Talk:Limbic resonance

Reads like a book review

In its current state, this article seems to be about books about limbic resonance, rather than being about limbic resonance. Needs a pretty substantial rewrite, IMO. — crism (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

~~ Nick ~~ I agree that it needs a substantial rewrite: as currently it suggests that limbic resonance is actually a thing, rather than being a proposal as to how humans as social animals work. The article should instead situate limbic resonance with regards to scientific knowledge - listing what evidence there is to its existence (limited at a guess), what other theories there are, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsorandom (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I fully agree with you! Lova Falk talk 06:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaves out other obvious connections

Should mention the (maybe more than anecdotal) synchronization of menstrual cycles among women who are close friends or work closely in an office environment. Not Robert (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

It's been proposed by user GUnit594 that Limbic resonance and Limbic regulation be merged into one article, but the header which he added to the article points to the talk page for Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics which I assume is an error. So I will change to point here instead.

I'm agnostic on the question of merging or not merging, but if merge is to happen, here are two points to consider

• there are 3 related terms according to the source (Lewis et al). Limbic resonance, Limbic regulation and Limbic revision.
• of these, Limbic resonance seems to be the more common and encompassing term and should be the article in which to merge the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voila-pourquoi (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge done as per above, including Limbic revision which is clearly an integrally related subject. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence?

This reeks of pseudoscience. There is no explanation of a physical mechanism. More importantly, there is no experimentation or evidence to support the existence of limbic resonance.

Also, the one book that discusses the phenomena is 12 years old. Has no subsequent work been done on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrim144 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a minor adjustment in the lead, but I fully agree this article needs a thorough clean up. Lova Falk talk 06:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see someone still knows how to use the word "notorious". Its proper use seems to be on the verge of being crowded out by the sloppy substitution of "infamous", which would hardly work in this sentence.

My substantive point is that according to highly onfluential vertebrate paleontologist Tim Rowe of UT, MacLean's work has been long discredited (personal communication in conversation ca. 1991). Also, there is an awful lot of anecdotal evidence presented here and the phrase itself seems to have long since escaped from the UCSF campus into the surrounding woo-woo zone and begun reproducing. I would therefore welcome a thorough critique of this concept from at least two reputable academic sources.68.178.50.46 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

With reference to MacLean, there can be no "triune brain" in humans because there is no "reptilian brain" in mammals. Mammals are not descended from reptiles. Rather, they diverged from a common amniote ancestor some 300,000,000 years and both lineages have been developed a great variety of neural and other anatomical and physiological systems ever since. The whole concept of a "triune brain" is based on a dated conception of where mammals come from and how neural architecture develops and functions.68.178.50.46 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this new age woo?

I can't find any evidence in the article that limbic resonance is an actual thing. All I read is feel good "psychology" going on as if this actually exists. I'm surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. A more accurate tone would be "many people who write feel good psychology books say limbic resonance actually exists" 2603:8081:8700:687D:25AB:127E:FE2B:D7FF (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)