How does one test for 'Low Latent Inhibition'?

[Chris Ianson]

Hi, does anyone know where to find preferably a self-test kit or other
diagnosis information to determine whether someone has low or reduced levels
of Latent Inhibition?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html --
"They put 182 Harvard graduate and undergraduate students through a series
of tests involving 1) listening to repeated strings of nonsense syllables,
2) hearing background noise, and 3) watching yellow lights on a video
screen. (The researchers do not want to reveal details of how latent
inhibition was scored because such tests are still going on with other
subjects.)
The students also 4) filled out questionnaires about their creative
achievements on a new type of form developed by Carson, and they 5) took
standard intelligence tests. When all the scores and test results were
compared, the most creative students had lower scores for latent inhibition
than the less creative."

Sadly it doesn't explain how the tests were done.

Thanks in advance :)

[Chris Degnen]

Too inhibited to say.

Chris Ianson wrote:
>
> Hi, does anyone know where to find preferably a
> self-test kit or other diagnosis information to determine

> whether I have low or reduced levels of Latent Inhibition?

[Chris Degnen]

Oh, no reply. My post not sensible enough I presume.
Well it wasn't, so I'll make up for it.

If you chance upon a copy of Wilfred Trotter's book
Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War you'll find on
pages 54-60 an observation of two personality types:
one insensitive, 'stable', and "reality resistive", and the
other sensitive, perceptive, but prone to neurosis. He
says of the 'stable' variety: "Early in history the bulk
of mankind must have been of this type, because
experience, being still relatively simple, would have
but little suggestive force, and would therefore
readily be suppressed by herd suggestion." He
proceeds to describe the type as "the waggoner upon
the footplate of the express engine, which has made
the modern history of nations a series of such
breathless adventures and hairbreadth escapes."
It's dated 1909, and though he doesn't develop the
theme of the sensitive type very far, he really nailed it.

If you're a sensitive type why not just eschew the
madding crowd.

[Chris Ianson]

Thanks, but just looking for a test that can be performed to see if someone
has Low Latent Inhibition. Not sure how your post answers that questions as
it is not a test. Thanks anyway.

"Chris Degnen" <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dskni5$22dd$1...@newsreader.cw.net...

[Chris Degnen]

Chris Ianson wrote:
>
> Thanks, but just looking for a test that can be performed to see if someone
> has Low Latent Inhibition. Not sure how your post answers that questions as
> it is not a test. Thanks anyway.

Excursive supplement to "Anyone with experience of Low Latent Inhibition?"

If the other side of the coin is perceptual resistivity perhaps a false-inference
test would be of use, if you can't find the one you want. It depends what
dimension your interested in.

[Paul Campbell]

Chris,

First let me say, I know comparatively little about this subject. However,
there does appear to be substantial amounts of information on the internet
about the testing procedures used for Low Latent Inhibition. One rather
technical paper is available at
http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/aphome/belfastli.pdf and despite the elaborate
title does explain their procedures for the testing within the paper.

I went to the trouble to actually try and find such a "self" test for you,
but was unsuccessful. While at first blush this may seem like bad news, you
might actually consider this the opportunity of a lifetime! Your question,
or rather the fact that there is no readily available answer to it, means
you have the opportunity to DEVELOP such a self-test! If such a self-test
does not exist, and it is possible to do, then you can singlehandly change
the world, at least in a small way. I admit the idea is a daunting task, but
may well be worth the effort. Certainly give it some consideration.

Warmest regards,

Paul Campbell, President
Applied Primary Research
http://www.appliedprimaryresearch.com

"Chris Ianson" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ds2Hf.18085$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

[Chris Ianson]

Thanks Paul.

"The baseline test battery consisted of two neuropsychologicaltests from the
CANTAB system (SWM and TOL), three eyemovement tests (reflexive saccades,
anti-saccades and smoothpursuit); and a 16-item VARS."

I had rather hoped for something simpler I could do at home with my
partner - e.g. have her flash the light on and off repeatedly and have me
count the number of times or something, and if I notice it more than x
number, then I have Low LI.

Anyone able to boil this down to a home test? Despite the invitation Paul,
I don't think I have the time to develop such a thing, and it may well
already exist.

Thanks :)

"Paul Campbell" <primary...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:I1pHf.13929$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

[catarina...@gmail.com]

I think that if you have it you'll know it. It's more of a burden than a gift because almost no one gets you...
You just see more, hear more, very difficult to explain to those who don't have it. >-You get art<- you can see where the real art is, maybe that's a hint.

[roseanne...@gmail.com]

First off, I see this post is dated back to 2006, so I am wondering if you found a test available. I also agree with what Catrina is saying, but in saying that, I did my own self test a while back to see was I 1) either going CRAZY in all manner of the word, as it was how I was feeling not realising LLI could be a possibility, and 2) I was in so much need of an answer, and didn't think I was mentally sick enough to bother myself with a doctor because I am to stubborn. I came up with the idea after reading the LLI page. What a relief that page was!

My own self test clarified I think differently to my friends and family, and is generalised and easy enough for them to get it right and not get the deeper meaning of the "simple test", In doing so it also clarified I am not on the GENIUS spectrum, but on the lower than normal level and generalised level of LLI. And also that my "why why why why" questions are normal to me, but failed to find the deeper meaning through out. But if you are interested having not successfully found your own way. My email is above feel free to comment here or email me. Regards.

[arrawn...@gmail.com]

hi, i havent found any online test at the time being, i am still looking (just found this post looking for one myself) but i can tell you one thing for sure that should help you find out if you have it or not.

The simple fact that you require such a simple test for such a complex thing is (in my opinion) the answer to your question.
If you understand the condition you are trying to diagnose, you also understand that it cannot be diagnosed with something as simple as counting flashes on a flashlight.

If you do not understand the condition itself or do not understand why it cannot be diagnosed so simply, then your brain isnt working the way it should be working if you were affected by the said condition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course here im assuming youre a person of a certain IQ as you are smart enuff to be self-aware of such condition and trying to find answers.

But there is still the possibility of your being affected by it and not having a IQ high enuff to understand the statements above, in wich cases, only a professional will be able to help you finding answers to your question.

I hope this helps you :)

[djkr...@gmail.com]

Has anyone found any more info on this or have information on how to get diagnosed for LLI or not? Reading about it I can surely say "Thats Me" but getting a professional to concur is another story.

[jena...@gmail.com]

I would like information on the test you took

jena...@yahoo.com

[Gliceria Gumuercindo do capital]

How do I join this group? I have probably the most accurate ideas for tests, they are based on aestheticism.

[Annet A]

четверг, 1 июня 2017 г. в 12:54:09 UTC+3, arrawn...@gmail.com:

"If you do not understand the condition itself or do not understand why it cannot be diagnosed so simply, then your brain isnt working the way it should be working if you were affected by the said condition. " or MAYBE you don't understand the condition because you are in the process of understanding it, or maybe you realize it's inefficient to cast judgement based on an abstract definition alone and are therefore trying to get more data to make a conclusion? like, what the hell man? you can't be diagnosed with a simple flashing lights test perhaps, but you sure as hell can use it to make more connections and understand the condition better
what a condescending asshole