Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Response to Music Therapy

For my literature review I'm writing about children with autism spectrum disorder and the benefits and effects of music therapy in their lives. What interested me about this topic is that my brother has autism spectrum disorder. He was always very high functioning but growing up it was difficult to relate to him when I developed better communication skills and emotional maturity and he took longer to do so. Reading about these children with ASD, the testimonies from their parents, the research and studies done by their therapists is highly emotional. I'm really proud of who my brother is and I wouldn't have him any other way but it makes me wonder how things might have been different if he had music therapy as a child. My brother has went to, and continues to go to, a support group for kids his age with ASD and has at some points been in private therapy. He is very high functioning and as a young adult he is doing very well but I wonder how he might have been if he had more early intervention. The symptoms or signs of ASD can start as young as three years old but it was our mother who was the one to figure out what was going on with my brother. Doctors told her he was developing normally but she knew something wasn't right and worked hard to figure out what it was. He was elementary school aged when he was finally diagnosed with ASD, after being incorrectly diagnosed with ADHD. In music therapy young children are taught to communicate and build an emotional connection through music. My brother never had that opportunity and while he is doing more than fine right now I wonder how he would have benefited from music therapy at a young age. I am thankful that my mother and father took care of him and advocated for their son's right to feel heard and loved.

Intelligence and Creativity Tests in College Admissions

After today's debate on whether or not colleges should use creative thinking tests to assist in admission decisions I began to ponder our society's values and how college admissions are representative of these values. In high school we were given specific criteria by our teachers, guidance counselors, and parents for getting into a "good" college. The college admissions boards would be looking at our grades, class rank, awards and achievements, SAT or ACT scores, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation and possibly require interviews. The whole process was daunting and knowing that while receiving an excellent education these schools would still be rejected or accepted us while we would be choosing one to pay thousands of dollars to one of them. It's slightly frustrating and a little demeaning sending scores and letters off to a place to judge your whole personality and possible future success while you're offering to spend four years of your life and thousands of dollars with the possibility of rejecting. I understand schools only have a limited number of resources but I feel the more wholly a person is represented the better it is for the student and an applicant. It is harsh and realistic to put these kinds of limitations on people. It is what future employers will be forced to do as well. You can't waste time going through every person, learning all the reasons why they might be successful, accepting everyone, giving many people you are sure might fails opportunities. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is the current criteria measures intelligence compared to peers, intelligence compared to other students in the country, opinion of teachers, and opportunities you had to show your talents. I think extracurricular activities, awards, and interviews are very important because they do show more of who a person is and what makes them unique and valuable. I also think if it can be done well we should implement measures of creativity in admissions. The more fully we can understand a person the better able we would be at predicting where their talents lie and what kind of future success they will have. A good way to start implementing creative measures would be measuring incoming freshman's creative abilities and then mark their progresses over the years to show if there is any correlation.

Talent Versus Training in Sports and Creativity

So today I watched a YouTube video from AsapSCIENCE on whether or not talent versus training determines whether or not an athlete is successful. There was a study done where participants were put on identical exercise regimes and different people showed different improvement. However, when people were related their rate of improvement was more similar than others who weren't. It was determined that about 50% of their athletic improvement was genetic. The video also stated that individuals have different baselines determining how fit you are and the best athletes are those who train well and have amazing genetics.

This study reminded me of the topic we talked about a couple weeks ago asking is creativity born talent or developed through effort. I think creativity is a mental process and therefore just as much of a physical process as kicking a soccer ball or running a marathon. I also feel that this information from the video supports the conclusion that it takes practice to be creatively skilled, especially in specific domains but some people are genetically advantaged to be more naturally creative than others.

