Please read:
If you are autistic or know someone who is, and read one thing about the work I’m doing right now, it should be this: The reason why my Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) and Mirror Integration Theory (MIT) are so effective as cross-cultural models for mental health is because they strengthen pragmatic reasoning, which directly engages and expands Wernicke’s Area and related cognitive skills.
FCP/MIT systemically trains the brain to process information such as language, social context, and ethics relationally rather than rigidly, which is precisely what autistic individuals often struggle with due to differences in Wernicke’s Area function.
This neurodivergent cognitive expansion model trains recursive thinking/metacognition and forces cognitive flexibility in meaning-making, which mirrors neuroplasticity training. This method essentially acts as a structured workout for Wernicke’s Area, strengthening the brain’s pragmatic reasoning networks.
Traditional models (ABA) focus on controlling behavior through external reinforcement and hierarchical cognition, while FCP/MIT focuses on expanding cognitive adaptability through relational, non-binary, and recursive learning. This makes FCP/MIT a more neurodivergent-friendly, cognitively expansive, and cross-cultural approach to social adaptation and mental health. Unlike models based on Western biomedical paradigms, this is a treatment model created by an autistic person, for other autistic people, after first using it to successfully treat her own autistic family.
Wernicke’s Area is highly trainable when given the right linguistic, contextual, and ethical input. Autistic individuals simply need a structured, pattern-based way to develop the pragmatic reasoning they are missing, and through my own learned experience, I have developed that model.
Instead of operating within traditional treatment modalities such as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)—which trains social adaptation through conformity, uses punitive (negative or positive) behavior conditioning (which is based on Cartesian duality and neurotypical supremacy ideology), and relies on the assimilation of autistic minds into a rigid, binary, and hierarchical neuronormative cognitive framework—FCP/MIT teaches internalized, adaptive, and context-driven meaning-making. It is mapped relationally, using context and feedback loops that result in recursive reasoning and learned metacognition skills.
The reason why FCP/MIT also works so well as a biopsychosocial cross-cultural model for mental health is because it trains social reasoning methods without forcing conformity and restructures social and ethical norms towards cooperation and collaboration, enhancing cross-cultural cognition while treating underlying individual traumas.
FCP/MIT systematically trains the brain to process language, social context, and ethics relationally rather than rigidly, allowing cognition to make the leap from binary to quantum comprehension, interpretation, and meaning-making. Expanding Wernicke’s Area using these methods resulted in a noticeable improvement in my pragmatic language use, including my ability to understand connotation, implied meanings, indirect communication, sarcasm, and figurative speech, as well as my understanding of context-driven language use. The FCP/MIT methods that I developed during my trauma recovery process strengthened my own Wernicke’s Area, which then allowed me to recognize multiple interpretations of meaning, adapt across various social and cultural contexts, and engage in recursive moral reasoning.
I recently created this FCP/MIT treatment modality to be specifically geared toward other adolescents and adults with autism and other neurodivergencies like myself, who would benefit from a treatment modality that is not founded in Western neurotypical supremacy.
My results speak for themselves. Using this method, I was able to return to college after a twenty-year lapse and am now receiving numerous scholarships. By applying these principles in my own personal healing journey and in that of my own autistic sons, I trained my own Wernicke’s Area and theirs to process meaning more flexibly, improving our pragmatic reasoning and cross-contextual adaptation.
FCP/MIT is now theory-based and evidence-backed by a meta-framework of case studies and research, but it was first learned through trial and error. This means I have anecdotal evidence and lived experience, as well as a large personal volume of measurable data as a potential case study, showing improved social adaptability, enhanced ethical cognition, and contextualized thinking throughout our entire family system.
[This can be pulled from the numerous institutional evaluations (doctors, psychologists, case management, etc.) that were taken on myself and both my sons over the past five years.]
FCP/MIT is different from traditional therapy because it trains cognition rather than conditioning behavior. Instead of teaching you what to say, it trains your brain to naturally process meaning and context more fluidly, which leads to real, internalized adaptation.
