 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hypomania.
|
"A lesser form of "hypomania" is called hyperthymia, which is essentially a normal human emotion commonly called happiness." Should anyone have any problems with the legitimacy of the last sentence of the first paragraph, please, before editing, present your complaints in this "talk" section, and we might be able to reach some sort of compromise regarding the objectivity and stylistic delivery of this contrapunctual conclusion to the introduction, which accomplishes the goal of "making people think", a common goal of all encyclopedias, public or private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The unmitigated deletion of certain comments merely noting the non-holistic nature of diagnoses of hypomania, viz. the crediting of mood as the sole progenitor of hypomanic symptoms, constitues a potential violation of neutrality. More important than the actual deletion is the due process by which it was deleted. Instead of wholesale destruction of potentially enriching content, compromise instead of total suppression should be advocated. Furthermore, the recent deletion itself needs to be reviewed, and the agent of its deletion should be put under review if only for the reason that he/she has, in all likelihood, destroyed several other additions in a questionable manner. The definition of neutrality is not hegemony. Quasi-oppositional views on any subject only serve to stimulate active (as opposed to passive) thinking and academic liberality should be a cornerstone value of wikipedia's mission. Only with a "point, counterpoint" style can true neutrality be reached.
In addition, perhaps more importantly, the ability to delete content should be reserved for only for tenured wikipedia users. At the very least, the user should be signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note the reasons for the clean up tag or the tag may be removed. -- WikiCats 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Query: in the first paragraph, should the expression "hypomanic systems" read "hypomanic symptoms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.207.57 ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this argument is not in the right place. This sentence "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by "osteopathic" specialists." Is not justifiable as it would be more the unorthodox or alternative community that would call this "excessively allopathic", some osteopaths could be included, but using the term osteopathy is not proper. Osteopathy is a international profession and is differently practiced in the USA then the rest of the world. So does the term "osteopathic specialist" refer to the US osteopath or the non US osteopath? I suggest that the original sentence will be changed as follow "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by alternative practitioner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.223 ( talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"A lesser form of "hypomania" is called hyperthymia, which is essentially a normal human emotion commonly called happiness." Should anyone have any problems with the legitimacy of the last sentence of the first paragraph, please, before editing, present your complaints in this "talk" section, and we might be able to reach some sort of compromise regarding the objectivity and stylistic delivery of this contrapunctual conclusion to the introduction, which accomplishes the goal of "making people think", a common goal of all encyclopedias, public or private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- To introduce "hyperthymia" in relation to this so-called condition, seems to imply that happiness is also a relatively pathological condition. Imo it needs to go. Latin doesn't help what's normal to present as normal. Manytexts ( talk) 00:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The unmitigated deletion of certain comments merely noting the non-holistic nature of diagnoses of hypomania, viz. the crediting of mood as the sole progenitor of hypomanic symptoms, constitues a potential violation of neutrality. More important than the actual deletion is the due process by which it was deleted. Instead of wholesale destruction of potentially enriching content, compromise instead of total suppression should be advocated. Furthermore, the recent deletion itself needs to be reviewed, and the agent of its deletion should be put under review if only for the reason that he/she has, in all likelihood, destroyed several other additions in a questionable manner. The definition of neutrality is not hegemony. Quasi-oppositional views on any subject only serve to stimulate active (as opposed to passive) thinking and academic liberality should be a cornerstone value of wikipedia's mission. Only with a "point, counterpoint" style can true neutrality be reached.
In addition, perhaps more importantly, the ability to delete content should be reserved for only for tenured wikipedia users. At the very least, the user should be signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note the reasons for the clean up tag or the tag may be removed. -- WikiCats 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Query: in the first paragraph, should the expression "hypomanic systems" read "hypomanic symptoms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.207.57 ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this argument is not in the right place. This sentence "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by "osteopathic" specialists." Is not justifiable as it would be more the unorthodox or alternative community that would call this "excessively allopathic", some osteopaths could be included, but using the term osteopathy is not proper. Osteopathy is a international profession and is differently practiced in the USA then the rest of the world. So does the term "osteopathic specialist" refer to the US osteopath or the non US osteopath? I suggest that the original sentence will be changed as follow "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by alternative practitioner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.223 ( talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Not according to the way this article flows. It reads like some kind of admirable review of a savant state. Does anyone else think the tone is a bit too... enraptured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.237.180 ( talk) 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree that the tone creates an inaccurate snapshot of hypomania. However, to answer your question (whether hypothetical or not) hypomania is not a disorder by itself. It is a symptom. DeeKenn 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- As someone officially diagnosed with and currently under treatment for Bipolar II (which of course includes hypomania), I find this to be one of the best descriptions of they hypomanic state I've seen, so I'd disagree with the "inaccurate snapshot" comment. Unfortunately, some of the most evocative parts are the bits that need verification. But the tone does not overplay how addictive and alluring hypomania can be.
