Relationships are not a tool. They are the primary context of development.

As Autism Awareness and Acceptance Month is coming to an end,  I want to step back and reflect on the foundations that guide our work. For me, one of those foundations is a developmental understanding of how people grow. This is not a new idea. But it is one that continues to shape how I think about support, learning, and human potential.

Development is not a checklist of skills. It is a process that unfolds over time, built on foundational capacities like regulation, engagement, and communication. These capacities grow from the inside out and from the bottom up. When we focus only on observable behaviors, we can miss what gives those behaviors meaning. We may see words, but miss communication. We may see compliance, but miss connection.

A developmental approach, such as DIR®, asks us to look deeper. It brings together emotional development, individual differences, and relationships into a coherent way of understanding the whole person. And at the center of it all is a reminder I come back to often: Relationships are not a tool. They are the primary context of development.

This month, as we reflect, perhaps the question is not which strategies we use, but how well our approaches truly support development in a meaningful, human way.

Meeting the Individual Where They Are: A Concept with Wide-Reaching Application

Autism Awareness and Acceptance Month offers an opportunity for professionals and leaders to reconsider the systems and programs we create to support autistic children and adults. One question I always consider is this: Who is being asked to adapt? Too often, programs are designed with fixed expectations, and autistic individuals accessing these programs are expected to meet those expectations. When that happens, we may unintentionally prioritize compliance over connection. This is not always intentional. In many cases, it comes from a desire to help. But it is still critical that we ask the question and make adjustments to how our systems and programs meet individuals where they are.  

A developmental, relationship-based approach invites a different starting point. It asks us to meet the individual where they are. That means taking the time to understand how an autistic person experiences the world, their sensory processing, their emotional regulation, their interests, their ways of engaging, etc.

It also helps us move beyond a one-sided view of misunderstanding. The concept of the double empathy problem reminds us that when communication breaks down, it is not necessarily a deficit within the autistic individual. It is a mismatch between two people trying to understand each other from different perspectives. When we expect the autistic individual to fit the program, we often place the full burden of that mismatch on the autistic person. When we meet the individual where they are, we begin to share that responsibility. We adjust, we listen differently, and we create space for mutual understanding.

In this way, meeting the autistic individual where they are is not only developmentally sound, it is more accepting and more neuroaffirming. It reflects a respect for difference rather than an attempt to override it.

When we shift in this way, we are not lowering expectations. We are aligning them with development and with a deeper understanding of human connection. This month, perhaps another reflection to consider is this: Are we asking autistic people to fit into our programs, or are we shaping our programs to truly support the autistic individuals in front of us?

Rethinking Social-Emotional Learning: Development Before Instruction

Social-emotional learning (SEL) has emerged as an important and well-intentioned focus in education. The desire to support children in understanding emotions, building relationships, and navigating social environments is both necessary and commendable. There is much to appreciate in the increased attention to the emotional lives of children. At the same time, it is worth asking an important question:

Are we always supporting social-emotional development, or are we sometimes teaching social-emotional content in ways that bypass development itself?

Many SEL curricula emphasize identifying emotions, labeling feelings, practicing scripted responses, and learning discrete social skills. These approaches can build awareness and vocabulary. However, when they are not grounded in lived, relational, emotional experience, they risk becoming intellectual exercises rather than developmental processes.

Children may learn to name feelings without deeply experiencing them. They may learn to perform expected social behaviors without feeling connected to others. They may learn what empathy is supposed to look like without truly feeling empathy. This is an important distinction. Because social-emotional development does not begin with knowledge. It begins with experience.

The Risk of Disconnected Learning

When emotional knowledge is taught in isolation from emotional experience, we run the risk of creating a disconnect between cognition and feeling. In its most concerning form, this can lead to children who are able to:

• Identify emotions accurately
• Use socially appropriate language
• Demonstrate learned social responses

…but who are not deeply connected to their own emotional experiences or to the emotional experiences of others.

In other words, they can simulate social-emotional competence without fully developing it. This is not a failure of children. It is a mismatch between how development actually occurs and how it is sometimes taught. Development is not primarily built through instruction. It is built through experience, interaction, and relationship.  

Development is Lived, Not Taught

From a developmental perspective, social-emotional capacities emerge from ongoing, meaningful interactions with others. Through these interactions, children gradually develop the foundational capacities that support later skills, including:

• Regulation and shared attention
• Engagement and connection
• Intentional and intrinsically-driven communication
• Emotional signaling and understanding
• Shared social problem solving

These capacities do not develop because a child is told or taught about them. They develop because a child lives them. 

