ACT, MFT and ABA: Discovering a Unique Alphabet with Matt Tapia (Part II)

ABA on Tap is proud to present Matt Tapia (Part 2 of 2):

Matt Tapia is a dually-credentialed professional, holding licenses as both a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) in Arizona and California and a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). This unique background allows him to offer a comprehensive, integrated perspective on mental health and behavior, drawing from both clinical counseling and applied behavior analysis.

Matt's therapeutic approach is heavily influenced by third-wave behavioral therapies, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Mindfulness, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). His work focuses on helping individuals, couples, and families navigate a broad spectrum of challenges, such as anxiety, depression, trauma, relationship issues, life transitions, and caregiving stress, particularly for those within the autism and neurodivergent communities.

In addition to his clinical practice, Matt serves as a Subject Matter Expert for the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) where he helps develop and review national exam questions for aspiring BCBAs and RBTs. He holds a master's degree in Counseling Psychology from Santa Clara University and is an active member of several professional organizations, including the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). With a commitment to meeting clients where they are, Matt uses a collaborative, team-based approach to help people build meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Transcript

SPEAKER_02: 0:10

Welcome to ABA on TAC, where our goal is to find the best recipe to brew the smoothest, coldest, and best-tasting ABA around. I'm Dan Lowry with Mike Rubio, and join us on our journey as we look back into the ingredients to form the best concoction of ABA on Tac. In this podcast, we will talk about the history of the ABA brew, how much to consume to achieve the optimum buzz while not getting too drunk, and the recommended pairings to bring to the table. So without further ado, sit back, relax, and always analyze responsibly.

SPEAKER_01: 0:52

Alright, alright, alright. Welcome back to another installment of ABA on tap. I am your grateful co-host, Mike Rubio, and this is part two with Matt Tapia. Enjoy.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05

So let's take it to a more relatable example to people. Thank you for that little breakdown. It doesn't affect me as much, but let's say airplane riding. How would you use ACT? So a lot of people have phobias of airplanes. Don't really have control. Once you're on the airplane, you don't have control over what's going to happen. You put trust in the maintenance, the pilot, whatever. Can you talk about maybe using ACT for people that are getting anxiety about being on an airplane?

SPEAKER_03: 1:33

Yeah, absolutely. Definitely. So first, um, well, there's a lot of things you can do with that. I I think the my mind goes immediately to exposure therapy, graduate exposure. So Axe really works well with graduate exposure. You gradually or desensitization, you can gradually introduce, you know, stimuli that relate to or similar to the airplane rides. For example, like I might say, okay, let's watch some airplane rides and let's do a per a POV video of someone getting on open airplane. You can watch that. How does your rate your anxiety in that moment? So like we use like the I think the side subjective instead of the stress scale. One to a hundred. Where's your anxiety at? 100 up here or is it down here? Are you about to have a panic attack or are you perfectly calm as a cucumber? So we just are there. You know, let's get comfortable with planes, let's get familiar with planes. You know, then this is kind of hard to do though, because you have to buy an airplane ticket to get onto an actual airplane, you can't just get off when you want to. I would be like, if I could, I'd be like, okay, let's go on the airplane, okay, let's get off. Let's sit on there for a minute and then not actually take off, you know. And then work up our way to actually flying on an airplane. But if we have an airplane museum, I might do that. Like, okay, let's be in an airplane museum, pretend like we're staying on the airplane, and then we're going somewhere. You know, or like a pretend plane, you know, that's one of that's not gonna take off. So gradually exposing it to them and having them accept, okay, let's label, let's attach your emotions in this moment. How are you feeling? I hate that question because how you're feeling is kind of the worst question you can ask a therapist. How does that make you feel like it's the worst question you can ask them? I would say, okay, put your anxiety on the scale here. Give it a number. Okay, let's attack it. Okay, so things like that. Okay, tell me okay, here's a better question to ask. Where do you feel that in your body? There we go. That's a good question. What does that feel like? So where's that anxiety showing up in your body right now? Okay. Could you put a shape to it? A color to it, tell me about that. What's it and then okay, what kind of thoughts are coming up? What's your mind telling you now? Telling me to get off the plane. Okay, the plane's gonna crash. Okay, let's try this diffusion, okay. Let's let's just thank that. I'm having a thought that this plane's gonna crash. I'm having a thought that I can direct it. Okay, okay. I'm having the thought that it's worth not running to it. Hold it with you. So we're doing the diffusion threads, we're doing graduate exposure therapy, and this is the time we do it. We're gonna do acceptance of emotions and thoughts. We are gonna and then also look at our values. So why is it important for us to get on the airplane? What are the reasons for it? What's your why? Oh, I'm gonna go visit my family. It's really important that I visit them on Christmas C. So maybe that's more important than your fear of flying. Maybe it's more important than thoughts. That's cool. That is cool.

SPEAKER_02: 4:38

Yeah. I I really appreciate you breaking. Can you hear us okay, Matt? I think your screen froze.

SPEAKER_01: 4:44

Oh, we might oh, we you're back. Oh, there we go. We froze a little bit. That thanks for sticking with us. That was great.

SPEAKER_02: 4:50

That was no, no problem. What what I don't want to do is just use buzzwords, you know, like you talked about with a scent, right? And say, oh no, we know that I really appreciate you breaking it down. I think it'll really help the audience understand that. Thank you for doing that.

SPEAKER_03: 5:02

Of course. Yeah, I I feel like it's really important because I think that's the way it gets talked about a lot, it is very intellectually. And I'm trying to break it down into like actual examples, like how we can actually use it. So I want it to be under easily understood understood.

SPEAKER_01: 5:17

No, that was great. That was great in terms of like you're almost establishing a motivating operation for yourself and going through that process and the way you described it, and saying, This is the way I feel, and then why am I what's my motivation to overcome that? And that was really cool. I don't think anybody's ever explained it to me in an example that that resonated as well as that. So thank you for taking that time. That that's super cool.

SPEAKER_02: 5:42

I wanted to follow up on something you said earlier. If you uh did you have something to follow up on? Sorry. So you talked about ABA being abuse, and I agree that there are certain things that we have done that have been abusive. I think it's interesting because it is abuse from two parties that were probably both looking out for what they thought was best for their children. It was the parents who wanted to get whatever was best for their child, and an organization that I'm hoping at the at the end was doing the best they thought they could do at the time. Now, clearly, like you said, I as well look back and I'm like, oh, I did I waited an hour and a half for a kid to eat a strawberry, I forced kids to put their shoes on, and like, oh, I I'm very much not happy, and that certainly would be abuse. So, my question is how do you think that came about? How did two people with great intentions end up maybe unintentionally committing abuse? What can be done about it?

