Our recent discussion centered around an article titled “Depression Among Older Adults: A 20-Year Update on Five Common Myths and Misconception”. This article revisited a 1997 study that challenged five myths about depression in older adults, highlighting new insights on the subject. The findings of this article hold the potential to positively impact the mental health community as they challenge outdated assumptions that may have led to misdiagnosis, undertreatment, or ineffective interventions for older adults. If depression is better recognized and treated in this population, it could lead to improved quality of life, increased independence, and even longer life expectancy. On a broader scale, changing the conversation about mental health in aging populations can reduce stigma, ensuring that older individuals feel empowered to seek and receive the mental health care they need.   
The article listed the first myth that depression is more common in older adults than in younger individuals. Earlier studies suggested that aging led to increased sadness and depressive symptoms. However, more recent research, such as Blazer (2003), has demonstrated that the prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is actually lower in older adults compared to middle-aged individuals. This shift in understanding is partly due to improved diagnostic tools and a better distinction between normal aging and clinical depression (Cole & Dendukuri, 2003). Another evolving perspective involves the causes of depression in older adults. Historically, psychological factors like grief and loneliness were considered the primary triggers. While these factors remain relevant, more recent studies emphasize biological and social determinants, including chronic illness, neurobiological changes, and social isolation, as key contributors (Fiske, Wetherell, & Gatz, 2009). This change in understanding has led to more comprehensive treatment approaches that incorporate medical, psychological, and social factors. 
Similarly, earlier beliefs suggested that depression manifests differently in older adults, primarily through physical symptoms rather than emotional distress. While some studies, such as Gallo et al. (1994), found a slight increase in bodily symptom complaints among older individuals, more recent research has shown that the overall symptom profile of depression remains consistent across age groups. This understanding has led to improved screening methods that ensure older adults receive appropriate diagnoses rather than attributing their symptoms solely to physical health conditions. The notion that depression in older adults is more chronic and treatment-resistant has also been reevaluated. While it is true that relapse rates are higher due to medical comorbidities and cognitive decline (Mitchell & Subramaniam, 2005), newer findings suggest that psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), is just as effective in older populations as in younger ones (Areán & Cook, 2002). Furthermore, while some earlier research indicated that antidepressant medications might be less effective in older adults, recent studies have focused on optimizing dosages and combining treatments for better outcomes (Nelson et al., 2008). 
The major findings of the article encompassed that Major Depressive Disorder in older adults is a complex issue influenced by many factors. The treatment, severity, and outcomes of depression depends on more variables such as health conditions than strictly age. The content of the article sparked exciting discussion, in which multiple implications of the article were brought to light. The increased awareness that depression in older adults is often linked to chronic health conditions and social isolation could place additional strain on healthcare systems. If depression is seen as part of a broader network of medical and social issues, treatment must extend beyond prescribing medication and include comprehensive care models- requiring more resources and coordination. Additionally, the research indicating that depression in older adults is more likely to relapse (Mitchell & Subramaniam, 2005) suggests that long-term treatment and follow-up care are crucial, potentially requiring sustained investment in geriatric mental health services. 
Furthermore, we discussed the social implications of such misconceptions, in particular stigma around mental health in aging. By challenging the myth that depression is a normal part of growing older, older adults may feel more encouraged to seek treatment. As a final note, we analyzed what factors could contribute to the establishment and continuation of misconceptions about mental health in the older age population, such as ageism, previous gaps in research, and the current focus on depression in younger age groups.  
Haigh, E. A. P., Bogucki, O. E., Sigmon, S. T., & Blazer, D. G. (2018). Depression Among Older Adults: A 20-Year Update on Five Common Myths and Misconceptions. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2017.06.011   ​

Another project coordinator, Ashlan, discussed the idea of establishing relationships with these communities through serving them directly where we can. This brings up a more natural and fluid recruitment pipeline that is more likely to benefit the community as well as our research. She suggested ideas such as volunteering at food banks, where people receive resources or other assistance and providing clinical services when possible. Volunteering at community events allows us to establish relationships with specific communities not typically contacted in research recruitment which allows us to expand our neuroimaging demographics for better comprehensive understanding of the brain while supporting the community and giving back.

