Seminar 10 - Dec. 7, 2009

In terms of studies on romantic relationships of individuals in high school I find that in looking back to my own experiences, I see so much possibility for error that I would hesitate to generalize the assumptions amongst this population. Take the article we read by Connolly and McIssac as an example. Of all available students to participate in the study, 74% took part and contributed data. That is a drop-out rate of 26% which in terms of a high school setting is a significant number considering that so many different social groups exist with vastly different relational experiences, it is quite possible that entire groups were not taken into account. The study also combined the data on the students from grades 9 to 12. These years in a person's life have been proven to be the years where the most change occurs to all aspects of personality and character. From personal experience, I know that the person I was when I entered high school and the person I was when I left were radically different. The maturity level (or so I hope) of teens as they go through high school changes dramatically which could lead to significant errors if all the students' data from all the grades were considered the same. It is likely that even the concept of a romantic relationship changed from year to year and even the 'fit' and criteria for need also changed. I believe that it would be very interesting if the researchers could analyze the data within each grade and determine the differences that they hold on a romantic relationship and the varying needs and desires. If a longitudinal approach were used I think the overall data would be much clearer and give a more accurate sense of how the individual changes throughout the high school years. Overall, I think that the article was well written and provided new insight into a field that will need much more research to fully understand.

Seminar 9 - Nov. 30, 2009

I really enjoyed the presentation that was given by Dr. Stieben. I am so appreciative of the fact that I have been given the privilege to hear such interesting professors speak so passionately about their revolutionary research. I am always fascinated by the field of neuroscience simply because of the endless possibilities that it holds for the future of medicine. The brain truly is the final frontier, one that I believe will take many decades to figure out. Although so much research has been done, it still amazes me that we know so very little about the brain and its functioning.

I was very interested in the specific Dir/Floortime Therapy that Dr. Stieben used in his lab specifically for children with autism. I was surprised to hear that he also used this type of therapy in his own children, I guess it demonstrates his belief in the value of the therapy. I think the concept being the therapy is quite solid, although the fact that it can train children to act and think a certain way may turn out to have serious implications. I asked a similar question in class, but my wonder is how far can this kind of therapy go. Assuming that it is successful in retraining and shaping children's behaviours, couldn't this be taken significantly too far rather easily? I can foresee parents or schools or communities taking advantage of this therapy to breed children with specific qualities and attributes. I realize that this may seem far fetched, but I always take caution when I hear about studies that have the ability to wholly change ways of thinking and feeling. On the other hand, I am not sure if as a parent we really act as anything but a teacher to our children? Perhaps the Dir/Floortime Therapy is just one of the better and more effective ways in which we can teach our children.

Having worked extensively with children with autism, I was very happy to hear the progress that Dr. Stieben and his lab members have made. In all the time I have worked with these kids, the one adjective that comes into my mind to describe the experience is frustration. I myself was not frustrated, but I witnessed these amazing and smart little kids trapped inside their unstoppable mannerisms and movements. For me, the hardest thing to grasp in working with the kids was that there was so little inconsistency between the weeks. One week the child would be fine and functioning and the next week it would be the complete opposite. It seems that kids with autism focus significantly more on little things and have a hard time suppressing or forgetting these insignificant occurrences. I recall on numerous occasions that a simple sneeze might cause the whole room to become chaotic. I would be very interested to learn the Dir/Floortime approach and perhaps utilize some of the methods in my work.