SPEAKER_03: 6:38

What are your thoughts? Yeah. I think a lot of it comes down to rigidity and thinking, like this idea of cognitive dissonance, this overaherence role-governed behavior, you know, like, oh, they're the supervisor, they have the the credentials, right? Therefore, I should follow what they say. At least that's what it was like for me. Sure. I'm like, okay, this person knows what they're talking about. I need to follow what they say, you know. I think a lot of it is too from at least from my perspective, it's like, okay, I'm being taught this in class. This professor sounds really good. Like they know their stuff, they've been through it. I trust that. Because they know they have you know, it's uh it's the subscription, like authority, right? We're gonna go with authority rather than always data, you know. Like I think data is great, but if you subscribe to like authority, which we did a lot in ABA, you know, there's people in the field we look up to and oh, they said this, therefore I should do it this way. It can be really difficult when we're presented with contrary evidence to accept that. And so I think practicing psychological flexibility can really help because one of the skills is this idea of well, kind of diffusion, but also values, communactions. You gotta all of them work together, all of these different processes. Uh selfish context is one of them that helps you with physically flexible perspective taking. So it allows you to hold two opposing, you know, which isn't the skill of holding two opposing values or two opposing ideas. This could be right, but this could also be right together instead of being so rigid to rule government behaviors is a big part of it. I think in school when I was when I was studying ABA, I drank the Kool-Aid, like I said, like I really drank the Kool-Aid to the point where like, no, this is what the research says. People would argue with me. I'm like, this is what the research says, right? And that's yeah, there's data there, but I mean like, yes, it works, but to what to what end does it work, right? Like, oh yeah, eventually the kids gonna eat it. Or eventually we're gonna have our shoes on, but to what end is it really worth causing all this emotional distress and possibly trauma if you want to call it that, but just this possible the severe emotional distress that will uh later evoke even more emotional like behaviors, like you know, whatever you want. You see tantrums and grandstrip and self-sid, you name it.

SPEAKER_02: 8:52

So a lot of the appeal to the authority, the Alex Trebek fallacy, right? The appeal to the authority one. Yeah. I'm gonna give you two more hypotheses. Let me know your thoughts on it. Take one, either or both. One being the conflicting motives. So I think as AB with capitalism, as ABA started to grow, motives for a lot of companies became the billable hour over innovation because innovation didn't pay. And in fact, innovation could be costly. So it was a lot of it was just like go bill your hours, bill your hours. All of our meetings are going to be talking about how you can build more hours, not talking about how you can do better service. That's one potential reason. Another potential thought, and we did an episode on this as well, is the medical model versus the social model. So the medical model being there's something wrong with this person or something that needs to be fixed, medical insurance funding, ABA. So parents would come in and my child does this, this, this, this, and this. This needs to be fixed versus the the social model of how do we adapt like environments to better facilitate this individual's behaviors so that we can really help their strengths and their weaknesses. I think both of those potentially contributed to what led to abuse. I don't know if you have any thoughts about either or both of those.

SPEAKER_03: 10:48

Absolutely, yeah. I have a lot of things. I think no, you're spot on there. I I didn't want to bring it up because I don't want to cure the wrath of the uh companies. But yeah, no, you're you're exactly right. I'm glad you brought it up though. No, yeah, there's definitely an emphasis on billable hours and even this false idea sold to it's like, okay, if you're doing more billionable hours, you're doing better therapy, right? You know, that's the argument. Like just to try to get a connect, you know, you're doing more hours, you're doing your job. You know, you're if you're doing less hours, you're not really doing your job, you're not doing therapy. And or at least billable hours. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, no, that's a big part of it, definitely. I think, and you're right, sometimes innovation does is costly actually, and it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't align with profit, right? There's a misalignment in values there, you know. So that that could definitely yeah, that's definitely a contributing factor for sure. Absolutely. And it's tricky because a lot of companies are really good at selling ideas to clinicians of like, but you know, you're you're still making a difference, you know, you're you know, but we also have to be you know fiscally responsible and keep the lights on and all that. And yeah, but and those things are true, especially for yeah, I mean those things are true.

SPEAKER_01: 12:00

You do need to run a profitable business to keep the lights on, and then that becomes your main motivating operation. Now you're not doing ABA, you're keeping the lights on. And and that's a big difference. I mean, hopefully you can. I'm not sure what kind of ABA you do in the dark, but you know, to that point, I think that's the that's the important part there, is is that's where things get lost. And it is very nuanced. It's not like, you know, yes, you have to have a successful business, and then if that is your focus day to day with clinicians, uh what I was gonna say is uh our inaugural episode was the 40-hour Lovas thing, right? And people pitched that. They marketed that at first, and then the new research came out at 25 hours, and people marketed that. Now, if you're doing Medi-Cal services, the 30-hour mark seems like the nice niche. So it's like at some point you have to realize you're pitching this research because it's good for your pocketbook, not because the research is solid by itself. And and again, I'm I'm not trying to be overly critical either. We have to preach this and then I am trying to be overly critical. We put our money where our mouth is, and now we're doing it. So the idea that that we can feel confident that our RBTs feel very well supported, that we're small too. So I'm able to text them every morning, hey, just checking in. I know you got this and that. Let me know what's up. I can't be there today, or I am gonna be there today. I'm actually gonna be a little early, I'm gonna be run a few minutes after you based on this. You know, all those things that then now make the billable hours more likely to deliver a quality service, not just doing the hours for the sake of. And that's a big difference. That's a big difference when I think when you're an RBT and it's like, oh, I just took on this sub case today, and I don't know this kid, and they're just expecting me to fill the hours so that I can, you know, meet my quota, versus, oh, I'm subbing today and the supervisor's there, and they already told me that they're gonna run the first part of the session so I can watch them, and then they're gonna hand it over to me, and we're gonna have a quality substitute situation where somebody came in to bridge that gap, and now we're not just doing it for the sake of billable hours. And I can think of a million other scenarios where that's a really qualified, very experienced RBT. Yes, they are capable of going out there by themselves to pick up those billable hours, and maybe they're just gonna build rapport with the child today, but we keep the service constant, there's a continuity of care, and that is good. Again, there's a lot of nuance there. That's okay, I think. But this idea that we're just hitting the mark for the sake of hitting the mark, I think is what you're talking about. And that means that you can just be fill you can just be killing time and and filling billable hours. It doesn't mean you're doing anything good.

