David Sivesind

Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? —Harvey Blume, The Atlantic, 1998

Defects, disorders, diseases can play a paradoxical role by bringing out latent powers, developments, evolutions, forms of life that might never be seen or even be imaginable in their absence. —Oliver Sacks

This seminar focuses on the concept of neurodiversity and the potential impact of this concept in understanding certain clinical concerns. To some authors, the concept of neurodiversity is of simple relation to the concepts of biodiversity or genetic diversity, with a focus on different ways in which brains might develop. To other authors, the term describes a social/political stance in viewing difference. That is the concept of neurodiversity that will be explored in this course, as it relates to current and developing ways of understanding difference related to several ways of presenting traditionally-termed “disorders” within mental health treatment. Definitions of the term “neurodiversity” vary, with one conference defining it as “a concept where neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation” (National Symposium on Neurodiversity, 2011). From that point of view, such differences are not necessarily pathology but, rather, differences to be celebrated and respected. This is in stark contrast to deficit models of taxonomy of mental illness, such as catalogued in the DSM 5. The course will provide an overview of this form of disorder description in order to frame points of view that contain distinctly different and sometimes opposed assumptions. We will explore ways in which these views have influence regarding the spirit of intervention (e.g., correction versus accommodation). Readings will explore important, related continuums of essentialist versus contextualist understandings of these presentations to help us understand how the focus of interventions varies based on underlying assumptions. The course begins with a focus on these points of view regarding autism, as this is the area where the neurodiversity movement first gained the powerful momentum of self-advocacy and framed the larger debate regarding challenges to the deficit model. Since that initial momentum, the neurodiversity concept has also been applied to other areas of difference: dyslexia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and others. The course also incorporates an older literature regarding the sometimes-assumed link between mental illness and creativity debate, which is complex, as well as literature focused on potential overlooked strengths and abilities that may exist within these populations. We will consider work in this domain such as that of Kay Jamison, Oliver Sacks, Naoki Higashida, and others. Most of all, the course aims to increase student understanding regarding potential heightened abilities, as well as challenges, in neurodiverse populations.

This course is a multidisciplinary overview of addiction. Although the primary focus of the course is substance-related addictions and use, the emerging literature regarding nonsubstance addictive behaviors (food, gambling, internet, gaming) will also be discussed. Explanations for addiction—spiritual, emotional, biological—have spanned the ages and remain controversial today. This course will explore the study of addiction from its historical roots to contemporary theory. Competing theories of substance abuse/addiction will be examined, with a focus on the individual with regard to cultural and societal concerns. This course presents a framework for understanding models of substance use and addiction, including neuropsychological advances, with a critical review of the evidence and controversies regarding each. Students will be asked to think critically and constructively about the topic, eschewing dogma of any one approach to the treatment and understanding of substance abuse. Readings will include literature from psychology and medicine to the arts, ethics, and the press. Adequate time will be spent introducing basic social and brain science as it pertains to later, more advanced examinations of exciting neurological research.

Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? —Harvey Blume, The Atlantic, 1998

Defects, disorders, diseases can play a paradoxical role by bringing out latent powers, developments, evolutions, forms of life that might never be seen or even be imaginable in their absence. —Oliver Sacks

This seminar focuses on the concept of neurodiversity and the potential impact of this concept in understanding certain clinical concerns. To some authors, the concept of neurodiversity is of simple relation to the concepts of biodiversity or genetic diversity, with a focus on different ways in which brains might develop. To other authors, the term describes a social/political stance in viewing difference. That is the concept of neurodiversity that will be explored in this course, as it relates to current and developing ways of understanding difference related to several ways of presenting traditionally-termed “disorders” within mental health treatment. Definitions of the term “neurodiversity” vary, with one conference defining it as “a concept where neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation” (National Symposium on Neurodiversity, 2011). From that point of view, such differences are not necessarily pathology but, rather, differences to be celebrated and respected. This is in stark contrast to deficit models of taxonomy of mental illness, such as catalogued in the DSM 5. The course will provide an overview of this form of disorder description in order to frame points of view that contain distinctly different and sometimes opposed assumptions. We will explore ways in which these views have influence regarding the spirit of intervention (e.g., correction versus accommodation). Readings will explore important, related continuums of essentialist versus contextualist understandings of these presentations to help us understand how the focus of interventions varies based on underlying assumptions. The course begins with a focus on these points of view regarding autism, as this is the area where the neurodiversity movement first gained the powerful momentum of self-advocacy and framed the larger debate regarding challenges to the deficit model. Since that initial momentum, the neurodiversity concept has also been applied to other areas of difference: dyslexia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and others. The course also incorporates an older literature regarding the sometimes-assumed link between mental illness and creativity debate, which is complex, as well as literature focused on potential overlooked strengths and abilities that may exist within these populations. We will consider work in this domain such as that of Kay Jamison, Oliver Sacks, Naoki Higashida, and others. Most of all, the course aims to increase student understanding regarding potential heightened abilities, as well as challenges, in neurodiverse populations.

