professorfangirl:

lupusdraconis:

usagimaree:

gobeautiful:

thelatestkate:

my therapist taught me to start thinking of my anxiety as my panicky friend
it’s working???

this is so cute omg

Woah this is super useful!!

For all my anxious friends out there.

This totally works! Some of us get stuck in the sense that we *are* our emotions, so they overwhelm us and we can’t do anything about them. When you give your emotion an identity separate from you, it gives you the distance to make better judgments about it, and to comfort yourself better. 10/10 therapy veterans would recommend.

professorfangirl:

lupusdraconis:

usagimaree:

gobeautiful:

thelatestkate:

my therapist taught me to start thinking of my anxiety as my panicky friend

it’s working???

this is so cute omg

Woah this is super useful!!

For all my anxious friends out there.

This totally works! Some of us get stuck in the sense that we *are* our emotions, so they overwhelm us and we can’t do anything about them. When you give your emotion an identity separate from you, it gives you the distance to make better judgments about it, and to comfort yourself better. 10/10 therapy veterans would recommend.

(via otstudent)

"The sun is 91 million miles away;
not too far, not too close. Be like that."

Sarah Gorham, excerpt from “Detach” (via feellng)

(via greentealattae)

How Neuroscience Reinforces Racist Drug Policy | The Atlantic

A recent neuroscience study from Harvard Medical School claims to have discovered brain differences between people who smoke marijuana and people who do not. Such well-intentioned and seemingly objective science is actually a new chapter in a politicized and bigoted history of drug science in the United States.

The study in question compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 20 “young adult recreational marijuana users” (defined as individuals 18 to 25 who smoke at least once a week but who are not “dependent”), to 20 “non-using controls” (age-matched individuals who have smoked marijuana less than five times in their lives). The researchers reported differences in density, volume, and shape between the nucleus accumbens and amygdala regions of the two groups’ brains—areas hypothesized to affect a wide range of emotions from happiness to fear, which could influence basic decision-making.

Researchers did not make any claims about how marijuana affected actual emotions, cognition, or behavior in these groups; instead; the study merely tried to establish that the aggregated brain scans of the two groups look different. So, who cares? Different-looking brains tell us literally nothing about who these people are, what their lives are like, why they do or do not use marijuana, or what effects marijuana has had on them. Neither can we use such brain scans to predict who these people will become, or what their lives will be like in the future.

Nonetheless the study invented two new categories of person: the “young casual marijuana user” and the young non-marijuana user. This is the latest example of turning to brain imaging to make something seem objective. Establishing brain differences among certain groups highlights the uniquely ignoble political history surrounding the criminalization of a plant.

Marijuana has a particularly frustrating existence in the U.S. There are more people in federal prisons for marijuana offenses than for violent offenses. According to the ACLU, nearly half of drug arrests in 2012 were for marijuana—close to 750,000. And almost half of those arrests were for possession alone. Almost $4 billion is spent annually on the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana offenders. And these statistics are egregiously skewed according to race. Police in the biggest American cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York arrest blacks for marijuana possession at a rate seven times greater than their arrest rate for whites, despite that marijuana use rates do not differ between blacks and whites.

Given these injustices, the kind of science that the Harvard study exemplifies offers a cautionary lesson in how neuroscience cannot be an unbiased form of knowledge that, as some posit, “speaks for itself.”

(via otstudent)

Anonymous said: HELP! Starting my level 2 FW soon and part of my rotation is a psych floor. In school our mental health education was very short and we did little intervention planning beyond group settings. I'm feeling very unprepared. Do you know any free online resources to help be establish a better foundation?

otstudent:

http://mh4ot.com/ is an amazing resource for all stuff mental health OT. Even has forums, blogs - places for you to interact and ask questions.

I would read about “psychosocial rehabilitation” (http://www.psrrpscanada.ca/index.php?src=gendocs&link=About) It helps me frame the OT role as the rehab specialist on a team.

Finally, http://www.getselfhelp.co.uk/ , free Cognitive Behavioural therapy worksheets.

Don’t want to overwhelm you, I think this is a good place to start. I mean it depends on your preceptor, but if you get a good one they understand that you don’t know a lot and they’ll also give you resources. That was always my go to intro email to my preceptor “what materials can I review to prepare for placement?” I think only once did anyone tell me to read anything before placement lol

Enjoy. :)

ranetree:

xanthene:

skypride:

How a blind girl sees the world. Very cute video.