It was a really fun and interesting video and if you want to watch it I put the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZiRZrYo5tA

A Creative Environment: Google

Last week we talked about what makes a creative work environment and the internet company Google was first to come to my mind. Google is famous for being one of the best places to work with amazing creative and productive outcomes from its employees. The environment created for the Google employees include good supportive salaries, plenty of perks at and away from the office, and a community that encourages academic and creative achievement. The leadership in Google has cultivated a company philosophy encouraging employees and giving a psychological safe space to be creative. The Google company culture seems focused on success through everyone participating and being creative. However, the application and interview process is created to pick the most creative people. It is a problem for employees to distinguish themselves in an environment surrounded by other geniuses. These employees were picked for their creative distinction and it must be slightly difficult to feel that you aren't able to stand out. However, an environment that challenges these employees to be the best they can be to individualize themselves might lead to even more creative ingenuity. 

I read an article from Business Insider on the Google company from the perspective of one of their employees. Within the article is a video showed to interns before they start working at Google to show the benefits of the creative environment and company's philosophy. Here is a link if anyone would like to read it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-working-at-google-is-so-great-2014-10

Comments on Debate in Divergent Thinking Tests and Creativity

This week's debate was whether or not divergent tests are the best way to measure creativity. The affirmative team argued that it was the gold standard of measurement since it was created so long ago and still used after a couple updates. The negative side agreed that is was a valid measure of creativity but should be supplemented with other tests such as the consensual assessment technique or self-report. The affirmative side definitely made the application of divergent more clear to me in the fact that they show different domains of creativity and they are best for the measuring the general population. They made good points such as arguing that children should be able to be measured and the divergent thinking test doesn't rely on experience or education such as the consensual assessment technique might. It also is a very objective measure of creativity. However, after the debate I liked Anastasia's example that the divergent thinking test was like the SATs of measuring creativity instead of intelligence. It was an objective standard that doesn't always correlate with the consensual assessment test. I think that divergent thinking tests are best to measure little-c and the consensual assessment test is best at measuring Big-C. The argument between the two groups about process versus person is very interesting as well. I think you can be a very creative person and still have an unoriginal process as long as the product is creative. That might be why in general I still believe the consensual assessment technique is the most valid.

MacArthur Fellow Sally Temple

As students studying Psychology we should all be interested in a 2008 MacArthur Fellow Sally Temple. Dr. Temple is a neurologist studying stem cells in the brain and researching specifically how stem cells create certain tissues and form to make up systems such as the central nervous system. She discovered that even adult brains have stem cells which means that the brain does have some regenerative processes. Her research is fascinating and most likely significant to the future of medicine and stem cell use. Dr. Temple studies brain cells and their capacity to create treatments for damage to the central nervous system. Not only is she an expert in her field but she works in a creative capacity as she searches and experiments new ways to use stem cells. Her work is very cool and she seems worthy of the grant money to help fund her research. If you want to know more about her I have placed the link to her page on the MacArthur Foundation website below:

http://www.macfound.org/fellows/813/

The Psychological Value of Research in Creativity

The first question on this week's PDQ for Wednesday is "In your opinion, what is the value of doing research on creativity?". I found this question to be central to the topic of this course. I also wanted to talk about it not only in my PDQ but in this blog and possibly get some feedback from my classmates. The reason I believe research in creativity is so important is not because I find creativity important in all aspects of our life, even though I do, I find it interesting and important when applied to coping mechanisms and therapeutic approaches. Creativity has been important in creating all aspects of culture including but not limited to innovative technology, enjoyable art and media, and problem solving to society's many issues. This however, in my opinion is not what makes it necessary to study creativity in a psychological setting. Creativity is a desired trait in most careers and in most aspects of life but you can be creative and not necessarily analyze it to use it successfully. I feel that the most important research and the research that will become much more relevant in the future is how we can use our creative outlets to express our emotions and teach people skills in new ways. Music therapy, dance therapy, and art therapy are underutilized in my opinion. In the field of psychology more research should be done to support these therapies because they can be much more significant in therapy and education. Creativity is a trait that should be explored more to find new uses to benefit people psychologically.