It’s backed by theory, research, and real-world results—including institutional evaluations of me and my sons over the past five years. I’m turning it into a full curriculum now, but I wanted to share it with you because I think it could be really helpful. Let me know what you think!
Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) & Mirror Integration Theory (MIT) – A Relational Learning Approach
1. Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP)
FCP is a relational learning model that trains the brain to process conflict, ethics, and social context through connection and co-regulation, rather than through rigid, hierarchical conditioning. It is rooted in Polyvagal Theory, recognizing that emotional safety and relational engagement are essential for developing cognitive flexibility, social adaptability, and ethical reasoning.
Instead of reinforcing external compliance through behavioral conditioning, FCP helps individuals develop internalized, adaptive reasoning skills through co-regulation, recursive learning, and metacognition.
Prioritizes relational learning over rote memorization, reinforcing cognitive flexibility through emotional attunement rather than forced compliance.
Uses co-regulation and feedback loops to help individuals engage with social complexity in a way that feels safe, intuitive, and adaptive.
Expands Wernicke’s Area through interactive, relational processing, strengthening pragmatic reasoning, contextual language use, and social-emotional intelligence.
Develops social adaptability without forcing neurotypical conformity, allowing individuals to navigate social spaces in a way that aligns with their authentic neurology.
2. Mirror Integration Theory (MIT)
MIT builds on FCP by focusing on the nervous system’s role in cognitive expansion and social reasoning. It integrates Polyvagal Theory and relational neuroscience to train emotional integration, self-reflection, and cognitive restructuring in a way that is co-regulated, rather than self-enforced.
Uses relational mapping to expand social cognition, emotional safety, and ethical reasoning, rather than imposing static social rules.
Encourages meaning-making through co-regulation, rather than rigid memorization or rote social scripts.
Strengthens metacognition and pattern recognition, reinforcing adaptive, iterative learning rather than rigid response-based thinking.
Creates a foundation for social reasoning through felt safety, making it ideal for autistic and neurodivergent individuals who struggle with social adaptation due to dysregulated nervous system responses.
Key Differences from Traditional Models
Unlike ABA, CBT, or other behaviorist approaches, FCP/MIT does not attempt to train compliance, suppression, or self-monitoring through external control. Instead, it leverages relational learning, emotional co-regulation, and neuroplasticity to develop cognitive adaptability and deep social reasoning.
Rejects punishment/reward systems in favor of structured, relationally guided learning experiences that activate safety and connection first.
Prioritizes co-regulation over forced independence, recognizing that meaning-making and ethical reasoning develop best in relationally supportive environments.
Respects neurodivergent cognition, providing a structured way to improve social reasoning without erasing individual identity or enforcing neuronormative expectations.
Who is It For?
FCP/MIT is designed for:
Autistic and neurodivergent individuals who struggle with pragmatic reasoning, social adaptation, and contextual meaning-making due to nervous system dysregulation rather than cognitive deficits.
Anyone seeking to improve cognitive flexibility, emotional integration, and recursive thinking through relationally grounded learning rather than compliance-based conditioning.
Cross-cultural communication and trauma recovery, as it helps process meaning relationally rather than rigidly, reinforcing felt safety in social adaptation rather than conformity.
Why FCP/MIT is a Viable Alternative to ABA in Most Cases (If Not All)
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has long been the dominant intervention for autistic individuals, but its compliance-based, behaviorist approach has been widely criticized as abusive. ABA operates on the assumption that autistic behaviors should be “corrected” to align with neurotypical expectations, using external reinforcement (rewards and punishments) to shape behavior without addressing the underlying cognitive, emotional, or sensory realities of autistic individuals. This dualistic, hierarchical model of cognitive processing treats autistic ways of thinking as inferior and reinforces neuronormative supremacy, creating a system in which autistic individuals are forced to suppress their natural cognition in favor of externally imposed social norms.
