I was having some trouble really grokking how to apply this, so I had o3-mini rephrase the post in terms of the Experiential Array:
1. Ability
Name of Ability:
“Miasma-Clearing Protocol” (Systematically cornering liars and exposing contradictions)
Description:
This is the capacity to detect dishonest or evasive claims by forcing competing theories to be tested side-by-side against all relevant facts, thereby revealing contradictions and “incongruent” details that cannot coexist with the lie.
2. Beliefs (The Belief Template)
2.1 Criterion (What is most important?)
Criterion:
“Ensuring that all relevant facts align with a coherent, contradiction-free explanation.”
Definition (for that Criterion):
To “ensure all relevant facts align” means systematically verifying that each piece of evidence is fully accounted for by a theory without requiring impossible or self-contradictory assumptions.
In practice, this translates to:
Listing out every significant or relevant fact.
Checking each fact against any proposed explanation.
Tracking which theory remains consistent with every fact, and which theory fails on one or more points.
2.2 Cause-Effect
When modeling how someone successfully applies the Miasma-Clearing Protocol, two types of Cause-Effects often emerge:
Enabling Cause-Effects (What makes it possible to satisfy the Criterion?)
Cause-Effect #1:
“By methodically listing all facts side by side with each theory, I create a clear structure that prevents isolated ‘deflections.’”
In other words, organizing all the evidence in a single framework enables a person to see where a theory’s contradictions lie.
Cause-Effect #2:
“By insisting that we restart from the beginning whenever a theory is modified, we ensure no contradictory details are lost.”
Thus, forcing a re-check of all factsenables us to capture newly revealed contradictions.
Motivating Cause-Effects (What deeper/higher criteria or values does satisfying the main Criterion lead to?)
Cause-Effect #3:
“When I use the protocol and find a single, unscathed theory, I can be confident I’ve uncovered the truth and avoided being misled.”
Confidence and claritymotivate the pursuit of the protocol.
Cause-Effect #4:
“Uncovering a lie protects me (or my client) from severe negative consequences (e.g., wasted time, bad decisions, legal jeopardy).”
This motivates rigorous application of the protocol.
2.3 Supporting Beliefs
These are other beliefs that shape how someone carries out the protocol but are not the main drivers of it:
“All lies contain contradictions that will eventually appear if tested systematically.”
“If you allow a liar to deflect on one fact at a time, they can remain ‘plausible’ indefinitely.”
“Possibility alone does not equate to probability or exclusivity—any single ‘could be’ must still account for all facts.”
These beliefs color the attitude one has while running the protocol (e.g., staying patient, knowing contradictions will emerge).
3. Strategy
A strategy describes the internal/external sequence for ensuring the Criterion (“all facts align with a coherent explanation”) is met.
3.1 Test (How do you know the Criterion is met?)
Test:
You see that each relevant fact (phone location, cookie allergy, timeline, etc.) is congruent with a proposed theory.
You find no single fact that contradicts that theory.
When the protocol is working, you know the Criterion is satisfied because there is zero incongruence between the theory and any known fact.
3.2 Primary Operation
Primary Operation (the main sequence of steps):
List all relevant facts in a shared framework (e.g., bullet points, spreadsheet).
Identify the competing theory (or theories) under consideration (“Jake ate the cookies” vs. “Gillian ate the cookies”).
Check each fact side by side with each theory. Mark “Congruent” or “Incongruent.”
Note any facts that create contradictions for a theory.
If one theory remains fully congruent and the other is contradicted, highlight the contradiction and invite the person to explain or revise.
3.3 Secondary Operations
These come into play when a contradiction emerges or the liar tries to pivot:
Secondary Operation #1: Re-run the Gauntlet
If the theory is modified (“Actually, the phone was stolen and the thief followed me!”), start from scratch with the entire fact list.
This ensures no detail is lost in the shuffle.
Secondary Operation #2: Add New Facts
If a new piece of evidence surfaces, add it to the list and re-check all theories from the top.
A liar’s confetti (irrelevant details or pivoting to new stories) can be turned into new “facts” to test for consistency.
4. Emotions
4.1 Sustaining Emotion
A “background” emotional state that keeps one persistent and systematic:
Sustaining Emotion:
Calm Curiosity – The ability to remain unflustered, methodical, and genuinely interested in aligning facts with reality.
Determination – The refusal to let emotional manipulation (“How could you say that about me?”) derail the step-by-step analysis.
These emotions maintain the mental environment needed to keep applying the protocol without succumbing to frustration or intimidation.
5. External Behavior
Key Observable Behaviors:
Writing or visually mapping out facts and theories (e.g., “Let’s put this on the board.”).
Insisting on going one by one through each piece of evidence: “Let’s not skip around; we’ll get to that point after we finish with the first.”
Refusing to accept indefinite deflection: “We need to see how your new explanation fits every piece of evidence, not just one.”
Asking direct clarifying questions whenever the other person tries to pivot: “Which fact does your new story explain better than the old one?”
