Concepts
The irreducible epistemic atoms underlying the curriculum. 4,828 atoms across 8 types
State observable facts before evaluative labels in code…
When giving feedback in code reviews or technical discussions, state observable facts (nesting levels, exit paths, line numbers) before applying evaluative labels to enable problem-solving rather than defensiveness.
Physically pause for 90 seconds before responding…
When receiving critical feedback, insert a physical pause (close laptop, stand up, or wait 90 seconds) before responding to allow prefrontal cortex engagement rather than amygdala-driven reaction.
Replace 'interrupted' and 'ignored' with camera-observable…
Replace evaluative words that smuggle judgment ('interrupted,' 'ignored,' 'slammed') with camera-observable behavior descriptions ('began speaking while I was mid-sentence,' 'has not replied since Tuesday') in feedback conversations.
Name the specific emotion precisely before responding…
After initial defensive emotional reaction to feedback, name the specific emotion with high granularity ('I notice frustration about the timeline comment, not the technical critique') before responding, to activate prefrontal regulation.
Ask 'what was your reasoning?' not 'why did…
In code reviews or technical evaluations, frame feedback requests as requests for reasoning rather than requests for justification—ask 'What was your reasoning?' instead of 'Why did you do it this way?'—because the first activates analytical explanation while the second activates defensive explanation.
Ask for behavioral feedback, not character evaluations
Frame feedback requests as specific behavioral questions ('What do I consistently do that I probably don't realize?') rather than character evaluations to keep feedback at task level instead of identity level.
Capture feedback within 60 minutes in five structured…
Capture feedback within 60 minutes of receiving it using structured fields (date, source, verbatim content, emotional reaction, specific behavior) before memory reconstruction distorts the signal.
Ask 'tell me where this breaks' not 'do you agree' — get…
Before explaining your schema to another person, frame your request as 'tell me where this breaks' rather than 'do you agree' to shift the conversation from validation theater to genuine testing.
Include external ratings alongside self-assessment…
When validating schemas about personal capability or performance, include external observer ratings alongside self-assessment to detect systematic overconfidence blind spots that introspection cannot reveal.
When your self-explanation diverges substantially…
When your explanation of your own behavior differs from an external observer's explanation by more than surface framing, treat the divergence as high-confidence evidence of a metacognitive blind spot requiring investigation.
Show your graph to domain experts and ask what's missing…
Show a portion of your knowledge graph to someone with domain expertise and ask what's missing to detect unknown unknowns that your graph's topology cannot reveal through internal inspection alone.
Wait 48 hours between receiving criticism and deciding…
Separate feedback reception from feedback evaluation by implementing a mandatory 48-hour delay between receiving criticism and deciding whether to act on it, as identity triggers fire faster than analytical capacity and premature evaluation guarantees defensive rejection.
The faster you dismiss feedback, the more likely it hits…
When feedback triggers immediate counter-argument before you finish listening, treat the speed of that dismissal as diagnostic evidence that the feedback addresses an important blind spot rather than as evidence the feedback is invalid.