All right, actually, I always forget to introduce myself because I always forgot that many folks are participating in Brain Club asynchronously watching the video. So I know almost everybody, but not everybody here either. So hello, I'm Mel Hauser. I use she, they pronounce and I am executive director here at All Brains Along. And we are so excited that you've joined us for Brain Club, where today we are going to be on learning the brain rules of relationships. So as if you've not been to Brain Club before, we're just gonna orient you to some of our ground rules. You can participate however you'd like to. I think it looks like you figured this out already, but you can participate with your video on or off. If you do have your video on, you definitely do not need to look at the camera or any such thing, because in fact, that is a brain rule, the idea of needing to make eye contact. Move around, fidget, snack, skim, break, whatever you want. Everybody's welcome here participating as your best self. And you can communicate however you want to. You can just unmute, shout it out. Especially when I'm in shared screen mode, I usually don't see the raise hand emoticon. So just get my attention however you want to. You type in the chat box, wave around, unmute, shout it out, it's really cool. And we protect safety. It's really important to us. And so in addition to affirming all aspects of identity, we are all about respecting and protecting one another's access needs.  And I will type in the chat box when that topic is over. If you'd like closed captioning to appear and it's not appearing on its own or if it is appearing right now and you don't want it to appear, click either the live transcript closed captioning icon or the more dot dot dot and choose either show or hide subtitle. All right, so we actually started this conversation. Many of you were here with us one Tuesday when it was not raining, where we talked about neurodiversity and relationships in the context of a double empathy problem. With the idea being that there isn't a one right way to think learner communicate. In fact, miscommunication happens when there is a mismatch of a thinking and or communication style. And so we, in July, we took on that topic in terms of relationships, family dynamics, employment. And what came out of that in July was that there were a lot of brain rules. And when we use that term, we refer to, it's like a term we made up. So it's not like a thing you'll see anywhere else. So brain rule referring to things that we think are universal life truths, but we really made them up or someone else made them up and we internalized them. Like the idea of the assumptions that we make that we bring to our daily interactions as opposed to a true world rule, like a law of physics or something. So the Sierra was amazing and took notes on the Brain Club of July. These were some of the brain rules of relationships that came up from the audience members of that day. If your relationship is healthy, you shouldn't want a long time. That is in fact a brain rule, not a world rule. Everything should proceed in a given order in a relationship or the so-called relationship escalator or a partner should be able to anticipate your needs. See also read your mind. In fact, mind reading is not a possible. One person should be able to meet all your needs. Romantic relationships are the only type of real relationship. There's only one right way to show affection and intimacy. And then of course, the over glorification of independence as opposed to autonomy plus interdependence, which is a common brain rule. So I talked before about what we mean by these terms, but really why do we make brain rules? Because we all make brain rules. So it's this, we get back to the basics of brain science. Well, then I'm gonna hide my video because I'm distracting myself. There we go. I have a kind of brain that gets distracted when things are in my periphery. So when we think about and borrowing from this concept of the whole, from the whole brain child by Dr. Dan Siegel and Dr. Tina Payne Brason, upstairs brain, your cortex, where you have purposeful planning, thinking, decision making, as opposed to your downstairs brain, your limbic system, whose job it is is to keep us alive. And so hold on, I'm looking in the chat. I have really struggled with people labeling co-dependent because I've struggled with unrequited feelings. Oh, thank you for sharing that weird. I really think that we should, let's come back to that because you are not the only one. That is a common brain rule and people get labeled all kinds of different ways because there's like this mistaken assumption that there's one right way to be in the world. And it turns out that is like, not true. We all have different brains. And in fact, what we're gonna talk about, when Mia makes this comment about struggling with unrequited feelings or unreciprocated feelings, like that is hard for so many people because I think this relates to access needs, what each of us needs to meaningfully participate in our worlds. And knowing what our own access needs, are is like a world rule. We should know that and we should assert that. So I think we're gonna come, I think we're probably, I think that topic's gonna come back Mia. I think you're bringing it up. So brain rules, I believe, are upstairs brain's attempt to regulate, to assert or establish autonomy or control over a situation that is chaos, to like reduce that overload or chaos, to make the world make sense, predictable, or even to avoid trauma or traumatic memories. And so when we think about, and I guess the point I was making before, I was like, I already knew I was gonna make it. So many brain clubs ago, back in June, we talked about communicating your access needs. When we think about the social model of disability where disability is on a continuum, it is relative based on how many barriers there are in the world. If I am a wheelchair user and I approach a building that has a ramp, I'm going to have less disability than if I approach a building that does not have a ramp. And so it is in all of our interactions. And when it comes to what we mean by access need, this is anything that is required to meaningfully and fully participate in our world, everyone has access needs. And these access needs can be physical needs, emotional needs, communication, both in terms of how the information is presented, the pace, the amount of processing time we are given, maybe sensory related aspects of communication, everything in an interpersonal interaction relates to access needs. And when we think about a lot of those brain rules that I showed a couple of slides ago, a lot of it comes from specific access needs. That is when we think about the emotional communication interpersonal and social access needs, we all have them. It's just that we may not realize that's what they are. So the assumptions that get made, I think are based on brain rules. And this is one of my board members, Danielle Kent, and I were having a text exchange earlier today and with permission from Danielle, I'm gonna share a screenshot of it. Danielle said, imagine a world where downstairs brain is honored and understood universally. And I said, I wanna build that world because I think it's about having a way for downstairs brain to communicate to other people's upstairs brain without triggering their own downstairs brain. And that that is the key to the universe. I'm gonna give you processing speed to unpack that. A lot of times when we have interpersonal conflict in relationships, it relates to both parties not having their access needs met. And some of those access needs may be brain rules. Wow. In the chat, you got normalized interdependence. Sorry, I missed that.  While individuals may not, I feel society does owe us all and we struggle with relationships. We should be offered support from the community to get our needs met. Yes, we are all wired for connection. We all are, and a lot of times when people are unable to establish an experienced connection, it's because of that social model of disability where if we bring various access needs to a relationship, they're not met. And so the connection is not established. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for fleshing that out for me. So I'm gonna propose a world rule. And I'm almost done with my slides and I will open it up. So it's gonna be a pretty informal brain club. I'm hoping we have lots, lots of dialogue. For much of the month, we had very kind of formal panels and we're gonna try something different. We tried something different last week and we're gonna try something still different today. So I'm gonna propose a world rule. Brain rules are a cognitive access need. There's nothing wrong with them. They're just your brain rules. And they may be wrong. They may be irrational. They may be not matched, but they're your brain rules and they're your access needs. It's okay, because it's yours.  If you wanna go back and watch the recordings. We talked about how just because something's a brain rule doesn't mean you have to get rid of it. You just recognize it's a brain rule, not a world rule. And you can keep it if it's helping you. But if it's not, if it's an unhelpful brain rule, you might choose to change it up. But you're not expecting rationality because this is just your access needs. That's all, that's what you need. So my proposed world rule number two, relationships are about negotiating conflicting access needs. Everything is about conflicting access needs, I think. I think I spend all day long taking this world rule and like helping people apply it and applying it myself all day. So with that, I'm gonna stop sharing and open this up for conversation. What do y'all think about this concept of how brain rules versus world rules plays out in your own relationships of any kind? And feel free to type in the chat, feel free to unmute, feel free to sit and think. So Laura shares, I feel like identifying the brain rules is a huge piece. Oh yeah, totally. And I remember back in July, in our part one conversation, I shared that early in my relationship with my husband, I used to really think that it was this like magical, amazing thing when he could anticipate my needs without my saying it. Meaning I was expecting that mind reading was like a thing. It's brain rule. And so unlearning that was like really helpful over the past 12 years, 13 years. When that did not happen. And now talking about that, oh, like we can't read minds, we might be able to read a vibe, but we can't read minds. It's like something I teach my five year old. Yeah, Laura shares in the chat, we definitely romanticized that mind reading in relationships a lot of our society. For sure, I shouldn't have to say what I need, they should know brain rule. And just like the idea of, what do we think about just, it's hard to even know what our access needs are, let alone be able to express them and communicate them. Like we don't even know what they are. Hey, I'm totally new here. I'm Victoria. Oh wait, I'll start my camera. Hi. Yeah, I love this idea of brain rules and world rules and I've been really getting into it. And I think a brain rule that I have been coming up against recently, yeah, also as I kind of like am contemplating or like thinking about whether I'm autistic and like I've realized that a common brain rule is that your partner gets along with your parents and they like hang out and stuff. And I haven't been able to do that. So I am breaking people's brain rules and it's causing a lot of mayhem. Yeah, so like it's fascinating because I think that people might talk about it when partners hang out with parents, like everybody gets along and like maybe they don't talk about it when that doesn't happen. But I would say like the world rules probably sometimes partners get along with families, sometimes partners do not or sometimes they get along and sometimes they do not. Like I think it really is the idea of like when you're, like I think that if I think back to like young childhood, for sure, like that was a message I was fed, but that was like really important and really, really good. And I remember like having previous partners that like didn't wanna get along with my parents or like we're interested in having communication with my parents and being like, ah, brain rule. And you know, if that was my brain rule, we can keep it. But if it was helpful, but a lot of times it's not helpful. So that's very, I think thanks for sharing that. And Mia shares, I'd be worried if my partner got on with my parents too well. Awesome. Christina says, can you talk about the difference between societal brain rules?  But like that doesn't make it a world rule, it's just a shared brain rule. There seems to be a standard that is understood generally. For example, in the roles that people assume in the family or friendships, but if roles are just made up and just the contract, how do we change that? Honestly, I mean, I think that's, first off, that's a brilliant question. Thank you for the question. And I'd love to hear what other people have to say about this. I have a lot to say about this, if you can't tell. But I wonder, what do other people think about that? About what do we, like what do we do about societal brain rules? Because societal brain rules make it really hard for people to check their brain rule versus world rule because like a lot of people share it, but doesn't make it a world rule, but it feels like it is, but it's not. So what do other people have to think about that? I feel like it's a world, oh, I think you said this like, yeah, it's like a world rule that people don't like it when their brain rules are challenged. Yeah, that's really good. So yeah, I think that it's even worse when it's a societal brain rule because then you're like exploding the whole system. Yeah, so like I think a lot about like parallel play of thoughts and concepts. So like rather than challenge a brain rule, just like talk about something that kind of goes alongside that it's like a peripheral related concept and furthers things along without challenging brain rules because like we all have brain rules. It's just that even like, I talk about brain rules all day, but if someone calls me on my brain rule, like I am apt to like maybe be less open to the idea than if I thought about it myself. And Laura shares agreeing with me as earlier comment about probably thinking about the partner getting along with the parents. I think you're right about that in terms of, I'm thinking of books I've read where this is basically how love is portrayed. And that leads me to assume that love looks a certain way and expected of my partner, even when it actually makes very little sense. And that when that brain rule gets broken without recognizing it's a brain rule, I have felt hurt by my partner because he didn't slash couldn't slash shouldn't meet this unrealistic expectation I have. Oh my goodness, that resonates with me.  Dude, I think it does. I think it totally does. Oh, I love your brain. Yes. And Linda shares, I was told that I was the cause of the fall of modern civilization because I wasn't going to take my husband's name. Right, right. I mean, that's a great, so that's very interesting. So like in many ways, can we look at when people do get married and they don't change their name? If that happens, I don't know, in like in 2022, I think that there are many such examples of that where it's not a big deal. So he challenged the brain rule and it's okay. But like in other cultures and other family systems and other times it has a lot more dysregulation in response. So like I think that's a really great example of unlearning. Sierra. Yeah, hi. Can everybody hear me? Yeah. Okay, awesome. So I'm Sierra, she, her, I'm in respect for Shana Aldrin's belong.  I think I thought about this a lot as I am getting married in two weeks and not marrying the person that my parents thought I would marry. And definitely not in the type of relationship that my parents thought I would be in. And it took a long time for them to kind of almost grieve that like future of the daughter that they thought they'd have and get accustomed to the new one.  I'm not having my father walk me down the aisle because I don't want to. And knowing that, like you said Mel, knowing that people are going to kind of push against that and expecting that and kind of staying strong when you can. Yeah. And I think that certainly we can ignore, so like that's where the conflicting access need comes in I think. So if someone has a brain rule that, you know, their child is going to follow a pre-imagined set of expectations and it's different from that, there may be a brain rule violated at the same time as that individual has an access need to pursue their own path. Like it's that conflict. I think that's a great example of that. And so the problem is I think that when we are having a conflicting access need situation, we can't always see it because we're dysregulated.  