On entering a room, we might note the decor, people moving about or displays on tables. The filtering system of most of us will not take note of the geometry of ceiling tiles. Our brain, without any effort on our part, filters out irrelevant information in an environment.

From nanosecond to nanosecond, anyones ‘attention’ may be potentially attracted. To sustain attention willfully, resistance to attractors must applied for consecutive nanoseconds. This is exhausting work. Thankfully, given particular conditions an effective filtering system can evolve relieving us of the burden of that work.

Particular environmental conditions facilitate the development of an effective filtering system. Much that is commonplace in the lives of children today reduce the likelihood of development of an effective filtering system. However, a child’s brain system continues to evolve until adulthood. Much can be done to create conditons conducive to the development of an effective filtering system in home, school and therapeutic settings.

Development of an effective filtering system permits performance of cognitive operations that facilitate the developement of high levels of intellectual functioning.

I ask them if they remember how the figures move; if they say ‘yes’ I make a ‘clinical’ decision to accept that assertion or not.

Johnny’s Mom reports, he’s ‘cocky’. The teacher reports he approaches tasks quickly and carelessly. I ask Johnny if he remembers how the figures move. Johnny says, ‘yeah’. I take his assertion at face value. It soon becomes apparent, he does not. I comment, “remember when I asked you if you remembered how to move the figures?” He responds, “‘yeah”. I remark, “I think you were mistaken”.

 in future games, he slows down and tries hard. I get the impression he doesn’t want to ask for help. In the course of chit chat, I ask about hobbies, he tells me about his, I volunteer info about one of mine and I remark that “when I was a ‘beginner’ I couldn’t do it at all”. I may add, “I felt kind of bad”. On a subsequent occasion he neglects to ask for help when it’s obvious he should, he’s moving his pawn into danger and you can see he thinks he’s moving it into danger but isn’t sure. He makes the move.

I restructure the game. I show him how, if he makes the move, he’ll lose his pawn. I introduce a new rule; it’s a special rule for ’beginners’, every time he moves a figure  he can study the board, then say ‘that’s it’. The move doesn’t count until he says ‘that’s it’. Then I add, he can study the board and ask me to help him look too; then, he can decide to say, ‘that’s it’ or not (his call). The move doesn’t count until he says, ‘that’s it’. Johnny looks relieved. His own inhibitions were interfering with his ability to learn. Now he studies the board himself. Sometimes he asks me for help looking and I provide help. If he doesn’t ask for help and moves into danger, I take his figure.

Generally, as I play with children, as they make a move, I might ask, are you sure you want to make that move. If they look at me and answer ‘no’, they are not looking at the board (they are looking at me). I suggest, “take another look”. Eventually, my inquiry, “are you sure you want to take that move?” generates an immediate review of the board. Children are challenged, to observe closely, anticipate my moves, get silly pride out of the way, just tend to business, recognize their own errors and develop the flexibility to regroup and self correct. These skills will well serve them in life.

This play is not about teaching Chess. It is about presenting children with opportunties to rise to the occasion and develop abilities. If I think they can’t handle losing a figure, I don’t take it. If I think they’re ready to cope with a little disappointment, I take it. Every move presents an opportunity for the child to work on cognitive skills, to feel emotions but move on, to handle aggression, to accept a subordinate position (as student), and to learn a game they will enjoy.

As I see a child note that he is moving into a vulnerable position and he pulls back, I remark, “good observation”. If he ‘takes’ my figure with a figure that’s tricky to handle (a knight), I remark, “good move”. If he takes my figure with a pawn, I might not comment at all. I don’t gush. Then, when I do issue a compliment, it’s well deserved and has greater value. I see a child smile as he or she is aware, they made a good move. I smile too. The game is very intimate. He/she knows what I’m thinking, I know what he/she is thinking. He/she knows that I know what he/she is thinking; it’s lovely.

Enjoy Chess.

I begin with pawns only. I teach three rules for pawn use.

1. Pawns move one step forward only,
2. Each pawn has a chance to move one or two steps forward only the first time it moves.
3. Pawns only ‘take’ on the diagonal.

We then play a game I call it ‘Pawn Chess’. We simply move across the board giving and taking pawns as moves permit. As no more moves become possible, we call it and count pawns still standing. Winner has most pawns standing.

