You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
1+ paragraphs on any combination of the following:
During the first day, although the talks were very different, they very nicely complemented each other. It is amazing to see that we are all adopting slightly different approaches to investigating resilience in human aging but that they can all be placed in the larger framework of resilience of complex dynamical systems. We are all pioneering in this area and only sharing our struggles and recent insights was already very valuable, at least in my experience.
During the second day, I began seeing that we are working along 2 parallel lines:
#Finding ways to quantify resilience / resiliencies
#Increasing our understanding of the dynamics of the complex system in terms of resilience
- I liked Alfons' idea of making real-life examples of "Resilience is ........" in the form of a short narrative / artwork / graphical illustration / equations. I agree that these can be very helpful to increase our understanding of resilience and involve more people (e.g. clinicians) in the resilience thinking and discourse.
- Marcel commented that for humans, it's clear that there are alternative stable states in health, but we do not know what are the precise perturbations and positive feedbacks causing the transition. To increase our understanding about this, I think we need to start with making mechanistic models. We can use these mechanistic models to generate new hypotheses.
- Ingrid pointed out the difference between acute stressors (perturbations, e.g. a stimulus-response test) and slow stressors (drivers, e.g. aging).