Post-meeting reflection[edit | edit source]

1+ paragraphs on any combination of the following:

• Presentation highlights
• Open questions that came up
• How your perspective changed
• Impact on your own work
• e.g. the discussion on [A] that we are having reminds me of [B] conference/[C] initiative/[D] funding call-for-proposal/[E] research group

The first day consisted of an excellent range of thought provoking presentations. An important issue which was raised was the need for further discussion on the usage of words such as robustness since it may have been used in slightly different contexts by different speakers. Also the group discussions seemed to focus on the characterization of resilient vs. non-resilient (vulnerable) individuals. There too some clarity is needed. It is likely that people will differ in their resiliencies and vulnerabilities to different stressors and display different degrees of resiliencies. Thus tests of resiliencies at any level, should consider graded tests (i.e., stressor is applied at diff intensities, magnitude, duration) so that such tests can distinguish between different degrees of resiliencies. This would be especially pertinent to assessing changes in the degree of resilience over time (e.g., longitudinal studies) and especially for the testing of potential therapies intended to improve resiliencies.