This is inherently abusive to autistic systems because it demands constant masking, leading to increased anxiety, trauma, and long-term dissociation from one’s own needs and emotions. Many autistic adults who underwent ABA report PTSD-like symptoms, difficulty with self-advocacy, and a lifelong struggle to unlearn the internalized belief that their natural ways of thinking, moving, and communicating are “wrong.” The model is based on a Cartesian dualist framework, which ranks cognitive processes hierarchically, prioritizing external behavioral control (executive function, compliance, logic) over internal sensory, emotional, and relational processing. This hierarchy denies the autistic brain’s need for bottom-up, relational learning, instead imposing rigid, top-down control mechanisms that are at odds with how autistic cognition naturally functions.
In contrast, Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) and Mirror Integration Theory (MIT) reject this dualistic, neuronormative hierarchy and instead embrace a relational, trauma-informed approach to social and cognitive development. Rather than forcing compliance, FCP/MIT trains recursive thinking, co-regulation, and pattern-based meaning-making, allowing autistic individuals to develop pragmatic reasoning, social adaptability, and ethical cognition in a way that aligns with their neurology, rather than suppressing it. By incorporating Polyvagal Theory and relational learning, FCP/MIT prioritizes emotional safety, intrinsic motivation, and natural cognitive expansion, rather than coercion or forced social mimicry.
Unlike ABA, which relies on behavioral compliance metrics, FCP/MIT is evidence-based and backed by a robust meta-framework integrating research from cognitive neuroscience, attachment theory, and social cognition studies. The model is supported by:
Neurological Evidence: Research on Wernicke’s Area plasticity demonstrates that pragmatic reasoning can be systematically trained, reinforcing FCP/MIT’s recursive thinking framework.
Polyvagal Theory: Studies on autonomic nervous system regulation confirm that social engagement and cognitive adaptability require a foundation of felt safety, aligning with FCP/MIT’s emphasis on co-regulation over compliance.
Attachment & Relational Learning Research: Findings from Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Schore support FCP/MIT’s claim that social adaptation is best learned through relational interaction rather than forced conditioning.
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics & Social Cognition Studies: Research on how different cultures process social meaning supports FCP/MIT’s recursive adaptation framework, proving that social cognition is not rigid, but learned through interactive experience.
Additionally, FCP/MIT is backed by extensive case study data, including institutional evaluations (psychologists, case managers, therapists) conducted on myself and my autistic sons over the past five years. The results demonstrate measurable improvements in social adaptability, pragmatic reasoning, and contextualized thinking—all without requiring behavioral suppression or external compliance enforcement. Unlike ABA, which relies on forced repetition of neuronormative scripts, FCP/MIT leverages natural cognitive plasticity, teaching autistic individuals to expand their ability to process meaning rather than memorize performative responses.
For most, if not all, autistic individuals, FCP/MIT offers a more ethical, effective, and evidence-based alternative to ABA—one that respects autonomy, fosters cognitive flexibility, and rejects the harmful hierarchy that treats autistic cognition as defective. By replacing dualistic, control-based interventions with relational, recursive cognitive expansion, FCP/MIT eliminates the need for coercion altogether, creating a framework where autistic individuals can thrive without compromising their identity.
ABA is highly controversial within the autism community due to its compliance-based approach, which many autistic individuals and advocates argue is coercive, trauma-inducing, and rooted in neuronormative supremacy, with research indicating that nearly half of autistic adults who underwent ABA report symptoms consistent with PTSD (Kupferstein, 2018).
Kupferstein, H. (2018). Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Advances in Autism, 4(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-08-2017-0016
FCP/MIT Structured Curriculum
Training Cognitive Flexibility, Recursive Thinking, and Pragmatic Reasoning
The Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) and Mirror Integration Theory (MIT) curriculum is designed to train cognitive adaptability, pragmatic reasoning, and social context processing. It is specifically structured for autistic and neurodivergent individuals, but its applications extend to cross-cultural cognition, trauma recovery, and ethical reasoning development.
