Channel Dilution Theory

of Crescendto Desviación Project Syntropraxis Initiative

June 13, 2025 v. 2025.1.1.0

Disclaimer: This text is partly AI-assisted to articulate abstract ideas into accessible language. All core ideas originate from the human author. Refinement of language delivery occurred through recursive authorship.

Channel Dilution Theory (CDT) says that communication doesn’t usually fall apart because people say the wrong things—but because the space between them gets messy over time. That “space,” or communication channel, is the invisible field through which meaning travels. When that field gets cluttered either from other participants or other factors through things like projection, ideological noise, unresolved feelings, or performative behavior, the channel gets weaker—like trying to speak across static. Even if the message is clear, it won’t land right if the space carrying it is compromised.

CDT is built on the idea of recursion. It looks at how communication loops back on itself, reflecting its own health or dysfunction. It’s part of the CommIT framework and focuses on keeping the “channel” alive, honest, and co-owned by all participants. In CDT, recursion isn’t just repeating yourself, it’s returning to the moment with fresh awareness, checking in on what’s actually being shared, and adjusting meaning together before misunderstandings calcify.

CDT sees communication as more than information exchange—it’s a living, relational system influenced by power, trauma, contradiction, and context. The channel is like a tunnel between two people, and CDT asks: is this tunnel clean? Safe? Stable? Or is it leaking, blocked, or hijacked by unspoken baggage?

When the channel breaks down before a shared meaning can take shape, misalignment happens—not because of what was said, but because the container carrying the message couldn’t hold it. CDT offers ways to track this in real time—tools to sense signal distortion, repair moments of rupture, and protect the integrity of the communication field itself.

Abstract

Channel Dilution Theory (CDT) proposes that the moment one person interacts with another, they inherit responsibility not only for what they say, but for how it lands—because meaning is co-constructed through a shared channel, not individually owned.

In everyday contexts, searching for clarity is often mistaken as over-explaining, or as taking responsibility for someone else’s perception. But CDT argues that when communication impacts others beyond the immediate conversation—such as in group decisions, public discourse, or systemic coordination—the integrity of the channel itself becomes ethically non-optional.

Responsibility to the channel becomes essential not because one person controls meaning, but because meaning, trust, and outcome are shaped by the health of the space between people—not just by what they intended. The participants are considered a system themselves, shaped by who they are, how they are raised, and whom they chose to be. There’s also the channel being its completely separate entity with its own context, rules, and social construct. Any space is a communication channel, and every channel holds varying biases that govern the exchange that happens to it. And whenever an exchange takes place, these personal references clash with each other, Participants vs. Participants, Participants vs. Channel, Channel vs. Participant’s Varying Contexts, Dyad vs. Participants, and Channel vs. Dyad.

🔭The Communication Structure's Evolution

📞Shannon-Weaver Model (1948)

Source → Message → Channel → Receiver

Often wrongly seen as “THE” communication model (in terms of ossified facts), this was originally designed for telecommunication systems and extremely linear, not human interaction. But it became canonical for a reason — it's clean, linear, and obsessed with fidelity.

Core Assumption:

• Communication is the successful transfer of data.

• Meaning = the message arrives intact.

• Noise = anything that disrupts fidelity.

SMCR Mapping

Source	The sender creates the message (e.g., speaker, encoder).
Message	The content/data being transmitted (e.g., a sentence, a signal).
Channel	The medium (e.g., voice, text, fiber optics). Often includes "noise" that can interfere.
Receiver	The decoder; they receive and (hopefully) understand the message.

🪛Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)

Based on Author’s Recursed Understanding because I could not understand the materials for it, so I just mapped it on my own.

Core Assumption:

Communication is a process that creates reality. There is no "pure" message — just interacting perspectives constructing meaning together. The success of communication is not fidelity but coordination — can we make shared sense in a conscious manner?