• A child does not learn empathy from a worksheet. A child develops empathy by experiencing being understood.
• A child does not learn emotional regulation from a script. A child develops regulation through co-regulation within safe and responsive relationships.
• A child does not learn social reciprocity from role-play alone. A child develops reciprocity through real, meaningful back-and-forth engagement with others.

The Role of Relationships in Development

Relationships fuel development. They are not simply a context in which learning happens. They are the primary driver of development. Within emotionally meaningful relationships, children:

• Experience affect that gives meaning to interactions
• Learn to read and respond to the emotional cues of others
• Build a sense of safety that supports exploration and growth
• Integrate thinking, feeling, and action

It is within these moments, often subtle, often unscripted, that development happens. When educational approaches prioritize structured instruction over relational experience, they risk replacing development with performance.

A Developmental Reframing of SEL

This is not a call to abandon SEL. It is a call to deepen it. A truly developmental approach to social-emotional growth:

• Prioritize relationships and emotional experience as the foundation
• Recognize that affect is central, not secondary, to learning
• Support educators in creating interactive, responsive environments rather than relying primarily on scripted curricula
• Understand that skills emerge from developmental capacities, not the other way around
• Value individual differences in how children process, experience, and express emotions

In this view, emotional understanding is not taught first and felt later. It is felt first, and then gradually understood.

The Why?

We are at a moment where social-emotional learning is widely embraced. That creates both opportunity and responsibility. If we align our practices with how development actually unfolds, we can support deeper, more authentic growth in children’s social and emotional lives. If we do not, we risk creating systems that look effective on the surface, but do not build the underlying capacities that children need to:

• Form meaningful relationships
• Navigate complex emotional experiences
• Develop a coherent and authentic sense of self

A Final Reflection

There is nothing wrong with helping children learn the language of emotions or practice social problem-solving. But we must be careful not to confuse learning about emotions with developing a capacity for understanding emotions. Ultimately, social-emotional development is not something we can deliver as content. It is something that develops through being seen, being heard, being felt, and being in relationship. If we begin there, the skills we hope to teach will emerge more naturally, more deeply, and in ways that truly support the whole child.

Autism Awareness and Acceptance

During Autism Awareness and Acceptance Month, we often return to ideas that many of us already know. This is one of them.

The distinction between awareness and acceptance is not new. Most people reading this have heard it before. I know I have said it many times myself. And yet, I find it is something worth coming back to, again and again.

For me, this reflection has been shaped not just by professional experience, but by listening. Listening to autistic individuals who describe what it feels like to be seen, but not understood. To be included, but not truly accepted.

Awareness helps us notice. Acceptance asks something more of us.

It asks us to move beyond recognizing difference and toward respecting it. It asks us to shift from “How do we change this person?” to “How do we understand and support this person as they are?”

We will not get it right all the time.  Nevertheless, we can work to stay open to learning, to adjusting, and to deepening our capacity to truly accept others.

So perhaps this month is not about hearing something new. Perhaps it is about returning to something important, and asking ourselves how we are living it in our daily interactions.

Below are two videos that speak to this message.  The first is a video from my dear friend, Dr. Emile Gouws.  ICDL's President and self-advocate.  Emile's message about connection is incredibly important.  Then, the next video includes three clips from attendees at our recent International DIR Conference.  All three clips are so meaningful, but the message from the autistic self-advocate about how DIR can help, is particularly powerful.  Please check them out.   

 

 

A Strong Reminder

In a powerful new essay titled Blueprints for a Human Zoo: Reading ‘Walden Two’ Against the Grain, Dr. Jaime Hoerricks revisits B. F. Skinner’s Walden Two and argues it was never just fiction, but “a blueprint for control,” a utopian design that normalizes surveillance and behavioral management. Dr. Hoerricks traces how that logic echoes into modern practice, warning of a “human zoo” metaphor where compliance is prized over autonomy and thriving.

The essay is a strong reminder of why we do what we do at ICDL. Our mission points in the opposite direction from what BF Skinner outlines. We exist “to make a positive impact in people’s lives by promoting and championing transdisciplinary, developmental, relationship-based, respectful, and effective approaches to human development and learning.” That is more than a statement of values; it is a commitment to practices that honor agency, relationships, connections, and the rich individuality of each person. 

What struck me most in Dr. Hoerricks’s piece is the clarity about what gets lost when systems prioritize external control: curiosity, initiative, and the felt experience of being known. When “control” becomes the organizing idea, we risk reducing people to targets of intervention. When relationship becomes the organizing idea, development becomes a shared journey. inside out and bottom up, where affect, sensory processing, movement, communication, cognition, behavior, etc. all integrate through warm, attuned human connection.