This course is a multidisciplinary overview of anxiety.  What exactly is anxiety? How is the concept of stress related? Countless articles warn of the dangers of stress for human physical and psychological health. This class aims to start slightly earlier and examine the topic in depth. Are we talking about an emotional condition? A body process gone awry? Are we in the “Age of Anxiety,” as some have suggested? Can you feel your own anxiety reading this? We will trace the progression of related conditions, from post-traumatic stress disorder to substance abuse, psychosis, and other conditions. The class will explore anxiety and stress as concepts, with special attention to what is known of the related neuroscience.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the related impact has greatly affected many people’s mental health. The pandemic has widened already existing disparities in access to therapeutic services and supports. Therapy, schools, and work largely went virtual (yet, unequally). Systematic oppression was on full display, with an outpouring of public action and unrest. The death toll mounted and, with it, many were personally affected by the grief that ensued. Many of us have been glued to our screens as much of this tragedy has unfolded, with journalists, bloggers, and therapists writing poignantly about this last year of challenge, loss, and grief. This course will explore the research in psychology regarding the above issues and questions. As 2021 advances to 2022, academics and clinicians alike are starting to investigate and publish regarding these concerns, with the tools of research beyond individual observation. Students in this course will undertake an in-depth exploration of this research as it is unfolding.

From the 1990s through the early 2000s, the Joint Commission, which accredits and certifies nearly 21,000 health practices, promoted in its standards the increased visibility of pain, once written as “Pain is assessed in all patients.” Many health care organizations took up this recommendation, even promoting pain as the “Fifth Vital Sign.” With respect to what has been described as an opioid epidemic since that period, many have described this effort as an example of best intentions gone awry. The credentialing organization’s own recently published material described it as “A good idea (make pain visible) had gone astray.” Psychoactive substance use has been part of our oral and written record with regard to medicine, ecstatic spiritualism, and addiction in perhaps every culture other than the Inuit of the Arctic (where such plants did not grow): the soma drink of the HIndus, the peyote of the Southwest Americas, the nepenthe of the Greeks, to name a few. Recent years have seen the resurgence of interest, considered by some to be epidemics of recreational abuse and to others a potential to be tapped for medicine: marijuana, LSC, psilocybin, opioids...the list goes on. This course is a multidisciplinary overview of addiction, with special consideration for those drugs that may both help and harm and are, therefore, under great scrutiny by society. Explanations for addiction—spiritual, emotional, biological—have spanned the ages and remain controversial today. This course will explore the study of addiction from historical roots to contemporary theory. Competing theories of substance abuse/addiction will be examined, with a focus on the individual and with regard to cultural and societal concerns. This course presents a framework for understanding models of substance use and addiction, including neuropsychological advances, with a critical review of the evidence and controversies regarding each. Readings will include literature from psychology, public policy, medicine, the arts, ethics, and the press.

“I don’t feel like myself anymore.” “Things are different with me.” “I think I lost myself.” “That’s just who I am.” “I think I found myself.” What do any of us mean when we say our ”self”? What is the self? Multiple perspectives on this topic have emerged in the literature of psychology, psychotherapy, and beyond. Self-concept, self-esteem, self-worth, real-self, false-self, self-control, self-estrangement, among other terms and concepts will be considered here. And what of the loss of self, as noted by the above statement? What was lost? (Has something been lost?) Is the person’s brain different? Is that where the self is? The person notes that “things” are different. Perhaps that’s some change with relation to the environment or some new development in emotion, habits, or perhaps relationships? Is “the self” a stable concept? We will consider both clinical cases regarding perceived loss of self, as well as cases from neuroscience where some authors have perceived a change in a person’s concept of “self.” We will consider readings that stem from a primarily Western, individuality oriented, self perspective, as well as non-Western and other challenges to these notions of self. While this is an open lecture course, students will be expected to engage actively in discussions as part of every topic. We will consider writings from a variety of perspectives: Heinz Kohut, Donald Winnicott, Karen Horney, Martin Seligman, Joseph Ledoux, Oliver Sacks, and others.

Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? —Harvey Blume, The Atlantic, 1998

Defects, disorders, diseases can play a paradoxical role by bringing out latent powers, developments, evolutions, forms of life that might never be seen, or even be imaginable, in their absence. —Oliver Sacks

This seminar focuses on the concept of neurodiversity and the potential impact of this concept in understanding certain clinical concerns. To some authors, the concept of neurodiversity is of simple relation to the concepts of biodiversity or genetic diversity, with the focus on different ways in which brains might develop. To other authors, the term describes a social/political stance in viewing difference. This is the concept of neurodiversity that will be explored in the course, as it relates to current and developing ways of understanding difference related to several ways of presenting traditionally-termed “disorders” within mental-health treatment. Definitions of the term “neurodiversity” vary, with one conference defining it as: “A concept where neurological differences are to be recognized and respected as any other human variation. (National Symposium on Neurodiversity, 2011). From this point of view, such differences are not necessarily pathology but, rather, differences to be celebrated and respected. This is in stark contrast to deficit models of taxonomy of mental illness, such as catalogued in the DSM 5. The course will provide an overview of this form of disorder description in order to frame those points of view, which contain distinctly different and sometimes opposed assumptions. We will explore ways in which those views have influence regarding the spirit of intervention (i.e., correction versus accommodation). Readings will explore important related continuums of essentialist versus contextualist understandings of those presentations that help us understand how focus of interventions vary based on underlying assumptions. The course begins with a focus on those points of view regarding autism, as that is the area where the neurodiversity movement first gained the powerful momentum of self-advocacy and framed the larger debate regarding challenges to the deficit model. Since that initial momentum, the neurodiversity concept has also been applied to other areas of difference: dyslexia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and others. The course also incorporates an older literature regarding the sometimes assumed link between mental illness and creativity, which is complex, as well as literature focused on potential overlooked strengths and abilities that may exist within those populations. We will consider work in this domain such as Kay Jamison, Oliver Sacks, Naoki Higashida, and others. Most of all, the course aims to increase student understanding regarding potential heightened abilities, as well as challenges, in neurodiverse populations.