CMM Comprises of 5 Major Parts:

Source	The source is any conversation participants that want to get a certain idea available in the channel for a certain audience
Receiver	The participant in which the content was targeted to or a participant that chose to receive and interpret the message.
Channel	The environment in which the exchange takes place. This environment affects and is affected by any exchange that happens on it and the influences listed in CMM.
Dyad	The established and ongoing meaning construction created from the participants, built in the scaffolding of the channel, and is constantly evolving.
Influence	The factors that affect the participants and the environment in which the exchange takes place; Episode, Relationship, Identity, Culture, Moral Order.

Custom CMM Relational Meaning System Map

This diagram visualizes how two individuals co-create meaning through conversation, based on the principles of Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM). It shows that communication is not about “sending messages,” but about referencing, coordinating, and live-updating a shared field of meaning between participants.

Participants & Personal References

• Participant 1 and Participant 2 each bring their own Personal and Unique References into the interaction. These are their experiences, memories, assumptions, beliefs, tone expectations, traumas, and interpretive patterns.

• These personal reference points are active filters: they shape how someone expresses and how they interpret the other.

Dyadic Reference Library

• In the center, we have the New Emerged Dyad Reference Library. This represents the living, co-created semantic field between the two people.

• Every time they speak, respond, interpret, clarify, or misfire—they are updating this shared library.

• It is not “owned” by either individual—it’s emergent, constantly shifting, and the actual space where relationship-level meaning lives.

• CMM Posits that once the message detaches from the participant and its personal references and enters the dyad created by the parties, it will now be up by interpretation. And that interpretation will be influenced not only by the individual references which are already different by default unless established otherwise, but the channel environment itself which also holds its own set of context and rules that immediately apply regardless if the detached message exists in it or not.

Channel Environment & Context Layers

• Beneath everything is the Channel Environment, which shows that communication doesn’t start in a vacuum.

• Even before either person speaks, the context has already shaped what kind of meaning is even possible.

• The Mutual Connection that passes through the Channel Environment that connects the first and second participants pertain to the idea that the same factors that affect the environment that makes it default to a certain bias also affects the participants, and when influencing factors plug into any of the participants or the channel itself, the result vary enough for dissonance to arise.

These contextual layers are:

• Episode – What is happening right now

• Relationship – Who are we to each other?

• Identity – How do I see myself in this interaction?

• Culture – What larger norms, expectations, or histories do we carry?

• Moral Order – What do we each believe is “right,” “fair,” or “appropriate”?

These layers are always active, even if invisible—and they influence how each person references themselves, how they read the other, and how the shared library evolves.

Referencing Loops

The curved arrows at the top show that participants are not just “talking to each other”—they are continuously referencing:

• Their own personal frame

• The shared meaning they’ve already co-constructed

• The observed enactment, and any dissonance between what is said (the narrative) and what is done (the lived behavior)

These references operate dynamically in both directions:

• What I think I meant → gets shaped by how you interpret me

• What you think I meant → influences how I adjust and respond

This ongoing back-and-forth is the coordination process CMM maps, where meaning is not transmitted, but co-managed in motion, moment by moment.

Mutual Connection

• These lateral arrows show that relational energy—trust, familiarity, emotional tone—flows alongside the formal exchange.

• It affects how receptive each person is to reinterpretation, recursion, or clarification.

When this connection is strong, the library grows. When it’s weak, the channel distorts.

👀Channel Dilution Theory; The Theory Itself

When Communication is weaponized to prevent structured clarity… structurally.

⚔️Core Assumption

Communication is an ecosystem composed of different things that connect to each other, one way or another. CDT expands and streamlines the concepts of Coordinated Management of Meaning, and leverages the power of Systems Theory to be able to structure and diagnose the fundamental invisible infrastructure of human affairs. Communication is consequential and there are ways to exploit it in a way that would prevent exchange happen in the first place and can be done consciously or unconsciously.