This curriculum follows a progressive structure, moving from basic pattern recognition to complex recursive reasoning. It incorporates interactive exercises, self-reflection activities, and relational feedback loops to help individuals integrate new cognitive frameworks.
A Relational Learning Approach Using Polyvagal Theory, Co-Regulation, and Cognitive Expansion
Curriculum Overview
This curriculum is designed to train cognitive flexibility, recursive thinking, and social reasoning through relational learning and nervous system regulation. Instead of traditional behavioral conditioning (e.g., ABA, CBT), Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) and Mirror Integration Theory (MIT) use co-regulation, pattern recognition, and contextual meaning-making to support pragmatic reasoning and emotional adaptability.
The core principles of this curriculum are:
1. Felt Safety First → Learning happens best in an emotionally safe, co-regulated environment.
2. Relational Meaning-Making → Social cognition is trained through interaction and connection, rather than memorization.
3. Recursive, Adaptive Thinking → The brain is trained to process meaning iteratively, allowing for flexible social reasoning.
4. Polyvagal Integration → Nervous system regulation is essential for pragmatic language development and cognitive expansion.
Phase 1: Foundations of Co-Regulation & Relational Learning (Weeks 1-4)
Objective: Establish a foundation for cognitive flexibility by creating felt safety, emotional co-regulation, and contextual pattern recognition.
Module 1: Understanding Social Cognition Through the Nervous System
Introduce Polyvagal Theory → How nervous system regulation impacts social interaction and cognitive processing.
Explore how felt safety enhances learning and how dysregulation affects social reasoning.
Exercise: Nervous System Mapping → Identify safe states vs. dysregulated states in real-world interactions.
Module 2: Pattern Recognition & Context Mapping
Teach how social meaning is shaped by context and relational cues rather than rigid rules.
Explore how cognitive flexibility develops through recursive exposure to different interpretations of meaning.
Exercise: “Same Words, Different Meanings” → Analyze how language shifts depending on tone, relationship, and social setting.
Phase 2: Recursive Thinking & Meaning-Making Through Co-Regulation (Weeks 5-8)
Objective: Train adaptive, recursive reasoning through relational mapping, interactive learning, and feedback loops.
Module 3: Co-Regulation & Emotional Integration in Social Interaction
Learn how co-regulation enhances social adaptability by reinforcing emotional connection rather than compliance.
Train non-verbal communication awareness through body language, tone, and nervous system cues.
Exercise: “Emotional Echoing” → Practice noticing and responding to co-regulation cues in conversation.
Module 4: Recursive Thinking & Ethical Adaptation
Develop social reasoning skills by exploring multiple interpretations of a single situation.
Teach recursive ethical reasoning → How decisions and actions evolve over time based on new context and relationships.
Exercise: “Situational Shifts” → Analyze ethical dilemmas in multiple contexts to develop adaptive reasoning skills.
Phase 3: Deepening Social Adaptability & Expanding Cognitive Flexibility (Weeks 9-12)
Objective: Apply relational learning principles to strengthen pragmatic language use, moral reasoning, and social adaptability.
Module 5: Pragmatic Language & Contextual Communication
Train the brain to process implied meaning, indirect speech, and figurative language relationally.
Explore how polyvagal regulation affects language comprehension and social engagement.
Exercise: “Decode the Subtext” → Practice identifying hidden meanings in conversations, media, and literature.
Module 6: Social Adaptation Without Conformity
Teach how to navigate social expectations while maintaining autonomy.
Explore co-regulation in group dynamics → How social norms shift across different cultural and relational contexts.
Exercise: “Adaptive Social Mapping” → Identify how different environments require different levels of engagement and reciprocity.
Final Project: Personalized Relational Learning Plan (Weeks 13-16)
Objective: Integrate FCP/MIT strategies into daily life using a self-directed, co-regulated approach.