- I completely agree with this (^^^^^) as a BP II sufferer, the entry also appears to be more comprehensive than the last time I remember reading it. In answer to suggestions that this is an "inaccurate snapshot", I think unless you're a sufferer you shouldn't be making objective statements like that. You should not use the heuristic that just because hypomania can have negative outcomes that this means those negative outcomes should be overrepresented in the article just because "disorder" infers an aberrant psychology to the extent that there should be nothing positive about hypomania. There are plenty of negative outcomes noted, and as I mentioned the article seems a great deal more accurate and comprehensive than it was this time last year, at least when comparing it to my own experience of hypomania.
- One addition that I'd suggest is to note that missing the hypomanic state is the reason why many bipolar patients go off their medications. I've experienced this temptation, my therapist confirms that she sees it often. so I'm assuming there should be research out there about this. I don't know much about finding and citing academic research, though. Noelvn 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as this is a mental disorder, should the description really align with the subjective experience of people who've had hypomania, or a balanced objective review with more of a medical perspective? I've experienced someone else being hypomanic, and what they might describe as heightened creativity and speed of thought, is to everyone else is incoherent babble, being obsessed with finer details at the cost of the bigger picture or vice versa, and forcing other people to listen to incessant ranting. Neither is completely accurate. The article needs to find a balance between the two perspectives. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also BiPolar 2. the biggest problem with this article is that the discription given best describes the high range of hypomania to mild mania. It also leaves out a very common symptom listed in the DMSV, namely Goal Oriented Activity. In the low to mild ranges of hypomania, one can feel about 10-20% better than just in a good mood, think very clearly and get a whole hell of a lot done with relative ease. That, in my experience, is the hypomanic advantage. Unfortunately, it doesnt last long and can't be summoned at will.
The desire to shop til you drop can be a real danger in mild to mid-hypomania, too.
- I think that hypomania should be merged into a giant bi-polar page, incorporating everything to avoid confusion for the layman (and unfortunately), the tons of bipolar leaning teenagers that seem to think Wikipedia is at all reliable.*****
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.49.62 ( talk) 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to NIMH - and my own psychiatrist concurs (I have bipolar as well, not sure if it's I or II, I believe it to be II), there is no timetable for hypomania. Hypomania can come on as quickly as within a few hours and go just as quickly. What was said about the low to mild ranges of hypomania is completely true. You feel about 10-20% better than just in a good mood etc. I also want to mention that hypomania is a symptom of an illness, not an illness in and of itself. Alex ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who is diagnosed Bipolar I and has experienced both mania and hypomania, I can say that the overall tone of the article makes it sound like hypomania is a very positive thing to have, and underplays the very serious negative consequences. People's lives are ruined just as much by hypomania as they are by mania, and this article's tone would not suggest that, only mentioning risky, impulsive behavior a couple of times while constantly reiterating the "benefits" - even going so far as to have a "benefits" section while failing to include a section on the downsides.
64.134.174.236 (
talk) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi 64.134.174.236, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some reliable sources, then be bold and add some text to balance the article! If you don't know how, I can help. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed the book "cites" to "claims", as this seems to cohere better with "unverified" and the note about criticisms later in the sentence. Also removed the genome guy from the list of examples; there's four other examples in the sentence, plenty, and he was the only one who needed to be further identified in the sentence, which made it unnecessarily wordy.
I can sort of see the point of this section but I would criticse the following aspects of it:
1) It mentions only famous people in the last 30-40 years, and the sorts of people mentioned means perhaps the title should be "Famous People in Popular Culture with Hypomanic Symptoms" or "Famous Rock Stars with Hypomanic Symptoms". Maybe we can add a more diverse range of examples? Artists, for example?