🏛️Conceptual Foundations

• CMM as a base of theoretical framework

  • CDT is built on top of CMM, showing how CMM is fundamentally taken advantage of, the longer its misunderstood

  • CDT posits that regardless if the corruption to channel is deliberate, malicious, or unintentional, it still has an effect on the conversation as it exists.

• Communication as System, Not Transaction

  • Traditional models assume sender-message-receiver logic. CDT treats communication as a living, relational live system that must be co-maintained by both parties. This idea leverages the Systems Theory in which nothing exists in isolation, but a part of a larger network regardless of attestation, humans included.

  • Communication Channel Environment: The relational, contextual, and interpretive field that allows messages to be sent and received. It is not neutral by default, but can be stabilized or corrupted by various influences like power, projection, trauma, and coercion-disguised-as-consent, among others mentioned in CMM.

• Integrity of the Channel:

  • The degree to which both parties are able to transmit, receive, and clarify meaning without distortion from fear, ego, performance, trauma projection, or narrative hijacking.

  • Corruption of the Channel: Occurs when parties default to defensiveness, projection, assumption, or manipulate power asymmetries. Manipulation, bias, and narrative hijacking are all forms of channel corruption.

• Content vs. Channel

  • Content = the meaning intended.

  • Channel = the relational medium in which it flows (tone, trust, body language, emotional history, platform constraints).

  • Channel failure can occur even if the signal is clean.

• Channel Integrity

  • The ability for communication to recur, adapt, and survive contradiction without devolving into projection, moralization, or ghost-signaling.

• Recursion is to loop back into the conversation with fresh awareness, instead of reacting or assuming.

  • It means asking again. Clarifying again. Staying in the dialogue when meaning starts to blur—without blaming, performing, or shutting down.

• Doubt is the Door to Recursion.

  • Communication fails not when doubt appears — but when doubt is silenced, moralized, or monopolized.

  • In a healthy channel, doubt is not a threat — it’s a signal of care. It’s the sacred pause that says: “I want this to mean something real, so let’s make sure we’re still speaking to each other and be clear of each other in the process.”, “I’m not clarifying to prove you wrong; I’m clarifying so we’re not both guessing.”

  • Intentional Uncertainty: A deliberate act of suspending judgment long enough to allow a contradictory or confusing message to self-clarify within context.

• Honesty

  • In the CDT framework, honesty is treated as a relational diagnostic—a way of calibrating the shared signal between sender and receiver. It is not inherently righteous, nor always kind. Honesty does not “prove” character. It tests alignment. It reveals whether the channel can carry unfiltered signal without distortion, collapse, or moral panic.

• Channel Corruption

  • The exploitation of the structure of communication itself isn’t necessarily a negative thing all the time, as these exploitation can be used to actively repair the communication instance and even significantly improve the fidelity exchange between the two participants.

  • The recursion of ethical standards matter as it upholds the integrity of the communication channel itself, which is why CDT uses the CommIT scaffolding as CommIT provides enough ethical architecture for CDT to explore the dark sides of human interaction.

🛠️The Infrastructure: How is it possible?

Participants vs. Participants

This is the most obvious clash—where two (or more) people’s internal frameworks, assumptions, emotional histories, and intentions directly collide. Each participant enters a conversation with their own worldview, trauma imprint, communication style, and goals. Misalignment happens not because anyone is “wrong,” but because each person’s frame of reference is rooted in a different lived logic. What one sees as clarity, the other may see as aggression. CDT treats this not as a failure of content, but as a sign that the shared meaning hasn’t yet been negotiated or co-owned.

Participants vs. Channel

Sometimes, it’s not the people themselves who are directly in conflict—it’s the way their signals are being processed through the environment they’re using to communicate. This includes tone, platform (text vs voice vs video), timing, or even accumulated emotional residue from previous interactions. A participant may try to be clear or sincere, but if the channel is already distorted—say, from mistrust, projection, or lagging emotional context—their message arrives filtered or twisted. CDT emphasizes that even the most well-intended content can break down if the channel it rides on is already compromised.

