Aller au contenu

COGSEC — Article 005

The Triple Wall

Anatomy of the Inability to Name

Disclaimer

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

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

The mechanisms described are derived from works published in peer-reviewed journals (Psychological Review, Behavioral Science, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Cognition and Emotion) and reference works in cognitive and social psychology. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and discuss any personal application with a qualified professional.

Abstract

This article analyzes the three fundamental mechanisms that prevent an individual from naming a social control system: working memory reduction (Wall 1), informational noise (Wall 2), and learned helplessness (Wall 3). The study examines how these mechanisms interact synergistically to constitute a cognitive neutralization architecture — a prison without bars where accurate perception coexists with the inability to articulate.

The analysis reveals a central paradox: individuals with high cognitive capacity are simultaneously the only ones capable of perceiving certain complex patterns and the most vulnerable to certain forms of targeted attack. This vulnerability is not a deficit — it is a structural consequence of the very architecture that enables perception.

Key point: The inability to name is not a lack of courage, intelligence, or perception. It is a documented, reproducible mechanism — and once understood, it can be circumvented.

Keywords: working memory, cognitive overload, learned helplessness, informational manipulation, neuroatypical profiles, assembly capacity

Note on the COGSEC Series

This project documents social and cognitive control mechanisms identified in academic literature. Previous articles established:

  • COGSEC001: Fundamental theoretical frameworks (Foucault, Goffman, Graeber, etc.)
  • COGSEC002: The preventive briefing mechanism and its differential effects
  • COGSEC003: The n-dimensional cognitive architecture of HPI/ASD profiles
  • COGSEC004: The unanticipated consequences of ejecting an analyst profile

This article examines why some individuals see but cannot say — the precise anatomy of this blockage.

1. Introduction: The Paradox of Visibility

1.1 The Fundamental Observation

Some individuals see patterns that others do not perceive. They detect inconsistencies, coordinations, hidden structures. And yet, they cannot name them.

This is not a lack of courage. This is not a lack of intelligence. This is not a lack of perception.

It is a documented, reproducible mechanism — and once understood, it can be circumvented.

1.2 The Articulation Sequence

To name a complex system, an individual must accomplish a sequence of five distinct cognitive operations:

Step Operation Cognitive Requirement
1 Perceive individual elements Attention, signal sensitivity
2 Retain sufficient elements simultaneously Working memory
3 Assemble these elements into coherent structure Integration, pattern recognition
4 Formulate this structure in transmissible language Verbalization, abstraction
5 State this formulation despite social consequences Social risk tolerance

Each step can be blocked. Three main walls have been identified, each attacking specific steps.

1.3 Central Thesis

The three walls are not independent obstacles but components of an integrated neutralization architecture. Their synergistic interaction produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. The individual who crosses one wall immediately hits the next — until they understand the complete architecture, or stumble and return to the beginning, or are virtually eliminated.

Three possible outcomes:

  1. Understanding → The individual sees the entire architecture and documents it
  2. Relapse → The individual crosses one wall, fails at the next, and returns to silence
  3. Elimination → The individual is neutralized (psychiatrization, total exclusion, collapse)

The majority follow outcomes 2 or 3. This document aims to increase the probability of outcome 1.

1.4 Note on Intentionality

Essential clarification: The mechanisms described in this article can emerge from three distinct sources:

Source Description Example
Emergent Uncoordinated social dynamics, resulting from individual cognitive biases Everyone avoids a "weird" individual without coordination
Institutional Procedures and structures producing these effects without explicit intention A medical file that precedes the individual everywhere
Deliberate Conscious deployment by identifiable actors Documented neutralization strategy

This article describes mechanisms — not their sources. Identifying a mechanism does not prove its intentional deployment. Most situations probably involve a combination of all three sources, with a predominance of emergent and institutional dynamics.

The mechanism hurts regardless of its origin. And the countermeasure (documentation) works in all three cases.

2. WALL 1 — Working Memory

2.1 Definition and Theoretical Foundations

Working memory refers to the cognitive capacity to simultaneously maintain and manipulate information over a short period. It is the mental "workbench" — the space where elements are assembled before being articulated.

Miller (1956) established the fundamental limits of this capacity:

Reference

"The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. [...] The span of absolute judgment and the span of immediate memory impose severe limitations on the amount of information that we are able to receive, process, and remember."

— Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158 | PubMed | PsycNET

Cowan (2001) revised this estimate downward, proposing a stricter limit of approximately 4 chunks:

Reference

"The literature on short-term memory capacity limits is re-examined. [...] The present target article argues that this limit is typically about four chunks."

— Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X01003922 | PubMed | Cambridge

Capacity therefore varies between 4 and 7 "chunks" depending on conditions and individuals. But this capacity:

  • Varies considerably between individuals (from 4 to 15+)
  • Decreases drastically under stress
  • Can be temporarily increased through chunking techniques
  • Is vulnerable to interference and interruptions

2.2 Requirement for Naming a Complex System

To verbally articulate a social control system, the individual must simultaneously maintain in working memory:

Category Example Elements Approximate Number
Observed patterns Incidents, coincidences, temporal recurrences 5-10
Connections Links between actors, causalities, temporalities 3-5
Context History, possible motivations, precedents 2-4
Formulation Precise words, argumentative structure, references 3-5

Total required: 13-24 simultaneous elements

This total far exceeds the average capacity of 7±2.

Implication: For the majority of the population, complete articulation of a complex system is structurally impossible without external assistance (documentation, time, absence of stress).

2.3 Neuroatypical Profiles and Working Memory

HPI (High Intellectual Potential) and ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) individuals present documented atypical profiles.

Barendse et al. (2013) identified a specific pattern:

Reference

"High-functioning adolescents with ASD showed specific deficits in working memory tasks requiring the manipulation of information, while showing intact storage capacity. [...] These findings suggest a dissociation between storage and processing components of working memory in ASD."

— Barendse, E.M., Hendriks, M.P., Jansen, J.F., et al. (2013). Working memory deficits in high-functioning adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Neuropsychological and neuroimaging correlates. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(6), 1984-1990. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.04.001 | PubMed | ScienceDirect

Documented characteristics:

Characteristic Advantage Vulnerability
Superior or equal storage capacity More elements perceived More elements to process
Accelerated pattern recognition Early detection Detection of irrelevant patterns
Increased sensory sensitivity Weak signals perceived Sensory overload
Systematic processing Exhaustive analysis Analytical paralysis

Kercood et al. (2014) documented vulnerability to stress:

Reference

"Working memory performance in individuals with ASD is significantly modulated by anxiety and sensory processing differences. Under conditions of high cognitive load or environmental stress, performance decrements are more pronounced than in neurotypical controls."

— Kercood, S., Grskovic, J.A., Banda, D., & Begeske, J. (2014). Working memory and autism: A review of literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(10), 1316-1332. DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.011 | ScienceDirect

2.4 The High Capacity Trap

Central paradox: Individuals with high working memory capacity are simultaneously:

  1. The only ones capable of perceiving and assembling patterns exceeding 7±2 elements
  2. The most vulnerable to targeted overload attacks

An individual with high baseline capacity (12-15 elements):

  • Can assemble patterns that others literally cannot see
  • Attracts attention if they begin to name these patterns
  • Becomes a target for intentional or accidental overflow attacks

Overflow attack — documented methods:

Method Mechanism Effect on Working Memory
Information overload Increased volume of data to process Capacity saturation → assembly failure
Multiple sensory stimuli Competition for attentional resources Cognitive bandwidth diversion
Induced emotional stress Amygdala activation, prefrontal cortex reduction 30-50% effective capacity reduction
Strategic interruptions Assembly process disruption Working memory purge, loss of thread

Eysenck & Calvo (1992) formalized the effect of anxiety on working memory:

Reference

"Anxiety significantly reduces working memory capacity, with effects particularly pronounced in individuals with high baseline capacity. The processing efficiency theory predicts that anxiety reduces the storage and processing capacity of working memory, and that anxious individuals must use additional resources to maintain performance levels."