2) Does someone reading an entry about Hypomania need to know that Mojo magazine describes Richey Edwards as fatalistic?
3) Should there be sources provided? ie: where it was first reported that these people were/had been hypomanic? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the presence of that section, too. In the event that the section becomes of good quality, it might be better for it to be put in another article page, but for the meanwhile I would just delete it. Twipley ( talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This statement sounds like a review or criticism of the author's work: "He fails, however, to address the possibility that the depressive component may be an evolutionary adaptive mechanism instead, a theory that has been postulated by various evolutionary psychologists.[6]". Also, by whom or where has it been postulated? Sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.97.199 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a huge [anic attack last nite.I was contemplating running my car into a wall, just so nobody ele could hit. I went to the ER, diagnosed me with a severe anxiety disorder. As I was reading, I cam across hypomania. It sound just like me! Is it possile to have both disorders at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiajean ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is common to have an actual, seperate case of anxiety or other symptom if you are bipolar. People with both are often misdiagnosed and the bipolar part goes untreated. Look further into it and try WebMD or Google for casual inquiries rather than Wikipedia.
While hypomania is "less severe" than a manic attack of Bi-Polar I, this entire article, including the mention of benefits and famous people who have benefited from this so-called wonder of an illness, fail to mention that hypomania has severe consequences. It basically means you DON'T have frequent breaks with reality. The symptoms, while perhaps less severe than Bi-Polar I, can become entirely noticable for their strangeness, and are very dangerous. Having the book mentioned as a legitimate part of the article is just morally irresponsible. If people looking at this for help is unavoidable, then we should at least be very careful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 ( talk • contribs)
I completely agree. Furthermore, hallmark symptoms are hypersexuality and reckless spending. Regarding consequences of a hypomanic episode as beneficial is both off the mark and potentially dangerous. Statethatiamin ( talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the aforementioned issues with the article, the text itself is highly repetitive, reiterating the same handful of ideas and concepts from section to section almost verbatim. This needs to be fixed.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) -- CalamityKate ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject please convert this sentence fragment from the intro into a clear and complete sentence?
An unequivocal change in functioning that is uncharacteristic when asymptomatic.
Thanks 72.229.55.176 ( talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Changed the book "cites" to "claims", as this seems to cohere better with "unverified" and the note about criticisms later in the sentence. Also removed the genome guy from the list of examples; there's four other examples in the sentence, plenty, and he was the only one who needed to be further identified in the sentence, which made it unnecessarily wordy.
I can sort of see the point of this section but I would criticse the following aspects of it:
1) It mentions only famous people in the last 30-40 years, and the sorts of people mentioned means perhaps the title should be "Famous People in Popular Culture with Hypomanic Symptoms" or "Famous Rock Stars with Hypomanic Symptoms". Maybe we can add a more diverse range of examples? Artists, for example?
2) Does someone reading an entry about Hypomania need to know that Mojo magazine describes Richey Edwards as fatalistic?
3) Should there be sources provided? ie: where it was first reported that these people were/had been hypomanic? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the presence of that section, too. In the event that the section becomes of good quality, it might be better for it to be put in another article page, but for the meanwhile I would just delete it. Twipley ( talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This statement sounds like a review or criticism of the author's work: "He fails, however, to address the possibility that the depressive component may be an evolutionary adaptive mechanism instead, a theory that has been postulated by various evolutionary psychologists.[6]". Also, by whom or where has it been postulated? Sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.97.199 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a huge [anic attack last nite.I was contemplating running my car into a wall, just so nobody ele could hit. I went to the ER, diagnosed me with a severe anxiety disorder. As I was reading, I cam across hypomania. It sound just like me! Is it possile to have both disorders at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiajean ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is common to have an actual, seperate case of anxiety or other symptom if you are bipolar. People with both are often misdiagnosed and the bipolar part goes untreated. Look further into it and try WebMD or Google for casual inquiries rather than Wikipedia.