So that's hard. Like I can identify conflicting access needs like in other people, like I went for rather than myself. Christina. Hi, my name is Christina. I'm new to the group. Actually, this is my first meeting. I hope you can hear me. I'm outside, but there is a storm. I was just kind of thinking about what you kind of all are saying. And the brain rules thing seems to be like, I don't know, I think of it as like a biological construct like that people seem to need to categorize things to make it easier for them to conceptualize. And I don't know if that's at the root of this. I'm just kind of speculating, but I think that sometimes when we are changing those rules and thinking of things in more complex ways that people that have difficulty or rely solely on categorizing things really probably struggle more than those of us that feel like that's not requirement for our social interactions. And I don't know, I feel like I fall in that and I don't know how many other people here fall in that. Like, I don't feel like I need to necessarily categorize people or social norms, but I think that that's where some of the pushback comes back. And I don't know, I'm just welcome other commentary. Yeah, and I think that when people have interactions that feel safe and are more effortless these distinctions like don't come up and they don't need to come up. And it's really like when that doesn't happen, when safety is not achieved, connection is not established. It's where those, I think like that's where those assumptions that were like laid down often in early childhood even about what a relationship or what an interaction should look like. Kind of a lot of people like default to those early brain rules when they are stressed. I don't know if anyone else can relate to that. Just got to react in the chat. I think when, oh, sorry, I gotta scroll up. Okay, here we go. So Mia shares, I think when we have unrealistic expectations for me to think we're unreasonable people, yes, which makes it even harder for us to see from other people's point of view, right? So when you are essentially criticized for having access needs, you may not feel safe in that relationship, right? Whereas if we were spoken to respectfully about what does and does not work for others instead of being shamed for our brain rules if we weren't infantilized so much it would be a lot easier for us to adjust to the needs of others. I think well said, yeah. Laura shares, brain rules about gender also seem to play a huge role for me in brain rules about relationships. I had to unlearn my assumed gender rules a lot as we learned what worked best in our relationship. Definitely, yeah. And got a lot of backlash from that from my very traditional parents, right? Yeah, and Sarah's just sharing to Sierra that weddings have a lot of brain rules. Oh yes, pattern recognition, yes. And a common brain rule seems to be that a sign of a healthy relationship is wanting the same thing. While I feel compatibility is important, at least for me I know that there are always gonna be incompatibilities in some areas. Yeah, that sounds like a world rule. A lot of people tell themselves they want the same things as their partner but that's unsustainable. If I have another relationship I hope to be able to talk with my partner when we want different things and try to find a way forward. Yeah. And Leah shares, it seems like a lot of neurotypical people are really willing to follow social norms and group brain rules without questioning why people do things that way. An interesting observation. It's very interesting because I think that let's come back to that. I think, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like I think that's a great question and discussion topic. Like is it that there are people who are following the social norms? Like does that relate to our thinking, learning communication style? Is that because we haven't ever been prompted to like zoom out and unlearn? Is it a habit thing? I don't know. What do others think about that? I'm very curious. I think that's a really good question. I think there's a huge part of like all or nothing thinking that goes into that. And the same as like the us versus them like just that internalized pattern recognition is the way to stay safe and belong with people sometimes or the way that we're taught to stay safe and belong with people. And so if we don't, if we aren't able to pattern recognize and aren't able to conform to that specific pattern unless we're kind of all in, we're complete outcasts. Yeah. And I think, Sierra, I think the pattern recognition is really important because that is a strength of many, not all, but many neurodivergent brains. And yet sometimes appreciating that pattern for the first time is hard. Maybe the pattern can be matched subsequently more easily. But if you've never had the occasion or the prompt to know that that pattern is a thing, then you may not match it because you don't know it's a thing because you've perhaps been told that there's a right way to do the thing your whole life. And so you think that's what it is. As opposed to like, what I can say is that when I think about, as a person who spends most of my day with neurodivergent people who is neurodivergent myself, I would say that some of the biggest explosions in the universe that I helped support people through are two neurodivergent people with conflicting access needs. So I think that if you don't know the pattern, you can't spot it. Laura? I just think it's such a fascinating topic and I consider myself to be a neurotypical person and I'm really questioning the question because I don't question those social rules that I, and I honestly don't even recognize them as things to, like they're just, they just are truths in my mind. And it's been really fascinating to unlearn them as truth. But one of the things that I'm kind of thinking through is that maybe those social brain rules align with the neurotypical like tendency for access needs. And so they just sort of fit with the brain rules that I might create if left to my own devices, maybe. And those access needs kind of just fit with those brain rules and then that's why I don't question it. I don't know. That's interesting. I, Agnia? Yeah, well, it's probably gonna be a bit difficult to sum it up all in one in a few moments. But basically, I'm a trans woman and I was bullied a lot like as a child also by parents and everyone who just wanted me to fit in and they forced me to live as male until my early twenties. And then as I mentioned in another like around the after the Ortscape Conference, yeah, the Ortscape Conference, I have this thing where I was unable to fly because like they were forcing passengers through body scanners like with the heightened security. And I became afraid to fly.  But whilst this was going on, I was looking for a partner and a lot of them openly rejected me because they didn't agree with me being trans and told me I should learn to appreciate the body I was born with. And a lot of people told me that, oh, I wouldn't be, that I wasn't able to get a partner because of the way I was and because I was so focused on the, like because I let certain things take over my life like they should have been cut off from a relative.  