We play this game repeatedly until kids have a good grasp of how pawns move and ‘take’. Each new day we play, I ask kids to tell me the 3 rules for moving pawns. I may ask them to show me.

I then show them how to move Knights.

1. Knights move forward 1, 2 and turn onto one space. They may initiate the move in any direction but it must remain, 1,2 and turn onto one space.
2. Knights may step over figures.
3. Knights ‘take’ by landing on a figure on the 3rd step (the turn).
4. A Knight may not move if, on its 3rd step, it would land on one of its own figures.
5. Knights are tricky; most common errors I note are, overlooking one of the directions a Knight may turn and, counting the step you occupy before the move begins. Count the 1st step on the frist space you cross on your path.

 We play just with pawns and knights until I observe a child has a pretty good grasp of how pawns and Knights move and ‘take’.

I then propose, I remove Knights and we play with pawns and Bishops. Usually, kids object to removal of the Knights. They are ‘chomping at the bit’ to see the game in all its glory. I may or may not remove the Knights. I make a judgement call about whether the child needs to simplify the game to learn to manage the Bishops. If their learning process was pretty fast, I’ll let them play with pawns, Knights and Bishops. If their learning process was a little slower, I’ll remove the Knights to simplify the game for them.

1. Bishops slide, diagonally. If a child does not understand what diagonal means, I use drawing paper to show them parallel, perpendicular and diagonal lines. I do not say, stay on the same color. That strikes me as an easy bypass of an opportunity to learn something important with immediate applications that will facilitate their understanding of directionality.
2. Bishops do not jump; if one of their own pieces is on the diagonal, their progress is blocked.
3. Bishops ‘take’ on the same diagonal they use to move.

We play Pawn-Bishop Chess (or pawn-Knight-Bishop Chess) as many days as it takes until I observe easy use of the figures. Each new day, I ask’how do pawns move?’. I get a quick answer (kids can’t wait to play). I ask how do Bishops move? I get a quick answer. I ask, how do Knights move? I don’t get such a quick answer; they’re beginning to see the complexity. Interestingly, children remain undaunted, even children challenged in school settings and children ostensibly suffering from ‘ADD’.

I then introduce the Queen and King.

1. Queens are the trickiest players. They can move any way they want.
2. Queens can slide as far as they want until they bump into a figure of their own.
3. Queens do not jump.
4. Queens can ‘take’ sliding backwards or forwards, left or right and diagonally in any direction.
5. Kings can move any direction also but only one space.
6. Kings can take any direction but only from spaces 1 step away.
7. Kings cannot step into danger. If I see you moving your king into any space where he is immediately vulnerable, I have to say, ‘illegal move’ and you have to choose a different move.
8. If I step into a position to ‘take’ your king on my next move, I have to say ‘check’; I have to warn you so you can move him.
9. Loss of the King ends the game.

I let ‘white’ start. I don’t teach castling. I don’t teach strategies. If a child already knows Chess, I’ll teach him or her Go.

I want to pique a child’s intellectual interest, observe cognitive processing in action and create opportunities for them to observe, analyze (tapping memory of rules governing movement) anticipate future developments and plot. This exercise alone increases efficient mental procesing which is necessarily dependent upon use of particular clusters of neurons. Repeated use of those clusters renders them generally available for all manner of intellectual effort. 

1. I for one advise clients that, I always have ‘antennae at the ready’ to offer ‘my two cents’ regarding the needs of others in their intimate circle (partners and/or children).
2. Folks have complex lives and, apart from direct attention to reduction of ’symptoms’, there may be ways I can help them negotiate that complexity; advice re relationships, advice re life planning, adjustment to ‘curve balls’ life may throw them, etc.
3. Additionally, it may become apparent that opening the proverbial can of worms with respect to early life experience may be useful. If this is done, folks may well feel worse before they get better (HMO’s and PPO’s are not in the business of making people feel worse.)

This is a short list of ways an open-ended therapeutic process (exploratory therapy) can help. Note side effects of the treatment include; enhanced intellectual functioning, improved intimate relationships, enhanced sexuality, frequent ’spiritual’ experience and unleashing of creativity.

Exploratory therapy is not a covered benefit with any HMO or PPO that I know about. In fact, they make no bones about it.

HMO’s make no bones about it. The goal is ’stabilization’ not cure.

