Daun Kauffman posted:Okay, "more" Jondi -- the research says that majority culture (privileged) definitions (and measures) of 'resilience' can be different than minority culture definitions, in same cases polar opposites. Similar differences around "class". Yes. Still more, but we may have made the point clearly already...
My trainer is real big on those differences. She lives in LA, and her experience is like another world compared to mine. Exactly, how do we measure them? I do think there could be some ways though.
Aside from bio markers like salivary cortisol levels and so on, self-reporting could be made to be effective. I think equally what needs to be defined, is how to we help people get there. That's my vision. Systems (imo) will take care of themselves when the people running them have a flourishing neurology. Flourishing neurology will manifest in altered behavior, the ability to feel, and name emotions, and respond to them appropriately, the ability to down-regulate an activated system and the ability to re-define what threat actually means, which could allow for more cognitive ability even in the face of stressors.
My vision would be starting with helping people develop neurological resilience, and then as those people learn (or re-learn) to engage with their community, become more active in it. That begins to change the community, and, develop community resilience. It cascades after that. The measuring aspect would be self-evident to some degree, and self-reporting to begin with, because I don't think we currently have the tools to do otherwise.
Like the language, the technology will also have to change.