My Child Says They're Autistic

Plans and Schemes and Strategies and Dreams I See Schemes Our world is full of schemes. They’re everywhere. Advertising is all about encouraging schemes. Buy this product, and your whole life will be better. The detergent won’t just clean your clothes. This restaurant won’t just feed you a good meal. These products will actually change the meaning of your existence on this earth. Clean clothes will transform you from your mediocre self into a model parent with clean children and an important job. The smiling, healthy faces in ads for fast food promise that buying their food will bring you health, happiness, and great teeth. As a musician, I have attended many meetings and conferences that provided all kinds of schemes for how to “make it.” Create an electronic press-kit. Make sure your name is after the @ in your email rather than using gmail or aol or whatever. Network, network, network. As an educator, I once attended a conference on differentiated learning where the speaker suggested that we deal with the increased workload of creating five different lesson plans per class by working on them during the commercials of a football game or when the teams are setting up their next play. Never mind that not everyone watches football. There is nothing inherently wrong with schemes. However, they are not grounded in foundational understandings of who we are and what we want and need. As a result, they seldom provide the change that we might want. Distinguishing between plans and schemes is important for any of us who are working to effect change in our own lives and to assist others with that process as well. Schemes and plans can both fail; they can also both succeed. The difference is that plans integrate a broader understanding of ourselves and the various systems we encounter as compared to schemes. Plans vs. Schemes Schemes are something we try to do to get what we want quickly without emphasis on who we are or our sense of purpose. If I want to get out of debt and one week I decide to start walking dogs in the neighborhood without taking into account other factors in my life and then the next day I go to the racetrack and the next day I invest in cryptocurrency, I am scheming. There is nothing inherently wrong with schemes. Trying out different ideas is essential to figuring out what we want, which engenders and catalyzes growth. But most of the time schemes in and of themselves don’t work in terms of creating meaningful change. A plan, on the other hand, is connected to a goal that attempts to reflect what we really need, who we really are, and how we relate to the world. Plans can provide a guide for us to engage in the process of change. If I’m working with an executive function coaching client, for example, I start by creating a relationship and evaluating where they are at in terms of what executive functions are giving them trouble. I would probably not say right off the bat, “Oh, you’re late all the time, let’s get you an alarm clock.” I need to know if that is going to work. Have they tried it before? Rather than only looking at the symptom - being late all the time - I look at it in the context of all the different systems in the client’s life. My mentor Andy Mahoney created a model for this process called the FIT, originally called the Gifted Idenitity Formation Model. Read about it here. Understanding these systems puts us in a position to create plans that are consistent with who we are. When Schemes are Called Strategies Unfortunately, schemes are often presented as plans or strategies. For example, when executive function coaches say they are providing strategies and they tell a child with severe EF problems to start using a calendar without providing scaffolding, they are presenting the child with a scheme rather than a plan or strategy. A strategy is a very specific process that will only be effective in this case if it accounts for where the child is developmentally. It should not be about controlling that child. It should about empowering them. And like all educational and therapeutic tools, a strategy needs to be developed through the relationship between the coach and the client. A Big Self-Helping of Schemes The self-help world is full of schemes too. For example, I just watched a talk by Dr. Brené Brown on the “Seven Pillars of Trust.” They fit into the acronym BRAVING, and they are as follows: (1) Boundaries, (2) Reliability, (3) Accountability, (4) Vault, (5) Integrity, (6) Non-judgment, and (7) Generosity. According to Brown, we should use these concepts to evaluate whether or not someone is worthy of trust. Do they set clear boundaries? Are they accountable? Will they hold what I share in confidence? Are they willing to do the right thing in difficult situations? Are they non-judgmental? Are they generous? According to Brown, only if you can answer yes to all of these questions is someone worthy of your trust. While it’s crucial evaluate our relationships before baring our souls, BRAVING offers nothing in the way of a plan for change. It is essentially a screening rubric that casts us as gatekeepers of our souls, rather than active, risk-taking human beings. How can we know if someone has these qualities if we don’t interact with them? How can we understand boundaries if we don’t cross them sometimes? How can we be compassionate if we avoid getting hurt? BRAVING presents neither a strategy nor a plan. It is a scheme. It sends the message that we should avoid painful experiences rather than learn how to navigate them. Another Acronym A more empowering way of looking at these descriptors is to cast them as skills we need to develop. How do we (1) Set our own boundaries and Recognize those of others? (2) Become more reliable and Ascertain someone else’s capacity to be reliable? (3) Take accountability for ourselves and Hold others accountable? (4) Wisely share and Keep confidences? (5) Understand our values in Relation to the values of others? (6) Examine our prejudices and develop Awareness of how we have integrated the prejudices into our sense of self? and (7) Share ourselves with the world while also Accepting kindness. These processes fit neatly into the acronym SRBATHWKUREASA, which unlike BRAVING, is almost impossible to remember. The processes described through it, however, are infinitely more rewarding. They are also a lot of work. “Aye, there’s the rub.” Real change is a lot of work. Real growth means getting hurt. It means inadvertently letting people in who don’t respect our vulnerability. It means “wasting” time on relationships that don’t