Channel vs. Participant’s Varying Contexts

The channel doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it exists within, and responds to, each participant’s unique context. Cultural background, power dynamics, past wounds, neurotype, expectations of tone—all of these shape how the channel is perceived. The same message can feel affirming to one person and condescending to another. Here, the channel is not just a tunnel but a reflective surface that interacts with each participant’s psyche. When the channel cannot hold the range of these differing contexts, distortion intensifies.

Dyad vs. Participants

The dyad is the shared relational space that two participants co-create. It's not "you vs. me," but “us”—the in-between field. Conflict arises when participants fail to recognize or take responsibility for this co-created space. One might dominate it, the other withdraw; one sees the dyad as sacred, the other treats it transactionally. CDT frames this as a misalignment between the individuals and the relational entity they’re unconsciously constructing. When the dyad is ignored, it fragments, and so does the meaning being exchanged within it.

Channel vs. Dyad

Even when the two participants are aligned and committed to the dyad, the surrounding channel can still interfere. For instance, past projections may leak into the space, or the communicative platform (e.g., texting instead of speaking face-to-face) may inhibit nuance. Cultural scripts or social roles might also intrude, pulling the dyad into performative or constrained expressions. Here, CDT looks at how external static—the inherited social conditions, structural asymmetries, or past emotional loops—can undermine a dyad’s integrity by warping how it can safely function.

❌Failure Nodes: How does failure look like?

• Projection Spiral – When the receiver assigns symbolic weight, trauma residue, or emotional patterning to a neutral or evolving signal—distorting the channel by judging the present through the residue of past experience. The creation of shared meaning is compromised before it can even stabilize.

  • “I just wanted to touch your shoulder to tell you that dinner is ready”

  • “I think you are trying to rape me, cause that’s what my uncle did to me, get your hands off me!”

• Doubt Benefit Blade – When the “benefit of the doubt” is used as a moral shield to excuse harm, suppress scrutiny, or derail accountability. The receiver is pressured to interpret abuse as misunderstanding, and any attempt to clarify intent is framed as betrayal, overreaction, or cynicism. Trust becomes a weapon used to discredit awareness.

  • “My husband has been physically harming me and he tells me I don't deserve human dignity!”

  • “Lets avoid confrontation okay? Your husband is just tired. He loves you very much, you know that right?”

• Virtue Signaling - When the receiver responds not from shared context or clarified intention, but from a projected alignment with dominant moral narratives. The reply is shaped by what is performatively “right,” not what is recursively co-authored.

  • “I know to myself I'm a decent person, why do you seem to imply I'm not??”

  • “If you were a decent person, you would’ve done x instead. Literally common sense.”

• Moral Overload – When parties default to moral adjudication—shaming, correction, or judgment—rather than recursive clarification. The channel becomes a stage for rightness, not a space for meaning.

  • “I think pineapple pizza is alright.”

  • “NO! That’s a crime against humanity, you literally hate French cuisine, see to it, I will let your French auntie know about this.

• Static Noise Loop – A breakdown where both parties persistently misread tone, intent, or emotional signal—and instead of rerouting, they double down. Clarity attempts become new material for distortion. The receiver’s own words are used against them to reinforce a narrative, collapsing channel integrity.

  • “I want you-”

  • “So you want me?”

  • “To investigate because i think your the best at-”

  • “Oh so I'm the best? Look at you wanting me so bad~”

• Context Collapse – When past meanings or symbolic residues bleed into the current moment, destabilizing the now. The present becomes misread through outdated frames, making co-meaning unreliable.

  • The Substance is a movie about women chasing for vanity, and the core message is fame doesn’t last forever, and any attempts to stay into the light becomes a disaster.

  • “I’ve seen the movie and I think that- it represents the point that women should’ve never been allowed in the industry in the first place and should’ve stayed home to make sandwiches for me.”