But I used to really think that I wasn't finding a partner because there was something wrong with me. And like all the advice people gave was things like, it was focusing on how if I wanted a partner I needed to be less like myself. And for years I just thought that, oh, if I want a relationship I'll have to change who I am. And that was reinforced when I finally did find someone who considered the relationship with me and we met. And as soon as we met he sort of expressed doubts and he asked what happened was that he was accepting of me when we were talking online. But he was scared. He kept his relationship secret from his friends and family because he was scared that they would desert him if he stayed with me. So basically there's a feeling that I wasn't having able to have a relationship because of who I was and because I've got, yeah. So yeah, I think sort of, and I feel it's strange because I now have much better quality friendships but I do still struggle when it comes to finding a partner even though many generally a lot more respectful than they used to be towards me. But yeah, I do still struggle like making that step of like a relationship. Nia, I really appreciate you sharing that. And there's so, and Celia, Vicki and Katrina all share things for sharing, Nia. I think that that message is something that so many people have experienced. The painful message of being told that the way that you fundamentally are needs to change in order to have value and like that is the message that explicitly or implicitly is being given to so many people. And it's traumatic, it's painful. Suzanne also shares, thanks for the vulnerable open sharing.  Yeah, I agree. Thank you so much for sharing me. I think that brings up a lot of really good points especially about kind of being true to yourself but also knowing that you can rely on other people in a relationship and that's okay. I think there's a big difference between interdependence and like intermeshing and kind of like changing yourself to become the same person as your partner. And interdependence is something that everybody has with something or somebody and is totally normal and should be normal. And you can be interdependent while still keeping true to yourself. And I think that's a really hard thing for a lot of times. And it makes it hard to find partners, of course. Great, because the idea is that when we're true to ourselves, only then can we even know what our own access needs even are and which need to be met in a relationship of any kind. Laura shares in the chat. Thank you so much, Mia. I'm sorry to hear all that you've been through. This is such a powerful message about being true to yourself. It's so painful to hear the cost of that for you. I agree. I'm curious for others, the pressures to not be who you are or not be able to be your true self in a relationship. Like that scene, how has that been for you? I can say something. This is Christina. I don't know. All of your messages kind of resonate a lot because I feel like people kind of get these concepts or ideas of like who they picture us to be without sometimes investigating really what is going on. So just anecdotally and try to be short and quick is like, I went through a divorce and I live on my own now with my kids, but like there was this kind of pressure or like people would either empathize with me when they found out what I'm going through and feel like I should be a tragic case or like glorify me as some like powerhouse woman that's doing things on my own. And neither was the case. And it was kind of this kind of, weird like split. And as I interact with my parents, it still seems like they're like ready to put me in one category or the other. And I am, you know, dating and I have a relationship, but I choose to still live on my own and maintain my own household. And I don't know when I would intend on changing that. So it's just kind of funny thing is it's like, I'm not fitting into the box that it's like independent strong woman, because you do have a person, a relationship, or you're not like destitute and failing and like depressed. So what are you like? And this is kind of funny thing is like, I do feel this pressure when people ask me to like respond a certain way. And I either have to like reassure them or readjust them or something. I think that the solution just comes by me not trying to do that. But it has been like, I have felt pressure to do it. Yeah. I think Sarah's comment in the chat is exactly what I was going to say. But people like their boxes. And it's, it's, it's, it's just like Christina said, even two comments ago about like, just the, that tendency to categorize. And, and, and, and, you know, and putting people in, in boxes of, for any aspect of identity can be really harmful to many brains. Victoria. Yeah. I think it's, it is like an access issue kind of thing. Cause.  And, and they also like don't have kids and I don't talk to my family. And, and then it, I realized that like for other people, this like caused an access issue for some of them, because the way they socialize is to ask you questions about your job or your, your family. And so they would be like, I don't know what to like say to this person. But like, if they tried to ask me about my family, that was like conflicting with my access needs. Cause like, I really needed to not feel pressured to like talk to my family and stuff. And so yeah, it was like, Oh wow, this really isn't working out. Like, yeah, there's, it's not, it's not, well, I was thinking about that with the like seeing people in categories and boxes. It's like, what are your categories? And then like, and then I use those categories to interact with you. But if you don't like fit into any categories, then like, I can't interact with you. That is true. Yeah. That is fascinating. Um, and Leah shares in the chat. I love categories and making sense of things, but at the same time, there are so many things that don't fit into a box or a category. Um, yeah. So, so, so what do we do when we see that? Like, so now that you, now that you have the pattern of people don't know what to say. So they do this differently. Where they put you in the box and they don't know what to do when you're not in the box. Like what's the way out of that? When you can spot that pattern. Um, like, is it, is it just about being transparent? Like, Just keep making more boxes. Yes. Yes. And yeah. And Sarah shares that this happens even with the children. What do you want to be when you grow up? What grade are you in? Oh, totally. Laura. I have a screaming person behind me. Sorry. But I think. At least from my end, it feels like if you understand that the person is trying to show interest and make you feel good. And what they're saying is actually making you feel bad. I think the move is to just walk out, like bring the conversation. I mean, like bring the conversation to what makes you feel good and what brings you joy and what your interests are, even if that's not answering the question that was asked. If that makes sense. Like. If you understand that. I think one thing in our relationship is that we've thrown away. Like words in a lot of ways. And we speak to intention now a lot of the time. And so we recognize between each other that. Our words can hurt each other a lot, but usually that's a miscommunication. If we're hurting each other. It's more likely that means that what we're intending communicate is not what we've actually said. And I feel like if you understand that somebody's intention is express interest, learn about you. Then what they want you to do is respond with what makes you feel good and what's of interest to you. Yes. Absolutely. I think so that's an access need, right? Of like, like, I.  And like to zoom out and be able to say, okay, that if that's not able to be established, like at least thinking about what the intention is helps. Helps that, that work around. And interestingly, I think that. Sean and Christina said a similar thing in different ways. Sean said in some cases, sometimes you can create your own boxes. Christina, I think that's a good idea. Christina said in some cases, sometimes you can create your own boxes.  