Talk:Reduced affect display

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ebdrake. Peer reviewers: Emnets, Gatorres25, Brandon R Hill, Cdaniels26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed please
"Blunted affect should not be confused with anhedonia although the two share some characteristics."

I didn't understand from reading the article how blunted affect and a lack of positive emotion (anhedonia) were different. In both situations, the person cannot feel emotion, correct?Roastporkbun (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not getting specific, blunted affect is more general in terms of all emotions, anhedonia is usually specifically in terms of positive / pleasure emotions (so people can stuff suffer from anger, depression, etc.).24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Affect" refers specifically to the expression of emotions. Someone with blunted affect may feel emotion but not display those feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.235.149.26 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Autism?
It may be worth mentioning that there is sometimes a blunted/flat affect (or something similar) in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. The first time I ever heard the term was when it was applied to symptoms sometimes seen in those suffering from Aspergers. It may not be the exact same thing, but some people who arrive at this page may have been looking for this information. It should be noted that autistics who display blunted affect or something similar do not actually lack emotion, but they often have problems expressing emotion. Some in the autistic community sometimes use the terms flat affect and blunted affect to describe themselves. Most of this is a result of those with Aspergers and HFA being unable to read body language in orders, as well as being unable to express emotions in their own body language and facial expressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.188.209 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Related: are there any studies on gender gaps in affect display?2600:8801:40C:F300:88E7:C709:FF8F:C8B4 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Educational Assignment
Njbetz (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate terms.
The original page is full of misleading descriptions, conjecture, and contextually frivolous words like "healthy," used to describe what is essentially average/culturally expected behavioral patterns, and "treatment" to describe behavioral modification for individuals with a "condition" that hasn't been shown to be debilitating or negative by any objective standard. Can anyone show the proven scientific standard for what constitutes a psychologically "healthy" individual? Until I receive a reasonable answer I'll continue editing such words on pseudo-scientific pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.5.47 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While healthy may be an arbitrary diagnosis, the ICFD, ICD and WHO have long strived to establish a functioning standard definition of "health" and I'd hardly call it "frivolous". We use the language the sources use, and the sources in this article pass WP:MEDRS. Replacing "treated" with "reprogrammed" is especially problematic and betrays a troubling lack of neutrality. Blackguard  01:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Strived" is the key word here: there is as of yet no scientific standard so perhaps these "reliable" sources are jumping to conclusions. Why is the term reprogrammed biased but not "healthy" or "treatment?" Health implies a positive rather than the negative of a lack of health-- that's a bias if you're unable to prove the standard for health-- and Treatment in this context implies that their is some illness/problem that is being "fixed" even though the "problem" hasn't been shown to be an objective negative.

Also, the sources and studies used here are mostly in regards to schizophrenics with "blunted affect" and not simply "blunted affect" so the fmri studies and sources are hardly reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.5.47 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

autism, article rename
I understand that many people with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism present with flat affect without necessarily being depressed etc - the single mention of autism in this article don't seem to cover that. Something to consider looking into. Would also like to suggest renaming the article to something that conveys the range of limited affect, since (as the lead makes clear) blunted affect is only one severity level along a range.--Humorideas (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has been renamed. --Humorideas (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with "reduced affect" and also "shallow affect"
"Reduced affect" is presented as a generic term covering all levels of reduction, yet in reduced affect display it says that blunted and flat affect are more severe than reduced affect. If reduced affect is not a generic term then there should be separate articles for reduced, blunt and flat affect.

Shallow affect seems to be an equivalent term to blunted affect. The expression is explicitly used in the Psychopathy Checklist to describe psychopathy. This needs to be better integrated into this article.--Penbat (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

no single professor / academic, should be listed especially in the see also, if not others
simply put, why is there only a link Antonio Damasio, BUT NOT, links to others who have contributed to related physical or developmental discoveries, in relation to this, listed on this page?

this guy did not 'discover', reduced affect, if that's what one of you editors on wikiP thought from only skimming the topic - it has a much longer history than that, although perhaps some of it would be under non-responsive research, particularly done on ppl in asylums, going back maybe even 100 years.

reduced affect, is not "within the last decade"

--

similarly, why choose a decade,.. etc ???

Vurrath (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)