How precious c:

reblogging again because wow cutie

This video does with images what I hope to be able to one day to with words.

(Source: dandy-prince, via otstudent)

otstudent:

donotingest:

tinawarriorprincess:

psychmajorpizzamaker:

fight-0ff-yourdem0ns:

optimus-primette:

stunningpicture:

He designed this special shoes, shared between him and his paralyzed daughter just to make her feel the sensation of walking.

WEEP DAFEELS PENETRATE ME

Oh my goodness

This is probably so good for her body, too! Imagine her muscles getting moved in ways they don’t normally and she is upright and hopefully not having any pressure spots! This is lovely in so many ways!

This is a wonderful invention, but the man in the picture is one of the testers. He is not the inventor. The inventor was an Israeli woman named Debby Elnatan who developed this with an Irish company for her son.

Keep that last comment in mind, people! We can’t keep erasing women’s accomplishments like this.


😘😘😘😘😘😘

otstudent:

donotingest:

tinawarriorprincess:

psychmajorpizzamaker:

fight-0ff-yourdem0ns:

optimus-primette:

stunningpicture:

He designed this special shoes, shared between him and his paralyzed daughter just to make her feel the sensation of walking.

WEEP DAFEELS PENETRATE ME

Oh my goodness

This is probably so good for her body, too! Imagine her muscles getting moved in ways they don’t normally and she is upright and hopefully not having any pressure spots! This is lovely in so many ways!

This is a wonderful invention, but the man in the picture is one of the testers. He is not the inventor. The inventor was an Israeli woman named Debby Elnatan who developed this with an Irish company for her son.

Keep that last comment in mind, people! We can’t keep erasing women’s accomplishments like this.

😘😘😘😘😘😘

"We’re afraid the others will think we’re agringadas because we don’t speak Chicano Spanish. We oppress each other trying to out-Chicano each other, vying to be “real” Chicanas, to speak like Chicanos. There is no one Chicano language just as there is no one Chicano experience."

Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera (via cielito-lindo)

(via flaca-tallanga)

latinagabi:

moon-cunt:

jarabelunar:

ahealthierperspective:

rreen:

muddypetticoats:

whatwhiteswillneverknow:

How to use your white privilege

If the “passing privilege” person is looking at this blog, this is one thing you can do, if you’re up to it.

Reblogging for excellence.

Too beautiful.

More passing people, and people who recognize white privilege should do this

for the white folk who ask “but what am i supposed to do about all of this”

soooooooosososososo so good.

the thing that gets me the most is the fact that her 10 year old daughter understands exactly what’s going on. it’s fucking heartbreaking that so many children of color don’t get to be naive about the world, they don’t get to be fragile, we have to just get through shit even when we’re not entirely sure why. That’s why I hate the term ‘strong black/latina woman’ (coming from white people) like fuck, some of us never got the choice, and our mere survival is a testament to our courage. 

(Source: whatwhiteswillneverknow, via flaca-tallanga)

The Boyprincess Diaries: curvellas: and honestly, never let any man tell you that you’re too...

curvellas:

and honestly, never let any man tell you that you’re too conceited or that he thinks you’re too full of yourself. dr. angelou said some real shit about how modesty is a learned adaptation that people use to cheat themselves out of acknowledging their own greatness. we learn to…

(via flaca-tallanga)

otstudent:

neurosciencestuff:

Nurturing may protect kids from brain changes linked to poverty 
Growing up in poverty can have long-lasting, negative consequences for a child. But for poor children raised by parents who lack nurturing skills, the effects may be particularly worrisome, according to a new study at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
Among children living in poverty, the researchers identified changes in the brain that can lead to lifelong problems like depression, learning difficulties and limitations in the ability to cope with stress. The study showed that the extent of those changes was influenced strongly by whether parents were nurturing.
The good news, according to the researchers, is that a nurturing home life may offset some of the negative changes in brain anatomy among poor children. And the findings suggest that teaching nurturing skills to parents — particularly those living in poverty — may provide a lifetime benefit for their children.
The study is published online Oct. 28 and will appear in the November issue of JAMA Pediatrics.
Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the researchers found that poor children with parents who were not very nurturing were likely to have less gray and white matter in the brain. Gray matter is closely linked to intelligence, while white matter often is linked to the brain’s ability to transmit signals between various cells and structures.
The MRI scans also revealed that two key brain structures were smaller in children who were living in poverty: the amygdala, a key structure in emotional health, and the hippocampus, an area of the brain that is critical to learning and memory.
“We’ve known for many years from behavioral studies that exposure to poverty is one of the most powerful predictors of poor developmental outcomes for children,” said principal investigator Joan L. Luby, MD, a Washington University child psychiatrist at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. “A growing number of neuroscience and brain-imaging studies recently have shown that poverty also has a negative effect on brain development. 
“What’s new is that our research shows the effects of poverty on the developing brain, particularly in the hippocampus, are strongly influenced by parenting and life stresses that the children experience.”
Luby, a professor of psychiatry and director of the university’s Early Emotional Development Program, is in the midst of a long-term study of childhood depression. As part of the Preschool Depression Study, she has been following 305 healthy and depressed kids since they were in preschool. As the children have grown, they also have received MRI scans that track brain development.
“We actually stumbled upon this finding,” she said. “Initially, we thought we would have to control for the effects of poverty, but as we attempted to control for it, we realized that poverty was really driving some of the outcomes of interest, and that caused us to change our focus to poverty, which was not the initial aim of this study.”
In the new study, Luby’s team looked at scans from 145 children enrolled in the depression study. Some were depressed, others healthy, and others had been diagnosed with different psychiatric disorders such as ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). As she studied these children, Luby said it became clear that poverty and stressful life events, which often go hand in hand, were affecting brain development.
The researchers measured poverty using what’s called an income-to-needs ratio, which takes a family’s size and annual income into account. The current federal poverty level is $23,550 for a family of four.
Although the investigators found that poverty had a powerful impact on gray matter, white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, they found that the main driver of changes among poor children in the volume of the hippocampus was not lack of money but the extent to which poor parents nurture their children. The hippocampus is a key brain region of interest in studying the risk for impairments.
Luby’s team rated nurturing using observations made by the researchers — who were unaware of characteristics such as income level or whether a child had a psychiatric diagnosis — when the children came to the clinic for an appointment. And on one of the clinic visits, the researchers rated parental nurturing using a test of the child’s impatience and of a parent’s patience with that child.
While waiting to see a health professional, a child was given a gift-wrapped package, and that child’s parent or caregiver was given paperwork to fill out. The child, meanwhile, was told that s/he could not open the package until the caregiver completed the paperwork, a task that researchers estimated would take about 10 minutes.
Luby’s team found that parents living in poverty appeared more stressed and less able to nurture their children during that exercise. In cases where poor parents were rated as good nurturers, the children were less likely to exhibit the same anatomical changes in the brain as poor children with less nurturing parents.
“Parents can be less emotionally responsive for a whole host of reasons,” Luby said. “They may work two jobs or regularly find themselves trying to scrounge together money for food. Perhaps they live in an unsafe environment. They may be facing many stresses, and some don’t have the capacity to invest in supportive parenting as much as parents who don’t have to live in the midst of those adverse circumstances.”
The researchers also found that poorer children were more likely to experience stressful life events, which can influence brain development. Anything from moving to a new house to changing schools to having parents who fight regularly to the death of a loved one is considered a stressful life event.
Luby believes this study could provide policymakers with at least a partial answer to the question of what it is about poverty that can be so detrimental to a child’s long-term developmental outcome. Because it appears that a nurturing parent or caregiver may prevent some of the changes in brain anatomy that this study identified, Luby said it is vital that society invest in public health prevention programs that target parental nurturing skills. She suggested that a key next step would be to determine if there are sensitive developmental periods when interventions with parents might have the most powerful impact.
“Children who experience positive caregiver support don’t necessarily experience the developmental, cognitive and emotional problems that can affect children who don’t receive as much nurturing, and that is tremendously important,” Luby said. “This study gives us a feasible, tangible target with the suggestion that early interventions that focus on parenting may provide a tremendous payoff.”

parental nurturing as public health prevention 

otstudent:

neurosciencestuff:

Nurturing may protect kids from brain changes linked to poverty

Growing up in poverty can have long-lasting, negative consequences for a child. But for poor children raised by parents who lack nurturing skills, the effects may be particularly worrisome, according to a new study at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Among children living in poverty, the researchers identified changes in the brain that can lead to lifelong problems like depression, learning difficulties and limitations in the ability to cope with stress. The study showed that the extent of those changes was influenced strongly by whether parents were nurturing.