While hypomania is "less severe" than a manic attack of Bi-Polar I, this entire article, including the mention of benefits and famous people who have benefited from this so-called wonder of an illness, fail to mention that hypomania has severe consequences. It basically means you DON'T have frequent breaks with reality. The symptoms, while perhaps less severe than Bi-Polar I, can become entirely noticable for their strangeness, and are very dangerous. Having the book mentioned as a legitimate part of the article is just morally irresponsible. If people looking at this for help is unavoidable, then we should at least be very careful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 ( talk • contribs)
Aside from the aforementioned issues with the article, the text itself is highly repetitive, reiterating the same handful of ideas and concepts from section to section almost verbatim. This needs to be fixed.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) -- CalamityKate ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is garbage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.234.138.216 (
talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a citation in the whole "Causes" section. This is a problem because some of the content/claims is/are somewhat controversial. Statethatiamin ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, in the sentence "In cases of true drug-induced hypomania, discontinuation of the antidepressant or drug that has triggered the episode—for example steroid therapy or stimulants such as amphetamine—usually causes a fairly swift return to normal mood" the use of the phrase "true drug-induced hypomania" implies a clear dichotomy between 'natural' hypomania and drug-induced hypomania when, in reality, no such formal distinction has been clarified, as of yet. Indeed, by this article's own admission, hypomania as a result of psychoactive drug administration is often a warning sign of an underlying formal bipolar disorder that, heretofore, has not been diagnosed or apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statethatiamin ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Howard Zinn is NOT mentioned in Gartner's Hypomanic Edge book. This uncited statement, now being spread through numerous quotations of this entry, should be deleted. Streakoflight ( talk) 06:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I checked both on amazon and google books, and you are right, zero results for Zinn. So I removed his name. Thank you for telling us! Lova Falk talk 07:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hypomania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501023521/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder-in-adults/Bipolar_Disorder_Adults_CL508_144295.pdf to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder-in-adults/Bipolar_Disorder_Adults_CL508_144295.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hypomania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314051836/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/path/cyclothymia.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/path/cyclothymia.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314214348/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/bip2dis.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/bip2dis.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202111050/http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/hypomanic-episode.htm to http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/hypomanic-episode.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class psychiatry articles
- Mid-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles
|
| This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hypomania.
|
"A lesser form of "hypomania" is called hyperthymia, which is essentially a normal human emotion commonly called happiness." Should anyone have any problems with the legitimacy of the last sentence of the first paragraph, please, before editing, present your complaints in this "talk" section, and we might be able to reach some sort of compromise regarding the objectivity and stylistic delivery of this contrapunctual conclusion to the introduction, which accomplishes the goal of "making people think", a common goal of all encyclopedias, public or private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The unmitigated deletion of certain comments merely noting the non-holistic nature of diagnoses of hypomania, viz. the crediting of mood as the sole progenitor of hypomanic symptoms, constitues a potential violation of neutrality. More important than the actual deletion is the due process by which it was deleted. Instead of wholesale destruction of potentially enriching content, compromise instead of total suppression should be advocated. Furthermore, the recent deletion itself needs to be reviewed, and the agent of its deletion should be put under review if only for the reason that he/she has, in all likelihood, destroyed several other additions in a questionable manner. The definition of neutrality is not hegemony. Quasi-oppositional views on any subject only serve to stimulate active (as opposed to passive) thinking and academic liberality should be a cornerstone value of wikipedia's mission. Only with a "point, counterpoint" style can true neutrality be reached.
