Concepts
The irreducible epistemic atoms underlying the curriculum. 4,828 atoms across 8 types
Ask 'Given that I compromised this value, what…
Use the pre-mortem frame 'Given that I compromised [value], what were the circumstances?' rather than 'Would I ever compromise this value?' to bypass identity-defense mechanisms and reveal actual vulnerability conditions.
When frustrated by someone, hypothesize which value…
When someone's behavior frustrates you, generate a hypothesis about which value they were honoring (not which value they violated) to shift from projection to perspective-taking before responding.
If you can't imagine a scenario where another value…
Generate at least one scenario where someone else's value hierarchy would produce a better outcome than yours—if you cannot construct such a scenario, you have not separated your values from your identity.
When sacred values collide, use pre-established hierarchy…
When sacred values collide in tragic trade-offs, resolve by pre-established hierarchy and explicitly accept the cost—attempting to treat all sacred values as equally weighted guarantees paralysis whenever they conflict.
Did you consult your values before deciding, or construct…
Test for post-hoc rationalization by asking whether you consulted your values hierarchy before choosing or constructed a values-based story afterward—if values only appeared in the narrative after the decision, they were comfort mechanisms, not decision inputs.
Unexplained energy drain despite rest and manageable load?…
When autonomously motivated work drains energy despite adequate rest and manageable workload, audit values-behavior alignment before adjusting workload or seeking medical intervention.
A value that eliminates all options but one may be fused…
When a value eliminates all decision options but one, test whether you have fused the value with a rigid rule; if it eliminates none, test whether the value has degraded into abstract decoration.
Articulate your values before asking AI for values-related…
Before using AI for values-related decisions, articulate your values and hierarchy explicitly—then use AI to generate arguments from your stated values' perspective rather than accepting AI recommendations as substitute values.
Difficulty without depletion confirms values alignment…
When values-aligned work produces difficulty without depletion, interpret sustained difficulty as confirmation of alignment rather than signal to quit—genuine alignment enables voluntary acceptance of costs.
Strong resistance despite logical alignment signals…
When a decision activates strong emotional resistance despite logical alignment with stated values, use the resistance intensity as a signal to examine whether an unstated value or identity concern is operating below conscious awareness.
Three components of an effective boundary
State boundaries with three explicit components—the specific limit, the consequence of crossing it, and clear communication to the other person—rather than expressing vague preferences.
Override the fixing reflex for unfixable suffering…
When witnessing unfixable suffering, override the fixing reflex by repeatedly returning attention to the person's face, voice, and body language rather than your own internal planning, to maintain presence without absorption.
Calculate activity cost as disruption footprint
When calculating whether an activity is worth your energy, include not just its duration but its disruption footprint—the ramp-down before, the activity itself, and the ramp-up after—to account for attention residue costs.
Convert infinite information activities into finite ones…
Set time-bounded windows for information consumption (email twice daily, news once for 15 minutes) rather than open-ended consumption, converting infinite activities into finite ones with natural stopping points.
Pre-define information boundary overrides — real-time…
Define explicit override conditions for information boundaries in advance (on-call status, time-sensitive requests from key people) rather than negotiating exceptions in the moment when anxiety will generate spurious justifications.
Acknowledge, boundary, alternative — this three-part…
Frame relational boundaries using the three-part structure: acknowledge the request, state your boundary with the value it protects, and offer an alternative, rather than leading with rejection.
Boundaries are rules about YOUR behavior, not demands…
State relational boundaries as rules about your own behavior in response to others' actions ('I will leave the room if voices are raised') rather than as demands about others' behavior ('You are not allowed to yell'), preserving their sovereignty while protecting yours.
Set boundaries when the pattern emerges…
Communicate relational boundaries early when patterns emerge rather than accumulating resentment until delivering them as emotionally-charged ultimatums, because delayed boundaries appear as ambushes to the other person.
Enforce boundaries consistently — inconsistent…
When a stated boundary is violated, follow through with the pre-specified consequence consistently, as inconsistent enforcement teaches others that your boundaries are negotiable and undermines all future boundary-setting.
Write what your role includes AND excludes — default…
Define professional scope boundaries by writing what your role explicitly includes and excludes, then default to 'no' for requests falling outside that scope unless you consciously choose to make an exception.
Frame professional boundaries as quality commitments…
Frame professional boundaries as commitments to work quality rather than confessions of personal weakness ('To protect the architecture review, I'm limiting meetings to 15 hours per week' vs 'I have too many meetings'), because quality-based framing generates respect while capacity-based framing generates sympathy.
Surface trade-offs with forced-choice
When receiving requests that don't map to your top three priorities, use the forced-choice formula 'I can do X or Y this week—which matters more to you?' to surface tradeoffs rather than silently absorbing both demands.
Graduate your refusals
Match the strength of your 'no' (soft/firm/hard) to both the severity of the boundary violation and the history with that person, using soft no for first occurrences, firm for patterns, and hard for core integrity violations.
Use natural consequences, not punitive ones — 'if scope…
Pair boundary statements with natural consequences rather than punitive ones ('If scope expands, timeline extends' vs 'I will be angry'), allowing reality to operate rather than imposing penalties.