SPEAKER_02: 14:44

It's funny how the numbers are always so round, too. 40, 30, 25. It's never like 22.7 hours. They're always nice round numbers.

SPEAKER_01: 14:53

It's almost like somebody started with a hypothesis and then they oh wait, that's the way research works.

SPEAKER_03: 14:59

And then we stuck to the hypothesis. Oh, we found the hypothesis was cracked. Right.

SPEAKER_02: 15:03

Imagine that. Oh man. Any thoughts on that, Matt?

SPEAKER_03: 15:08

Yeah, no, I'm I'm I'm in agreement with a lot of you guys. Yeah, I I think so. I want to tackle, so I think you're right. There's a lot of nuance there. A lot of nuance, right? And I think it's it's really on it. It's on the the company as you know, the people you know at the top running modeling the values that you that you want the actions of your employees to to do. So like you know, companies have like mission statements, they have these values, they have these pillars, you know, they all focus on right. How are we actually like putting in those into action? How are we modeling that for our employees? Yeah, right. And so we we have to be you know, we're not just looking at numbers all the time, but we also have to look at okay, what we know, we have to look at the notes, okay. We have to look at what was actually done with the data, what was actually done during the session? Was the kid was the sub just sitting there with the kids, not running programs? Were they maybe they're running programs, but they were running only one or two? A lot of nuance there, yes. And I think we just have to make sure that we're giving those values, that we're in alignment with those values, the company's values, the organization's values, that we're we're able to understand what that looks like in practice, not just words, but actually see, okay, that's that value done in action. So, like a value out of my hand here. Uh let's call it integrity, right? Or what does that actually look like? You know, let's just let's put examples. Examples, non-examples, right? Okay, this looks like us billing hours that we have that are we were there at this time to this time. We're not gonna add time it because we were there, we weren't there, or maybe the kid wasn't there. And at the same time, also we're gonna deal with integrity that we're also gonna do work interventions, we're gonna actually do what we think is best for the kid in that time and not just oh, we're just gonna focus on the numbers here and not you know can provide the you know, the actual treatment that that's effective and that's you know we know is gonna be helping this affecting treatment.

SPEAKER_01: 17:10

So see, I mean how much nuance there is there, because unless we have a person there, yeah, unless we have a person in there, uh this sub or this idea, there's no way we have a chance to deliver that. Yep. But if we just send the person blindly, there's also very little chance that we're gonna deliver something good. Ah man, it's such a it's not easy. It it really isn't easy. And you have to keep the lights on all the while.

SPEAKER_02: 17:34

I'm glad that you did, Mike. And I I wasn't glad in the beginning, but I've come to so much of what Mike does is breaking news here on ABA on tech. I'm like, no, no, no. And then like six months later, I'm like, okay, Mike was very right about that. You were right. Was uh innovation, right? When we were doing our our values, Mike and I have been huge on innovation ever for our 15-year career.

SPEAKER_01: 17:57

What then let me interject. What that means is I never do the things that are written down in the textbook. I always have to do it differently. I think you have that problem too, sir. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 18:05

It's gotten Mike into probably more trouble than he would care to admit with employ with bosses. Yes. But he is the walking embodiment of innovation. Oh, that's very nice. And so when I was like, oh, a great word we should put in there that means a lot to a lot of people. But Mike was like, no, it's been bastardized, and one of the last companies we worked for, that was in their value statements. Literally didn't innovate one time. And I was like, no, I think we can innovate, but and upon further review, it really has been bastardized. Like you're saying, people taking these buzzwords and just using them because it means stuff to a lot of people, but unless you're actually embodying these values, it's like a visual schedule that you're not using. It's it's worthless.

SPEAKER_03: 18:46

That's your point.

SPEAKER_01: 18:49

And I think that people start with that intent, in all fairness. You and I have uh one of the you know, to again to be completely fair to everybody out there, I think everybody has the heart to innovate. That's why you get into this. And then we've had the experience. You start hitting those uh logistical administrative blockades, and those can very easily steer you into this direction. Like we have to recommend a certain amount of hours. Oh, and luckily enough, there's some research that supports that number of hours. Now we're not gonna look at how individualized this treatment plan is for this client. We're not gonna look at the logistics for the fiscal nature of it. Can the parents afford that much time? Can the parents afford that much copay? Can the I mean, again, a million things that now come into play where everybody started with the right mindset, the idea that here I wrote my goals and this treatment plan this way, and now my treatment plan has been flagged, and now I've got to go through an audit, and now I'm gonna write my goals this way to please that funding source versus wait a minute. Who am I providing treatment to the funding source or this kid? The goals should embody the kid. So I I've learned we've learned so much in the past year now, over the past two years, and preparing these things and saying, or me being able to see, okay, I I suspected this, everybody's got good intent, and then all these forces come in, and before you know it, you're providing treatment that appeases administrative policies and rules and regulations. You're now so many degrees away from the actual patient. Yeah. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_02: 20:22

Yeah. I want to get your opinion on something when it comes to innovation. And this actually is is a Mike innovation here. So I don't know, Mike, if you want to speak about the innovation that we did and the change that we did on our service delivery as a result of early start and taking on early start with our previous. Company maybe five, six years ago, and working with kids that didn't have a diagnosis and kind of how that shaped our whole service delivery. I would really be interested in your perspective of that, Matt. Both because you said you work primarily with individuals in this age group, you said I think one to six, and also being somebody that later had a diagnosis. So, Mike, can you walk him through a little bit about it?

