar to a lack of awareness of one’s own internal state. Sifneos conceived the term “alexithymia” to describe the difficulty of distinguishing emotional feelings from bodily sensations. (Sifneos) Tani and colleagues noted the similarity between AS and alexithymia and the potential involvement of the limbic system and prefrontal cortex in both. (Tani P, Lindberg N, Joukamaa M, et al. Asperger syndrome, alexithymia and perception of sleep. Neuropsychobiology. 2004;49:64-70. PMID 14981336. )
Also, I verified the other info via a friend who accessed the articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Done; that's all the text I have, and I've verified that all the text on AS is supported by the sources. Unwatching now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job both here and on the AS entry Sandy. I have just looked at the Uta Frith paper Full text and note the wording for the 'level' of alexithymia in Asperger's is "severely impared". This is an important qualifier of the score because it refers to the higher end of the high range on the TAS-20, rather than just the lower end of the high range (which latter is qualified by the word "moderate").
In Frith's words: “the Asperger syndrome group obtained such extreme scores on the Toronto questionnaire that they would have been classified as severely impaired.”
Therefore I have reinserted "severe" imparment in the appropriate spot as you have done on the Asperger's syndrome entry: "Uta Frith reported that alexithymia overlaps with AS and that at least half of the Asperger syndrome subjects in a study obtained scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) that indicate severe impairment.[50]" Soulgany101 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertizing Amberlin[edit]

I think this is the third occasion that the band 'Amberlin' has tried to draw attention to their song 'Alexithymia' by placing links to their WP band page. Each time the attention getter comes in different form (last time it was a notice placed at the top of the present entry). Soulgany101 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. The band is notable enough, so is the song (98 hits on limewire, no' bad. :o)). But APART from that becoming the title of a pop song is a very real measure of the degree of cultural penetration achieved by a term like Alexithymia. I think it's relevant to the article. --Zeraeph 12:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Feel free to reinsert it if you think the other editors will like it. I was not the first to remove the adverts. Soulgany101 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT remove comments from talk...never MIND the protocols and guidelines I can cite, common sense should tell you that is just rude. --Zeraeph 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't be debating this point about Amberlin (or whatever the rock band is called). The subject has now been highlighted for those wishing to delete this fourth reincarnation of Amberlin adverts on this entry. See History for their previous attempts. Soulgany101 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anberlin is 'Crazy Good'... check their new album[edit]

American rock Band! Their Latest CD! Alternative Rock Band! Its crazy Good! Christian Rock Band!

The following statements (and those above) are from the History page of this WP entry:

  • 29th August 2007: On american rock band Anberlin's latest cd (cities), a song references this medical condition. It is titled "Alexithymia."
  • 28th August 2007: On their latest cd, rock band Anberlin referenced Alexithymia with a song titled "Alexithymia" on their latest cd: Cities.
  • 28th August 2007: A song titled "Alexithymia" is on the alternative rock band Anberlin's latest cd: Cities. The message might reference this medical trait.
  • 28th August 2007: A song titled "Alexithymia" is on the alternative rock band Anberlin's latest cd: Cities. The message might reference this medical trait.
  • 18th June 2007: This article is about a mental illness. For the song by Anberlin, see Cities (Anberlin album) .
  • 8th April 2007: Anberlin's song is called Alexithymia. Its crazy good. They are a christian band
  • 27th March 2007: The band Anberlin recently put out a song called Alexithymia.
  • 19th March 2007: The Band Anberlin recently put out a song called Alexithymia.

LOL. I rest my case. Soulgany101 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I admit, some of these are ridiculous, but the one on June 18th was on the right track. See Aneurysm for a precedent. I have re-added this disambiguation header to this page, but without the erroneous assertion that Alexithymia is a mental illness. Please discuss it here before blanking! Steve CarlsonTalk 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Some Cannot Express Emotions - Substantiating Research[edit]

Several Italian investigators have published a new study that shows neurobiologic differences that correlate with inability to express emotions (alexithymia).

Romei,V; De Gennaro,L.; Fratello, F.; Curcio, G.; Ferrara, M.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Bertini, M.: Interhemispheric Transfer Deficit in Alexithymia: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study. Psychother Psychosom 2008;77:175-181

More than 30 years agos, a deficit in brain communication between hemispheres of the brain was hypothesized from observations that patients who had split-brain conditions or were post brain-split procedures would then manifest certain alexithymic characteristics. Up until now, specifically direct evidence of this brain transfer deficit has not been demonstrated.