Great. And like, then Leah said, yeah, I love people create their own boxes. You both make sense of things and also not try to squish things into boxes that don't fit for sure. And I think that. I always like to tell the story. And some of you have heard me tell it many times, but before we launched our brains belong, I asked one of the kids on our junior advisory council. Also, there was a nine-year-old. Hey, what do we do to make all the kids feel like they belong? And this sweet little love without like there was like zero hesitation. He just said, you let them do what they love. Like, what do you mean? He's like, if you let me do what I love and you let that kid do what they love, said. And so when you bring people together based on shared interests, so create your own boxes, that's what happens fairly organically. And so the idea would be like, you know, and sometimes we use the term around your niche construction of designing a life that works for your brain, the goal should be that you have connections with people who share interests. So like when we we have a program here, Kid Connections, where Sarah makes custom matches for kids 3 to 17, based on shared interests and communication patterns and like all kinds of, you know, parameters that make a person feel safe. It's not based on like a quote diagnosis, it's about shared interests, because that's what matters. And so a lot of times when, if you can like achieve having you're in an environment with people that you can be communicating in whatever way about the thing you love, and they love it too, a lot of this stuff just fades away. Like, or even like you're even if you're not communicating verbally at all, like maybe you're maybe you're just parallel playing what what you love and feeling connection that way. And that's it's beautiful. I had this saw this weird thing on TikTok where like this woman was like, you know what would be great at parties? If like we just wore on the front of our our shirt, like a list of the things that we're into. And then like we walk around the party and like other people have they have matching thing or they they're interested in your thing. And so like these are the topics that like we can relate on. And they that was she was like, I wish that parties were like that. So instead of like trying to figure out that it's like, talk to me about like BNB or books that I read or psychology or something like that. And I thought it was kind of cute and a little funny, but maybe it would work. I love that. That sounds like the kind of party we should have here at ABB. And I'm just catching up on the chat. I love I love that in like four minutes, I missed eight messages. Victoria says redirecting breaks a brain roll of mine, which is that I answer the question that's asked, but I agree it's a good strategy to try more of. Sierra says I love connecting on special interests. Yeah, Laura and Laura shares that sometimes when the questions are asked may induce trauma. They're triggering of like, like I remember when I was going through fertility treatment anytime somebody asked me if I had kids, holy cow. Yeah. And Laura says it would be amazing to create a new social question. What do you like to do? That's a social question. I ask a lot of people when I met anyone at our community health and education fair this week. That is literally what I asked everyone. Sierra. Sorry. I was just catching up on the chat as well. Yeah, I think that the I think like having the pins is a really like having the things on your shirt. And I think people do that with stickers. Like I have a bunch of stickers on my laptop of some of the things that I really love doing people do that with t-shirts and buttons and like we have ways to do that. We just don't like I wish we had a like magnet on my shirt that I could put the different things that interested in that day through interest change too. Like a whiteboard can or something. That'd be amazing. And actually someone someone sent me by the way we usually remember to tell people this but we forgot this time. If you ever want to share something in the chat anonymously feel free to just send either me or Sierra a direct message. So someone's done that and and shared exactly that. I buy graphic keys with my special interest on them and people talk to me about them. Like amazing. And Leah shares. Yes, it's so true. I think neurodivergent people don't tend to ask the question about status as much as interest. And the small talk is just black. And you know, I think that there are also a lot of neurodivergent people who speak in scripts because it's it can be easy and those those scripts can be like the you know the the over rehearsed you know hi how are you and you just say that when nobody even asked me asked how you were kind of thing like I mean that just happens all the time. Ask me what book I'm reading on a pin. I love that. I love that. We have one of our volunteers has a virtual backdrop of the Starship Enterprise just as like a like a conversational point because really this person wants to talk about Star Trek all day long but kind of like shrews it to see if that person they're interacting with will go there. And Emily shares. I was reading about how alternative dressing seems common with neurodivergent people in this kind of track like minded people. And I think that I think that it might be you know I think human nature we may be drawn sometimes to people who are similar to us in many ways. And so that may be about the way we dress the way we think the way we communicate like there could be all kinds of ways of signaling that. And then once you get close enough and the you know the the energetic safety is established. Once that verbal or nonverbal communication is established. I love the idea of I actually so sorry I was going to say I love the idea of of pins or shirts of like this is what I want to talk about. The other thing I wanted to just throw this out there when you're meeting someone what would happen if you just started talking about the thing you're interested in and if it lands great. And if it doesn't land you move on what would happen what's the worst thing. I really this is here I really liked I worked in the hospital for a long time and so made a lot of small talk on the floor with patients and I really like developing a script really specifically for what people asked like do you have a husband because I didn't always want to kind of come out to certain patients. And so developing kind of a really quick script of being able to redirect that and I think I like the idea of developing a script of when you first meet somebody that like hi how are you what have you been up to but redeveloping that with some of the things we've been talking about asking what book I'm reading I think what gives you dopamine is something that Mel has used pretty significantly and something that I really like as well. And so I think if we can develop those strips and make it as easy as possible so when we're dysregulated we can still use those things and still try to connect even when we're in stressful social situations. Right because I mean like like like first level would be to like avoid stressful social situations and not have obligatory social situations but that's not realistic all the time. But having some strategies as long as you realize if you are going to script something recognizing that like it's not because you don't intuitively have value and that the thing that you want to talk about is not valuable because it is it's really like you just you don't want to have to problem solve in the moment you just want to like make the conversation go away so that you can then have communication with with someone about a topic that interests you. Mia. Yeah for me with dysregulation I feel that a lot of the problem is that when we're dysregulated a lot of people medicalize it like they they make out they act as if they judge our whole character based on moments of dysregulation they won't they don't look at the context behind it like I know with me my my dysregulation like when I'm dysregulated around my parents in particular like because a lot of my trauma is around feelings of having my body transgressed like with the forced nudity as a child um like because I was forced to use communal shouts in the school and I found considered that a sexual violation and uh when I've been angry with my parents particularly my mother I found myself um like talking about her body in any way because she's often done that with me and it's my wave signalling that I feel that my feelings are around my body and not being recognized but I think there've been times where I felt that I've been judged on that without any context like okay I'm that's not usually who I am it's just that almost like I think what's happened is when I've tried to talk um like respectfully it's like that's been shut down or whatever and I think I've heard about the term autistic meltdown and I often wonder if that's what happened happens with me when when I sort of respond like that and I've had thoughts of doing with other people but I haven't yet like but it's usually well it's always the result of people being very inappropriate with me or people shaming me for but it's like I often struggle myself like not to recognize that okay this isn't this doesn't make me a