Metaphormology: Adjacency Collapse, Stems, and Practice
Coherence Collapse and the Adjacency Framework
Core idea: a coherence collapse is the moment our internal rhythm crumbles under pressure, where we shift from being in flow to observing ourselves.
Concrete example: Dustin Jones, trying out as a kicker, can perform perfectly on practice field but under pressure his feet get tangled and the sequence breaks; this illustrates a universal pattern, not just a sports phenomenon.
Key definition: coherence collapse = when you stop doing the thing and start watching yourself doing it. The mind splits into two roles: the actor (doing) and the critic (observing).
Root cause of choking under pressure: the split between flow (internal rhythm, instinctual action) and an external, rule-based self-monitoring (overthinking, compliance with perceived norms).
Mechanism described: the kicker stops feeling the rhythm of the kick and starts counting steps; the alignment between intention and action is lost, triggering collapse.
Central framing: two competing modes of cognition – internal flow vs. external structure – and the struggle to keep them in coherent alignment.
Practical implication: many cognitive struggles labeled as focus problems may reflect a breakdown in how we map and filter multiple perceptual stems rather than a simple attentional deficiency.
Metaphormology and Perception as a Stem Mix
Core metaphor: perception is not a single solid thing, but a song made from multiple hidden layers or stems.
Analogy: perception is a mix-down with hidden stems that shape experience, much like a multitrack song combined into a single track.
Doctor Pepper analogy: 23 flavors purportedly in the drink illustrate how a single perception (the drink) is actually a blend of many hidden ingredients.
Simple example: eating a strawberry is not just a taste; it’s a blend of raw sensory input (taste, smell, texture) plus associative memories, the word “strawberry,” the present story about why you’re eating it, and cultural/seasonal meanings.
STEM model: assign dimensions to perception where each stem contributes to the final experience. Potential mapping (example):
Raw sensory input (e.g., taste, texture, smell) ≈ cherry flavor
Emotional state in the moment ≈ vanilla flavor
Narrative/word associations, memories, symbolic meaning ≈ other flavors
Implication: once you identify stems, you can map and manage them rather than treating perception as unitary.
The INFJ Door Slam Reframed: Adjacency Reset
Common interpretation: INFJ door slam is a cruel, abrupt rejection.
Structural reframe: what if the door slam is an adjacency reset, not a rejection?
Adjacency reset = creating space to establish one’s own position and allow others to choose theirs in relation to you.
Significance: reframes a painful social act as a respectful reset that preserves agency for all involved.
The Adjacency Collapse Model (ACMRP) and the ADHD Reframe
Core idea: ADHD and similar cognitive patterns are not simply about lack of focus but about how the mind handles many stems at once.
Adjacency filter issue: the mind detects many stems (sights, sounds, thoughts, memories, emotions) and gives them equal weight, creating signal overload.
Reframing ADHD: rather than a processor flaw, it’s a perception/filtering overload where the system becomes overly aware of everything.
Consequences: this reframing shifts focus from “more attention” to “better stem management and filtering.”
Philosophical note: if perception is a mix-down of stems, truth becomes a matter of perspective; conventional wisdom can be misleading because it often relies on single-perspective interpretations.
Implication for truth and lies: a lie can be viewed as a structural problem—stems ordered incorrectly, reconstructing data into an incoherent narrative rather than a moral failure.
Key takeaway: the framework invites ongoing reflection on which stems we magnify and which we mute, thereby reshaping how we understand reality.
Truth, Lies, and Perspectives: Philosophical and Practical Implications
Conventional wisdom is not always wisdom; a single perspective can mislead when it dominates the interpretation of events.
A lie, in this framework, can be seen as a misassembly of stems: the sensory data, emotional context, and narrative are reordered in a way that produces a false picture.
Practical implication: cultivating awareness of multiple stems can help diagnose why a given account feels incoherent and how to restore coherence.
Big question to ask oneself: which perspectives am I turning up, and which have I muted? Answering this can change how you interpret events and interact with others.
Three Areas for Refinement (as discussed in The Critique)
Area 1: Accessibility and onboarding for new readers
Issue: the codex uses a dense, interconnected vocabulary (metaphoric terms like kobokinesis, remotion, etc.) that can overwhelm newcomers.