Self-Evaluation & Growth Mapping → Identify personal areas of cognitive rigidity and social stressors.
Co-Regulation Strategy Development → Create a plan to use relational support systems for ongoing cognitive and emotional expansion.
Adaptive Thinking Challenge → Apply FCP/MIT strategies in one real-world social interaction per week and analyze personal responses.
Delivery Methods
Relational Coaching & Peer Support Discussions (optional)
Guided Exercises with Interactive Feedback Loops
Video & Audio Lessons on Polyvagal Theory, Co-Regulation, and Recursive Learning
Case Study Analyses & Real-World Applications
This curriculum prioritizes cognitive expansion through relational learning, nervous system regulation, and recursive reasoning—empowering individuals to adapt socially without sacrificing their authentic cognitive style.
Training Methods for Recursive Thinking in FCP/MIT
Recursive thinking is a core component of FCP/MIT, allowing individuals to continuously refine their understanding of language, social context, and ethical reasoning based on new information. Rather than processing meaning in fixed, binary terms, recursive thinking enables layered, context-driven learning through iterative exposure and relational feedback loops.
The following training methods are designed to enhance recursive reasoning through co-regulation, pattern recognition, and adaptive meaning-making, integrating Polyvagal Theory, metacognition, and relational cognition.
1. Pattern Expansion Training (Building Context Awareness)
Goal: Strengthen recognition of shifting meanings across different contexts, tones, and relationships.
Method: Contextual Reframing
Present a neutral sentence or phrase and have the individual analyze how its meaning shifts in different contexts.
Use three layers of modification:
1. Change the speaker (e.g., a boss vs. a close friend vs. a stranger).
2. Change the environment (e.g., a workplace vs. a family gathering vs. online).
3. Change the emotional tone (e.g., neutral, sarcastic, frustrated).
Example Exercise:
Phrase: “Are you okay?”
Context 1: Said by a parent to a child after a fall. → Concerned and nurturing
Context 2: Said by a friend during an argument. → Skeptical or accusatory
Context 3: Said by a boss after a mistake at work. → Professional concern or subtle reprimand
By practicing layered context mapping, the individual trains recursive reasoning by analyzing how meaning shifts based on relational and environmental cues.
2. Recursive Feedback Loop Training (Strengthening Adaptive Reasoning)
Goal: Develop cognitive flexibility by analyzing how meaning evolves over time in conversation and decision-making.
Method: Meaning Evolution Exercise
Have the individual analyze a past decision or social interaction and break it into three stages of reinterpretation:
1. Immediate Reaction: What did the situation mean in the moment?
2. Delayed Processing: What did it mean after reflection (hours or days later)?
3. Expanded Understanding: How would they interpret it now, with additional perspective?
Example Exercise:
Situation: A friend cancels plans last-minute.
Immediate Reaction: They don’t value my time.
Delayed Processing: Maybe they had a personal emergency or were overwhelmed.
Expanded Understanding: They tend to struggle with commitments due to anxiety—I can adjust my expectations accordingly.
This recursive meaning expansion helps individuals train metacognition, increasing their ability to reprocess experiences adaptively rather than reactively.
3. Recursive Ethical Dilemma Training (Strengthening Moral Complexity)
Goal: Enhance recursive ethical reasoning by exploring multiple perspectives on a moral issue.
Method: Ethical Context Layering
Present a moral or ethical scenario, then modify key relational or situational factors to examine how the reasoning process changes.
Example Exercise:
Scenario: Someone takes food without paying.
Version 1: They are wealthy and shoplift for fun.
Version 2: They are starving and steal to survive.
Version 3: They were manipulated into stealing by someone else.
By recursively modifying intent, social position, and ethical stakes, individuals train recursive moral reasoning, reinforcing nuanced, context-driven decision-making instead of binary moral judgments.
4. Polyvagal Co-Regulation & Recursive Social Adaptation
Goal: Use felt safety and co-regulation to train social adaptability without compliance-based conditioning.