SPEAKER_01: 21:01

Sure, and I'll and I'll try to be brief because we have to make sure we give him plenty of time for the MFT stuff. I think we got into it a little bit, but I want to make sure we we uh explore that a little bit more. But uh, and then thank you for this opportunity, Dan. Basically, in a nutshell, when we started doing early intervention, which has been my bag throughout my career, I'm a developmental psychologist first by training, and then it kind of traipsed into ABA and it made total sense as a as a combined force, uh, you know, academically and otherwise. But the idea that we had early intervention, and then me trying to break people out of their comfort zone with the basic LOVAS DTT model. Well, many of us, you said it earlier, we're not following that model, but the idea that we're moving away from this three-part contingency, no, that's our bread and butter. So those things still make sense. There are trials. Yes. We just know that it doesn't have to happen in an IKEA table and chair for it to work. It can happen anywhere. Say, what? I know. Sorry. Dan still has a hard time with that. So the idea of being, okay, you know, in a nutshell, here are these kids, and ABA is sort of synonymous with autism treatment medic treatment medically speaking. So we do ABA for these kids that have autism. We're about to do this early star intervention with these younger kids. Now, what's the diagnostic for these kids? Oh, well, they don't have one. Okay, are we gonna do the same ABA? Or does it behoove us to look at something different? So if this ABA was for this condition and this condition doesn't exist over here, it's almost like your childhood experience of, hey, this kid doesn't have ADHD, but this Ritalin stuff works for ADHD. Let's see what happens to So I I should have posed that question and it led us all into this greater discussion. And and I, again, as a developmentalist, I had a lot of ideas already and saying, Yeah, how can we not more child again? I'm gonna say a lot of things that I know are gonna resonate with you, you're probably already doing them. The idea that I'm saying, what about more child-directed, play-based approaches? So then that then you build that rapport, you do that pairing as you take the child's lead, and then guess what happens? All of a sudden they know you're there to play with them, so you show up and they sit right next to you, and then now you can shift into more adult-directed trials. And then it works beautifully. So that's little things like you know, borrowing from speech language pathologists and things like linguistic mapping or contingent imitation toward reciprocal imitation, now moving away from our usual do this command, which has been a bane of my existence since the beginning of my ABA career, and going, Oh, I know what you guys are trying to do. This just looks weird. Why are we doing it this way? So, yeah, things like that that have really resonated. What was really cool about it is as soon as people started thinking about it, they were then asking, Hey, do we just have to limit this to younger kids, or can these techniques be then transferred over to older, uh, you know, older clients? And I'm like, well, I don't want you to do play, you know, you're not taking necessarily doing play-based approaches with a 20-year-old, but the idea that you're listening to them first, you know, kind of taking their lead first toward that rapport building and pairing or whatever you want to call it, and then suddenly now you've built enough trust and comfort. Those are hard concepts to measure in ABA, whatever those mean. But the idea that now you've created a comfort, comfortable situation so that when you show up, that individual wants to engage with you. And now we've got everything we need to make that interaction. So that's worked very nicely for us in terms of just posing that question and saying, okay, so we do this to treat a to treat autism. Now, if you were just looking at a any given three-year-old and the best developmental model that you could give them educationally, it would look like this. How do we put these two things together? Knowing that this three-year-old might be exhibiting behaviors that are different, you know, greater in certain topography, whatever the case may be, than this other three-year-old, but at the end of the day, they're both three-year-olds. And, you know, and in this case, it we don't even have diagnoses. We just have certain flags developmentally that are saying this kid might use a little more intervention or might use a little bit of help.

SPEAKER_03: 25:02

Yeah, yeah. Wow. Oh, that's a that's a lot there, Jerry. Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01: 25:07

Thank you for the time.

SPEAKER_03: 25:08

Wow. There's so much there. Uh okay, so the the the one thing I wanted to touch on was you know, you you uh mentioned that you know, I guess, and I think a lot of these might have a gripe with this about ADA only being used for autism. Oh, right, right. But when you have, right, you know, it should it be based on the diagnosis, or you know, I mean yeah, it works for the funding sources. It works it works for the the the the even the research, you know, when we look at MSC's practice, oh we can align this treatment with this diagnosis here, okay. That's the goal standard for this diagonal, you know, ADA goal standard for autism specifically, right? But when you don't when you have kids that don't have that diagnosis, but you know are still showing you know supposed developmental red flags, delays, what we want to call it, but don't have that diagnosis yet, then do we ask the question? Do we change can we change the intervention? Like what is it looking? How's it gonna differ from this intervention you know for the autism AVA to earlier intervention, you know, early invention with a child that doesn't have that diagnosis? I really like the developmental model, you know, looking at it from a developmental standpoint, like the way you look so that you I'm glad you have you know that background plug in the server really well, you know what for sure it does. And to talk more about the playbase and inventions. I really yeah, I love these playbase interventions. I figured I love MDBIs are great. I love the ESDM, the early start member model employing that. I do love I was trained actually by a psychologist who really made sure we used them a lot at one of the agencies I worked at. So I was like, I got that early in 2018. My first job is we we used to train in those. Well, my first job was out of grad school, I mean, as a BCBA. Um, we she made us learn a lot of those different, you know, the type of response treatment model for the Jasper model, which is not very popularly used or noticed in ABA, but I really love it. It focuses on that joint attention, uh symbolic play, yeah, engagement in my language.

SPEAKER_01: 27:05

Yeah, and again, that's all for me the developmental side. That's why so I didn't I wasn't familiar with the Jasper model, but it's funny you say joint attention because that was one of the first things I kicked in and saying, I just want to start doing protocols that make kids look around because we're showing them stuff behind them, in front of them. The idea that everybody knows a response to name program. Okay, what are we really trying to do there? We're trying to get a kid to that's focused on something to listen to their name and then orient their gaze to it. Yeah, wait, but name is just one sound. How come we're not having them turn around to other sounds and then including their name? So again, little nuance, little nuances knowing that I had spent the better part of 10, 15 years every kid could benefit from not just autism.

SPEAKER_03: 27:48

I'm showing you something. Yes, joint attention, right? Every kid goes through that. Some kids learn it more naturally, but that is a skill that is fundamental for every it's it's it's a pivotal skill. It's like it's necessary for communication, for social relationships, for language. It's such an important vital skill. Yeah, Jasper stands for joint attention, symbolic play, engagement, and regulation. Look at that. I mean, I'll be looking it up, thank you.

SPEAKER_02: 28:12

I can't believe I haven't come across this evening lined up now.