bad person right it makes you human and but it is interesting so Emily you and I had the same thought so Emily shares in the chat it's like how a lot of autistic traits in the medical field are centered around our discomfort and dysregulation yes that's exactly right I mean so when you look at the DSM-5 criteria they are autistic dysregul- you know signs of dysregulation which is why many times autistic adults do not become identified until they become so profoundly dysregulated that they so Leah shares yes you're being dysregulated because of the group brain rules but then those people blame it on autism being quote an illness yeah well said Victoria says people are crossing your boundaries a million times but it doesn't quote look that way because their behavior seems quote normal yeah yes to all that right and so just just I think that if we as we as we wrap up today I think like one big take home point is to just like frame this around your own access need if someone is making you feel uncomfortable that's not okay um and if a if your limbic system is giving you a clue that something is going wrong it's not because of something you're doing it's because your access needs are not being met and your limbic system does not feel safe and you don't get to pick what makes you safe like you know neuroception like you're you know everybody's monitoring the environment safe not safe and if if if the flag goes off we're not safe you gotta go with that um because it's it's fascinating um um the the more you use upstairs brain to override downstairs brain downstairs brain will have its day and keep trying to get your attention that's a world rule and so um with that I think that's like great um a transition point to tell you about um next week's brain club next month's theme of brain club we're going to be talking about um difficult conversations how to have the conversations you need to have about your access needs so how to have conversations with your healthcare team with your educating educator team with your employer all the different types of conversations around uh asserting your access needs so um and and um since the universe um has been trying to give us the signal that we are supposed to be zoom only for brain club as evidenced by five Tuesdays in a row having thunderstorms we are officially going back to zoom only brain club so we'll see you next Tuesday at six o'clock thank you all so much for coming thank you for this really uh powerful conversation recording stopped thanks so much this was so great I'm so glad thank you for being here thank you and I say uh so yeah this is coming on this is now uh this is continuing now yeah so every every Tuesday what time is it where you are it's uh midnight now oh thank you for staying up with us and if you ever fall asleep or you ever decide not to stay up late um we always record this um and um and then after after our friends at orca media do all of their amazing post production editing we send it out usually like at the end of the week or something like that yeah yeah where are you located oh i'm in the uk that's awesome yeah i uh i did want to join last week but it was very tired and i think i fell asleep the the one before but uh but yeah i don't know if there's any ways of um of uh if if there's a facebook group uh for this yeah yeah totally yeah so if people can yeah if you give me if you if you put your email address in the chat i will send you a link to our all brains belong facebook group okay uh yeah i'll just oh it's going to ask um i don't know if anyone here is familiar with uh uh with the um medicine house autism foundation um i i've met someone who's on their board can you tell me more i don't know much about them well basically i came across um i came across uh a video they did for um for like for people to access air travel and there was uh there was a girl who um who had the exact same uh um um uh by the end as i did like she had an issue with the the body scanners and i'll just link the video and what i think is if i had um if i had uh the videos from 2016 so it seems like that was available but if i had the same support that this person did i would have been able to make the trip years ago so it's like but i was led to believe that there just wasn't any support because my needs were so unreasonable but right right and so when you get the message that you're too much and you're excessive and you're you know like no and i guess i was just wondering if there may be ways of contacting some of the people in the video and maybe seeing if we can conjure in forces because i think with i think that there are lots there'll be lots of people out there who've who've been cut off like me and i think that there needs to be more ways of reaching out to people in in similar situations to my own yeah yeah absolutely and i think that um you know i i'm gonna check out this video and i will and i think you know i'll check out this video because like you're you're right you're not the only one for sure and i'm so glad you came today thanks all right bye everyone hope to see you next week bye


Hi, my name is Peter, and I'm going to tell you about this paper on homomorphic secret sharing and public key silent OT Which we build using new techniques for the palliative crypto system This is joint work with Claudia O'Alandi and Sophia Yakubov from Ores University I'll start by introducing homomorphic secret sharing and then move on to our main technical highlight Which is a new share conversion procedure based on palliative encryption We'll use this to construct a distributed multiplication protocol for homomorphic secret sharing Later, I'll then show how to use the same share conversion procedure to build a different object called the pseudo random correlation function This can be used to produce a large quantity of correlated randomness used in two-party or multi-party computation protocols And our constructions have some nice features like a simple public key setup And we can use these to build either vector or le correlations or oblivious transfer correlations Homomorphic secret sharing is a form of succinct distributed computation on private inputs In this talk, I'll be focusing on the two-server setting where each input X is run through some share algorithm Which outputs two shares x0 and x1 here given to the two servers Alison Bob Then when the servers want to evaluate some function say a program P across these inputs They can locally perform an evaluation procedure which leads to a share of the results So the security should require that each of these shares individually completely hides all information about X However, later on when the parties want to reconstruct the output They can combine these shares by just adding them together to obtain the result P of X Note that this reconstruction procedure really is just addition in some forms of HSS You allow more complex reconstruction, but here we'll just be focusing on the simplest kind of additive reconstruction Now if you're familiar with standard secret sharing Then you'll know that using any linear secret sharing scheme such as additive secret sharing or shamiah secret sharing You can build HSS for linear functions just by applying the linear function to the shares At the other end of the scale using learning with errors in a circular security assumption We can actually build HSS for any class of functions Unfortunately, this construction isn't really so efficient as it builds on top of expensive forms of fully homomorphic encryption In between these two extremes There's quite a lot of different possibilities depending on what kind of assumptions we want to use Using just one way functions. For instance, we can build HSS for simple types of functions like point functions Whereas using learning parity with noise we can build HSS for more powerful classes like low degree polynomials and Assuming LWE this time without expensive types of fully homomorphic encryption We can get HSS for branching programs, which is a fairly large class of circuits including logarithmic depth circuits Interestingly using the DDH or palliate assumptions, which aren't even known to imply fully homomorphic encryption We can get the same type of HSS for branching programs There is a big drawback of these constructions though, which is that there is a chance the result of the computation is