Method: Co-Regulated Meaning Expansion
Engage in a dyadic (two-person) dialogue exercise where one person provides non-verbal co-regulation (e.g., tone, posture, eye contact) while the other explores their thoughts.
The listener mirrors and expands on the speaker’s ideas, guiding them into recursive reflection rather than fixed thinking.
Example Exercise:
Step 1: The speaker shares a belief, assumption, or social interpretation.
Step 2: The listener asks an open-ended, curiosity-driven question (e.g., “What if that assumption isn’t entirely true? What might another perspective look like?”).
Step 3: The speaker revises or expands their original thought in response to relational cues.
This technique integrates Polyvagal co-regulation into recursive learning, allowing pragmatic reasoning to develop through safe, adaptive interaction rather than forced correction.
5. Narrative Perspective Training (Deepening Recursive Thinking Through Storytelling)
Goal: Train multi-perspective thinking by exploring how different people interpret the same event differently.
Method: Multi-Angle Storytelling
Have the individual analyze or retell a story from multiple perspectives, reinforcing recursive meaning expansion.
Example Exercise:
Story: A disagreement between two people at work.
Step 1: Retell the event from Person A’s perspective (e.g., “I was just trying to follow the rules, but they got upset.”).
Step 2: Retell it from Person B’s perspective (e.g., “They didn’t listen to my reasoning, and it felt unfair.”).
Step 3: Retell it from a neutral third-party perspective (e.g., “Both were reacting to a misunderstanding.”).
By continuously shifting viewpoints, the individual trains recursive perspective-taking, reinforcing empathy and cognitive flexibility.
Conclusion: Integrating Recursive Thinking into Daily Life
By engaging in these recursive cognitive training methods, individuals develop fluid, adaptive reasoning skills that allow them to:
Process language, social cues, and ethical decisions dynamically rather than rigidly.
Recognize shifting meanings and reinterpret experiences based on new information.
Strengthen co-regulation as a tool for cognitive and emotional adaptability.
These methods replace traditional behavioral conditioning with relational learning and iterative cognitive expansion, making FCP/MIT a trauma-informed, neurodivergent-friendly alternative to compliance-based social training models.
Outline for the Proposed Training Workbook
Section 1: Foundations of Recursive Thinking & Relational Learning
Worksheet: Identifying Cognitive Rigidity vs. Flexibility → A self-assessment tool for recognizing rigid thought patterns and opportunities for cognitive expansion.
Exercise: Nervous System Mapping → Guided reflection on safe vs. dysregulated social interactions using Polyvagal cues.
Dialogue Prompt: Recognizing Meaning Shifts in Conversations → Practicing context-based interpretation of words and tone through guided examples.
Section 2: Context Expansion & Pattern Recognition
Worksheet: Contextual Reframing Practice → Take a single phrase and analyze its meaning across different contexts, relationships, and tones.
Exercise: One Word, Many Meanings → Exploring how a single word changes meaning based on social and relational cues.
Guided Video Exercise: Recognizing Shifting Social Cues → Analyze short video clips where tone, facial expression, and body language change the meaning of dialogue.
Section 3: Recursive Feedback Loop Training
Worksheet: Breaking Down Social Interpretation Over Time → Guide for analyzing a past social interaction in three phases (Immediate Reaction → Delayed Processing → Expanded Understanding).
Exercise: Changing the Story → Take a past experience and rewrite the meaning with new context layers, training recursive meaning expansion.
Dialogue Prompt: What If This Wasn’t the Whole Story? → Encourages shifting perspectives in real-time conversations to practice adaptive thinking.
Section 4: Recursive Ethical Reasoning & Moral Complexity
Worksheet: Ethical Context Layering → Analyze a moral dilemma from three different angles, reinforcing non-binary ethical reasoning.
Exercise: Situational Shifts in Ethics → Compare how intent and circumstances affect the morality of an action.