SPEAKER_03: 28:15

Yeah, there's a lot of other ones too. Uh woman's like a moment. So I got I go off track a lot sometimes. But I I think that's a good idea. You're saying you really enjoy the play model. I do enjoy the play model. I think it's really good for younger kids and older kids too. Yeah. As long as it's age appropriate, you know, developmentally appropriate. Yeah, like you said, you're not gonna play boss with a 20-year-old. You know, well, some I know some 20 years old would love to do that, but they're called Legos, I think, or something like that. Yeah, Legos, right? I was gonna say, I'm like, I'm gonna go. Video games? Yeah. I know 30 year olds that play games, and I have 20 year olds that still I still play Legos. Well, get back into it. But yeah, so you know, I think individually looking at the person and not tying it so much to a diagnosis. I I'm not a big fan of diag, you know, I think a lot of therapists are just a fan of like the DSM and the diagnostic labels. It was drilled into me in grad school when I studied counsel and psychology and that, yeah, we can use the DSM for insurance purposes, but you know, yeah. We're we're not we're not treating a diagnosis, we're treating a person here, you know. Patrick Adams, you know. We are treating a person, not the diagnosis. And the goal is not just symptom reduction, it's how are we gonna empower, you know, build like help them live the lives that they want to live. Right. Yeah, and I think it it's there's you know I I wish we talked more about that in AVA, but we're not just you know reducing behaviors or symptoms or even teaching skills for the sake of reducing symptoms. Because like what we do a lot in AVA is not only behavior reduction, but we also do skill acquisition. Well, let's I mean yes, we're building skills, but sometimes the skill acquisition also has to lower the behaviors and reduce symptoms. But we're also helping, I think, you know, looking at values. I I'll actually do I try to add to values. The parents' values, the family's values, the client's values. Sometimes our kids can't tell us it's actually what they value yet. We can see it sometimes, sometimes we can't, you know. But I think I want to really make sure that we are not only reducing to those, that we're not only meeting the goals for the sake of insurance, but we're also helping the family get to where they want. What is their life looking for questions like where where you see your child in five years, where you see your child in one year, where you see yourself in times of the family, and making sure that the goals hide those as well, those values, those those aspirations. And that kind of helps decide like, okay, what kind of intervention are we gonna use, and what is gonna look good for the family? What can we do with the family? Like, can we show them like this is the model, you know, we're gonna do play-based intervention. I really love playbased intervention, it looks natural, the kids are having fun most of the time, you're still teaching skills, and yes, you can incorporate some GTT, which I still I do enjoy DTT too because it's one that's easier for me to implement sometimes because it doesn't require as much creativity. Um, that's that's horrible. That's horrible. I'm not I'm not trying to install anyone. I use the GTT all the time. It's easier to run, I'll be honest. Anyways, uh sure. So but you can also have fun running in playbase interventions too.

SPEAKER_01: 31:08

So the idea that the DTT becomes now, in my opinion, a statistical model to prove that these repeated trials led to new learning versus the way it's supposed to look. So the idea that it's an experimentally controlled laboratory-based intervention that proved that if you can engage and reinforce a certain number of correct opportunities over a certain amount of trials, learning will happen. So to your point, the idea that we're going to recreate an experimental experimentally controlled setting in somebody's living room, I think is where the problem starts. And then to your point, this is where we have to play. We don't have to prove reinforcement works every time. We've already proven it. So we know that if we can engage, create repeated trials of this behavior that we can deem correct and then reinforce as so that it happens again, means that we can do it if the child is standing on their head. Now, do we want them practicing standing on their head while they read if they're going to do it in school and it's going to cause trouble? No. And then therein lies a whole other episode that we could have with Mr. Matt Tapia about our idea of generalization. And as long as you do it across two different people in three different settings, you've generalized. Well, not generalized. Not exactly. Not exactly. So again, there's a lot of nuance we're discussing here from the point of experimentally controlled, empirically valid results. We're like, oh, that stuff works. And then does that mean that we're re-replicating that you know to a T in somebody's living room? Probably not. We're gonna run it with a greater margin of error, knowing that it might take us a little longer to get the outcome. But the outcome's been proven. If we do it this way and we run these behavioral techniques, these kids, people that have otherwise diagnostically been dimmed, you know, been deemed in this statistical category, now start demonstrating skills that maybe move them, or I won't even talk about statistics, it maybe improve access and quality of life and all those other things that are hard to measure.

SPEAKER_02: 33:15

So yeah, I I trained, uh was a trainer in my company for probably 15 years. I trained DTT for a lot of them. I loved it. It was easy. I could, like I said, I could run DTT in my sleep because it was so repetitive and structured and definitely a lot of advantage. But in theory, like, you know, we would always run it, not always, but for the most part, you know, with the table and the chair, a lot of times with 2D stimuli. But you could even run it in with 3D stimuli in different areas, right? It's just presenting the trials. Trials, yeah. And that's like you mentioned too that that ABA transgresses autism. And I think that's that's so valid what you said. You know, Mike said earlier, so we have these people that don't have autism. What are we gonna do with them? And I think the easy answer is well, we're still gonna do ABA because ABA is irrelevant of autism. However, in practice, I don't know if that is true because we had an episode called Strange Technologies in ABA. And we would get this child with autism, and we would have before we even went out to we would have the intro visuals. So we would have the choice board and the schedule and the first end strip, and maybe earlier on the IKEA table and chairs, and we would have this idea of what a session would look like before we even really worked with this person because they had autism. And when they have autism, this is what you need to do because they tend to be rigid and you need structure and you need visuals, and this is what it needs. So while ABA does transgress, I feel like the way that it was delivered oftentimes was very unique to these individuals with autism and not as individualized and holistic as it could have been.

SPEAKER_01: 34:48

Well, I think it was very unique. It wasn't as adaptive, well, and very unique to again the empirical model, the the experimental design, right? So the notion that I have to prove that you know blue before I can teach you red. Okay. I understand from an experimental control why that's important developmentally. Well, that creates a very poor, unenriched environment to learn in if blue is the only stimulus available.

SPEAKER_02: 35:13

But if you're in Texas and you're a Cowboys fan, I'll kick it out of you.

SPEAKER_03: 35:20

It's like uh goal you're gonna target.

SPEAKER_01: 35:27

Dan.

SPEAKER_02: 35:28

You bring up my chickens, I'm bringing up your cowboys.

SPEAKER_01: 35:31

All right. So before we're we're we're doing great on time, but I want to give you plenty of time, and we had the perfect segue earlier. You were talking about family systems and dynamics. We talked a little bit about it off the uh the recording before we started. You you've got your you're a double threat, to say the least. We are very big on parent education. And something that's always baffled me is this idea that we know that these parents that we provide this family guidance to, you used that phrase earlier, which is a nice insurance phrase.