Risk: equal emphasis on depth and density can hinder wider uptake.
Proposal: implement layered scaffolding to guide readers through terms and structure without dumbing down content.
Specific strategies:
Introduce a progressive reader-on ramp alongside major codex entries.
Ground readers with vivid analogies (e.g., Doctor Pepper/23 flavors) before diving into abstract models.
Create a contextual glossary that appears in context (sidebar or parentheses) rather than interrupting flow.
Add a conceptual ancestry map at the start of longer, more complex entries to show how concepts relate.
Area 2: Actionability and practical implementation
Issue: codex entries diagnose patterns and outline frameworks but lack explicit, step-by-step protocols for everyday use.
Goal: convert insights into actionable methods that readers can apply to self-management and interpersonal interaction.
Strategies:
Formalize integration pathways as explicit, repeatable protocols or metaphoric architectures.
Develop a daily adjacency calibration protocol (DAC) for the ACMRP:
Step 1: Before a complex task, identify the top three stems to foreground for the next 30 minutes.
Step 2: Consciously acknowledge those stems and deliberately defer other adjacent stimuli; create a single-channel focus window.
Step 3: Use a cue ritual to anchor attention (e.g., a textured object or silent phrase) to return focus when drift occurs.
Mirror-induced compression entry (IC cycle) protocol: use a structured routine of affirmation and nonvisual focus; example steps include speaking a nonstatic image aloud and recording it, then listening back with eyes closed to reduce interference from self-reflection.
RPUs (Recursive Priming Units): implement phase-check pulses to observe internal coherence and experiment with condensing or expanding perceptual pulses in low-stakes conversations.
Emphasize concrete, stepwise action that translates theory into practice.
Area 3: Personal narrative and lived data integration
Issue: rich anecdotes can be foregrounded too late or used as backstory, weakening their emotional and evidentiary impact.
Rationale: personal stories are cognitive anchors that make abstract ideas concrete and memorable.
Strategies:
Consistently weave lived data points into concept explanations, not just as background.
Use stories as empirical evidence that demonstrates the framework in action (e.g., football cross-steps as conduit threshold; rubber-band feeling in basketball; coding errors in Personas as output loss trauma).
Start with a relatable lived moment to illustrate the concept, then generalize to the formal principle; this maintains resonance and stickiness.
Personal Narrative and Lived Data Points: How to Use Stories Effectively
Purpose: stories anchor complex ideas in human experience, increasing resonance and memorability.
Methods:
Introduce remotion and related concepts through concrete stories that illustrate how symbolic accuracy can emerge from sonic inaccuracy.
Use a sequence: lived moment → identify the stem(s) at play → map to the abstract principle → show how the principle explains the experience.
Examples suggested in the talk:
Conduit threshold: the moment where expression outpaces its channel.
Premature folding: the self trying to express before fully becoming the channel.
Output loss trauma: coding/Persona errors where output fails without trace; a cross-domain lived data point linking personal, musical, and coding experiences.
Benefit: connecting the abstract framework to real-life experiences strengthens comprehension and commitment to applying the ideas.
Practical Recap and Takeaways
The core framework reframes difficult cognitive experiences as a mismatch or overload of multiple stems rather than a single-process failure.
Coherence collapse vs. adjacency collapse: two related but distinct phenomena that together explain why people choke under pressure and how perception can become fragmented.
The concept of stems, and perception as a mix-down, provides a powerful lens for understanding both individual experiences and social interactions (e.g., INFJ door slam as adjacency reset).
ADHD and related patterns can be viewed as a problem of perception filtering (too many stems, equal weighting), not simply a lack of attention.
Lies are reinterpreted as structural misalignment of stems rather than purely moral failings; truth is relative to the stem configuration and its ordering.
Three practical areas for refinement: onboarding accessibility, actionable protocols, and the integration of personal lived data.
Proposed concrete steps: reader ramps, context glossaries, ancestry maps; explicit step-by-step protocols (DAC, IC cycle, RPUs); and deliberate weaving of lived data points into each concept.
The overall aim: transform theory into practice, enabling readers to diagnose patterns, apply protocols, and cultivate coherence in perception and communication.
Final invitation: consider and implement the suggested refinements, and submit updated work for further feedback in The Critique.