The good news, according to the researchers, is that a nurturing home life may offset some of the negative changes in brain anatomy among poor children. And the findings suggest that teaching nurturing skills to parents — particularly those living in poverty — may provide a lifetime benefit for their children.

The study is published online Oct. 28 and will appear in the November issue of JAMA Pediatrics.

Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the researchers found that poor children with parents who were not very nurturing were likely to have less gray and white matter in the brain. Gray matter is closely linked to intelligence, while white matter often is linked to the brain’s ability to transmit signals between various cells and structures.

The MRI scans also revealed that two key brain structures were smaller in children who were living in poverty: the amygdala, a key structure in emotional health, and the hippocampus, an area of the brain that is critical to learning and memory.

“We’ve known for many years from behavioral studies that exposure to poverty is one of the most powerful predictors of poor developmental outcomes for children,” said principal investigator Joan L. Luby, MD, a Washington University child psychiatrist at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. “A growing number of neuroscience and brain-imaging studies recently have shown that poverty also has a negative effect on brain development. 

“What’s new is that our research shows the effects of poverty on the developing brain, particularly in the hippocampus, are strongly influenced by parenting and life stresses that the children experience.”

Luby, a professor of psychiatry and director of the university’s Early Emotional Development Program, is in the midst of a long-term study of childhood depression. As part of the Preschool Depression Study, she has been following 305 healthy and depressed kids since they were in preschool. As the children have grown, they also have received MRI scans that track brain development.

“We actually stumbled upon this finding,” she said. “Initially, we thought we would have to control for the effects of poverty, but as we attempted to control for it, we realized that poverty was really driving some of the outcomes of interest, and that caused us to change our focus to poverty, which was not the initial aim of this study.”

In the new study, Luby’s team looked at scans from 145 children enrolled in the depression study. Some were depressed, others healthy, and others had been diagnosed with different psychiatric disorders such as ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). As she studied these children, Luby said it became clear that poverty and stressful life events, which often go hand in hand, were affecting brain development.

The researchers measured poverty using what’s called an income-to-needs ratio, which takes a family’s size and annual income into account. The current federal poverty level is $23,550 for a family of four.

Although the investigators found that poverty had a powerful impact on gray matter, white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, they found that the main driver of changes among poor children in the volume of the hippocampus was not lack of money but the extent to which poor parents nurture their children. The hippocampus is a key brain region of interest in studying the risk for impairments.

Luby’s team rated nurturing using observations made by the researchers — who were unaware of characteristics such as income level or whether a child had a psychiatric diagnosis — when the children came to the clinic for an appointment. And on one of the clinic visits, the researchers rated parental nurturing using a test of the child’s impatience and of a parent’s patience with that child.

While waiting to see a health professional, a child was given a gift-wrapped package, and that child’s parent or caregiver was given paperwork to fill out. The child, meanwhile, was told that s/he could not open the package until the caregiver completed the paperwork, a task that researchers estimated would take about 10 minutes.

Luby’s team found that parents living in poverty appeared more stressed and less able to nurture their children during that exercise. In cases where poor parents were rated as good nurturers, the children were less likely to exhibit the same anatomical changes in the brain as poor children with less nurturing parents.

“Parents can be less emotionally responsive for a whole host of reasons,” Luby said. “They may work two jobs or regularly find themselves trying to scrounge together money for food. Perhaps they live in an unsafe environment. They may be facing many stresses, and some don’t have the capacity to invest in supportive parenting as much as parents who don’t have to live in the midst of those adverse circumstances.”

The researchers also found that poorer children were more likely to experience stressful life events, which can influence brain development. Anything from moving to a new house to changing schools to having parents who fight regularly to the death of a loved one is considered a stressful life event.

Luby believes this study could provide policymakers with at least a partial answer to the question of what it is about poverty that can be so detrimental to a child’s long-term developmental outcome. Because it appears that a nurturing parent or caregiver may prevent some of the changes in brain anatomy that this study identified, Luby said it is vital that society invest in public health prevention programs that target parental nurturing skills. She suggested that a key next step would be to determine if there are sensitive developmental periods when interventions with parents might have the most powerful impact.

“Children who experience positive caregiver support don’t necessarily experience the developmental, cognitive and emotional problems that can affect children who don’t receive as much nurturing, and that is tremendously important,” Luby said. “This study gives us a feasible, tangible target with the suggestion that early interventions that focus on parenting may provide a tremendous payoff.”

parental nurturing as public health prevention