DIR® and DIRFloortime® (Floortime™) operationalizes that relational stance. Rather than shaping behavior from the outside, we join the person where they are, follow their interests, co-create “just-right challenges,” and build capacities for engagement, shared problem solving, and reflective thinking. This is how we align with neurodiversity-affirming practice: not by denying support, but by offering support that protects dignity, autonomy, and authentic communication. It’s also why our advocacy explicitly embraces neurodiversity and access to respectful, developmental and relationship-based approaches. 

If Walden Two imagines flourishing through engineered environments, ICDL imagines flourishing through relationships. Dr. Hoerricks helps us name the stakes: whenever we are tempted to measure success by surface compliance, we should ask whether we are building a community or a cage. The answer, for us, begins and ends with relationships, because relationships fuel development.

Read Dr. Hoerricks’s full article here: Blueprints for a Human Zoo: Reading ‘Walden Two’ Against the Grain.

Same Operant Technology, Updated Packaging

 I just got a question from a parent on "new" or "modern" ABA.  They were told is is not really the ABA they have heard about.  That somehow it is different.  On the ICDL website, we discuss ABA vs. DIR very briefly on one of the webpages.  On that page, we use an example of how DIR and ABA look at eye contact differently.  So, I just took that example and did a research review on ABA research in the last few years on training for eye contact.  Of course, the concept of training for eye contact remains very active in ABA.  Even though there are ethical concerns raised about training for eye contact in recent research, the operant conditioning process continues in full swing.  

Here is a summary with some of the references I found:

Is ABA Still Focusing on Training for Eye Contact?  

ABA and Eye Contact: Recent Evidence Shows It Remains a Targeted Behavior

Despite branding shifts to “modern” or “new” ABA, behavior-analytic interventions continue to explicitly target eye contact / social gaze as a teachable behavior using core ABA procedures (e.g., shaping, prompting, reinforcement, stimulus control). Recent peer-reviewed literature demonstrates this.

Examples of Recent Peer-Reviewed Evidence

Behavior-analytic scoping review on promoting social gaze (2023): Confirms behavioral interventions are effective for social gaze/eye contact and shows it remains a common behavioral target. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946723000658

Using shaping to teach eye contact to children with autism (2018): Applied shaping and reinforcement to teach preschoolers sustained eye contact with maintenance and generalization. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6411557/

App with embedded video modeling to increase eye contact (2023): Mobile app using modeling and reinforcement increased eye contact with familiar and unfamiliar adults. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10883576221124805

Shaping social eye contact via telehealth (parent-implemented) (2025): Parents, coached remotely, shaped eye contact successfully during naturalistic interaction. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395882572_Shaping_Social_Eye_Contact_in_Children_With_Autism_Via_Telehealth_A_Parent-Implemented_Intervention

Parent intervention via video modeling (eye contact and joint attention) (2024): Children with ASD/ID improved eye contact and joint attention using graded prompting and reinforcement strategies. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38391746/

What This Shows About 'New ABA'

1. Same operant technology, updated packaging. Across studies, the operative elements are classic ABA (modeling, prompting, shaping, differential reinforcement), now often delivered via apps, telehealth, or parent-implementation—but the behavioral target is still eye contact.

2. Ongoing ethical discussion, not abandonment of the goal. Contemporary behavior analysts debate whether and when to teach eye contact, underscoring that teaching eye contact remains an active ABA topic rather than an obsolete one.

Bottom Line

Recent literature (2018–2025) documents ABA interventions that directly train eye contact/social gaze using standard operant procedures. Claims that 'new ABA' no longer trains discrete social behaviors like eye contact are not supported by the current research record.

Furthermore, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network wrote a while paper centered on ethical practices in autism interventions entitled, For Whose Benefit? Evidence, Ethics, and Effectiveness of Autism Interventions.  On page 18 of the white paper they discuss new ABA.  Here is an excerpt from that section of the paper:

“New ABA” is Still ABA

At ASAN, we have heard from parents who say that ABA as practiced in their family is different from “traditional” ABA – describing interventions that are “holistic,” “play-based,” or “naturalistic,” that focus on communication or life skills rather than on “normalizing” a child’s behaviors, and that take a respectful approach to an autistic child’s existence and needs. This is sometimes termed “new ABA.” It can be hard to determine what is really going on in any given situation. If these practices are indeed ABA, we stress that they are still harmful. We also stress that many practices termed “new ABA” are not, in fact, ABA at all.

