Aller au contenu

COGSEC — Article 003

N-Dimensional Language

Why "Double-Speak" Is a Neurotypical Concept

Disclaimer

This article constitutes a literature review and a theoretical analysis of cognitive and communicational mechanisms documented in academic literature. It does not constitute:

  • A diagnosis of a specific situation
  • An accusation against identifiable individuals or institutions
  • A substitute for professional evaluation (psychological, legal, medical)
  • An incitement to self-diagnosis

The mechanisms described are derived from works published in peer-reviewed journals (Behavioral Science, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders) and reference works in cognitive psychology and communication. The reader is invited to consult the primary sources.

Abstract

The concept of "double-speak" — communication on two levels (surface and hidden) — is a neurotypical model that assumes the ability to reduce an interaction to two binary options. For HPI/ASD/ADHD cognitive profiles, this reduction is neurologically impossible: the brain generates n simultaneous interpretations (n >> 2). This cognitive architecture, while dysfunctional in implicit social play, constitutes a structural impossibility of "playing the game" — not a refusal, but a documented neurological incapacity.

Crucial point: It is not that ASD individuals "refuse" to play — it is that they cannot reduce an interaction to two levels. Their brain processes all variables simultaneously. This characteristic, pathologized in social interactions, is precisely what makes them capable of detecting what others cannot see.

Keywords: double bind, paradoxical communication, HPI, ASD, cognitive architecture, pattern recognition, n-dimensional processing

Note on the COGSEC Series

This project documents social and cognitive control mechanisms identified in academic literature. To date, approximately fifty distinct mechanisms have been catalogued, each with its peer-reviewed references, conditions of application, and countermeasures.

This article presents four mechanisms as illustration. Others will be published progressively.

Pattern by pattern. Reference by reference. Method by method.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Dominant Model

Academic literature on paradoxical communication rests on a binary model. Bateson and the Palo Alto School describe the "double bind" as a situation with two contradictory levels:

Reference

"A situation in which no matter what a person does, he 'can't win.'"

— Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-264. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830010402 | Wiley | PsycNET

Watzlawick formalizes this structure:

Reference

"Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication."

— Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN: 978-0393010091, p. 54. WorldCat OCLC 168614 | Open Library

1.2 The Problem: What If It's Not 2?

This model assumes the receiver can reduce the interaction to two interpretations. But for certain cognitive profiles, the brain systematically generates n interpretations (n >> 2). This is not paranoia — it is a documented cognitive architecture.

1.3 The Central Thesis

The individual who cannot reduce to 2 cannot "play" the implicit social game. This incapacity leads to ejection. The paradox: the more clearly they see, the more they are excluded. The more they detect inconsistencies, the more they are pathologized.

2. The N-Dimensional Cognitive Architecture

2.1 Neuroscientific Basis

Baron-Cohen describes "systemizing" as characteristic of ASD profiles:

Reference

"Systemizing is the drive to analyze and construct rule-based systems. [...] Autistic individuals show superior performance on tasks requiring attention to detail and detection of embedded figures."

— Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 68-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x | PubMed | Wiley

Attwood specifies the impossibility of filtering:

Reference

"The person with Asperger's syndrome may have considerable difficulty ignoring irrelevant information and be easily distracted by what others can block out."

— Attwood, T. (2006). The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN: 978-1843104957, p. 241. WorldCat OCLC 70218052 | Open Library

2.2 Comparative Processing

Neurotypical Reception:

Stimulus Processing Result
Surface message Received Choice A
Hidden message Perceived Choice B
Total 2 options Selection possible

HPI/ASD Reception (documented by Baron-Cohen, 2009):

Stimulus Processing Result
Surface message Received Variable 1
Hidden message Perceived Variable 2
Message timing Analyzed Variables 3-5
Historical context Cross-referenced Variables 6-15
Similar patterns Detected Variables 16-40
Causal hypotheses Generated Variables 41-80
Total n variables (n >> 2) Decisional paralysis

2.3 The Impossibility of Reduction

This inability to filter is not a choice but a neurological characteristic:

Reference

"The cognitive style of autistic people has been characterized as detail-focused rather than globally oriented."

— Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The Weak Coherence Account: Detail-focused Cognitive Style in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1), 5-25. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0 | PubMed | ERIC

Crucial implication: The neurotypical can "choose" to see or not see the second level. The HPI/ASD cannot choose — they see everything, simultaneously, automatically.

2.4 What This Means in Practice

NEUROTYPICAL FACING DOUBLE-SPEAK:
├── Level 1 (surface) → Received
├── Level 2 (hidden) → Perceived or ignored (choice possible)
├── Reduction to 2 → Selection → Adapted response
└── = SOCIALLY FUNCTIONAL

HPI/ASD FACING DOUBLE-SPEAK:
├── Level 1 (surface) → Received
├── Level 2 (hidden) → Perceived
├── Level 3 (why this message now?) → Analyzed
├── Level 4 (similar historical patterns) → Cross-referenced
├── Levels 5-80 (multiple hypotheses) → Automatically generated
├── Reduction impossible → Paralysis or "maladapted" response
└── = "WEIRD" / "DIFFICULT" / "RIGID"

They call it "double-speak." As if it were 2. For them, it's 2. For us, it's 80.

