Survivor Literacy

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  • Withdrawn / shuts down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.

---

Apple Music

YouTube Music

Amazon Music

Spotify Music

Find more information in the Relational Anthropology Series Archive.
Explore Episkevology.
Check out the RFT Theory Archive.