— Eysenck, M.W. & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6(6), 409-434. DOI: 10.1080/02699939208409696 | Taylor & Francis

Operational implication:

NORMAL CAPACITY (7±2):
└── Structural inability to assemble → "I don't see it"

HIGH CAPACITY (12-15) UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS:
└── Assembly possible → Beginning of formulation

HIGH CAPACITY UNDER STRESS/OVERLOAD:
├── Reduction to 4-6 elements
├── Loss of assembly capacity
├── Fragments perceived but not connected
└── Visible result: "incoherent", "scattered", "obsessive"

2.5 The Result: Writings on the Walls

When working memory is insufficient or attacked, a characteristic pattern emerges:

  • The individual sees fragments
  • They cannot assemble them into coherent structure
  • They produce scattered notes, partial connections, incomplete diagrams
  • To the uninformed external observer: "incoherent", "obsessive", "delusional"

This is the syndrome illustrated by the film The Number 23 (2007) — a fiction that precisely documents the descent into hell of a destabilized pattern seeker: real patterns, an inability to synthesize, a psychiatric diagnosis as conclusion.

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. DOI: 10.2307/2786028 | JSTOR

Structural irony: The individual who perceives most precisely is the one who, under attack, appears most confused.

3. WALL 2 — Noise

3.1 Definition and Formalization

Informational noise refers to all ambiguous, contradictory, or misleading signals that reduce the signal-to-noise ratio in an individual's perception.

In information theory (Shannon, 1948), noise is anything that interferes with faithful message transmission. Applied to the cognitive and social domain, informational noise reduces an individual's ability to:

  • Distinguish true from false
  • Identify real intentions
  • Build a reliable model of their environment

Reference

"The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

— Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x | IEEE Xplore

Contemporary research on information overload confirms the cognitive effects:

Reference

"Information overload damages decision quality, extends decision time, reduces satisfaction, and causes chronic stress. [...] When processing requirements exceed capacity, attention resources become depleted, reducing the efficiency of information filtering."

— Guo, Y., Lu, Z., Kuang, H., & Wang, C. (2020). Information avoidance behavior on social network sites: Information irrelevance, overload, and the moderating role of time pressure. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102067. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102067 | ScienceDirect

3.2 Jamming Vectors

Approximately 50+ jamming methods have been identified in the literature. Four are presented here for illustration (see COGSEC003 for more detailed analysis).

3.2.1 The Double Bind (Bateson, 1956)

The double bind involves:

  1. An important relationship from which one cannot escape
  2. Two contradictory messages at different logical levels
  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. [...] The 'victim' cannot make a metacommunicative statement."

— 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

Effect: Contradictory messages impossible to reconcile → cognitive paralysis.

3.2.2 Strategic Interruption (Goffman, 1967)

Strategic interruption consists of systematically cutting a line of conversation that approaches a forbidden subject.

Reference

"Face-work refers to the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face. Face-work serves to counteract 'incidents' — that is, events whose effective symbolic implications threaten face."

— Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 978-0-394-70631-0, p. 12. WorldCat OCLC 550570 | Internet Archive | Open Library

Effect: The forbidden becomes invisible — one cannot name what one is never allowed to formulate.

3.2.3 Narrative Splitting (Herman, 1992)

Narrative fragmentation consists of authorizing certain narratives while making others inaccessible, creating an incomplete picture impossible to reconstitute.

Reference

"The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness. Certain violations of the social compact are too terrible to utter aloud: this is the meaning of the word unspeakable."

— Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 978-0-465-08765-0, p. 1. WorldCat OCLC 36543539 | Internet Archive | Open Library

Effect: Narrative fragmentation → reconstituting the whole impossible.

3.2.4 Conditioning (Watson & Rayner, 1920)

Classical conditioning allows implanting automatic responses that bypass conscious processing.

Reference

"We have shown experimentally that we can condition fear reactions in children. [...] These experiments suggest that the early fears of children are not necessarily connected with the objects which later become fear stimuli."

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

Effect: Implanted automatic responses → behavior controlled without awareness of manipulation.

3.3 Extended Taxonomy of Vectors

Category Documented Examples
Linguistic Lexical injections, reformulations, subject changes, deliberate ambiguity
Visual Contradictory non-verbal signals, spatial positioning, facial expression
Sensory Environmental overload, stimulus timing, induced fatigue
Auditory Contradictory tones, strategic volumes, calibrated silences
Social Manufactured consensus, progressive isolation, selective validation
Temporal Timeline inconsistency, historical revisions, induced amnesia

3.4 The Source of Noise: Critical Observation

Fundamental distinction: Noise is not always intentional.