• Channel Casting - When the sender projects distrust onto the receiver by treating them as the corrupted channel itself, invalidating their capacity to receive or transmit meaning. This prevents any sincere attempt at co-meaning.

  • “You told me to buy 3 candies this morning. And you told my coworker to get 7?”

  • “No, I said 5. I clearly said 5. Your comprehension skills are beyond me. You are terrible at your job.

• Pedestal Assignment - When the sender treats the channel as sacred or infallible, co-constructing meaning becomes obsolete, or even taboo. Reverence overrides recursion.

  • “I really really like him. Therefore I should not question his actions so he likes me back.”

• Weaponized Competence - When tools or protocols designed to prevent miscommunication are used to silence scrutiny, flatten disagreement, or avoid recursive clarification. Expertise becomes a shield, not a bridge. “Correctness” and “protocol” can masquerade as integrity while performing control.

  • “According to the communication codex, you are not allowed to put the lord’s name in vain, You are a heretic!”

• Backdoor Backrooms - When a communication structure includes intentional or implicit escape routes from accountability—such as protocol exploits, selective enforcement, or moral exceptions that short-circuit recursion. These exits protect control over clarity, and make co-meaning impossible.

  • “Excuse me, do you know who I am? How dare you make me pay tax, I'm the governor’s son.”

• Shame Internalization– When recursive rupture goes unnamed, and failure gets internalized instead of clarified. The system collapses inward, turning relational distortion into personal defect. Co-meaning becomes impossible because one party exits into self-judgment instead of re-entry.

  • “He pointed out to me to shame me. I will not question him because everyone knows when someone points at you, you should be ashamed of yourself.”

• Failure Overload - Mistakes and imperfect responses are natural in communication. But it becomes a failure node when repeated failure is used to deflect scrutiny, exhaust the other party, or prematurely end recursive clarification. Failure can amplify either more clarity or more weaponization of learned helplessness.

  • “Say hello.”

  • “Help? Oh im so sorry im really bad at this.”

  • “Try again. Say hello.”

  • “Havoc Tervine. Oh damn it i done it again, im still learning.”

  • “Ah forget about it.”

  • “Sorry again!”

• Fragile Listening Or Flag Seeking – Hyper-reactivity to specific terms or phrases as signals of threat or ideological violation, without recursive context-checking. A symptom of degraded listening precision, and a sign of diminished will toward genuine comprehension. Sometimes weaponized channel dilution to prevent the receiver from rebuttal.

  • “I think we should avoid saying the word Retard.”

  • “Oh he said retard, he is irredeemable, cancel him!”

• Violating Expectancy - When channel integrity depends on the illusion of mutual understanding, and collapses the moment it is questioned. Built on the benefit of the doubt, this channel resists recursion and treats clarification as distrust, triggering rupture instead of repair.

  • “So yeah. I like this guy. What were you gonna tell me again?”

  • “Oh yeah no totally, I'm super supportive of whatever, I’m your friend! (I like the guy too but I won't tell her because I wanna keep our friendship so I'll just pretend we’re on the same page.”

• Coop-dination - when the source uses consensus that validates to deliberately infiltrate the channel which sets up the environment that prevents the receiver from scrutinizing or voicing out at all when distrust has already been projected to them through majority moralization of ideas.

  • “Hey, i think there’s something wrong with x while we use it.”

  • “EVERYTHING IS FINE. See? Don’t worry about it. Everyone heard that, since nobody responded or retaliated, it's not important.”

• Inverted Alignment - When the sender uses shared values as leverage against the receiver, implying that the receiver already trusts their authority or framing. The receiver is emotionally blackmailed into betraying their own needs or boundaries, then praised for their coerced compliance as a moral victory. The result is exploitation masked as virtue—and a thank-you extracted from the harm.

  • “You don’t have to add money if you can’t I'm sure we can find a way somehow-”

  • “Just take my money(even if i dont have much to begin with.)”