The goal is not relapse prevention. The goal is not assisting folks with ‘resolution’ of long standing issues of concern. The goal is not to improve the quality of client’s lives. The goal is not to stand by and provide support as folks might elect to make major life changes.

Payment for services rendered is contingent upon determination of ongoing medical necessity by service providers. Service providers are contractually obligated to screen to ensure that only services rising to the standard of medical necessity are billed to the HMO or PPO.

This is the context within which HMO’s and PPO”s operate. 

In many spheres of medicine, treatment protocols are anchored in ‘pretty good’ research.

In psychiatry, there is a great deal of controversy about every aspect of the ‘clinical research’, from conceptualization of ‘ways of being’ as ’illness’ to definitions of ’success’ following treatment. Treatment protocols, anchored in this research are increasingly driving mental health care today.  

That is the context within which HMO’s and PPo’s operate today.

The systems approach is now  influencing research and clinical practice. Western medicine is overcoming a historical constraint and expanding it’s scope of research. Western medicine is acknowledging the role of ‘quality of life issues’ predisposing people to one or another illness. However, I would point out western medicine seems to be running around ‘noting correlations’

Correlations do not establish causality. Correlations merely allow us to see two variables tend to frequently occur ‘together’, they are said to be ‘correlated’. The Kaiser study (see Adverse Childhood Experience and Illness) notes a correlation between childhhod distress and illness. That’s well and good but what does it really tell us. A lot of prisoners are raised on Top Ramen, does that mean, Top Ramen causes crime? No. There are other relevant variables; ‘Top Ramen is cheap, prisoners at San Quentin are often from low income familie, etc., etc.

As we grapple with new understandings of systems within systems, we have a tiger by the tail. Our science is not up to the task. There really are too many variables (might cell phone towers be predisposing us to brain tumors?).

We don’t know. We can’t know. We have hit the limits of our understanding.

This is the context within which HMO’s and PPO’s operate.

We report a problem, from our point of view, and our physicians bring all their resources to bear to assist us. I am going to proceed from here assuming you and I agree that this is a good thing. Our system gets ‘knocked about’ and we no longer have a problem, from our point of view.

I am here, highlighting the bias inherent in ‘allopathic’ concepts because it has hamstrung research. It has prevented us from seeing that, often, what you see is what you get. There is not really a ‘problem’; smoke and you’re body creates a nice habitat for cancer cells; that’s just the way it is. Eat beef, don’t eat vegetables and your body also creates a nice habitat for cancer cells; That’s just the way it is, and the list goes on.

Allopathic conceptions of our difficulties allows us to flex our technological muscles but they don’t necessarily contribute to our understanding of how things work.

This is the context within which HMO’s and PP’O operate.

Holism attempts to understand the complexity of organs (e.g. hearts), nested in bodies, whose ‘owners’ eat particular foods, do or do not have rewarding relationships, do or do not have ‘healthy’ habits, attitudes, etc.  Treatments derived from eastern systems have, historically, included recommendations pertaining to diet, yogas or other meditation practices, recommendations designed to enhance intimate relationships and spiritual counseling.

Now, in 2008, in the US, some medical practitioners embrace what they call ‘integrated medicine’. Practitioners of integrated medicine simultaneously tap both western and eastern systems. These practitioners address themselves to consideration of the whole person. Pratitioners consider themselves holistic, rather than reductionist. Treatment regimens include recommended dietary changes, meditation and prescription drugs. Individual pratitioners are more or less inclined to try ’soft’ remedies derived from eastern medicine before introducing ‘hard’ remedies derived from the western systems.

This is the context within which HMO’s and PPO’s operate.

Western medicine as a whole has never aplogized for it’s ‘reductionism’. It has given rise to extraordinary understandings of our bodies and how they work. It has enabled development of technological aids that have incalculabe value.

Our brains are part of our bodies. Our brains are material and they are the primary materialist foundation for our experience. Technological aids designed to enhance brain functioning and or overide apparent dysfunction have value. Computer chips may soon permit blind people to see. Stem cell research is very close to ‘curing’ Parkinson’s disease.

However, the use of technological aids to enhance or overide what  is often ‘construed’ as ‘just brain dysfunction’ (mental and emotional difficulty) is a mine field peppered with questions about the ’science’, the philosophy and the socio-political implications.

This is the context within which HMO’s and PPO’s operate.