6. Contributing Factors
These are abilities or conditions outside the main mental structure but crucial to success:
Access to all relevant facts (e.g., phone records, allergy knowledge, timelines, logs).
Time and willingness to run through each point systematically.
A stable context (e.g., a conversation where you can keep returning to the “map” of facts; a legal proceeding, a negotiation, etc.).
Domain knowledge sufficient to interpret facts correctly (e.g., if it’s about cookie-eating, you must know enough about chocolate allergies and how dogs react to chocolate).
7. Putting It All Together
In summary, the Miasma-Clearing Protocol, as framed by the Experiential Array, is the ability to systematically confront a dishonest or evasive person by:
Holding a central Criterion: All facts must align with one coherent explanation.
Maintaining Enabling Beliefs: Contradictions emerge naturally when tested thoroughly.
Following a Strategy of listing facts, comparing them to competing theories, and re-checking whenever a theory is modified.
Sustaining Emotions of calm curiosity and determination so as not to be derailed by emotional manipulation.
Engaging in External Behaviors that keep the process transparent, organized, and methodical.
Leveraging Contributing Factors (full knowledge, time, context) to ensure a robust exploration of all relevant facts.
When done correctly, the protocol exposes incongruences that the liar cannot reconcile without further contradiction. It “clears the miasma” of deflections, so that the truthful theory remains standing, unscathed by contradictory evidence.
It gives me everything I need to replicate the ability. I just step by step bring on the motivation, emotions, beliefs, and then follow the steps, and I can do the same thing!
Whereas, just reading your post, I get a sense you have a way of really getting down to the truth, but replicating it feels quite hard.
I was having some trouble really grokking how to apply this, so I had o3-mini rephrase the post in terms of the Experiential Array:
1. Ability
Name of Ability:
Description:
2. Beliefs (The Belief Template)
2.1 Criterion (What is most important?)
Criterion:
Definition (for that Criterion):
2.2 Cause-Effect
When modeling how someone successfully applies the Miasma-Clearing Protocol, two types of Cause-Effects often emerge:
Enabling Cause-Effects (What makes it possible to satisfy the Criterion?)
Cause-Effect #1:
Cause-Effect #2:
Motivating Cause-Effects (What deeper/higher criteria or values does satisfying the main Criterion lead to?)
Cause-Effect #3:
Cause-Effect #4:
2.3 Supporting Beliefs
These are other beliefs that shape how someone carries out the protocol but are not the main drivers of it:
“All lies contain contradictions that will eventually appear if tested systematically.”
“If you allow a liar to deflect on one fact at a time, they can remain ‘plausible’ indefinitely.”
“Possibility alone does not equate to probability or exclusivity—any single ‘could be’ must still account for all facts.”
These beliefs color the attitude one has while running the protocol (e.g., staying patient, knowing contradictions will emerge).
3. Strategy
A strategy describes the internal/external sequence for ensuring the Criterion (“all facts align with a coherent explanation”) is met.
3.1 Test (How do you know the Criterion is met?)
When the protocol is working, you know the Criterion is satisfied because there is zero incongruence between the theory and any known fact.
3.2 Primary Operation
3.3 Secondary Operations
These come into play when a contradiction emerges or the liar tries to pivot:
4. Emotions
4.1 Sustaining Emotion
A “background” emotional state that keeps one persistent and systematic:
These emotions maintain the mental environment needed to keep applying the protocol without succumbing to frustration or intimidation.
5. External Behavior
6. Contributing Factors
These are abilities or conditions outside the main mental structure but crucial to success:
Access to all relevant facts (e.g., phone records, allergy knowledge, timelines, logs).
Time and willingness to run through each point systematically.
A stable context (e.g., a conversation where you can keep returning to the “map” of facts; a legal proceeding, a negotiation, etc.).
Domain knowledge sufficient to interpret facts correctly (e.g., if it’s about cookie-eating, you must know enough about chocolate allergies and how dogs react to chocolate).
7. Putting It All Together
In summary, the Miasma-Clearing Protocol, as framed by the Experiential Array, is the ability to systematically confront a dishonest or evasive person by:
Holding a central Criterion: All facts must align with one coherent explanation.
Maintaining Enabling Beliefs: Contradictions emerge naturally when tested thoroughly.
Following a Strategy of listing facts, comparing them to competing theories, and re-checking whenever a theory is modified.
Sustaining Emotions of calm curiosity and determination so as not to be derailed by emotional manipulation.
Engaging in External Behaviors that keep the process transparent, organized, and methodical.
Leveraging Contributing Factors (full knowledge, time, context) to ensure a robust exploration of all relevant facts.
When done correctly, the protocol exposes incongruences that the liar cannot reconcile without further contradiction. It “clears the miasma” of deflections, so that the truthful theory remains standing, unscathed by contradictory evidence.
I’ve never encountered this framework before but I’m curious. What do you find useful about it?
It gives me everything I need to replicate the ability. I just step by step bring on the motivation, emotions, beliefs, and then follow the steps, and I can do the same thing!
Whereas, just reading your post, I get a sense you have a way of really getting down to the truth, but replicating it feels quite hard.