SPEAKER_03: 36:04

Yep. Gotta use the insurance phrase.

SPEAKER_01: 36:06

As it is in this country, you get married, you're running a pretty high risk of dissolution and divorce. And I understand, without trying to uh butcher any statistics, that if you have a child on the spectrum or a child with exceptional needs, that likelihood of divorce increases a good 15 to 20 percentage points. Which means that every parent, every set of parents we come across, Dan, in terms of having this diagnosis, is running that risk. And while we do provide them family guidance to towards challenging behaviors or behaviors that they want to address with their child, what you and I don't have the constant expertise on are those family systems and dynamics with regard to marriage. Which comes up in family a lot in our groups. You, Mr. Tapia, do. So please tell us about how that plays out. And again, I'm we're sure that you're not just seeing families with kids that have or with families that have kids on the spectrum. You're I'm like I'm guessing you're seeing all sorts of people, but I'm also guessing that crossover does happen for you often and it puts you in a position where you've got super unique content expertise. Tell us a little bit about that.

SPEAKER_03: 37:12

Yeah, so you're absolutely right. The statistics, you know, they're I don't know the exact number, but yes, they are you know, parents married that have a child with autism are a lot more likely to be divorced, yeah. Right? So knowing that, going in there, right? You want to address the the family system as well, not just so when I when I bring this up, when I bring this up in the family guidance, I want to address the whole family as a whole. I want to know we want to know more about the family. Like who's in the family? Who's considered that? You have a lot of families that have grandparents, you know, most three-generation families, you have two generation families. Well, I guess in the I I guess in defining families is the household. You have the large families, you have a you have there's so much to unpack there and learn. I think I I actually will often share with parents like yes, you guys are a high-risk divorce, and check in on the relationship for the sake of this child, right? We have to navigate sometimes parents who are already divorced, who are still you know co-parenting, who are you know with another set uh another can of worms there, right? How are they doing it? Like, are they on the same page? Are they not? Are they communicating? Are they not communicating? What's going on here? There's a lot of tools that we can use in family therapy that you know, I don't think would be the worst thing to use as an APA. I'm trying to think because I don't want to like over you know stay on our scope here, but sometimes the family mapping can be a helpful tool, like just saying, okay, who's in the family, let's map it out. What are the relationships between each member? You use these like little lines a dotted or a cross-soft line means that okay, there's kind of estrangement there, maybe conflict. The soft line, you know, dotted line between you know what I'm alluding to is called a genogram, where you can map it out, and we don't need to use the genogram, but we can kind of get an idea of like who's in the family and what's going on inside of it. So often what happens with families, a common pattern you see, there's there's a few, and I think some of this is on TikTok as it which I don't subscribe always to TikTok, but they do get this part, right? Is sometimes when you have a family with a child with autism and then the family that does not have a child or has a family that they don't have a diagnosis. You know, sometimes the child that has the diagnosis is gonna get more attention. And then they say that the child that doesn't is like I guess they call it the last child, which is like the one that's not seen, you know, they're not as they're not as seen by the parents because the parents are focusing all their attention on this child. Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 39:38

We've been trying to get sibling groups for for years. We've been trying to figure out because of that, and we've noticed that as some of the siblings get older into the teenagers, they have higher rates of depression and things like that because of a lack of attention. But that's tricky because insurance won't fund any of that stuff, so it would all have to be private pay. But I'm just elaborating what you said is so valid. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Continue.

SPEAKER_03: 40:00

Uh no, that's okay. Uh thanks. I appreciate that. So really seeing, you know, and and really highlighting that for the families that we work with. So I will point out a lot of this out. Like I just this and this, and oh, I usually use it from an axe model, so I'll I'll gotta you know, act as an ADA, so it's covered by insurance. Well, some insurance some funding sources. Not all, but yeah, it's all how you word it, I guess. Yeah, you know, using that, like knowing what their value what the family's values are. Are the mom are in some families, you know, they all look different, but are the caregivers the parents or the family interchangeably, I guess they're not, but basically like are their values aligned? Do they want The same things for this kid are do we know what they are? So we we're gonna do a lot of values worth of them from act. You know, you can use the bullseye exercise, which I like from act, which is you know pinpointing as a pin or you know, pinpointing where you're where you are at your values, what your values are, and then how far how much your actions are in alignment with your values. So that's a really important part. I think I start with values because that's something that the families can really get behind because every family has different values. So knowing that, and then pointing out patterns of behavior that are occurring within the family and trying to not change the family, but just to highlight what's going on for them so that they can have that tool's awareness and then decide if this is in alignment with their values or not. So I think I highlight a lot of that for them. It's basically just opening, like it's like holding a mirror, but then showing them, okay, let's look at it through this lens, let's look at it through this lens, and see what what what do you guys notice and when do you guys want to make a change? What kind of steps do you want to take based on what we've talked about?

SPEAKER_01: 41:42

I imagine you confront a lot of differing opinions on the idea of discipline between, say, moms and dads.

SPEAKER_03: 41:52

100%.

SPEAKER_01: 41:53

I mean, does that mean that you have to in terms of that misalignment, does that always mean that that you have to convince one or the other to do the same thing? Or alignment just means that does alignment just mean that they're choreographing enough together that you're gonna address the behavior this way and you're gonna do it this way, but we're gonna be aligned in ensuring that the behavior gets addressed in a way that's constructive. I think that's important for people. We in ABA we're very guilty back to that generalization piece, and we're gonna do the exact same thing across these people and we're gonna make these environments the exact same, and then we sort of falter with that. So I I'm sure you have to deal with that a little bit.