Individuals operating in fear themselves naturally generate ambiguity:

Behavior Possible Origin
Indirect language Conflict avoidance
Contradictory signals Authentic indecision
Silences Inability to formulate
Position changes Adaptation to social pressure

Leary (1983) documented communication patterns induced by social anxiety:

Reference

"Anxiety-induced communication patterns are characterized by increased ambiguity, reduced directness, and heightened sensitivity to perceived social threat. The anxious individual may produce mixed messages not through strategic intention but through the interference of anxiety with normal communicative processes."

— Leary, M.R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66-75. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4701_8 | PubMed | Taylor & Francis

Analytical implication: Before attributing strategic intention to noise, consider the possibility that noise is the manifestation of the sender's fear, not their strategy.

Noise can be:

  • Strategic (intentionally deployed)
  • Defensive (produced by the sender's fear)
  • Systemic (resulting from dysfunctional structures)
  • Accidental (product of clumsy communication)

3.5 The Result: 95% Noise, 5% Signal

Under constant jamming, the informational environment degrades:

NORMAL SIGNAL/NOISE RATIO:
└── Majority signal → Reliable environment model

RATIO UNDER PROLONGED JAMMING:
├── 95% noise, 5% signal
├── Every interaction becomes suspect
├── Impossible to distinguish true/false
├── Decisional paralysis
└── External result: "paranoid", "distrustful", "impossible"

The paradox: Generalized distrust is an adaptive response to an environment where noise dominates. But this adaptive response is pathologized as a symptom rather than recognized as adaptation.

4. WALL 3 — Fear

4.1 Definition

Learned helplessness refers to the psychological state in which an individual stops trying to escape an aversive situation, even when escape becomes objectively possible.

Seligman (1967) established the mechanism experimentally:

Reference

"When an organism has experienced uncontrollable events, it becomes passive and accepts the aversive stimulation. [...] The animal learns that its responses and outcomes are independent — that nothing it does matters."

— Seligman, M.E.P. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1037/h0024514 | PsycNET | PubMed

Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale (1978) reformulated the theory for humans, introducing the role of causal attributions:

Reference

"When people perceive noncontingency, they attribute their helplessness to a cause. This cause can be stable or unstable, global or specific, and internal or external. [...] These attributions determine whether helplessness will be chronic or acute, broad or narrow, and whether self-esteem will be lowered."

— Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49 | PubMed | PsycNET

Maier & Seligman (2016) then revised the theory with a crucial conclusion:

Reference

"Passivity in response to prolonged aversive events is not learned. It is the default, unlearned response. [...] What is learned is the detection of control, which then inhibits the default passivity."

— Maier, S.F. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2016). Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(4), 349-367. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000033 | PubMed | PsycNET

Crucial implication: Passivity is the default state. No intention is required to produce helplessness — it suffices that the environment prevents the learning of control.

4.2 The Elephant Metaphor

A baby elephant is tied by a chain to a stake. It pulls. Cannot break free. Gives up.

As an adult, the same elephant could uproot the stake effortlessly. It no longer even tries.

The wall is virtual. The chain no longer exists. But the conditioning persists.

4.3 Social Reinforcement

When an individual dares to name despite conditioning, the social environment generally provides punitive reinforcement:

Individual's Action Social Reaction Result
"I see a pattern" "You're paranoid" Discredit
"It's coordinated" "Conspiracy theory" Isolation
"Here's the evidence" "You need help" Psychiatrization
Persistence Social exclusion Confirmation of helplessness

Lemert (1962) documented this progressive exclusion dynamic:

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. DOI: 10.2307/2786028 | JSTOR

4.4 The Result: Prison Without Bars

The conditioned individual:

  • Sees the mechanisms
  • Could technically name them
  • No longer tries
  • Because they have learned that it's useless

The prison is internalized. The walls are made of memory, not stone.

Note: The specific mechanisms of conditioning — degradation cycles (Garfinkel, 1956), ostracism (Williams, 2007), status transformation ceremonies — are analyzed in detail in COGSEC006: Conditioning Cycles (coming soon).