  • “Awhe, there’s my good daughter. Thank you sweetie, i love yoouuu”

🎓Core Tenets of CDT

1. Message ≠ Meaning: Communication failures often occur not because of the content of a message, but due to the compromised state of the channel environment through which it's interpreted.

2. Trust is Recursive: Trust cannot be restored to its previous state after failure. However, a new trust can be built atop the ruins of the last, like layering geological strata; each one holding memory, but allowing new life to grow. Preventing new trust to grow is just unnecessary punity.

3. Channel Neutrality Is a Myth: Every interaction either upholds or corrupts the integrity of the channel. There is no zero-state, only motion or decay. The channel is just as alive as the dyad generated in an interaction and the participants in a conversation instance.

4. Contradiction is Vital: Humans are walking contradictions. Channel integrity requires space for contradiction, iteration, reclarification, and emotional dissonance without collapsing.

5. Performance is a Channel Threat: When a speaker chooses performance over presence, it introduces a false signal that degrades authenticity and mutual interpretation, unless done deliberately AND within the bounds of recursive ethics.

6. Bias Mitigation Requires Clarification Visibility: The only path to overcoming bias isn't objectivity; it’s making one’s interpretive process visible and contestable.

7. Weaponized Unfairness as Friction Engine: Introducing moments of deliberate contradiction or perceptual unfairness can brute-force a re-engagement with the channel, especially when designed to provoke clarification rather than defensiveness.

🔊Intervention Examples

All CDT Examples assume that the speaker and receiver are both responsible for maintaining signal clarity and channel coherence.

3.1 Recursion Checkpoint

Goal: Intercept spirals, open the floor for signal clarification before narratives lock in.

1. "Pause — before I build a whole story in my head, can we re-anchor what you meant?" → Invites early pattern correction without blame.

2. "Can you walk me through how you got there? I think I missed a few chapters there buddy." → Suggests self-awareness of projection, opens interpretive humility.

3. "That phrasing landed sharp — maybe it’s me, maybe it’s us. Can you reinstate what you are trying to say?" → Frames reaction as shared responsibility, not accusation.

4. "Before I react, can we restate why we are here? I want to respond to you, not my assumptions." → Centers co-meaning over reaction, aligns with CommIT recursion ethos.

3.2 Intent Integrity Reflection

Goal: Affirm exploratory intent, not dominance or harm; reframe tone as inquiry, not attack.

1. "I care about clarity more than being right — can we re-tune how this is landing?" → Shifts posture from righteousness to shared calibration.

2. "That came out stronger than I meant — I’m not fighting, I’m reaching." → Reduces threat level, names the difference between tone and aim.

3. "I felt tension in how I said that — let me rephrase so we don’t create noise." → Implies channel care; models self-correction without guilt spiral.

4. "I’m bringing intensity, not hostility. Let’s hold space to differentiate that." → Validates emotional charge without moralizing it.

3.3 Asymmetry Mirror

Goal: Disrupt moral imbalance; assert the need for mutual transparency without defensiveness.

1. "If I’m open-booking myself, I need to know you’re not hiding your page." → Playful yet sharp — calls out the uneven ground.

2. "I’m naming where I’m coming from — can you match that, or are we lopsided here?" → Encourages equal vulnerability, asserts co-authorship.

3. "I feel a little alone in this. Are you trying to show up in it too?" → Shifts responsibility from self-shouldering to shared maintenance.

4. "I’m not here to be dissected while you stay undefined — that’s not co-meaning." → Challenges covert one-sidedness with precision and grace.

3.4 Ghost Recognition

Goal: Illuminate projection, narrative bleed, or trauma residues without invalidating emotion.

1. "I feel like we’re dragging something older than this into now — is that really the message you are trying to get across?" → Honors emotional truth and signals temporal distortion.

2. "Are we reacting to each other, or to grudges we haven’t buried yet?" → Names hauntings directly; poetic, slightly surreal, gently provocative.