SPEAKER_03: 42:30

Oh, definitely. Actually, the biggest one, it's funny enough, is usually parents. Well, yeah. Okay, I'll try to think of an example here because I'm gonna make it clear. So I have an example, I have a parent, right, who will you know will spank their kid right? And uh that's a good topic. You know, they say, Oh yeah, I spank and make it all the time when they're not when they're acting up, you know, think 'em, right? I say, Well, yeah, you're the parent. That's that's your right. You know, you can you can do that. I will say we cannot do that. And so I'm gonna I will leave that to you, but I'm gonna show you what we do. And I will but I can't say based on the science is that we know that our interventions that we're doing that don't involve thinking are effective, right? We know the science. And I can show you other tools and you can take them and uh you do, and you know, so I don't I'm not gonna tell you not to, but I'm also gonna say, you know, these are some things we do, right? And model it for them. So one of my favorite, you know, I gotta be careful about saying favorite, but I really like practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment of PFA and SVT. Love this tool, right? It's great for maladaptive behavior. So I will often suggest this as an alternative and make it adaptable so that the parents can make it, it's easy to connect, right? We're not gonna take data first. I'm not gonna have parents take data on this. Well, sometimes I can do actually, sometimes I do. But mostly I'm just gonna show them what it looks like, right? So I will do the Isca, I will do the open-ended functional assessment interview, right? And then I'm gonna model, I'll want them in the sensor while I'm running it. So I'm modeling it for them, doing that BST model, you know. I'm gonna model it, I'm gonna teach it, I'm gonna do, I'm gonna show you what it looks like, and then I'm gonna have you do it. And so surprisingly, a lot of parents will tell me, like, how do you do that? Do spank their kids will say, like, how did you not hit me? How is he following your directions? What did you do? What's the magic here? And I'm like, Wow, what I'm doing, what you're seeing me do. And like, but he doesn't do that for me. And I'm like, okay, I'm gonna have to practice it. Go ahead and do it, jump in, right? Yeah, and yeah, it's not as clean as it was with me, but it goes a lot better than I thought that it would, right? Oh, he actually oh he actually told me he wants his way, oh my way, or something along those lines. Oh, he actually uh relinquished his tablet? What? And so like, how is this how what what's magic are you working on? I'm like, okay, well, I could break it down to you for your scientific, but like, I want me to practice this for a little bit. And okay, that's usually what gets on bullet when they can see the results and like do it, and that's where like that rubber meets the road, right? Oh, I'm doing it and it's it's working. I'm not seeing my kid, I'm not getting angry, and they're not angry at me. Wow, that is magic right there. No, that's science.

SPEAKER_01: 45:09

Yeah, and then it's I mean, talk about part uh parsimony, right? The idea that, like, yeah, so you changed what you were doing, mom or dad, and then the behavior changed. Remember that contingency part I was talking to? Remember that three-part contingency I kept talking about? That's so you changed the A and or the C and the B changed. Magic, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 45:31

Let me piggyback on my question. Okay, no, go ahead, Matt.

SPEAKER_03: 45:35

Oh, I'll just say, and but they always come back to me. But spiking works, right? I always get that. Ah, it works though. I'm like, well, this works too. And like, yeah, but can I do both? I'm like, well, you could, but I mean, you know, but like, okay, how does spanking work? Let me let me define that. Let's let's put that in the ABC contingency again, right? Spanking, right? So, yeah, it's a it's a positive punisher, right? You're introducing an aversive. Okay, it's gonna stop the behavior temporarily, right? You know what else stops behavior temporarily? Reinforcement. Yeah, yeah. Well, I'll show them those five side by side. I mean, they both work, right? And but this one works too. I'm like, yeah, but which one's easier for you? Which one's the easier one? They're gonna say not something that sometimes they say, well, maybe this method might work a little easier. Sometimes, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 46:17

I live about 20 minutes from Mike, maybe I could drive through Phoenix to get to Mike's house. I could take the 10 and that would work, and that's what I would tell to my trainees. Like right, I that would work. I could drive through Phoenix to get to another end of San Diego, but just because it works doesn't mean it's the best option. Or take a flight faster, right? But I want to piggyback. Well, of course, I have flying phobia. There you go. That example, but now we got the ACT circle. We're good.

SPEAKER_01: 46:44

Ah, nice. Good job, gentlemen.

SPEAKER_02: 46:46

Just finishing up on Mike's question, though, because I do want to make sure that I I have some thoughts that I can bring back to the parent groups that we run, because if Mike's cup of tea has joined attention and the early start, mine has been kind of the parent groups. That's what I kind of hang my hat on. And piggybacking on what Mike said, one of the biggest things that we get consistently, whether it be discipline or not, is my husband or wife does this differently than I do. You told me to do it this way, and I do it that way, but my husband or wife does it differently. And a lot of it's because, well, the other party, I'll just use more like stereotypical roles, for example. Maybe the mom is there giving more of the caregiving, also doing the ABA therapy, and the dad's at work. And then the dad comes home and has a different way of responding to the kid, different way of following through or not following through. Just their approaches are different. And that can lead to a lot of stress in the relationships and in the parent groups, a lot of times we do the best we can at offering support, and the parents are just frustrated. My husband always does this, or my wife always does this. And one thing we try to say is it might be okay if you all do things differently. Like not everybody has to do it the same. Rather than focus on the frustrations, let's figure out if you can get on a common ground because having two parents that are there and available is going to be better than two parents that are not. But what are your thoughts and what is your advice to parents that might have different ways of going about it? And that difference is is causing one or both parents to get frustrated at not only the child, but the other parent as well.

SPEAKER_03: 48:20

Yeah, no, I'm glad you brought that up. That's yeah, that that does happen quite a lot, actually, now that I've talked about it. And yes, like to your point, I think one thing is you gotta look at uh I always bring it back to this contention. Like, what's the effect of this behavior? Right. So you guys do two different things, right? And from an app lens, we'll look at it. Okay, is it helpful or unhelpful to work through this, right? Is this something that's worth, you know, okay. Let's say a yeah, husband, you know, actually that I just wanna bring it back to my mate. Let's let's make it personal here. My wife and I have a very different way of responding to our daughter. I'm a sucker, you know. I come home, I'm like, hey, cutie pie. Uh I'll tell her, I'll use my words. I'm like, no, don't do that. Don't stop, stop, you know, and I'm like, do this instead. I I I do throw a lot of ABA out. I mean, what I mean by that is like I my ABA knows goes out goes up to the wayside when it goes to my daughter.

SPEAKER_02: 49:13

One of our coworkers, husband and wife, both BCBAs, the dad would always say, if the board saw how I responded to my kid and how much I give in, I would lose my certification.

SPEAKER_03: 49:23

Same, same. Oh, absolutely. Yes. And my daughter's BCBA has to tell me that every time. Like, oh, no better than this. But okay, going back to the the the the difference in how we parent, right? I I will tell parents, you know, like think about this. Like, do you really have the same kind of way you respond to every person in your life? Like it's normal for parents to have, I mean, well, I don't say normal because that's but I say it's very common. I'll use the word common that formally I think it's common for parents to have different styles and find a common ground. And I think it's not that extreme, like we can have different ways of doing things and still align on some of the non-negotiables and finding out what those non-negotiables are, right?