Sometimes, parents are describing something that still sounds like ABA, in that the intervention still uses reinforcements to modify . An intervention that, at its core, still uses ABA techniques, is still ABA and still unethical, no matter what other methods it may use. It still carries the same risks of harm, the same lack of acknowledgement of those risks, and the same lack of rigorous supporting evidence. Fundamental modifications of who an autistic person is – or attempts to do so – do not suddenly become acceptable just because the techniques used are less obviously cruel.

A core component of “new ABA” is contrasting its practices with the “old,” torturous practices of Lovaas and his ilk. Leaving aside that Lovaas’s practices are hardly consigned to the past (see the section “The Brutal Beginnings and the Horrific Present”), an intervention being less abusive than a different intervention does not mean that intervention is inherently ethical. Our ethical concerns with ABA go far beyond whether an intervention uses electrical shocks or withholds food to enforce compliance. To again use the metaphor of the rotting hotel, we would still advise others to avoid renting a room there, even if the owners assured us they had repainted and brought the electrical wiring up to code.

ABA that is play-based is still ABA. It is still harmful to try and modify autistic traits or the appearance of autistic behavior, even if it is couched in toys and the appearance of fun. Play-based ABA takes the activities an autistic person enjoys and turns them into ways to attempt to make the person less autistic. For example, if an autistic child collects shoelaces, the ABA therapist might hold a shoelace near the therapist’s eye in order to elicit eye contact. Or, the therapist might do a puzzle with a child, but require the child to look at the therapist and verbally request each piece of the puzzle. While this may seem “nicer” than a traditional discrete trial, the end goal is still to modify the child’s autistic trait. Using play to train a child to appear less autistic also warps the experience of play for the child. We want to stress that we do not believe that all play-based therapy is bad or harmful. We realize that play-based therapies can be incredibly useful, especially for nonspeaking autistic children. But play-based ABA, specifically, is harmful because it is still a form of ABA.

When ABA approaches are used to teach language or speech, we are concerned because the behaviorist approach to language development has been discredited (Chomsky, 1980). ABA approaches to language development, including Verbal Behavior, ignore decades of well-established research on how children, including autistic children and children with significant structural language impairments, learn language (Birner, 2021; Feldman, 2019; Kuhl, 2000). When children appear to gain language in these programs, it is important to understand that this progress is in spite of, not because of, ABA’s outdated and disproven methodology. Autistic children are best supported by a Speech-Language Therapist familiar with best practices for supporting their specific language challenges, including augmentative and alternative communication systems, or AAC.Teaching language via ABA is ineffective and not worth the harm it causes to those subjected to it.

Similarly, there are better ways to teach other core life skills, such as through non-ABA occupational and physical therapies. We once again reference that there are non-autism specific supports that can and do help autistic people build skills and lead more independent and self-directed lives. An autistic person with severe apraxia, for example, could benefit from some of the same occupational and physical therapies, along with the same assistive technology, as apraxic people with other developmental disabilities.. It is also important to remember that just because an autistic person needs a highly individualized or adapted intervention to help them, this does not mean they need ABA. ABA does not have sole claim to individualized or customized therapies and services.

We sometimes hear from parents that their child likes their ABA therapist or assents to an ABA intervention. We would still have concerns in these situations – liking one’s therapist does not make the intervention effective or ethical. Our ethical concerns with ABA (and all other autism therapies and services) do not center around the likeability of the practitioner or whether they can build a rapport with the autistic person.  (ASAN, 2021, p 18-19)

Recent Changes...Worrisome Changes

I just saw a post from John Elder Robison's from a couple months ago.  His genuine sadness touched me and sparked me to share this post.  John Elder Robison was a keynote presenter at an ICDL conference about 10 years ago.  His presentation was one of my favorites.  He is a genuine and caring person.  As I read his Facebook post (below) about the current US government's changes in how it is approaching autism, I felt his genuine sadness.  I share his sadness.  The government should work to do better and it can be good to challenge past ideas and policies.  But this could be done without tearing down years of work, without ignoring existing science, without ignoring the valuable input of autistic advocates, and it could be done without disrespecting autistic people and making them feel "on the outside" like John describes.  

On a related note, ICDL has formally endorsed the joint statement on Upholding Scientific Integrity and Supporting the Autism Community that was developed by organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autism Society, and Autism Speaks.  

Finally, ICDL's vision is "A world where individual differences are embraced and everyone achieves their fullest potential".  We very intentionally start this vision statement with the focus on embracing individual differences.  This has to be the starting place.  It would be great if our leaders would start with the same intent.