User talk:Drjobrout

Welcome!

Hello, Drjobrout, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

About the recent articles

By the way in regard to the articles that I wrote that Imperceptions loaded that were my own opinions, I agree - take them off. I would NOT have uploaded them myself. I know the difference between an academic article that is peer reviewed and one that is not and would not embarrass my self in such a way. However, laypeople such as imperceptions and other people editing on wikipedia do not know that difference which is why the page sat for years with non-peer reviewed articles, which I believe was the duty of Wiki, not me, to fix. Here is the link to the "weird" email that you referred to and following I will give you a list of peer reviewed journal entries that Drs. Rosenthal, Dr. Rowe and other others who are working on an unbiased lit review feel are relevant. Please take up the matter with them because I do not wish to continue this argument. I ask that you do your due diligence on the miso page. Take anything of mine off that you want. I don't care, It isn't about ME. It's about the disorder and the people who suffer with it, one of whom is my own daughter (and myself). I hope you will concern yourself with medical ethics over wiki rules and understand that the information you allow and do not allow on the misophonia page has a tremendous impact on peoples' lives.

http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=eb14186 (sorry I do not know how to make "hyper link" - please feel free to do so

Peer reviewed Journal list

List of Peer-Reviewed Journal References on Misophonia Research as of 10/15

• Bernstein, R.E., Angell, K.L., and Dehle, C.L. (September 2013). A Brief Course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for the Treatment of Misophonia: a case example. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist Vol. 6 1-13.
• Cavanna, A.E. and Neal, M. (January 2013). Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome (Misophonia) in a Patient with Tourette Syndrome. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. Vol. 25 (1).
• Edelstein, M., Brang, D., Rouw, R., Ramachandran, V.S. (June 2013). Misophonia: physiological investigations and case descriptions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Vol. 7.
• Jastreboff, P J. and Jastreboff, M.M. (July 2001). Components of Decreased Sound Tolerance: hyperacusis, misophonia, phonophobia. Institute of Translational Health Sciences.
• Jastreboff, P J. and Jastreboff, M.M. (2002). Decreased Sound Tolerance and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT). The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology. Vol. 24 (2), 74-84.
• Jastreboff, P J. and Jastreboff, M.M. (2013). Using TRT to Treat Hyperacusis, Misophonia and Phonophobia. ENT & Audiology News. Vol 21 (6), 86-90.
• Johnson, P.L., Webber, T.A., Wu, M.S., Lewin, A.B., Murphy T.K., Storch E.A. (December 2013). When Selective Audiovisual Stimuli Become Unbearable: a case series on pediatric misophonia. Neuropsychiatry. Vol. 3 (6), 1-10.
• Kumar, K., Kriegstein, K., Friston, K., and Griffiths T.D. (October 2012). Features versus Feelings: Dissociable Representations of the Acoustic Features and Valence of Aversive Sounds. Journal of Neuroscience. Vol. 32 (41), 14184 –14192.
• Moller, A.R. (2011). Misophonia, Phonophobia, and “Exploding Head” Syndrome. In A.R. Moller, B. Langguth, D. De Ridder, T. Kleinjung, Textbook of Tinnitus. (25-27). New York: Springer.
• Johnson, P.L., Webber, T.A., Wu, M.S., Lewin, A.B., Murphy T.K., Storch E.A. (December 2013). When Selective Audiovisual Stimuli Become Unbearable: a case series on pediatric misophonia. Neuropsychiatry. Vol. 3 (6), 1-7.
• Johnson, P.L., Webber, T.A., Storch E.A. (2014). Pediatric Misophonia with Comorbid Obsessive–Compulsive Spectrum Disorders. Journal of General Hospital Psychiatry. Vol. 36 (2), 230-231.
• Jastreboff, P.J., Jastreboff, M.M. (2014). Treatments for Decreased Sound Tolerance (Hyperacusis and Misophonia). Seminars in Hearing. Vol. 35 (2), 105-120. *http://www.science20.com/news_articles/amygdala_modulation_why_fingernails_blackboards_make_us_crazy-95155.
• Schröder, A., Diepen, R., Mazaheri, A., Petropoulos-Petalas, D., Soto de Amesti, V., Vulink, N., Denys, D. (2014). Diminished N1 Auditory Evoked Potentials to Oddball Stimuli in Misophonia Patients. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. Vol. 8 (123)
• Veale, D. (2006). A Compelling Desire for Deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Vol. 11 (3), 369-372. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj043.
• Wu, M. S., Lewin, A.B., Murphy, T.K., Storch, E.A. (2014). Misophonia: Incidence, Phenomenology, and Clinical Correlates in an Undergraduate Student Sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Vol. 70 (10), 994-1007.

Note: Due to the paucity of research in Misophonia, some references included are not peer-reviewed articles. However, they are reports from authors in reference to their previously reviewed articles that provide additional information.