Overall, this discussion emphasized the importance of how research labs can establish relationships instead of simply obtaining data in underrepresented communities in neuroimaging. Members in this discussion concluded that we must thoughtfully consider the tangible value of the work we do to the broader community. By implementing the strategies we have discussed, we can work towards becoming a more impactful lab that serves the diverse populations of our community. Challenges do remain, but this discussion opens a path forward for building stronger connections in the future.

During our lab meeting, we examined the portrayal of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in media and how it affects both the autistic community and broader societal perceptions, with the foundation of our discussion on Theodoto Ressa’s article titled Histrionics of Autism in the Media and the Dangers of False Balance and False Identity on Neurotypical Viewers. 
We started by discussing the shows mentioned in an article about autistic representation. One member admitted to having only watched clips of The Good Doctor but mentioned hearing negative feedback. They noted that the show oversimplifies autism, portraying the main character in a way that is overly dramatized, which detracts from its authenticity. Others agreed, highlighting that the writing felt more like a soap opera, and this sensationalization worsened the portrayal of an autistic character.
On the other hand, another member expressed they had watched Love on the Spectrum, which was not mentioned in the article. They felt the show did a wonderful job breaking down stigmas by including therapist-informed conversations, but sometimes used comedic stylistic approaches that detracted from genuine challenges, uncomfortably infantilizing the cast.Another member shared their experience with Atypical. They enjoyed the show but acknowledged that it did not feature autistic actors, which detracts from its credibility despite tackling important themes surrounding autism. It was seen as a step forward, even though it missed the opportunity to involve individuals from the autistic community in the actual cast. We delved into the question of whether neurotypical actors can accurately portray autistic individuals, which opened a broader conversation about casting neurotypical actors for neurodivergent roles without proper consultation. One member brought up House MD, pointing out an example of a female character with ASD, which was portrayed tastefully and without much sensationalism, contrasting it with more problematic examples like The Good Doctor.
This led to a reflection on how other media does not provide the same level of courtesy by casting individuals who understand the conditions they portray. Another team member noted that even if a show’s writing is not perfect, casting actors with lived experiences can still bring a layer of authenticity that would otherwise be missing. We agreed that there is a fine line between gaining a greater understanding and not capturing the nuance required. One of us pointed out that modern media tends to be rushed, often losing nuance in favor of fast production timelines, which negatively affects the accuracy of representations.
We also explored the binary framing of neurotypical (NT) versus neurodivergent (ND) experiences and how that affects public understanding of neurodiversity. One of us remarked that the media often presents ASD in black-and-white terms—you either have it or you do not—without recognizing the full spectrum of traits and experiences that can go with autism. Another member pointed out that TikTok and other social media platforms are worsening this issue by promoting singular narratives about autism, reinforcing stereotypes rather than promoting a spectrum-based understanding of ASD. This led to a broader discussion on the polarization of neurodiverse representations and how these extreme portrayals make it difficult for audiences to see the more "in-between" experiences that are just as valuable in understanding neurodivergent identities.
Toward the end of our discussion, we explored what “success” looks like for neurodivergent individuals in media. One of us expressed a desire to see portrayals of autistic adults who are thriving, who have accommodations, and who are self-aware, without autism framed as a hurdle they must overcome. However, another member cautioned that we should be careful about defining success, emphasizing that it should not always be measured by neurotypical standards. Instead, success should be individualized, focusing on small victories and lived experiences. 
In conclusion, we agree that media representation is crucial in shaping societal beliefs of autism. There is still much more work to ensure these portrayals are diverse, correct, and respectful. The portrayal of autism as a single, narrow experience does a disservice to the community, and there is a need for more nuanced, spectrum-based representations that go beyond the current tropes of savant syndrome and overcoming struggles. We also acknowledged the reciprocal relationship between media and society, where media both reflects and influences societal norms. If the media continues to rush out content without consulting the communities they are portraying, we risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes and missing the opportunity to foster a deeper understanding of neurodiversity.