SPEAKER_04: 50:11

Very well seen.

SPEAKER_03: 50:12

This is a common yeah, and I think that does involve a lot of work to get parents to that point because you really want to again one, I look at their values, where they share where they align in values and where they differ in values, and see if we can try to find a common ground by looking at what are the negotiables and what are the non-negotiables. Is this something that we really need to do, or is it something we can accept to accept this commitment therapy and let go of, right? And uh remember what we can control and what we can't control. It's harder to control things when you guys live in separate houses, like forced. But if they live together, you know, you can choose how you want to respond, right? Is it worth bringing this up to your partner to start to address, right? And it can be healthy to address those things, right? Like, hey, this is a difference that you do. I think an example here. Okay, so oh, I'm gonna get personal here because I want to bring it up to my someone. I have a daughter with autism, right? Me and my wife disagree fully on how we we agree a lot in some ways. We have a lot of common ground in a lot of areas, but one area we disagree is potty training. Okay, that is a big one. Me, I want to take the approach of like let's just get it all with. We're gonna teach her how to do potty training, right? My wife takes the approach of, oh, he's not she's not ready yet. Who wins in that? The answer is the wife, because of course the wife.

SPEAKER_01: 51:33

Good man, good man. That's gonna that goes a lot toward maintaining your marriage, sir. Exactly. That can be one loser or two losers, it can be one loser or two losers.

SPEAKER_03: 51:43

So I will take the loss there, right? For the sake of my value of maintaining my marriage. Good man, good man, right? So I think that's a big point, is like, okay, is this marriage important to you? What's important about it? What's the value there, right? And yeah, sometimes you can find common ground, and other times you can't. And if those times you can't, then you gotta ask them what's really important here. Is it this point or this point? Is the relationship more important, or is it this one sticking point of where we disagree? I chose freely, I'm gonna value my marriage because even though it goes against everything, I I don't agree with the approach at all. My dog's still in pull-ups. That's another thing. But you know, we're dragging our feet on it, but I will support my wife in that, even though it's hard for me because I value the marriage.

SPEAKER_01: 52:29

I mean, back to your wife, if I'm understanding correctly, without that acceptance andor commitment on her part, you guys are creating a conflict, or you'd you'd be walking into a misalignment, if you will. And I'm not using the right language, but I think that's great. Now, to your point, I would also say to say a dad in your position. Now you're not going to go through this formal training, but the idea that you can't take the time to then talk to your daughter, begin to expose your daughter to the discussion about potty training, that I mean that should be okay, right, within some discussion. So I I really like the way you pitched that because it is that again, it was my underlying point that I was hoping you'd make when you did very beautifully, which is that sometimes alignment to us means replication. Like we're gonna become the exact same people saying the exact same things in response to our kids. And I I think we're guilty of that across RBTs or an ABA program. It's like, no, every person's gonna do it their own way. We might use the same stimuli, we might adopt common language, but the idea that we're gonna replicate the exact protocols across two people across environments, sure, it's possible. Those are called experimentally controlled settings for replication. Life might work a little differently. So I think there's you know there's there's room to wiggle around between those two extremes.

SPEAKER_02: 53:44

So parenting is also both a person and a service?

SPEAKER_01: 53:47

Oof.

SPEAKER_02: 53:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 53:48

That's on the next ABA on tap.

SPEAKER_03: 53:50

Paradoxes. It's it's it's it's the uh as Brene Brown said, power and rather than or you can have this and this.

SPEAKER_01: 53:58

Thank you, Dan.

SPEAKER_02: 53:59

Oh no, no, no, we can't end on that. We're ending life.

SPEAKER_01: 54:05

Dan loves to send me uh the the this or that questions on messaging. And usually my answer is usually my answer is yes. Usually my answer is yes. He hates it. We're ending on that. That's it. We're ending on that.

SPEAKER_03: 54:19

We are ending on that.

SPEAKER_01: 54:21

Matt, anything we didn't cover, we've as we suspected at the beginning of this conversation, we covered two hours pretty darn easily. Sir, you're a wealth of knowledge, you're a wealth of experience, both personally and professionally. We can't thank you enough for your time today and sharing everything you did. Anything else that uh you want to plug, you want people to find you, you want people to not find you, don't say anything, but they're gonna hear you here. We got we got a pretty good listenership, so they're gonna hear you. Yeah, I'll I'll I I'll leave it to you. Anything else you want to cover?

SPEAKER_03: 54:52

I don't really have a plug that I wanted to know. I I don't really have one. I don't have anything to necessarily like plug. Yeah, but it's just I I guess you could find me. I remember that social media for the reason of mental health. I I delete all social media.

SPEAKER_01: 55:06

Oh wow, good for you.

SPEAKER_03: 55:07

Yes, you can find me on with with the exception of LinkedIn, I think. That's the only one I have still active. So you could find me on LinkedIn by typing in my name, Matt Tapia. Yep. Yeah. Or I'm on psychology today. Oh, that's right.

SPEAKER_01: 55:20

So they can find you for a referral of somebody hears you here and thinks you can help. Okay, good.

SPEAKER_03: 55:24

Oh, I can help, and yeah, yeah, yeah. That's kind of what we're after.

SPEAKER_01: 55:27

Is somebody can use your your help? We would like them to find you and see if that connection can be made. Uh yeah, sir, we can't thank you enough. I'm sure that we will find a good excuse to bring you back on here in future episodes.

SPEAKER_02: 55:40

All right. We're wrapping up with the yeah, we have to wrap it up.

SPEAKER_01: 55:44

I always forget. We we do a little synopsis here at the end here. So we're saying, uh, oh Dan, you're gonna have to help me here.

SPEAKER_02: 55:50

All right, so use act or act appropriately.

SPEAKER_01: 55:54

So accept, commit. Right?

SPEAKER_02: 55:57

Yep, accept, accept, commit, incorporate the family.

SPEAKER_01: 56:01

Incorporate the family, and always analyze responsibly. Cheers, Matt. Thank you, Chair. Yep.

SPEAKER_02: 56:09

Always analyze responsibly.

SPEAKER_00: 56:12

ABA on chat is recorded live and unfiltered. We're done for today. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. See you next time.