Use the cascade test — 'If I resolved this, what else changes?' — to distinguish surface from deep contradictions

Why This Is a Rule

Not all contradictions are created equal. A surface contradiction affects one or two beliefs and can be resolved by updating a single fact. A deep contradiction sits at the foundation of a belief network — resolving it would cascade through dozens of dependent beliefs, forcing revisions across multiple domains. The cascade test reveals which type you're facing by tracing downstream dependencies.

Consider: "Should I use spaced repetition for all learning?" vs. "Is human rationality fundamentally bounded?" The first contradiction (maybe vs. definitely) affects your study technique. Resolving it changes one practice. The second affects your theories about decision-making, education, AI alignment, institutional design, and dozens of other downstream beliefs. Resolving it cascades everywhere.

This distinction matters for prioritization. Deep contradictions deserve significant investigation because resolution produces widespread epistemic improvement. Surface contradictions can often be resolved quickly or tolerated — they don't propagate. Treating all contradictions equally means either over-investing in surface ones or under-investing in deep ones.

When This Fires

• When you've identified a contradiction in your knowledge graph (via Link contradicting ideas together in your graph — spatial proximity forces the confrontation that compartmentalization prevents) and need to decide how much effort to invest in resolving it
• During belief audits when prioritizing which contradictions to address first
• When a new piece of evidence contradicts existing beliefs and you need to assess the blast radius
• When deciding whether a contradiction warrants a deep investigation or a quick update

Common Failure Mode

Resolving contradictions by emotional salience rather than structural depth. A contradiction that feels disturbing (challenges identity) gets extensive attention. A contradiction that feels boring (technical, abstract) gets ignored. But structural depth, not emotional intensity, predicts how much your epistemic state improves from resolution. Some boring contradictions cascade widely; some distressing ones are structurally shallow.

The Protocol

(1) When you encounter a contradiction, ask: "If I resolved this — if I decided one side was definitively correct — what else in my knowledge system would have to change?" (2) Trace the dependencies: which other beliefs, practices, or frameworks depend on either side of this contradiction? List them. (3) Count the cascade: low dependency count (1-3 affected items) = surface contradiction. High dependency count (10+) = deep contradiction. (4) Prioritize investigation effort proportionally: deep contradictions deserve research, expert consultation, careful argument evaluation. Surface contradictions can often be resolved with a quick fact-check or by accepting that both claims apply in different scopes.