A random sample of 300 students were screened for alexithymia by using the Italian version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Eight males and eight females with high alexithymic scores, and an age- and gender-matched group with low alexithymic scores were chosen. Magnetic stimulation was applied to one side, then to the other, using the motor cortices so evoked responses could be measured directly by recording the exact degree of contraction to specific stimulated muscles.

It was found that high alexithymic test subjects showed reduced transcallosal inhibition as compared to low alexithymic students. The results point to functional differences between high alexithymic as compared to low alexithymic subjects, supporting the hypothesis of an interhemispheric transfer deficit in alexithymia.

While this does not prove genetic inheritance of alexithymia, since it used a normal student population with those not known to have any injuries, but only having either exceptionally high or exceptionally low alexithymic tendencies, it does show that this disorder is related to physical intra-brain communication deficits. (mental disorders are those things which cause marked reductions in the ability to function well in social, work and relationship settings). --Spotted Owl (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Normative Male Alexithymia[edit]

Why no mention of "normative male alexithymia", as proferred by Levant? Seems germane. --1000Faces (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Levant has misused the term, or rather has used it literally, and has departed from the accepted clinical definition. He even admits that normative male alexithymia is "a sub-clinical condition" (read non-clinical), and is therefore not suitable for a wikipedia entry about a clinical entity. Alexithymia proper involves the inability to identify and by extension an inability to verbalize feelings. The normative (read stereotyped) male which Levant paints is someone who just doesn't verbalize their feelings, but they may identify and understand their feelings nevertheless, unlike the true alexithymic. See here for more. (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project Links[edit]

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of DMOZ search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here they don't add any value. It's actually less useful than just googling the term... Manufaure 06:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manufaure (talkcontribs)


  1. ^ comorbidity []

Psychosomatic Disorders?[edit]

That part needs to be gone through. Although there are certainly psychosomatic (or conversion disorder) equivalents for Lower Back Pain, Migraines, etc...there are certainly organic, neurological causes for these conditions as well. What does the cited reference in particular refer to? If it refers specifically to the psychological forms of these problems then they need to be labeled as such. If it assumed that these conditions are all purely psychosomatic, then the source is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

circumcision linked to alexythemia[edit]

The International Journal of Men’s Health has published the first study of its kind to look at the link between the early trauma of circumcision and the personality trait disorder alexithymia. The study, by Dan Bollinger and Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S., FAAP, found that circumcised men are 60% more likely to suffer from alexithymia, the inability to process emotions.

The study surveyed 300 circumcised and intact men using the standardized Toronto Twenty-Item Alexithymia Scale checklist. Circumcised men had higher scores across the board and a greater proportion of circumcised men had higher scores than intact men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:MEDRS-- until that primary study has been reviewed in in a secondary review, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


According to the Greek article on wikipedia, alexithymia derives from the verb αλέξω (to repel, repulse) and thymos, rather than lexis, which translates as word. Although both cases seem valid, is there a definite source on that? --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?[edit]

This sentence seems to be closely paraphrased or even to contain text copied from the source: “While the results suggested a moderate influence of shared environmental factors, results are in concordance with the general finding that environmental influences on most psychological traits are primarily of the nonshared rather than the shared type.” Please rewrite this sentence to provide more explanation of what it means, for the benefit of general readers. Bwrs (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it was copied straight from the study's abstract. I reworded it to try to make it clearer - hope that helps. Ashleyleia (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

in a nutshell[edit]

the state of being a cold son-of-a-bitch.

[I]ndividuals suffering from alexithymia[edit]

I don't "suffer" from it, I revel in it. I hate the way people assume that if they are not like so called "normal" people that they are somehow "suffering". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexithymia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 08:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Causes entry[edit]

How is it possible to say "empirical evidence about the neural mechanisms behind alexithymia remains inconclusive", and then follow with a whole paragraph where a psychoanalyst proposes causes, but for which there is zero empirical evidence?

Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Though if it was me, I would cut the psychoanalysis/psychological content entirely. It's very difficult to see how this kind of fact-free speculation has a place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terencby (talkcontribs) 06:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)