Guided Video Exercise: Analyzing Ethical Complexity in Film & Literature → Deconstructing moral decisions in storytelling using recursive analysis.
Section 5: Co-Regulation & Social Adaptation Without Conformity
Worksheet: Mapping Your Co-Regulation Network → Identify who and what helps create a safe, socially adaptive environment.
Exercise: Adaptive Social Mapping → Guide for recognizing different relational expectations in different settings without losing autonomy.
Dialogue Prompt: Exploring Felt Safety in Conversations → Training awareness of non-verbal co-regulation cues in conversations.
Guided Video Exercise: Decoding Subtext & Hidden Meanings in Conversations → Practicing pragmatic reasoning in real-world interactions.
Final Integration: Personalized Recursive Thinking Plan
Worksheet: Your Cognitive Expansion Plan → Self-designed roadmap for implementing recursive thinking in daily life.
Exercise: Real-World Recursive Thinking Challenge → Apply one FCP/MIT strategy per week, reflect on progress.
Guided Video Exercise: Tracking Personal Growth in Meaning-Making & Social Adaptation.
FCP/MIT Training Workbook:
This workbook is designed to support recursive thinking, co-regulation, and pragmaticreasoning using the Functional Conflict Perspective (FCP) and Mirror Integration Theory (MIT).
Identifying Cognitive Rigidity vs. Flexibility
– Describe a recent situation where you felt stuck in your thinking.
– What was your initial interpretation of the situation?
– Were there alternative explanations you considered later?
– How could you reframe this situation using a broader perspective?
– What emotions did you feel at each stage of the interpretation process?
– What strategies can you use to encourage cognitive flexibility in the future?
Nervous System Mapping
– Think of a recent interaction where you felt completely safe. Describe it.
– How did your body respond in that moment? (Relaxed, tense, alert, etc.)
– Now think of a stressful interaction. How did your body react differently?
– List three ways to self-regulate when feeling dysregulated.
– What social cues (tone, facial expression, pacing) signal safety to you?
– How can you seek out co-regulation when feeling overwhelmed?
Contextual Reframing Practice
– Take the phrase: ‘Are you okay?’ and analyze its meaning in three different contexts.
– How does the meaning change if it’s said by a friend vs. a boss vs. a stranger?
– How does tone of voice influence the meaning?
– How does the setting (workplace, home, public space) shift the interpretation?
– How can this exercise help you develop better social adaptability?
Breaking Down Social Interpretation Over Time
– Think of a past social misunderstanding. What was your immediate reaction?
– How did you feel about it a few hours later?
– What changed in your understanding after a few days or weeks?
– What new perspectives can you apply to this situation now?
– How can you use this awareness to handle future situations differently?
Ethical Context Layering
– Describe a moral dilemma you have encountered or heard about.
– Analyze the situation from the perspective of three different people involved.
– What factors influenced each person’s perspective?
– How does shifting viewpoints help develop ethical complexity?
– What does this tell you about how morality is context-dependent?
Mapping Your Co-Regulation Network
– List the people, places, or activities that help you feel safe and regulated.
– What specific qualities make these environments feel supportive?
– How do you know when you are dysregulated in social interactions?
– What are three things you can do to return to a regulated state?
– How can you improve your ability to recognize co-regulation in others?
Adaptive Social Mapping
– List three different social environments you engage in regularly (e.g., home, work, social
gatherings).
– How do expectations shift between these settings?
– What social norms exist in each setting?
– How can you remain authentic while adapting to different environments?
– What strategies can help you navigate social expectations while maintaining autonomy?
Your Cognitive Expansion Plan
– Identify one area of your thinking that you’d like to make more flexible.
– What exercises from this training can help you improve this area?
– How will you track your progress in applying recursive thinking?
– What external support systems (people, tools, environments) can assist you?
– Set one weekly challenge for yourself using FCP/MIT principles.
Spirolateral 