DISRUPT THE LOOP
Digital Dignity & Institutional Manipulation Lab
Systems and Methods for Predicting Vulnerability to Institutional Gaslighting, Algorithmic Manipulation, and Emotional-AI Coercion
A unified architecture for detecting institutional abuse, quantifying digital dignity erosion, and restoring genuine autonomy.
The Problem
Built for people trapped in Kafka loops, grinding appeals processes, and emotionally coercive AI systems—and for the universities, clinics, and advocates who are ready to measure and end it.
Is this bureaucracy—or psychological warfare? The difference matters legally, clinically, and ethically. But without objective measurement, institutional manipulation remains invisible.
Why Everyone is Vulnerable
Everyone is vulnerable. CEOs, judges, professors, physicians—high-status individuals with strong philosophical coherence can be destabilized given sufficient emotional volatility.
The reason: identity, personality, and values are fluid—not fixed traits.
Identity as Fluid Performance
From Hume’s bundle theory to Goffman’s dramaturgical self to Butler’s performative identity to Nietzsche’s eternal becoming—philosophical consensus: the self is not a stable essence but an ongoing performance, a narrative we tell, a pattern of acts we repeat.
This fluidity is adaptive. It enables:
- Contextual responsiveness (different selves at work vs. home)
- Emotional flexibility (adjusting to changing circumstances)
- Social coordination (performing expected roles)
- Personal growth (narrative revision over time)
But it’s also exploitable. When institutions engineer emotional volatility—rapid oscillation between fear, hope, rage, and despair—they destabilize the fluid self. In those destabilized moments, anyone can be made to accept propositions they would reject when stable.
The Framework: Four Interlocking Indices
Vulnerability Index (VI)
Predicts current susceptibility by integrating:
- Philosophical coherence
- Value sovereignty
- Life satisfaction trajectory
- CAPS fluidity patterns
VI < 30: Fortified
VI 30–60: Contested
VI ≥ 60: Captured
Digital Dignity Index (DDI)
Quantifies institutional harm across:
- Moral disengagement (Bandura’s 8)
- EMM tactics (compression, pump/dump, grind, loop, flush)
- Procedural burden
DDI ≥ 70: Systematic dignity violation requiring intervention
Narrative Autonomy Index (NAI)
Measures genuine autonomy vs. coerced compliance:
- Narrative coherence
- Value alignment
- Sovereign agency
Success: NAI +20 points sustained 3 months (antifragility, not just resilience)
Antifragility Index (AI)
Validates post-traumatic growth:
- New capabilities developed
- Protective anger (not suppression)
- Structural power literacy
- Sustained capacity > baseline
The Causal Chain: From Grinding to Identity Fragmentation
Step 1: Bandura’s Moral Disengagement
Institutions use 8 mechanisms to license harm while maintaining ethical self-concept: moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement/diffusion of responsibility, disregard/distortion of consequences, dehumanization, attribution of blame.
Step 2: EMM Tactics Engineer Volatility
Like market makers manipulating prices, institutions manipulate emotional states: compression chambers (simultaneous contradictory demands), pump/dump cycles (hope then devastation), grinding (procedural exhaustion), Kafka loops (impossible requirements), flushing (claim abandonment triggers).
Step 3: Volatility Destabilizes Fluid Identity
Emotional chaos fragments narrative coherence. Values become inconsistent. Philosophical frameworks collapse. CAPS signatures show increasing situation-dependence.
Step 4: Destabilization Enables Exploitation
In fragmented state, individuals accept propositions they would reject when stable: signing away rights, accepting inadequate settlements, abandoning valid claims, internalizing gaslighting.
The multiplicative interaction: HARM = VI × DDI (not additive)
High VI + Low DDI = Frustrating but manageable
Low VI + High DDI = Annoying but survivable
High VI + High DDI = Identity fragmentation and capitulation
What We’re Building
1. Detection Algorithms
NLP models trained to detect Bandura’s moral disengagement mechanisms and EMM tactics in institutional communications. Patent-protected pattern recognition for systematic grinding identification.
2. VI Assessment Tools
Validated instruments measuring philosophical coherence, value sovereignty, satisfaction trajectory, and CAPS fluidity. Produces quantitative vulnerability score predicting manipulation susceptibility.
3. DDI Calculation Engine
Analyzes document sequences, communication patterns, procedural timelines to generate objective dignity erosion metric. DDI ≥ 70 triggers intervention recommendations.
4. Theory-Grounded Interventions
Integrated protocols addressing root causes (not just symptoms): Control Mastery Theory (pathogenic belief disconfirmation), Nietzschean revaluation (imposed vs. chosen values), Heideggerian integration (narrative coherence restoration), Franklian meaning-making (adversarial growth), structural power education (manipulation literacy).
5. Evidence Generation for Legal/Regulatory Use
Cryptographically secure documentation converting subjective harm into objective proof. Designed for bad faith litigation, regulatory complaints, policy reform advocacy.
Research Validation Requirements
This is a theoretical framework requiring empirical validation. We make no claims about proven efficacy.
Validation Needs:
- VI Predictive Validity: Does VI actually predict grinding outcomes? (Longitudinal cohort study, N≥500, 2-year follow-up)
- DDI Institutional Agreement: Do multiple raters agree on DDI scores? (Inter-rater reliability study, κ≥0.80 target)
- VI×DDI Interaction: Is harm multiplicative, not additive? (Regression analysis with interaction terms)
- Intervention Efficacy: Do protocols achieve antifragility? (RCT, NAI +20 sustained 3 months)
- Legal Acceptance: Do courts/regulators accept DDI evidence? (Test cases in multiple jurisdictions)
Who This Is For
Researchers
Novel interdisciplinary framework synthesizing philosophy, psychology, computer science, and law. Publication opportunities in top-tier journals. Grant funding potential (NSF, NIH, private foundations).
Clinicians
Theory-grounded interventions addressing root causes of institutional manipulation harm. Alternative to victim-blaming resilience paradigms. Antifragile outcome criteria (stronger than before, not just “bouncing back”).
Attorneys & Advocates
Objective evidence for subjective harm claims. DDI quantification enabling bad faith litigation. Pattern documentation for class actions. Regulatory compliance packages for insurance commissioners, FTC, DOJ.
Technical Specialists
Challenging NLP problems (moral disengagement detection), novel algorithm development (VI calculation), cryptographic systems (evidence integrity), social impact work (not just ad optimization).
Ready to Collaborate?
We’re seeking partnerships to validate this framework through rigorous empirical research. Access to detailed technical specifications requires NDA execution.
Patent Application No. 63/914,253 | Filed November 9, 2025
Principal Investigator: Joshua Garfunkel
Email: joshua@disrupttheloop.com