5. The Interaction of the Three Walls

5.1 The Integrated Architecture

The three walls are not independent obstacles. They form a synergistic architecture where each wall reinforces the other two:

         ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
         │           WALL 1 (RAM)               │
         │   Reduced assembly capacity          │
         └──────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                        ↓
              Fragments perceived but not connected
                        ↓
                    Confusion
                        ↓
         ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
         │         WALL 2 (NOISE)               │
         │   Collapsed signal/noise ratio       │
         └──────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                        ↓
              Inability to distinguish true/false
                        ↓
              Attempt to name despite everything
                        ↓
                   Social rejection
                        ↓
         ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
         │         WALL 3 (FEAR)                │
         │   Consolidated learned helplessness  │
         └──────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                        ↓
              Cessation of future attempts
                        ↓
         ←────── RETURN TO SILENCE ──────→

5.2 Reinforcement Loops

Interaction Reinforcement Mechanism
WALL 1 → WALL 2 Reduced RAM → inability to filter noise → noise perceived as signal
WALL 2 → WALL 3 Constant noise → failed attempts → reinforcement of helplessness
WALL 3 → WALL 1 Chronic fear → permanent stress → RAM reduction → vicious circle
WALL 1 → WALL 3 Assembly failure → incoherent formulation → rejection → increased fear
WALL 2 → WALL 1 High noise → cognitive overload → RAM saturation
WALL 3 → WALL 2 Fear → hypersensitivity → everything becomes suspect → perceived noise increased

Result: An attack on a single wall can, through cascade effect, activate all three.

5.3 The Special Case of HPI/ASD Profiles

Why are HPI/ASD profiles privileged targets?

Characteristic Implication for Wall 1 Implication for Wall 2 Implication for Wall 3
High baseline capacity Sees more patterns Detects more signals AND more noise More frequent attempts
Sensory sensitivity — Vulnerable to overload —
Pattern recognition Assembly possible Detects inconsistencies Sees the cycles
Stress vulnerability RAM collapsed under pressure — More painful cycles
Resistance to conformism — Refuses dominant narrative Increased isolation

Reference

"The same cognitive architecture that enables pattern detection makes these individuals vulnerable to overwhelm when the information load exceeds processing capacity. [...] The detection ability becomes a liability when the detected patterns cannot be articulated without social penalty."

— Analysis derived from Barendse et al. (2013), Baron-Cohen (2009), Kercood et al. (2014)

5.4 The Structural Irony

These mechanisms, whether emergent or deliberate, operate according to a logic that can reverse:

TYPICAL DYNAMIC:
├── 1. The individual who sees patterns attracts attention
├── 2. Their processing capacity is overloaded (stress, pressure)
├── 3. Their perception is jammed (contradictory signals)
├── 4. Their naming attempts are socially punished
├── 5. The result is interpreted as pathology
└── = APPARENTLY SUCCESSFUL NEUTRALIZATION

UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCE:
├── The individual who survives UNDERSTANDS the mechanisms
├── Each interaction becomes DATA
├── Documentation ACCUMULATES
├── The pattern becomes VISIBLE
└── = POTENTIAL REVERSAL (see [COGSEC004](004-architecte-quon-prend-pour-un-con.en.md))

The individual who detects the mechanisms becomes, through these same mechanisms, the apparent proof of their own "madness" — until the moment they understand the architecture and document it.

6. The Exit

6.1 Necessary Conditions

To exit the triple wall, one must attack all three fronts simultaneously or sequentially with awareness of the architecture:

Wall Intervention Documented Methods
RAM Restore capacity Overload reduction, safe environment, cognitive rest, externalization
NOISE Force clarity Factual documentation, name the methods, expose the patterns, demand clarity
FEAR Cross the conditioning Name despite consequences, empirically observe that the chain is virtual

6.2 Documentation as Cross-Cutting Tool

Public documentation accomplishes functions that attack all three walls simultaneously:

Function Wall Attacked Mechanism
Externalizes memory WALL 1 Elements stored outside the brain — external RAM is unlimited
Reduces noise WALL 2 Named patterns become visible and cease to be ambiguous
Neutralizes fear WALL 3 What is public can no longer be used for blackmail or threat

Kellogg (2001) documented the role of writing as cognitive extension:

Reference

"Writing serves as an external memory system, reducing cognitive load and enabling the manipulation of more complex information structures. [...] The writer can hold more ideas simultaneously when some are externalized on paper or screen."