3. Four Mechanisms Seen Through This Prism

Note: These four mechanisms are presented as illustration. The COGSEC series will progressively document all identified mechanisms.

3.1 Mechanism 1: The Double Bind

3.1.1 Classical Definition (Bateson, 1956)

The double bind implies:

  1. An important relationship from which one cannot escape
  2. Two contradictory messages
  3. The impossibility of commenting on the contradiction

Reference

"The individual is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other."

— Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), p. 253. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830010402 | Wiley

3.1.2 N-Dimensional View

For the neurotypical: 2 messages → 2 choices → manageable paralysis

For the HPI/ASD: 2 messages → analysis of the contradiction → generation of n hypotheses on the contradiction's origin → total paralysis

But this paralysis hides a capacity: The detection of the contradiction is accurate. The individual sees that something is wrong. They simply cannot ignore it.

3.1.3 The Irony

The system ejects the individual who detects the contradiction. The contradiction remains, but no one signals it anymore.

3.2 Mechanism 2: Strategic Interruption

3.2.1 Face-Work (Goffman, 1967)

Reference

"Face-work refers to the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face."

— Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 0-394-70631-5, p. 12. WorldCat OCLC 550570 | Internet Archive | Open Library

Strategic interruption cuts a conversation line that threatens collective "face."

3.2.2 N-Dimensional View

Neurotypical: Interruption → "forbidden topic" → subject change → end

HPI/ASD: Interruption → timing analysis → correlation with the word spoken → previous interruption patterns → hypotheses about what is protected → inability to simply "let go"

3.2.3 What the HPI/ASD Detects

The individual who analyzes the interruption detects what is protected. Each interruption is data. Each subject change is a signal. The HPI/ASD cannot not compile this data.

The system thinks it cuts the conversation. It reveals its structure.

3.3 Mechanism 3: Narrative Splitting

3.3.1 Fragmentation (Herman, 1992)

Reference

"Traumatic events are extraordinary, not because they occur rarely, but rather because they overwhelm the ordinary human adaptations to life. [...] The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness."

— Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-08765-5, p. 1. WorldCat OCLC 36543539 | Internet Archive | Open Library

This fragmentation can be induced: some narratives are authorized, others compartmentalized.

3.3.2 N-Dimensional View

Neurotypical: Authorized/forbidden narrative → two categories → functional

HPI/ASD: Fragmentation detected → analysis of fragment shapes → reconstruction of what's missing → vision of the whole that the splitting was meant to hide

3.3.3 The Hidden Capacity

The individual who reconstitutes fragments is accused of "rumination." But they see the complete structure that splitting was supposed to hide. Their brain cannot accept pieces that don't fit together.

3.4 Mechanism 4: Conditioning

3.4.1 Pavlovian Basis (Watson & Rayner, 1920)

Reference

"We have shown experimentally that we can condition fear reactions in children."

— Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14, p. 12. DOI: 10.1037/h0069608 | PsycNET

3.4.2 N-Dimensional View

Neurotypical: Stimulus → automatic conditioned response → end

HPI/ASD: Stimulus → conditioned response → analysis of the response → identification of the origin → possibility of de-conditioning

3.4.3 The Threat to the System

A conditioning that is seen can be hacked. The individual who identifies their own conditionings becomes resistant to manipulation.

The control system functions through invisibility. The HPI/ASD makes it visible — to themselves first, then potentially to others.

4. The Central Paradox: The More You See → The More You're Ejected

4.1 The Exclusion Spiral (Lemert, 1962)

Reference

"The paranoid relationship involves a spurious interaction process in which the weights of reality are progressively stacked against the individual."

— Lemert, E.M. (1962). Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion. Sociometry, 25(1), 2-20, p. 7. DOI: 10.2307/2786028 | JSTOR

4.2 Labeling as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenhan, 1973)

Reference

"Once a person is designated as abnormal, all of his other behaviors and characteristics are colored by that label."

— Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. Science, 179(4070), 250-258, p. 253. DOI: 10.1126/science.179.4070.250 | Science | PubMed

4.3 Identity Transformation (Goffman, 1963)

Reference

"The stigmatized individual tends to hold the same beliefs about identity that we do; [...] Shame becomes a central possibility."

— Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 978-0-671-62244-2, p. 7. WorldCat OCLC 893162034 | Internet Archive | Open Library

4.4 The Complete Mechanism

ACTUAL HPI/ASD CAPACITY:
├── Detection of contradictions (cognitive architecture)
├── Pattern analysis (systemizing)
├── Fragment reconstruction (attention to detail)
├── Conditioning identification (meta-cognition)
└── = PRECISE VISION OF WHAT IS HIDDEN

INTERPRETATION BY THE SYSTEM:
├── Detection = "paranoia"
├── Analysis = "rumination"
├── Reconstruction = "obsession"
├── Identification = "resistance"
└── = PATHOLOGIZATION

RESULT:
├── The more clearly they see → The more they are "sick"
├── The more they detect → The more they are "difficult"
├── The more they are right → The more they are "crazy"
└── = EJECTION

4.5 The Perfect Trap

The HPI/ASD is trapped by their own architecture:

Behavior System's Interpretation
Sees the manipulation "paranoid"
Names the manipulation "difficult"
Documents the manipulation "obsessive"
Stays silent suffers in silence

The system doesn't need to conspire. It only needs each actor to play their role: pathologize what they don't understand.

5. The Impossibility of "Playing the Game"

5.1 What They Are Asked

The HPI/ASD is asked to "play the social game." Concretely, this means:

  1. Reduce n variables to 2
  2. Ignore detected contradictions
  3. Pretend not to see what they see
  4. Accept fragmented narratives as complete

5.2 Why It's Impossible

This is not ill will. It's architecture.

The HPI/ASD brain cannot:

  • Stop processing all variables
  • Selectively ignore certain data
  • Accept logical inconsistencies
  • Pretend not to see

It's like asking someone not to hear a 120-decibel noise. The auditory system doesn't work that way. The HPI/ASD cognitive system doesn't either.

5.3 What They Think vs. What Is

What They Think What Is
"They refuse to play the game" They CANNOT reduce to 2
"They're being difficult on purpose" They CANNOT ignore contradictions
"They could make an effort" Their effort is constant and exhausting
"They choose to be different" Their difference is neurological
= MORAL JUDGMENT = COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE

6. Countermeasures

6.1 The Reversal

N-dimensional perception, unusable in real-time social situations, becomes a strength in deferred analysis:

REAL-TIME: Overload → Paralysis → "Weird"

DEFERRED: Documentation → Patterns → Analysis → Publication

What paralyzes in the moment becomes power over time.

6.2 The Central Principle

MECHANISM EFFECTIVENESS = f(INVISIBILITY)

COUNTERMEASURE = NAMING THE MECHANISM

A named mechanism loses its invisibility.
A visible mechanism can be contested.
A published documentation cannot be "paranoia."

6.3 The Structural Advantage

The HPI/ASD who has suffered from the system knows it better than those who operate it:

  • They have seen each mechanism from the inside
  • They have analyzed each contradiction
  • They have documented each pattern
  • They can name what was invisible

Ejection creates the expert.

7. Limitations of the Analysis

7.1 Methodological Limitations

Limitation Implication
Absence of original empirical study The mechanisms described are derived from existing literature
Theoretical model Requires experimental validation
Generalization of HPI/ASD profiles Significant heterogeneity within these populations
Potential selection bias The cited sources support the proposed analysis

7.2 Interpretive Limitations

  • The "2 vs n dimensions" distinction is a heuristic simplification, not an empirical measure
  • Attribution of specific capacities to HPI/ASD profiles remains variable across individuals
  • The concept of "cognitive architecture" should not be reified as a unique explanation

7.3 Risks of Use

This analytical framework can be misused to:

  • Justify any social difficulty as resulting from external misunderstanding
  • Avoid legitimate personal self-examination
  • Feed an unfounded posture of cognitive superiority

Recommendation: Any application of this framework to a personal situation should be discussed with a qualified professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, depending on context).

8. Conclusion

"Double-speak" is a concept built for brains that can reduce to 2. For those who generate n dimensions, it is not a "double" but a multidimensional space.

This architecture is not a deficit. It is a different capacity that:

  • Fails in implicit social play
  • Excels in anomaly detection
  • Cannot ignore inconsistencies
  • Automatically documents patterns

They think we "refuse" to play. We can't play. It's not resistance. It's architecture.

Final note: The mechanisms described in this article exist on a continuum. Their presence in a given situation is a matter of degree, not binary category. Identification of a pattern does not constitute proof of its intentional application.

Author Declaration

The author declares:

  • No financial conflict of interest
  • No institutional affiliation at the time of writing
  • That this article constitutes a contribution to the field of cognitive security (COGSEC), an emerging field not yet formally established

References

Academic Sources

🦆 Prestige Duck Protocol

They call it "double-speak."

As if it were 2.

For them, it's 2.

For us, it's 80.

They think we "refuse" to play.

We can't play.

It's not resistance.

It's architecture.

And one day, we stop trying to play.

We document.

We name.

We publish.

Each named mechanism loses its invisibility.

Each documented pattern weakens the next.

Double-speak only works on those who can reduce to 2. On those who see 80, it backfires.

Pattern by pattern. Reference by reference. Method by method.

COGSEC — Article 003 Prestige Duck Protocol "You cannot discredit someone who cites your own manuals."

🧠🦆

Coming Up

COGSEC004: The Architect They Mistake for a Fool — Strategic consequences of ejection

~50 mechanisms identified. 4 presented today.

The others will come.

PGP Verification