In addition, perhaps more importantly, the ability to delete content should be reserved for only for tenured wikipedia users. At the very least, the user should be signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note the reasons for the clean up tag or the tag may be removed. -- WikiCats 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Query: in the first paragraph, should the expression "hypomanic systems" read "hypomanic symptoms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.207.57 ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this argument is not in the right place. This sentence "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by "osteopathic" specialists." Is not justifiable as it would be more the unorthodox or alternative community that would call this "excessively allopathic", some osteopaths could be included, but using the term osteopathy is not proper. Osteopathy is a international profession and is differently practiced in the USA then the rest of the world. So does the term "osteopathic specialist" refer to the US osteopath or the non US osteopath? I suggest that the original sentence will be changed as follow "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by alternative practitioner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.223 ( talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"A lesser form of "hypomania" is called hyperthymia, which is essentially a normal human emotion commonly called happiness." Should anyone have any problems with the legitimacy of the last sentence of the first paragraph, please, before editing, present your complaints in this "talk" section, and we might be able to reach some sort of compromise regarding the objectivity and stylistic delivery of this contrapunctual conclusion to the introduction, which accomplishes the goal of "making people think", a common goal of all encyclopedias, public or private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- To introduce "hyperthymia" in relation to this so-called condition, seems to imply that happiness is also a relatively pathological condition. Imo it needs to go. Latin doesn't help what's normal to present as normal. Manytexts ( talk) 00:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The unmitigated deletion of certain comments merely noting the non-holistic nature of diagnoses of hypomania, viz. the crediting of mood as the sole progenitor of hypomanic symptoms, constitues a potential violation of neutrality. More important than the actual deletion is the due process by which it was deleted. Instead of wholesale destruction of potentially enriching content, compromise instead of total suppression should be advocated. Furthermore, the recent deletion itself needs to be reviewed, and the agent of its deletion should be put under review if only for the reason that he/she has, in all likelihood, destroyed several other additions in a questionable manner. The definition of neutrality is not hegemony. Quasi-oppositional views on any subject only serve to stimulate active (as opposed to passive) thinking and academic liberality should be a cornerstone value of wikipedia's mission. Only with a "point, counterpoint" style can true neutrality be reached.
In addition, perhaps more importantly, the ability to delete content should be reserved for only for tenured wikipedia users. At the very least, the user should be signed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note the reasons for the clean up tag or the tag may be removed. -- WikiCats 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Query: in the first paragraph, should the expression "hypomanic systems" read "hypomanic symptoms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.207.57 ( talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this argument is not in the right place. This sentence "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by "osteopathic" specialists." Is not justifiable as it would be more the unorthodox or alternative community that would call this "excessively allopathic", some osteopaths could be included, but using the term osteopathy is not proper. Osteopathy is a international profession and is differently practiced in the USA then the rest of the world. So does the term "osteopathic specialist" refer to the US osteopath or the non US osteopath? I suggest that the original sentence will be changed as follow "Eagerness to categorize merely enthusiastic individuals as hypomanic might be considered excessively "allopathic" by alternative practitioner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.223 ( talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Not according to the way this article flows. It reads like some kind of admirable review of a savant state. Does anyone else think the tone is a bit too... enraptured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.237.180 ( talk) 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree that the tone creates an inaccurate snapshot of hypomania. However, to answer your question (whether hypothetical or not) hypomania is not a disorder by itself. It is a symptom. DeeKenn 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- As someone officially diagnosed with and currently under treatment for Bipolar II (which of course includes hypomania), I find this to be one of the best descriptions of they hypomanic state I've seen, so I'd disagree with the "inaccurate snapshot" comment. Unfortunately, some of the most evocative parts are the bits that need verification. But the tone does not overplay how addictive and alluring hypomania can be.
- I completely agree with this (^^^^^) as a BP II sufferer, the entry also appears to be more comprehensive than the last time I remember reading it. In answer to suggestions that this is an "inaccurate snapshot", I think unless you're a sufferer you shouldn't be making objective statements like that. You should not use the heuristic that just because hypomania can have negative outcomes that this means those negative outcomes should be overrepresented in the article just because "disorder" infers an aberrant psychology to the extent that there should be nothing positive about hypomania. There are plenty of negative outcomes noted, and as I mentioned the article seems a great deal more accurate and comprehensive than it was this time last year, at least when comparing it to my own experience of hypomania.
- One addition that I'd suggest is to note that missing the hypomanic state is the reason why many bipolar patients go off their medications. I've experienced this temptation, my therapist confirms that she sees it often. so I'm assuming there should be research out there about this. I don't know much about finding and citing academic research, though. Noelvn 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as this is a mental disorder, should the description really align with the subjective experience of people who've had hypomania, or a balanced objective review with more of a medical perspective? I've experienced someone else being hypomanic, and what they might describe as heightened creativity and speed of thought, is to everyone else is incoherent babble, being obsessed with finer details at the cost of the bigger picture or vice versa, and forcing other people to listen to incessant ranting. Neither is completely accurate. The article needs to find a balance between the two perspectives. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also BiPolar 2. the biggest problem with this article is that the discription given best describes the high range of hypomania to mild mania. It also leaves out a very common symptom listed in the DMSV, namely Goal Oriented Activity. In the low to mild ranges of hypomania, one can feel about 10-20% better than just in a good mood, think very clearly and get a whole hell of a lot done with relative ease. That, in my experience, is the hypomanic advantage. Unfortunately, it doesnt last long and can't be summoned at will.