3. "This feels amplified beyond what was said — what story might we be in that we haven’t named?" → Offers frames for invisible scripts without shame.

4. "I don’t want to be a stand-in for someone else’s harm. Can we clarify who’s really in the room?" → Asserts identity; protects integrity from inherited misrecognition.

🎌Communication Rights and Responsibilities

You are not responsible for how someone misreads you if you maintain channel clarity and recursion. You are responsible for clarifying when you are projecting, moralizing, or ghost-responding.

Participants in a communication exchange have a shared duty to:

• Maintain signal fidelity

• Context-check before judgment

• Recursively confirm shared meaning

• Own and name emotional bleedthroughs

The current structure of communication has Channel Corruption deeply ingrained, regardless of how it manifests. And so attempts to deliver, even these ideas will face resistance due to its radical perspective, which ironically demonstrates the very premise of what CDT is trying to map.. The proper conditions of CDT are idealistic, but it is realistically possible within the realm of reason.

🏗️Architectural Implications

CDT can be installed as a protocol layer inside:

• One-on-one conflict resolution

• Academic debates

• Online platform design (comment sections, moderation tools)

• Family therapy or group process work

• AI alignment conversations

CDT assumes contradiction is natural and necessary, but demands tools for holding it without rupturing signal trust or the trust to the communication channel itself.

❤️‍🩹Recursion as Restoration Method

Source: "That felt kinda off, can you expand?"

Receiver: "Oh — I didn’t mean it to hurt. I was trying to articulate a pattern I’ve been noticing on you."

Source: "Got it. I was reacting from an old conversation that used similar words but in a worse tone. Not your fault."

• Recursed Source- The sender self referenced in order to deliver their message by being honest to self and being transparent about it.

• Recursed Receiver - The receiver took the cue and reciprocated self honesty, forming a stronger local trust.

• Recursed Channel - By being honest, both of them repaired the trust in the channel without addressing it directly, much like their capacity to degrade it without addressing it directly, or potentially address it directly when a certain ulterior motive is at play.

This is when the permission for insight cultivation has been restored. It can be restored with high fidelity when even just one of the nodes in the system remains honest to the receiver and themselves. Failure to comply with honesty is a fundamental human nature, and any amount of ritual to “cleanse” that behavior is a band-aid solution. Systems must build around human dishonesty to keep the architecture of information transfer resilient.

😎Idealistic Future Implications

• Everyday Argument (e.g., Twitter):

  • Fights rarely occur over actual disagreement; most arise from differing channel assumptions. Parties argue past each other within corrupted or assumed contexts.

• Default Repair Protocol:

  • "Wait, can you expand on that for a sec? I might be reading this wrong."

  • "I’m not clarifying if what you did is wrong. I’m clarifying what I meant so we’re not both guessing."

• Channel Literacy Education

  • Teaching CDT would include how to identify channel corruption, how to explicitly pause for clarification, and how to distinguish performance from presence. But mostly from pointing out channel corruption in live conversations within the bounds of learning.

📄Appendix: Key Phrases

• “Pause — that hit weird. Can we context-check?”

• “I’m not attacking — I’m curious.”

• “If you’re not clarifying you, don’t judge me.”

• “Let’s reroute before this turns into a projection spiral.”

• “I don’t think that got across the way you wanted it to land. Try Again?”

• “Was there something else you are trying to say?”

Citations

Coordinated Management of Meaning : (N.d.). Retrieved from https://www.afirstlook.com/docs/coordmgtmeaning.pdf

Systems Theory: (N.d.). Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/32947_Chapter1.pdf

CommIT : The Theory in Motion. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://syntropraxis.gitbook.io/commit

Recursion : Jha, H. (2024, October 7). The Metaphysics of Recursion - HarshVardhan Jha - Medium. Medium. https://lemonsoup.medium.com/the-metaphysics-of-recursion-1830c5318211