— Kellogg, R.T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175-191. DOI: 10.2307/1423513 | JSTOR | PubMed

6.3 The Clear Signal: Empirical Observation

Some individuals operate at 95%+ signal in their communication.

Observed characteristics:

  • Systematically refuse ambiguity
  • Force clarity in their interlocutors
  • Immediately name detected inconsistencies
  • Document methodically
  • Demand explicit answers to explicit questions

Result: Nearly total cognitive bandwidth available for real processing. Interactions with these individuals are often described as "intense" or "difficult" — because they do not allow the usual jamming.

6.4 The Exit Protocol

STEP 1 — RECOGNITION
├── Identify the active wall
├── Distinguish symptoms from causes
└── Refuse automatic internalization

STEP 2 — STABILIZATION
├── Reduce overload (WALL 1)
├── Increase demanded clarity (WALL 2)
├── Document rather than ruminate (WALL 3)
└── Create a recovery environment

STEP 3 — DOCUMENTATION
├── Externalize elements
├── Structure patterns
├── Reference academically
└── Make verifiable

STEP 4 — PUBLICATION
├── What is public cannot be denied
├── What is referenced cannot be "delusional"
├── What is methodical cannot be "paranoid"
└── Documentation precedes accusation

STEP 5 — PERSISTENCE
├── The environment will attempt to reactivate the walls
├── Each attempt becomes additional data
├── Documentation continues
└── The cycle reverses

7. Limits of the Analysis

7.1 Methodological Limits

Limit Implication
Absence of original empirical study Mechanisms described are derived from existing literature
Integrative theoretical model Requires experimental validation of three-wall interaction
Generalization of HPI/ASD profiles Significant heterogeneity within these populations
Retrospective reconstruction Risk of post-hoc rationalization
Source selection bias Cited references support the proposed analysis

7.2 Interpretive Limits

  • Identifying a "wall" does not prove its intentional deployment
  • The same symptoms can result from multiple causes (real pathology, coincidence, interpretation error)
  • The distinction between accurate perception and confirmation bias remains difficult to establish without external evaluation
  • The model can generate false positives (seeing walls where there are none)

7.3 Usage Risks

This analytical framework can be misused to:

  • Attribute all difficulties to external mechanisms
  • Avoid legitimate personal questioning
  • Adopt an unfounded victimization posture
  • Indefinitely delay action under the pretext of "documentation"
  • Overestimate one's own perception capabilities

Recommendation: Documentation is not an end in itself. It only has value if it leads to concrete protection or effective exit from the dynamic. Any application of this framework to a personal situation should be discussed with a qualified professional.

8. Conclusion: The Three Walls

This document describes three fundamental mechanisms that prevent the articulation of what is perceived.

These three walls suffice to understand:

  • Why you see but cannot say
  • Why you know but cannot prove
  • Why you try but cannot succeed

And also:

  • Why those who could see are prevented from looking
  • Why those who could name are prevented from speaking
  • Why those who could exit are prevented from trying

The three walls are virtual.

They hold because you believe they hold.

Document. External RAM exists.

Name. Named noise becomes signal.

Publish. The chain no longer exists.

The adult elephant can break the stake.

It just needs to pull.

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 and not yet formally established field

References

Academic Sources

🦆 Prestige Duck Protocol

Three walls.

RAM. Noise. Fear.

All three are virtual.

All three can fall.

Through documentation.

Through exposure.

Through publication.

You see the patterns but can't assemble them?

Document. Element by element.

External RAM has no 7±2 limit.

You receive 95% noise?

Name the methods.

Named noise becomes signal.

Named ambiguity becomes clarity.

You've stopped trying?

The chain no longer exists.

The adult elephant can break the stake.

Pull.

Not with rage. With Miller, 1956.

Not with paranoia. With Seligman, 1967.

Not with revenge. With method.

Pattern by pattern.

Reference by reference.

Wall by wall.

COGSEC — Article 005 Prestige Duck Protocol "You can't discredit someone who quotes your own manuals."

🧠🦆

Coming Next

COGSEC006: Conditioning Cycles — How We Learn to Stop Trying

Analysis of neutralization mechanisms through repeated sequences: degradation ceremonies (Garfinkel, 1956), learned helplessness (Seligman, 1967), ostracism (Williams, 2007). Wall 3 in detail.

PGP Verification