Incorrect with some probability that is inverse polynomial in the security parameter In this work we improve upon the palliate construction by reducing this error probability to something negligible At the same time we also managed to increase the message space Which was previously bounded to a polynomial size to be exponential in the security parameter matching all of the other known constructions So we want to build HSS for branching programs now the model of branching programs will consider It's actually very simple. You could just think of it as arithmetic circuits with addition and multiplication gates With the one constraint that in every multiplication gate at least one of the inputs is actually an input wire to the circuit itself So we can consider two types of values input wires to the circuit and then intermediate computation values which we'll call memory values and in the HSS construction Every input wire is going to be represented or given out to the parties in an encrypted form under some additively homomorphic encryption scheme And then for each memory value during the computation The parties will end up having some secret sharing of the corresponding message under some linear secret sharing scheme So with this the types of operations will support Firstly addition where we can add either to memory values or to input values Which is a simple local operation by linearity of the secret sharing scheme or the homomorphism of the encryption scheme And then secondly multiplication So because of the restricted model, this is only between input wire and a memory wire And this is the most complex part where the magic happens And finally at the end we have any memory value we can reconstruct it which is just revealing the shares Now I'm going to focus on the multiplication protocol, which is the most complex part of the HSS construction So we have two values x and y we want to multiply x is an input wire to the actual computation So it's given an encrypted form or y is this memory value. We have additive secret sharing The parties will do some kind of distributed decryption and multiplication step Which ends up with them getting multiplicative shares of the product x times y This comes in the form of group elements g0 g1 Where g0 times the inverse of g1 is g to the x y for some fixed group element g So i'm not going to go into the details of this step because it's essentially the same as in previous works The only thing to point out is that since there's some kind of decryption of the ciphertext involved here We do actually need the secret key to be involved So instead of additive shares of just y we're actually going to give the parties Additive shares of d times y where d is the secret key Now once we have these multiplicative shares The most important step is this distributed discrete log algorithm Which will convert the multiplicative shares into additive shares And that's the main step where this palier-based construction is different Let's start with a quick recap of the original distributed discrete log procedure by Boyle Gabor and Ishae Which works for the general ddh case of primordial groups So here we have the two group elements g0 and g1 which are divisive shares of x y And we want to convert them to additive shares of x y So looking at all the group elements on this circle we have here We can consider them separated by multiplication by this generator g If we keep going around from g1 we eventually get to g0 And then finally all the way up to G1 g into the g to the n minus 1 and back to g1 since n is the order of the group in this case So if we look at the distance between g0 and g1 in terms of Multiplication by powers of g then this is of course the x times y value we're interested in So one natural approach to obtaining the shares we want Is just to fix some public element h on the circle here Then have Alice and Bob count the distance from their original input g0 and g1 Up to h in terms of multiplications by g So of course this will get us valid additive shares or subtractive shares actually of the message x y Now there's of course a big problem here Which is that these shares x y 0 x y 1 will generally be very large And computing this distance is going to involve a potentially exponential number of multiplications So we want to make this more efficient One thing you can do is to actually have many distinguished elements h which are publicly identifiable So then the distance will be reduced and if you choose them carefully you can make this run in polynomial time You do have to also make sure the message space has polynomial size so x times y is not too large But the problem now Is that this introduces some inherent failure probability So if there's one of the distinguished points Which falls between the two values g0 and g1 Then Alice and Bob will measure the distance to the wrong point This will give a Incorrect message and the result of the computation will be wrong So despite various optimizations and improvements over the years All of the constructions for hss based on this technique have this inverse polynomial failure probability And limited to polynomial size message space and that's even for a variant over Pelea groups, which has been looked at previously So let's try to translate this to the case of palier encryption and see what we can do better Now with palier we're no longer working in cyclic group We're actually working with the integers modulo n squared under multiplication Where n is this rsa modulus So the important fact here is that the element 1 plus m Generates a subgroup of this where the discrete logarithm problem is easy So the first thing we'll do to help this in our case is to replace this fixed element g With a special base 1 plus n So note that the original inputs g0 and g1 are actually still in the larger group. They're not on this easy subgroup That's kind of inherent because of the way the first part of the distributed decryption part of the protocol works But when you look at that ratio, you end up mapping into this easy discrete log subgroup And the second change we want to make is that instead of having multiple h's which leads to this inverse polynomial error probability We're going to have just a single distinct which element h So this actually makes things really easy because now alice of bob can just take h divide this by g0 or g1 And you get 1 plus n raised to the power of your final share You can solve discrete logarithm and get the result The only problem is of course, how do you actually find this h? Because now if you look at the circle, this isn't actually the entire group Remember, since g is not the group is not cyclic This is going to be a coset determined by the original value g1 with multiplication by powers of 1 plus n If they choose h to be this special value Determined by just reducing g0 or g1 modulo n And mapping this back into the larger group mod n squared, this actually gets us something we want So first notice that this does indeed map to the same h for both g0 and g1 Simply because they have this special ratio 1 plus n to the xy So reducing mod n removes the n and these are in fact equal modulo n And the second important thing is that this h also happens to be in the same coset as g0 and g1 Which of course is what we need for this to be correct And the proof of this is actually very simple Just for some quick intuition here The idea is that by reducing g1 modulo n This gives us some unique representative of the entire coset defined by g1 We can do this for any group element It doesn't have to be g1 and this always gives us a unique coset representative And after mapping h back up to modulo n squared, we can reduce mod n Of course, we get the same value h Which means that h also has to be in this coset So this is actually all we need to make the distributed discrete logarithm algorithm work And it gives us this nice property of only having a single element h So we can support both the large message space and we get a negligible probability of error for each multiplication Just to summarize quickly what we've learned so far We have this basic hss construction from Pelier With improved correctness error and larger message space And one catch which I haven't mentioned is that to repeatedly do the multiplication procedure We do additionally need to give out encryptions of the inputs multiplied by