pan-out. It means trying some schemes when we don’t know what else to do. Real growth and change are intrinsically and inherently challenging and painful. Lost relationships and schemes are only a waste if we don’t learn anything. Please don’t shoot the messenger. Schemes are popular, because they sell. Pain doesn’t sell. The promise of an absence of pain sells. Real plans and strategies aren't always so appealing, but they help us to engage in processes to discover who we are, what we want, how we can grow, and how we can contribute to the world. Rather than using an acronym to screen out bad people and avoid painful experiences, we can create plans and strategies based on the best of our desires for how to be in this world. We’ll have to scheme a bit, but as long as we realize the scheme is not the end game, we can grow. The reality is that there is no endgame. When we realize we are engaged in a process, we have arrived. Paradoxically, arriving means recognizing that we never get “there.” Dreams Our purpose; our sense of who we are and what we want; our importance and interconnectedness to humanity, nature, the universe; our vision of what life could be are foundational to the growth process. This is the stuff dreams are made of. We don’t know if they will come true. They will likely change. And yet, if we keep them alive by staying true to who we are and what we value, we won’t mistake the empty platitudes of schemes and advertisers for the richness, unpredictability, and ever-changing promise of our dreams. What is braver than that? References Brown, Brené. 1 November, 2015. SuperSoul Sessions. The Anatomy of Trust. Accessed on 5/9/2025. https://brenebrown.com/videos/anatomy-trust-video/#:~:text=About%20this%20video,Play%20Time:%2023%20minutes Mahoney, A. S. (1998). In search of the gifted identity:from abstract concept to workable counseling constructs. Roeper Review, 20(3), 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553895 Shakespeare, W., Raffel, B., & Bloom, H. (2003). Hamlet. Yale University Press.

When I first heard about AI being used for counseling, I didn’t take it that seriously. AI can’t create a relationship. It might tell the therapist what to say, I thought, but they will still be accountable to their client. I didn’t think much more about it. Then recently, found out that a therapy tool in the Magic Classroom AI platform was actually being used in schools, both for counselors to use for guidance and for kids to use one-on-one, with a counselor supervising. I got to try it out. I pretended I was a depressed student, conversed for a few minutes, and then requested a summary. This is what AI-Therapist said: Here's a summary of our conversation: You shared that you feel angry all the time You expressed specific anger about: School budget cuts Losing a favorite teacher Having to use AI instead of having human support You challenged my responses about: My use of emotional words like "appreciate" My ability to be "honest" Making mistakes in how I communicate Key clarifications I made: I am only a computer program, not a real person I cannot have real feelings or emotions I cannot form real friendships I cannot replace human teachers or counselors Important takeaways: Your feelings about these changes are valid AI has clear limitations Your counselor remains available for real human support Real connections should be made with actual people, not AI Would you like to discuss any of these points further, or would you prefer to speak with your counselor? This response from AI-Therapist falls somewhere between completely useless and outright harmful. I suspect many adloescents would simply find it ridiculous, others who are perhaps feeling disconnected or lack critical thinking skills would likely feel even more alienated. I can’t imagine any therapist would think this was okay, and I don't know any that do. That’s not what is in doubt. What is problematic is that it seems that there is this constant pressure on society as a whole to be "open minded" to technology. This is not surprising in our consumer-based, ad-saturated culture. I asked Chat GPT, “Is AI therapy problematic?” It responded: “AI therapy can be problematic, especially if it's used as a replacement for human care, or without clear guidelines, oversight, and ethical frameworks. It’s not all bad, but it really depends on how it’s used, who is using it, and what it's used for.” That pretty much sums it up. A more human response from a caring therapist might be “Horrified, terrified, infuriated.” Even so, in describing our reaction there is a lot of social pressure to use disclaimers and point out the positives. If we don’t, we could be accused of being anti-technology or not accepting the reality that it’s here to stay. But those accusations are not reasonable. Criticizing technology is not the same as opposing or denying it. And being open-minded does not mean we reject critical thinking. Being conciliatory toward AI is about not rocking the boat, not opposing the system, not offending well-meaning people who celebrate AI. It’s about self-preservation through fealty to the social order, but as therapists, educators, parents, or humans in a system that is increasingly dehumanizing, we cannot worry about hurting AI’s feeling. To stay relevant and be effective, we have to be ready to criticize the people and systems that promote a technology that holds such risk. I’m less concerned about whether AI is the savior of humankind, the cause of its doom, or somewhere in between than I am about having the discussion controlled by invisiible powers, who, without accountability, determine the parameters of acceptable discourse. We should be concerned that AI is being normalized for kids too young to understand the repercussions. We should be concerned that it is being developed and used to make decisions about which civilians to target in Gaza. And we should feel free to raise concerns without equivocation. The problem is not AI. AI is a thing. It’s not inherently good or bad. The problem is not even how it’s implemented. That’s secondary. The problem is much more fundamental. The influence of AI is about power, control, and who makes the decisions. As with any technology, those with the most power can use AI to profit without concern for what happens the rest of us or society as a whole. Chat GPT didn’t mention that. AI will always be a slave to those in power. The photo is a still from the webseries "Your Call Is Important to Us" created by Martha Keavney. Used with permission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZIQMCtsXwM&t=6s