Oh and Jtydog, I did not include the new Cavanna article but you seemed to have found that through pub med. I really appreciate that. If you have time and would read through it, it describes very well many of the problem we are facing with misophonia research and it also addressed the term "sound rage" and why that is not indicative of the what we do know about the disorder. Just in case, here is that article reference Cavanna, A. E. & Stefano, S. (2015) Misophonia: Current Perspectives. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment.Dove Press. Also, what you quoted about "suicide" from moller's old text is not true as far as we can see, and having that there is going to install panic in people and probably mislead the public. However, again, it's your call. If your a doctor, than I would suggest you call upon your medical ethics and if you are not, I suggest you find a doctor within the medical wiki community that can handle monitoring this page. Alternatively, please see the statement at Duke University about Misophonia and perhaps get in touch with someone there who can guide you before more people are harmed. http://dukescience.org/content/misophonia

Thank you for you help. Lets please end this discussion. If you are able to find someone who can monitor this page it would be greatly appreciated. If not, than I know that I have done everything I can to ensure that the Misophonia page is accurate and have fulfilled my ethical obligations as a doctor. Yet, I must say, I leave this discussion feeling uneasy in regard to the public. I assume I will be banned now for some reason. However, if not, I again, am willing to submit through an editor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjobrout (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No. You have not done everything you could. You show no evidence of having even tried to engage with the way Wikipedia actually works. None. For example, I have told you a bunch of times that our guideline for sourcing health content is WP:MEDRS and that sources are where all content starts. Almost every source on that list fails MEDRS, and fails dramatically and clearly. You give no inkling of having read MEDRS or thought about it. Yes, let's end this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

jtydog, I'm not purposely ignoring your wiki rules. As I explained I have great difficulty figuring out how to follow them. They may not seem complicated to you. Yet, to many of us, they are. Perhaps this is a result of an age difference, as I did not grow up on computers. I've told you many many times that I do not have disregard for wiki policies, I simply find the platform beyond my technical capabilities. Regarding the misophonia page, I don't claim to be an "authority". What I am claiming is that there are no authorities (as we stated via Duke). I have no intention or desire to co-opt the misophonia page and in fact have only attempted to change it myself June 2015 and then tonight, by removing my own source which I thought didn't belong there, as well as trying to clean up some of the language regarding the names. However, there is no way for me to accomplish anything here. Once again, my inability to follow your very difficult technical platform has frustrated me beyond belief. As you feel I disregard the wiki technology, I feel you disregard the need for the misophonia page to be monitored. Again, please recall I did not request to be the monitor of the misophonia page, I simply requested that someone in the medical community from wiki do so. Since you have chosen not to grant that request, than the page will be what it is. I'm sorry you find me fierce but imagine if you had a disorder and you went to the wiki page to understand it better and ended up in the wrong kind of treatment because nobody cared. Goodnight Jtydog. Drjobrout (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please note that none of this is "mine". It is "ours" - yours too. Everybody wrestles with the WP software and this insane way we have to talk to each other. Yep. I am very sympathetic to your struggles with that.

But what is frustrating for me, is that you are not engaging with the conceptual stuff - the content policies and guidelines that guides how the community thinks about stuff - the foundation for everything we do here. If you would just read them, and take them on board, and let them inform what you are doing when you approach Wikipedia article content, everything would be different. We would be talking about the same thing. For starters, would you please read WP:MEDRS (just click that link, and read it)? Please? That would be amazing and would get us close to being on the same conceptual page. (the epistemology of WP is very cool when you engage and think about it; it really is) Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Jtydog. I think I wrote this in the wrong place. I was trying to respond to your last note. Hi Jytdog. Sorry for my slow response. I was away from the computer. Thank you for you note. Thank you for distinguishing between the conceptual and the technical. Once you did that, I was much better able to make sense of wiki, and what was going on here. I did go to the link you provided and now it makes perfect sense to me why primary sources should not be included. In fact, I completely see the logic in this since so many primary sources are biased. I think what confused me is that I see so many primary sources all over wiki but I understand that is something the wiki medical community is trying to correct. So, now I do understand what kinds of sources should drive misophonia page. Unfortunately, we don't have many good ones and I think there are still some problems with the ones that are there now, however, I believe I should address that directly on the misophonia page. See, I think I'm getting this! I truly appreciate your patience and for your diligence in helping me to understand this. I will keep trying because of course the misophonia page means a great deal to me, and I will do so via making suggestions rather than direct changes. Now I just have to review how to do that and hope it works. So, thanks again for all of your hard work. Oh I wanted to add that I just looked at the page for ASMR, since many people consider it the "opposite of" or related to Misophonia and it is full of primary sources. I mean, so many disorders are and thus my confusion. It's kind of mess. How will all of this get fixed? I am truly concerned, not just for misophonia but as a doctor who sees the bad effects of all of this misinformation. I understand that you say that the miso page has to be driven by it's lack of validation (and I say the very same thing on my website) but what of all the other disorders that are represented by primary sources that are biased? I'm just concerned, not trying to start a big problem. Drjobrout (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reading MEDRS. That is great. About other articles - the encyclopedia is a volunteer product and quality is not uniform. Everything about health ~should~ be sourced per MEDRS. The volunteers here do the best they can. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure you all do. It's not an easy job. There is way too much to do unfortunately. Thank you for your efforts. Drjobrout (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)