The desire to shop til you drop can be a real danger in mild to mid-hypomania, too.
- I think that hypomania should be merged into a giant bi-polar page, incorporating everything to avoid confusion for the layman (and unfortunately), the tons of bipolar leaning teenagers that seem to think Wikipedia is at all reliable.*****
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.49.62 ( talk) 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to NIMH - and my own psychiatrist concurs (I have bipolar as well, not sure if it's I or II, I believe it to be II), there is no timetable for hypomania. Hypomania can come on as quickly as within a few hours and go just as quickly. What was said about the low to mild ranges of hypomania is completely true. You feel about 10-20% better than just in a good mood etc. I also want to mention that hypomania is a symptom of an illness, not an illness in and of itself. Alex ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who is diagnosed Bipolar I and has experienced both mania and hypomania, I can say that the overall tone of the article makes it sound like hypomania is a very positive thing to have, and underplays the very serious negative consequences. People's lives are ruined just as much by hypomania as they are by mania, and this article's tone would not suggest that, only mentioning risky, impulsive behavior a couple of times while constantly reiterating the "benefits" - even going so far as to have a "benefits" section while failing to include a section on the downsides.
64.134.174.236 (
talk) 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi 64.134.174.236, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some reliable sources, then be bold and add some text to balance the article! If you don't know how, I can help. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed the book "cites" to "claims", as this seems to cohere better with "unverified" and the note about criticisms later in the sentence. Also removed the genome guy from the list of examples; there's four other examples in the sentence, plenty, and he was the only one who needed to be further identified in the sentence, which made it unnecessarily wordy.
I can sort of see the point of this section but I would criticse the following aspects of it:
1) It mentions only famous people in the last 30-40 years, and the sorts of people mentioned means perhaps the title should be "Famous People in Popular Culture with Hypomanic Symptoms" or "Famous Rock Stars with Hypomanic Symptoms". Maybe we can add a more diverse range of examples? Artists, for example?
2) Does someone reading an entry about Hypomania need to know that Mojo magazine describes Richey Edwards as fatalistic?
3) Should there be sources provided? ie: where it was first reported that these people were/had been hypomanic? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the presence of that section, too. In the event that the section becomes of good quality, it might be better for it to be put in another article page, but for the meanwhile I would just delete it. Twipley ( talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This statement sounds like a review or criticism of the author's work: "He fails, however, to address the possibility that the depressive component may be an evolutionary adaptive mechanism instead, a theory that has been postulated by various evolutionary psychologists.[6]". Also, by whom or where has it been postulated? Sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.97.199 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a huge [anic attack last nite.I was contemplating running my car into a wall, just so nobody ele could hit. I went to the ER, diagnosed me with a severe anxiety disorder. As I was reading, I cam across hypomania. It sound just like me! Is it possile to have both disorders at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiajean ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is common to have an actual, seperate case of anxiety or other symptom if you are bipolar. People with both are often misdiagnosed and the bipolar part goes untreated. Look further into it and try WebMD or Google for casual inquiries rather than Wikipedia.
While hypomania is "less severe" than a manic attack of Bi-Polar I, this entire article, including the mention of benefits and famous people who have benefited from this so-called wonder of an illness, fail to mention that hypomania has severe consequences. It basically means you DON'T have frequent breaks with reality. The symptoms, while perhaps less severe than Bi-Polar I, can become entirely noticable for their strangeness, and are very dangerous. Having the book mentioned as a legitimate part of the article is just morally irresponsible. If people looking at this for help is unavoidable, then we should at least be very careful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 ( talk • contribs)
I completely agree. Furthermore, hallmark symptoms are hypersexuality and reckless spending. Regarding consequences of a hypomanic episode as beneficial is both off the mark and potentially dangerous. Statethatiamin ( talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the aforementioned issues with the article, the text itself is highly repetitive, reiterating the same handful of ideas and concepts from section to section almost verbatim. This needs to be fixed.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) -- CalamityKate ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject please convert this sentence fragment from the intro into a clear and complete sentence?
