Episkevology
Protocol name
Relational Field Diagnostic v0.1
For Episkevological Practitioners
1. Core stance
Premise:
The child is the dependent variable. Their behavior is a relational output and therefore inherently diagnostic of the field.
Non‑negotiables:
- Never treat behavior as the problem.
- Always treat behavior as a readout of field conditions.
- The goal is to see the system, not to improve the child.
2. Variables and lenses
Dependent variable (DV):
- Child relational outputs
- Behavioral events (tantrums, shutdowns, “defiance,” clinginess, buddying up, pushing away, etc.)
- State markers (sleep, appetite, somatic complaints, hyper/under‑activation)
Independent variables (IVs): field conditions
- Safety: predictability, non‑retaliation, physical/emotional safety
- Coherence: alignment of words, rules, and actions
- Consistency: stability over time and across caregivers
- Attunement: responsiveness to the child’s state and signals
- Power: who sets terms; volatility of that person
You are not “assessing the child.”
You are mapping DV as a function of IVs.
3. Data collection: parent / rater protocol
3.1 Behavior inventory (DV)
Provide a checklist of ~20 behaviors parents commonly complain about, explicitly framed as signals:
- Externalizing:
- “Doesn’t listen”
- “Talks back”
- Tantrums / meltdowns
- “Defiant” / “argumentative”
- Aggressive (hitting, throwing, etc.)
- “Hyper” / “can’t sit still”
- “Attention‑seeking”
- “Won’t sleep”
- “Picky eating”
- “Buddies up to the volatile parent”
- Internalizing:
- Withdrawn / shuts down
- “Overly sensitive”
- Clingy
- People‑pleasing / perfectionistic
- Pushes away the safe parent
- “Too independent” / never asks for help
For each event logged, parent/rater marks frequency (e.g., never / sometimes / often / constant).
3.2 Field snapshot (IVs) per event
For each logged behavior, parent/rater rates the moment’s field on 1–5 sliders:
- Adult regulation:
- 1 = I was flooded / reactive
- 5 = I was grounded / steady
- Power dynamic:
- 1 = I was imposing / forcing
- 5 = We were collaborating
- Demand level on child:
- 1 = Very low / no demand
- 5 = Very high / multiple demands
- Predictability for child:
- 1 = Sudden / unexpected
- 5 = Clear / anticipated
- Connection / voice:
- 1 = Child had no say
- 5 = Child’s perspective was included
You are not asking, “Why did they do that?”
You are asking, “What was the field doing when this appeared?”
4. First‑pass interpretation for practitioner
After a few days to a week of logging:
4.1 Look for clusters
- Which behaviors co‑occur with low adult regulation + high demand?
- Expect: “defiance,” tantrums, “talking back,” aggression.
- Interpretation: protest against coercion, not “oppositionality.”
- Which behaviors co‑occur with low predictability + low attunement?
- Expect: hyperactivity, sleep disruption, clinginess.
- Interpretation: field instability, not “ADHD” in isolation.
- Which behaviors co‑occur with low connection + high power?
- Expect: withdrawal, people‑pleasing, perfectionism, buddying up to volatile parent.
- Interpretation: appeasement / collapse, not “good kid” vs “bad kid.”
You are looking for shapes, not isolated points.
4.2 Name the shape, not the child
Examples:
- “This looks like a coercive field: high demand, low voice, lots of protest behaviors.”
- “This looks like a volatile center: child orients to the most dysregulated adult, pushes away the safe one.”
- “This looks like a collapse field: high withdrawal, high people‑pleasing, low explicit protest.”
The diagnostic statement is always about the field, never about the child’s character.
5. Phrase‑vector tool (child / parent self‑report)
Once you see patterns, introduce vector phrase sets.
5.1 Build 20‑item phrase sets per vector (example: Safety)
Safety (kid version, sample):
- “I never know when someone will get mad.”
- “I feel like I have to be careful all the time.”
- “Sometimes it feels safe, sometimes it doesn’t, and I don’t know why.”
- “If I say how I feel, I might get in trouble.”
- “Grownups change the rules without telling me.”
- “I try to keep everyone happy so nothing bad happens.”
- “I get scared when people start talking louder.”
- “I don’t know what will happen if I make a mistake.”
- “I feel safer when I’m alone.”
- “I feel like I’m walking on eggshells.”
Instruction:
“Circle all the ones that feel like home.”
If a child circles 18/20 on a vector, you have a clean match between their lived field and a geometric cluster.
Repeat for:
- Coherence (do words and actions match?)
- Consistency (is today like yesterday?)
- Attunement (does anyone adjust to me?)
- Power (who decides, and how safe are they?)
Parents can complete parallel adult versions.
6. How the episkevological practitioner uses this
- Step 1: Treat all child behavior as DV output.
- Step 2: Use logs + sliders to map IV conditions around each event.
- Step 3: Identify clusters / shapes (protest, collapse, appeasement, risk‑management).
- Step 4: Use phrase vectors to confirm the field from the child’s perspective.
- Step 5: Direct all intervention toward changing IVs (safety, coherence, consistency, attunement, power), not toward suppressing DV.
Direct translation:
“Your child isn’t giving you a hard time.
Your child is giving you a map of the field.”
That sentence is the ethical boundary of the tool:
if it’s not being used to repair the field, it’s not episkevology.
Survivor Literacy 
What do you think?