the secret key And this involves introducing a circular security assumption However, we do have additional variants of hss following the same blueprint The first is a public key variant where you can share these inputs without knowing the private key Based on a variant of algomal over the pelier group And finally, we have a variant without a circular security assumption Using the Prokersky-Goldwasser encryption scheme, but this has much larger ciphertext sizes And also note that there has been a concurrent work to ours Which achieves similar results instead using the Damgård-Uruk crypto system And one nice thing about that is they don't need to assume circular security All right, so in the second half of the talk, we'll be looking at pseudorandom correlation functions A pseudorandom correlation function, or PCF, gives us a way of obtaining a large amount of correlated randomness with minimal interaction So before talking about the details of PCFs, let me say a little bit more about what I mean by correlations in general So a correlation can be seen as distribution, which in this case outputs a pair of strings r0 and r1 given privately to Alison Bob And depending on correlation, this can often be used in secure 2-party and multi-party computation protocols to help improve efficiency One common example of correlation is the oblivious transfer correlation Here Bob is the sender who's given two random strings s0, ns1 Well, Alice gets one of them sb and a random bit b Now Bob doesn't learn which string Alice got and Alice doesn't learn the other string Another useful correlation is oblivious linear evaluation or OLE Here Alice and Bob get random field elements x and y together with additive secret sharing of the product x times y In vector OLE, each sample from the correlation that's given to Alice and Bob will essentially be a single OLE sample With the restriction that the value y given to Bob will always be the same across every output of the correlation So in a pcf, Alice and Bob are first given a pair of correlated keys k0 and k1 coming from some key generation distribution Then given the key and a public nonce, they can both locally run an evaluation procedure to obtain a single output from the correlation r0, r1 And they can repeat this in as many times as they want using different nonces to obtain fresh samples from the correlation PCFs have only been studied relatively recently since a paper from last year From that, we know that using the learning with errors assumption, we can get pcfs for any type of additively secret shared correlation But this relies on homomorphic secret sharing and is quite expensive On the other hand, if we use a new variable density variant of the learning parity with noise assumption We can obtain pcf with better concrete efficiency for simple correlations like oblivious transfer And degree two correlations In this work, we extend the class of pcfs we can build from standard assumptions with reasonable efficiency By building pcfs for vector OLE and OT based on the Palier assumption or quadratic residuality Now compared with the other constructions, you know that since these are all Public key type constructions, they require expansions for every evaluation of the pcf So computationally, this is going to be much slower than lpn based alternatives But as a trade-off for this, we get by with much smaller key sizes Conceptually simpler constructions and based on classical number theoretic assumptions So let's take a look at our pseudo random correlation function for vector OLE So this is going to be a very simple application of our hss multiplication procedure I showed you in the first part of this video Where we'll use that to multiply the secret value xi given to alice with the secret value y given to bob Now the xi value is actually going to come from the public nonce given to both parties So the important thing here is that given some public form of randomness in the nonce We can use this to obliviously sample a palier encryption where nobody knows the underlying message x So as well as that in the private keys given to each of the parties We're going to give them a secret sharing of the product d times y where d is the palier decryption key So as well as this of course, we'll give y to bob And we'll give the decryption key to alice so that she can use this to recover the message x Now given this we have everything we need to run the hss multiplication procedure We multiply the ciphertext encrypting x with the shares of d times y Which gives alice and bob shares of x times y And we can repeat this on input of fresh nonce getting a fresh encryption of a new value x and a new vector only sample So this is a very simple construction of a pcf of vector only And in the paper, we also have a similar construction for generating random ot correlations instead The main difference there is that uses gold was a mccally encryption instead of palier This is an encryption scheme that encrypts bits And one key point there is that we actually have to repeat this process several times to build up an ot on strings one bit at a time So both of these pcfs actually do require some kind of trusted setup In the form of the pcf keys, which are these additive shares of d times y Alice has the decryption key d and bob has the secret scalar y We show that we can actually remove this trusted setup replace it with a public key setup Consisting of a single message sent from both alice and bob We formalize this by building a non-interactive vector only protocol based on the same distributed discrete log procedure used in our hss multiplication Putting everything together we obtained public key pseudo random correlation functions, which have the following structure So as part of our setup, we do actually rely on a common reference string in the form of an rsa modulus n prime Given to both parties when no one knows the the secret factorization Then alice and bob just have to exchange their public keys with a single message They can use this to obtain their private pcf keys, which are the secret shares of d times y Note that d here is a private key actually corresponding to a different rsa modulus than the one n prime in the crs And then given any public nonce The parties can do their hss multiplication to get the pcf output and of course repeat this as many times as they want So the main thing I want you to take away from this This will be have this very nice technical trick in the form of a share conversion procedure for palia encryption Which allows you to locally convert multiplicative shares of a message in the exponent into additive shares of x And so we show that this is very powerful We can use it to build homomorphic secret sharing for branching programs Maybe get negligible error and a large plain text space And additionally we get new constructions of pseudo random correlation functions Which allow you to produce an arbitrary number of vector release or oblivious transfers Or based on the same techniques And in addition we have this public key setup procedure To allow alice and bob to generate this correlated randomness after just exchanging one message each I'll conclude by mentioning a few open problems, which I think might be interesting to have a look at So as I mentioned before the pcf oblivious transfer is actually quite a bit less efficient But it requires repeating this multiplication procedure one bit at a time And this leads to a bigger security parameter overhead in terms of number of exponentiations That would be great to remove this Another limitation of our constructions is that if you want the public key setup Then you do need this common reference string in the form of a trusted rsa modulus For the PCFs, it would also be interesting to try to expand the class of correlations we can construct For instance, instead of just vector-ally building o-ally correlations from pelier And another interesting direction might be to look at constructing public key PCFs from other assumptions For instance, we know how to do a lot of things from learning with errors But actually nothing in the public key setting from lpn And finally a big limitation of all of the constructions is that they only work for two parties It would be really nice to have some techniques which allow us to go beyond this Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoyed the talk