An unequivocal change in functioning that is uncharacteristic when asymptomatic.
Thanks 72.229.55.176 ( talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Changed the book "cites" to "claims", as this seems to cohere better with "unverified" and the note about criticisms later in the sentence. Also removed the genome guy from the list of examples; there's four other examples in the sentence, plenty, and he was the only one who needed to be further identified in the sentence, which made it unnecessarily wordy.
I can sort of see the point of this section but I would criticse the following aspects of it:
1) It mentions only famous people in the last 30-40 years, and the sorts of people mentioned means perhaps the title should be "Famous People in Popular Culture with Hypomanic Symptoms" or "Famous Rock Stars with Hypomanic Symptoms". Maybe we can add a more diverse range of examples? Artists, for example?
2) Does someone reading an entry about Hypomania need to know that Mojo magazine describes Richey Edwards as fatalistic?
3) Should there be sources provided? ie: where it was first reported that these people were/had been hypomanic? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the presence of that section, too. In the event that the section becomes of good quality, it might be better for it to be put in another article page, but for the meanwhile I would just delete it. Twipley ( talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This statement sounds like a review or criticism of the author's work: "He fails, however, to address the possibility that the depressive component may be an evolutionary adaptive mechanism instead, a theory that has been postulated by various evolutionary psychologists.[6]". Also, by whom or where has it been postulated? Sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.97.199 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a huge [anic attack last nite.I was contemplating running my car into a wall, just so nobody ele could hit. I went to the ER, diagnosed me with a severe anxiety disorder. As I was reading, I cam across hypomania. It sound just like me! Is it possile to have both disorders at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiajean ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is common to have an actual, seperate case of anxiety or other symptom if you are bipolar. People with both are often misdiagnosed and the bipolar part goes untreated. Look further into it and try WebMD or Google for casual inquiries rather than Wikipedia.
While hypomania is "less severe" than a manic attack of Bi-Polar I, this entire article, including the mention of benefits and famous people who have benefited from this so-called wonder of an illness, fail to mention that hypomania has severe consequences. It basically means you DON'T have frequent breaks with reality. The symptoms, while perhaps less severe than Bi-Polar I, can become entirely noticable for their strangeness, and are very dangerous. Having the book mentioned as a legitimate part of the article is just morally irresponsible. If people looking at this for help is unavoidable, then we should at least be very careful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.100.165 ( talk • contribs)
Aside from the aforementioned issues with the article, the text itself is highly repetitive, reiterating the same handful of ideas and concepts from section to section almost verbatim. This needs to be fixed.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) -- CalamityKate ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is garbage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.234.138.216 (
talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a citation in the whole "Causes" section. This is a problem because some of the content/claims is/are somewhat controversial. Statethatiamin ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, in the sentence "In cases of true drug-induced hypomania, discontinuation of the antidepressant or drug that has triggered the episode—for example steroid therapy or stimulants such as amphetamine—usually causes a fairly swift return to normal mood" the use of the phrase "true drug-induced hypomania" implies a clear dichotomy between 'natural' hypomania and drug-induced hypomania when, in reality, no such formal distinction has been clarified, as of yet. Indeed, by this article's own admission, hypomania as a result of psychoactive drug administration is often a warning sign of an underlying formal bipolar disorder that, heretofore, has not been diagnosed or apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statethatiamin ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Howard Zinn is NOT mentioned in Gartner's Hypomanic Edge book. This uncited statement, now being spread through numerous quotations of this entry, should be deleted. Streakoflight ( talk) 06:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I checked both on amazon and google books, and you are right, zero results for Zinn. So I removed his name. Thank you for telling us! Lova Falk talk 07:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hypomania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501023521/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder-in-adults/Bipolar_Disorder_Adults_CL508_144295.pdf to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder-in-adults/Bipolar_Disorder_Adults_CL508_144295.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hypomania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314051836/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/path/cyclothymia.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/path/cyclothymia.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314214348/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/bip2dis.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/bip2dis.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202111050/http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/hypomanic-episode.htm to http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/hypomanic-episode.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- C-Class psychiatry articles
- Mid-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles