A New Word to Help Children and Adults with High ACEs: Lasticity

Karen Gross posted:

Ramu Iyer posted:

I imagine that breakaway learners will improvise and act their way into a new way of thinking (rather than thinking their way into a new way of acting). This is the essence of experiential therapy and it is very powerful. To triumph over ACEs, we need "all of the above" whether it be grit / resilience / lasticity / other TBD.  I'd strive for simplicity and be solution focused. I favor the "three box solution" where one (selectively) forgets the past, manages the present (be in the moment), and create the future. The imagery of the three box solution (relevant for ACEs) is similar to https://twitter.com/KarenGross...s/861549082682241025.

For lasticity, the key is not to forget the past.  Indeed, the opposite.  It is to integrate it into the present.  With intentionality.  It will never go away so it is not worth "forgetting" -- it can't be forgotten. Think war, think Twin Towers, think Sandy Hook, among other traumas that endure.

 

that's good to hear -- that other person suggested the forgetting, and then inserting a link on twitter that looked as if it was referring to you

Karen Gross posted:

Russell Wilson posted:

Had a further look at your book. Not surprised my last comment wasn't addressed -- so much anchored in the research literature as I am, and your notes, and lack of a References section, indicate most of your sources (in populist publications) are 3 or more steps away from that research literature. Of course, nor could your book be considered research "evidence-based", but no doubt meant to be very encouraging, and I wish you and your readers well. Being a self-produced survivor and academic achiever -- one of your book's intended audience, in the beginning years -- we all benefit from encouragement and direction, at times. I wish there were more for people to both heal, and THEN inspire -- many of your "intended audience" may not get to the stage where they can benefit from your book. For those cases, the real, research-evidence based resilience development work must be done first.

The other thing limiting its "evidence based practice" is that it seems to neglect the increasing volume of research on posttraumatic growth -- the focus of a new training package from NICABM 

http://www.nicabm.com/post-tra...5.9.17PTGSalesEmail1

 

Not to be defensive but Columbia TCPress uses Recommended Reading instead of References. The "popular" books are in many cases data filled or reference data as are the notes. Look at Putnam's book by way of example.  And, Angela Duckworth.  And Nancy Sherman's work is qualitative data.

My point, there are data on resiliency and grit but insufficient.  There is little work on lasticity and the reasons are described; there is qualitative and limited quantitative data.  And, my view, as expressed in the book, is that if we want for all data to be collected, the opportunity for change is limited. Data matter for sure. So do quality studies that are well constructed and well conducted.

But, if we wait for data, progress cannot be made rapidly. Think of lasticity like a fast moving drug trial -- promising practices with some data that are worth pursing in moments of exigency -- which we have.  Check notes again -- there are embedded studies.

All that said, I value data -- more than you perhaps can tell. My own early work as an academic was empirical --- look at my work with Block-Lieb and Weiner among others.

I hope this gives you some comfort.....

Unfortunately, it does not give comfort. In fact, it gives me further cause for concern. There are very sound reasons for why drug trials are not rushed -- SAFETY. One should not proceed with administering drugs (and probably other treatments as well) without adequate safety procedures in place, unless one wants potentially disastrous things happening to the very people one is trying to help. So, the need for data. You made a comment on the post for Evidence Based Resiliency Programs, and for those there is numerous years of research history.

Similarly for the use of secondary or tertiary sources -- BIG PROBLEM in many areas of psychology MOST ESPECIALLY IN NEW AREAS WHERE OTHER RESEARCH DOES NOT EXIST. Things can get VERY easily misconstrued unless one has a sound acquaintance with the earlier studies, and the limitations and the problems in those earlier studies. Again, Coyne, whom I've referred to previously, gives several excellent examples of that situation, for example, in some of the UK recommendations for cognitive therapy for psychosis, and for the use of Mindfulness techniques -- for the latter in the treatment of those with trauma histories. 

Better contact with the original research, as would be found in proper References -- whatever one wishes to call that section --  is something most scientist-practitioners would recommend. I did have a look at the Notes for several sections of your book, especially for the chapter on trauma, and was extremely disappointed at the lack of research studies included.

And why is there such a rush, when alternative techniques are readily available for implementation. Look, for example, at the recommended program from NICABM, which is MUCH more closely tied to the existing research, as well as other evidence-based resiliency programs from, for example, the University of Queensland, where a former student of mine has been involved in that research for several years now.

I respect your wish to introduce new phraseology for old techniques as it might express, or emphasise, concepts you'd like people to consider -- all forms of treatment / programs do so to some extent, but really there's a lot to be gained from a more integrative approach, rather than lots of different "cottage industries" -- a good example being Acceptance and Commitment Therapy which rarely, and imho erroneously, makes links with other areas of psychology.

But most especially, I wish you well in developing the "data" from further research -- whether it be well designed qualitative or quantitative methodologies -- I also couldn't see much evidence of use of well designed qualitative studies in your book -- just what appears to be "empirical" (in its broader sense) anecdotal observations..

Russell Wilson posted:

Had a further look at your book. Not surprised my last comment wasn't addressed -- so much anchored in the research literature as I am, and your notes, and lack of a References section, indicate most of your sources (in populist publications) are 3 or more steps away from that research literature. Of course, nor could your book be considered research "evidence-based", but no doubt meant to be very encouraging, and I wish you and your readers well. Being a self-produced survivor and academic achiever -- one of your book's intended audience, in the beginning years -- we all benefit from encouragement and direction, at times. I wish there were more for people to both heal, and THEN inspire -- many of your "intended audience" may not get to the stage where they can benefit from your book. For those cases, the real, research-evidence based resilience development work must be done first.

The other thing limiting its "evidence based practice" is that it seems to neglect the increasing volume of research on posttraumatic growth -- the focus of a new training package from NICABM 

http://www.nicabm.com/post-tra...5.9.17PTGSalesEmail1

 

Not to be defensive but Columbia TCPress uses Recommended Reading instead of References. The "popular" books are in many cases data filled or reference data as are the notes. Look at Putnam's book by way of example.  And, Angela Duckworth.  And Nancy Sherman's work is qualitative data.

My point, there are data on resiliency and grit but insufficient.  There is little work on lasticity and the reasons are described; there is qualitative and limited quantitative data.  And, my view, as expressed in the book, is that if we want for all data to be collected, the opportunity for change is limited. Data matter for sure. So do quality studies that are well constructed and well conducted.

But, if we wait for data, progress cannot be made rapidly. Think of lasticity like a fast moving drug trial -- promising practices with some data that are worth pursing in moments of exigency -- which we have.  Check notes again -- there are embedded studies.

All that said, I value data -- more than you perhaps can tell. My own early work as an academic was empirical --- look at my work with Block-Lieb and Weiner among others.

I hope this gives you some comfort.....

Ramu Iyer posted:

I imagine that breakaway learners will improvise and act their way into a new way of thinking (rather than thinking their way into a new way of acting). This is the essence of experiential therapy and it is very powerful. To triumph over ACEs, we need "all of the above" whether it be grit / resilience / lasticity / other TBD.  I'd strive for simplicity and be solution focused. I favor the "three box solution" where one (selectively) forgets the past, manages the present (be in the moment), and create the future. The imagery of the three box solution (relevant for ACEs) is similar to https://twitter.com/KarenGross...s/861549082682241025.

For lasticity, the key is not to forget the past.  Indeed, the opposite.  It is to integrate it into the present.  With intentionality.  It will never go away so it is not worth "forgetting" -- it can't be forgotten. Think war, think Twin Towers, think Sandy Hook, among other traumas that endure.

Ramu Iyer posted:

I imagine that breakaway learners will improvise and act their way into a new way of thinking (rather than thinking their way into a new way of acting). This is the essence of experiential therapy and it is very powerful. To triumph over ACEs, we need "all of the above" whether it be grit / resilience / lasticity / other TBD.  I'd strive for simplicity and be solution focused. I favor the "three box solution" where one (selectively) forgets the past, manages the present (be in the moment), and create the future. The imagery of the three box solution (relevant for ACEs) is similar to https://twitter.com/KarenGross...s/861549082682241025.

except that "we all know" -- that is, anyone who, professional or otherwise, knows anything about memory, that memory doesn't work by "forgetting" things we want to forget -- the more we struggle with things, like trying to forget, or with anything really, the more we make it the center of our attention.

instead, if we're going to name therapies and how they work, we re-frame what happened to us, and bring a different meaning to it (narrative therapy); or we bring mindfulness and greater insight into our responses to it, make room for it, and focus on valued goals and committed to working towards them (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy)

incidentally, I tried several times but couldn't get that twitter link to work

and even without that link -- I'm almost afraid to see it -- that bit about "just (selectively) forget about it" is sounding disturbingly like all those old, insulting, re-traumatizing things which rightfully have been relegated to a far distant past by any responsible person

I imagine that breakaway learners will improvise and act their way into a new way of thinking (rather than thinking their way into a new way of acting). This is the essence of experiential therapy and it is very powerful. To triumph over ACEs, we need "all of the above" whether it be grit / resilience / lasticity / other TBD.  I'd strive for simplicity and be solution focused. I favor the "three box solution" where one (selectively) forgets the past, manages the present (be in the moment), and create the future. The imagery of the three box solution (relevant for ACEs) is similar to https://twitter.com/KarenGross...s/861549082682241025.

Had a further look at your book. Not surprised my last comment wasn't addressed -- so much anchored in the research literature as I am, and your notes, and lack of a References section, indicate most of your sources (in populist publications) are 3 or more steps away from that research literature. Of course, nor could your book be considered research "evidence-based", but no doubt meant to be very encouraging, and I wish you and your readers well. Being a self-produced survivor and academic achiever -- one of your book's intended audience, in the beginning years -- we all benefit from encouragement and direction, at times. I wish there were more for people to both heal, and THEN inspire -- many of your "intended audience" may not get to the stage where they can benefit from your book. For those cases, the real, research-evidence based resilience development work must be done first.

The other thing limiting its "evidence based practice" is that it seems to neglect the increasing volume of research on posttraumatic growth -- the focus of a new training package from NICABM 

http://www.nicabm.com/post-tra...5.9.17PTGSalesEmail1

Dr. Cathy Anthofer-Fialon posted:

Karen,

I read your article, the comments to your article and visited your Website. My question is, how can we change institutions if we don't first change what we teach or train those who ultimately work in those institutions? I worked in students services/higher education for 22 years and still adjunct. ACE information and skills based training must begin for educators, social workers, human resource staff, employers, law enforcement, and attorneys while they are still in college.  I teach criminal justice. Each class I incorporate a section on ACES.

~ Cathy

So, you are correct. Changing culture is a serious challenge but it is do-able if there is the will to change. My book has several chapters on how to change cultures at large and small educational institutions and that is part of the work I do -- changing culture work that starts actually at the top with leaders who need to signal the changes needed and their importance.  There is no quick fix here.  No easy way to change culture.  But it is changeable.  I know that and I have done that.  So, we can chat via phone or if you want to read the relevant chapters in the book --- I was just on a campus working with them on culture change.  Here is one thing I tell people repeatedly:  culture eats strategy for lunch.  So, the key to everything is culture change.  Let me know if you want more information or want to talk via phone. It would be my pleasure.

Karen,

I read your article, the comments to your article and visited your Website. My question is, how can we change institutions if we don't first change what we teach or train those who ultimately work in those institutions? I worked in students services/higher education for 22 years and still adjunct. ACE information and skills based training must begin for educators, social workers, human resource staff, employers, law enforcement, and attorneys while they are still in college.  I teach criminal justice. Each class I incorporate a section on ACES.

~ Cathy

Karen Gross posted:

Russell Wilson posted:

Karen Gross posted:

Mr. Wilson (or Dr. Wilson) -- explain more given that avoiding bias is a goal of mine. I do not see how lasticity promotes bias nor do I see how data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased. Please share details.

Depending on how much you know / need to know, an adequate reply to your query might  take several pages. But if there is to be an "ACEs Science" it will have to conform to the demands made for other sciences and other fields of science. My apologies if this is already known to you, but maybe it's not. Incidentally, you don't think, do you, that highlighting the shortcomings of one approach, however valid those observations might be, lends any support to any other (untested) approach?

However, hitting some high points, there's a well known (though in some quarters still controversial) problem of failure of reproducibility in psychological science -- what's found in one study fails to be found in other studies. (Just doing a google search for "problem of reproducibility in psychology" will yield a ton of stuff) -- "experimenter bias" is one factor that can give rise to this effect. Conducting all the research in one "laboratory", or the one research group, wherein participants share "allegiance" to a particular model or theory or approach aggravates this effect. A good example of how this can negatively affect whole "fields" of research is given in Coyne's analysis of the PEP program for children, discussed in his blog Mind The Brain -- too much for me to go into here! And "avoiding bias", even for the experts, maybe especially for the experts, is unbelievabiy hard to do --  hence the need for rules to guide systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- one clumsy attempt to try to limit this  bias / allegiance has been through journals' "Conflict of Interests" statements by authors.

Another problem, especially in human services, is a failure to collect, and analyse, data in a way consistent across studies -- as mentioned briefly in my discussion of the collaborative meta-analysis on early life stress and later problems, once thought to have been determined in part by the 5-HTTLPR gene variant -- one's data ain't necessarily the same as someone else's data. And for "data" to be collected and reviewed across a number of different case studies the need for this consistency is greatly magnified -- anecdotal observations aren't the same as what's produced by a well designed and controlled case study  (n=1 research).

And while one may wish to help others in their studies, steps need to be taken to limit this -- perhaps to only helping ensure data is collected, analysed, and shared in a consistent manner -- also including methods of treatment, but not theories, of how those methods work (though those will be known) -- this limited the take-up of EMDR in the early days due to all methods being the proprietary ownership of Shapiro et al. 

Coyne's contributions are valuable for learning some things about experimental design and analysis (or for revision of such information -- (I first acquired mine some 30 years ago! so revision is important) but I sometimes fear he's somewhat biased in favour of biomedical approaches. But he also is willing to provide, for payment, training in such review techniques. So, all "treatment methods" conducted especially by their original developers promote bias if not exposed to external critiques -- believe me, I've watched treatment theories come and go several times over the past 50 years -- these days people publish research on the effects of Neuroticism, forgetting to quote Eysenck's writings of 50 years ago, saying much the same thing!! Makes for a good chuckle anyway.

So, I wouldn't say that "data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased", I'd just say that there currently seems to be little published data on this, or on alternatives to existing approaches -- though I haven't read what you've got in your book -- sometimes, but rarely, data is published in books that hasn't been published in journals -- but, most importantly, no one else seems to have offered much -- and there's that problem of failure of reproducibility!!!

But I wish you well in these endeavours

Now, if I can only develop the motivation for that other blog post I promised ;-D

The "founder" of grit has shared its limitation -- see Angela Duckworth's comments.  As to resiliency, there is a rich literature in neurology on the capacity to bounce forward not back.  We can discuss, further. Detailed in notes to Breakaway Learners.

Angela Duckworth's comments, where?  I'm "acquainted" with her, good example of using different phraseology to communicate old concepts -- grit = conscientiousness -- well-known to personality theorists for a very long time. But getting back to the topic of hypervigilance -- where's your research evidence -- peer-reviewed studies, including controls -- for people being helped with such problems. From personal experience, and research, things don't tend to work as you describe. This is in the general area of social cognition, involving both cortical and subcortical structures, for the different types of empathy -- intellectual an affective, respectively. German (Preißler) and Dutch (van Harmelen) have done some great work in the area of emotion recognition, and what tends to be found is that people coming from environments involving exposure to violence (say, domestic violence) or being the victim of violence -- lucky me, as most know -- moved from a home with an alcoholic violent father, to a home with an alcoholic violent aunt -- tend to interpret neutral cues to threat cues, and act accordingly. (There's a good reason so many people with high ACEs tend to have anxious, ambivalent, avoidant attachment styles). Yes, you do develop skills to recognise "kindred spirits", and can be supportive to them, but as the work of people like Preißler has shown -- not all can be so lucky.

Methodologically speaking, one needs to include controls -- is it the procedures you use that are effective, or just the extra, supportive, attention people receive??  Given Trump's choice of eductn secretary, and his AHCA in Health, how can we be sure the resources will be there for, say, children; or in hospitals / community clinics, for adults? Whether those resources be there for your approach, or any other?

Russell Wilson posted:

Karen Gross posted:

Mr. Wilson (or Dr. Wilson) -- explain more given that avoiding bias is a goal of mine. I do not see how lasticity promotes bias nor do I see how data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased. Please share details.

Depending on how much you know / need to know, an adequate reply to your query might  take several pages. But if there is to be an "ACEs Science" it will have to conform to the demands made for other sciences and other fields of science. My apologies if this is already known to you, but maybe it's not. Incidentally, you don't think, do you, that highlighting the shortcomings of one approach, however valid those observations might be, lends any support to any other (untested) approach?

However, hitting some high points, there's a well known (though in some quarters still controversial) problem of failure of reproducibility in psychological science -- what's found in one study fails to be found in other studies. (Just doing a google search for "problem of reproducibility in psychology" will yield a ton of stuff) -- "experimenter bias" is one factor that can give rise to this effect. Conducting all the research in one "laboratory", or the one research group, wherein participants share "allegiance" to a particular model or theory or approach aggravates this effect. A good example of how this can negatively affect whole "fields" of research is given in Coyne's analysis of the PEP program for children, discussed in his blog Mind The Brain -- too much for me to go into here! And "avoiding bias", even for the experts, maybe especially for the experts, is unbelievabiy hard to do --  hence the need for rules to guide systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- one clumsy attempt to try to limit this  bias / allegiance has been through journals' "Conflict of Interests" statements by authors.

Another problem, especially in human services, is a failure to collect, and analyse, data in a way consistent across studies -- as mentioned briefly in my discussion of the collaborative meta-analysis on early life stress and later problems, once thought to have been determined in part by the 5-HTTLPR gene variant -- one's data ain't necessarily the same as someone else's data. And for "data" to be collected and reviewed across a number of different case studies the need for this consistency is greatly magnified -- anecdotal observations aren't the same as what's produced by a well designed and controlled case study  (n=1 research).

And while one may wish to help others in their studies, steps need to be taken to limit this -- perhaps to only helping ensure data is collected, analysed, and shared in a consistent manner -- also including methods of treatment, but not theories, of how those methods work (though those will be known) -- this limited the take-up of EMDR in the early days due to all methods being the proprietary ownership of Shapiro et al. 

Coyne's contributions are valuable for learning some things about experimental design and analysis (or for revision of such information -- (I first acquired mine some 30 years ago! so revision is important) but I sometimes fear he's somewhat biased in favour of biomedical approaches. But he also is willing to provide, for payment, training in such review techniques. So, all "treatment methods" conducted especially by their original developers promote bias if not exposed to external critiques -- believe me, I've watched treatment theories come and go several times over the past 50 years -- these days people publish research on the effects of Neuroticism, forgetting to quote Eysenck's writings of 50 years ago, saying much the same thing!! Makes for a good chuckle anyway.

So, I wouldn't say that "data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased", I'd just say that there currently seems to be little published data on this, or on alternatives to existing approaches -- though I haven't read what you've got in your book -- sometimes, but rarely, data is published in books that hasn't been published in journals -- but, most importantly, no one else seems to have offered much -- and there's that problem of failure of reproducibility!!!

But I wish you well in these endeavours

Now, if I can only develop the motivation for that other blog post I promised ;-D

The "founder" of grit has shared its limitation -- see Angela Duckworth's comments.  As to resiliency, there is a rich literature in neurology on the capacity to bounce forward not back.  We can discuss further. Detailed in notes to Breakaway Learners.

Russell Wilson posted:

btw since when was hypervigilance a positive? in everyday life? removed from the circumstances in which it developed? I suffer from it -- have done all my life -- and imho it's a curse not a positive

So, hypervigilance is usually viewed as a negative but it need not be.  It can enable students to read a room, to understand literature, to identify students in trouble. It has many positives -- and yes, if not well managed, negatives. Ponder the fact that hypervigilant student can identify which of their peers might be in trouble, they can even find that student because of their well-tuned antennae.  Breakaway Learners gives many examples of how lactic people have traits that are often demeaned and deemed a negative. In the right setting with well- educated and trained institutions and their staff can be transformed into positives.

btw since when was hypervigilance a positive? in everyday life? removed from the circumstances in which it developed? I suffer from it -- have done all my life -- and imho it's a curse not a positive

Karen Gross posted:

Mr. Wilson (or Dr. Wilson) -- explain more given that avoiding bias is a goal of mine. I do not see how lasticity promotes bias nor do I see how data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased. Please share details.

Depending on how much you know / need to know, an adequate reply to your query might  take several pages. But if there is to be an "ACEs Science" it will have to conform to the demands made for other sciences and other fields of science. My apologies if this is already known to you, but maybe it's not. Incidentally, you don't think, do you, that highlighting the shortcomings of one approach, however valid those observations might be, lends any support to any other (untested) approach?

However, hitting some high points, there's a well known (though in some quarters still controversial) problem of failure of reproducibility in psychological science -- what's found in one study fails to be found in other studies. (Just doing a google search for "problem of reproducibility in psychology" will yield a ton of stuff) -- "experimenter bias" is one factor that can give rise to this effect. Conducting all the research in one "laboratory", or the one research group, wherein participants share "allegiance" to a particular model or theory or approach aggravates this effect. A good example of how this can negatively affect whole "fields" of research is given in Coyne's analysis of the PEP program for children, discussed in his blog Mind The Brain -- too much for me to go into here! And "avoiding bias", even for the experts, maybe especially for the experts, is unbelievabiy hard to do --  hence the need for rules to guide systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- one clumsy attempt to try to limit this  bias / allegiance has been through journals' "Conflict of Interests" statements by authors.

Another problem, especially in human services, is a failure to collect, and analyse, data in a way consistent across studies -- as mentioned briefly in my discussion of the collaborative meta-analysis on early life stress and later problems, once thought to have been determined in part by the 5-HTTLPR gene variant -- one's data ain't necessarily the same as someone else's data. And for "data" to be collected and reviewed across a number of different case studies the need for this consistency is greatly magnified -- anecdotal observations aren't the same as what's produced by a well designed and controlled case study  (n=1 research).

And while one may wish to help others in their studies, steps need to be taken to limit this -- perhaps to only helping ensure data is collected, analysed, and shared in a consistent manner -- also including methods of treatment, but not theories, of how those methods work (though those will be known) -- this limited the take-up of EMDR in the early days due to all methods being the proprietary ownership of Shapiro et al. 

Coyne's contributions are valuable for learning some things about experimental design and analysis (or for revision of such information -- (I first acquired mine some 30 years ago! so revision is important) but I sometimes fear he's somewhat biased in favour of biomedical approaches. But he also is willing to provide, for payment, training in such review techniques. So, all "treatment methods" conducted especially by their original developers promote bias if not exposed to external critiques -- believe me, I've watched treatment theories come and go several times over the past 50 years -- these days people publish research on the effects of Neuroticism, forgetting to quote Eysenck's writings of 50 years ago, saying much the same thing!! Makes for a good chuckle anyway.

So, I wouldn't say that "data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased", I'd just say that there currently seems to be little published data on this, or on alternatives to existing approaches -- though I haven't read what you've got in your book -- sometimes, but rarely, data is published in books that hasn't been published in journals -- but, most importantly, no one else seems to have offered much -- and there's that problem of failure of reproducibility!!!

But I wish you well in these endeavours

Now, if I can only develop the motivation for that other blog post I promised ;-D

Hi, Karen: I'm looking forward to learning more about "Lasticity", especially the definition of resiliency education. btw, you may be interested in the research that was done after Lincoln High School in Walla Walla, WA, integrated trauma-informed and resilience-building practices based on ACEs science. Here's a link to the article.

As a result of this whole-school approach, which was based on the CLEAR project out of Washington State University, kids' test scores, grades and graduation rates increased. Suspensions plummeted and expulsions dropped to zero. The kids with the highest ACE scores showed the most improvement.

Cheers, Jane

Mr. Wilson (or Dr. Wilson) -- explain more given that avoiding bias is a goal of mine. I do not see how lasticity promotes bias nor do I see how data suggesting limitation on grit and resiliency is biased. Please share details.

Karen Gross posted:

The defects in resiliency education -- pre and post trauma -- can be seen by looking at Veterans returning from war and transitioning from military life to civilian life.  With high suicide rates, homelessness and failures to progress in education -- despite resiliency education -- we have evidence.  In addition, we have other evidence for school ages children where resiliency education is not curative over the long haul -- observe weaknesses in academic progression, failures to retain in college and then failures to graduate.  In other words, the programs do not yield the desired outcomes over the long haul -- they have some benefits to be sure. Being resilient is better than being non-resilient but it is not enough.  If you want more specifics, they are detailed in notes to Breakaway Learners.  There are data supporting the effect and effectiveness of lasticity although that research is only just beginning. And, we are seeking more institutions who can institute lasticity.  Any volunteers?  Happy to help too.

Just trying to be helpful, Karen. You do see how your "bias" creates problems for your goal of developing an evidence base? See Coyne's demolition of the PEP research in his Mind The Brain blog. Your being "helpful" to others only aggravates the bias problem. 

The defects in resiliency education -- pre and post trauma -- can be seen by looking at Veterans returning from war and transitioning from military life to civilian life.  With high suicide rates, homelessness and failures to progress in education -- despite resiliency education -- we have evidence.  In addition, we have other evidence for school ages children where resiliency education is not curative over the long haul -- observe weaknesses in academic progression, failures to retain in college and then failures to graduate.  In other words, the programs do not yield the desired outcomes over the long haul -- they have some benefits to be sure. Being resilient is better than being non-resilient but it is not enough.  If you want more specifics, they are detailed in notes to Breakaway Learners.  There are data supporting the effect and effectiveness of lasticity although that research is only just beginning. And, we are seeking more institutions who can institute lasticity.  Any volunteers?  Happy to help too.

Hey Russell

 Thanks for your Compassion and non judgmental approach in helping the "Poor and disadavagted family's.

Rick Herranz

Russell Wilson posted:

People often need things to be explained in different ways in order for the development of the right mindset -- so if the way you describe things helps some people, I wish you all the success in the world, Karen, in flogging your book. That might be all it is though -- phraseology; although it is important to note the same thing about that word "re-habilitation", some people have never had a normal to return to, and need new growth experiences -- "habilitation". 

I was once in a residential therapy program where a nurse-leader responded to a request made by someone wanting a person from an external agency to come visit: nurse's response "the staff would like to meet them first, you know like you'd do in a normal family situation" -- my comment to my friend, who'd made  the request "you and I never had a "normal family", how are we supposed to know what happens in "normal family situations"?!

But harking back to the title of the thread "Evidence Based Resilience Programs", where's your evidence base? Couldn't find any citations in Google Scholar, apart from your own book. But don't worry, keep up the research, even individual case studies, and watch it grow.

People often need things to be explained in different ways in order for the development of the right mindset -- so if the way you describe things helps some people, I wish you all the success in the world, Karen, in promoting your book. That might be all it is though -- phraseology; although it is important to note the same thing about that word "re-habilitation", some people have never had a normal to return to, and need new growth experiences -- "habilitation". 

I was once in a residential therapy program where a nurse-leader responded to a request made by someone wanting a person from an external agency to come visit: nurse's response "the staff would like to meet them first, you know like you'd do in a normal family situation" -- my comment to my friend, who'd made  the request "you and I never had a "normal family", how are we supposed to know what happens in "normal family situations"?!

But harking back to the title of the thread "Evidence Based Resilience Programs", where's your evidence base? Couldn't find any citations in Google Scholar, apart from your own book. But don't worry, keep up the research, even individual case studies, and watch it grow.