---
title: "N-Dimensional Language — Why Double-Speak Is a Neurotypical Concept"
description: "Analysis of the n-dimensional cognitive architecture of HPI/ASD/ADHD profiles facing paradoxical communication. Double bind, pattern recognition, multidimensional processing. Sources: Bateson, Baron-Cohen, Watzlawick."
date: 2026-01-18
tags:
  - social-control
  - cognitive-biases
  - double-bind
  - HPI-ASD
  - cognitive-architecture
  - academic
---

# COGSEC — Article 003

## N-Dimensional Language

### Why "Double-Speak" Is a Neurotypical Concept

---

## Disclaimer

This article constitutes a **literature review** and a **theoretical analysis** of cognitive and communicational mechanisms documented in academic literature. It does not constitute:

- A diagnosis of a specific situation
- An accusation against identifiable individuals or institutions
- A substitute for professional evaluation (psychological, legal, medical)
- An incitement to self-diagnosis

The mechanisms described are derived from works published in peer-reviewed journals (*Behavioral Science*, *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, *Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders*) and reference works in cognitive psychology and communication. The reader is invited to consult the primary sources.

---

## Abstract

The concept of "double-speak" — communication on two levels (surface and hidden) — is a neurotypical model that assumes the ability to reduce an interaction to two binary options. For HPI/ASD/ADHD cognitive profiles, this reduction is neurologically impossible: the brain generates n simultaneous interpretations (n >> 2). This cognitive architecture, while dysfunctional in implicit social play, constitutes a structural impossibility of "playing the game" — not a refusal, but a documented neurological incapacity.

**Crucial point:** It is not that ASD individuals "refuse" to play — it is that they *cannot* reduce an interaction to two levels. Their brain processes all variables simultaneously. This characteristic, pathologized in social interactions, is precisely what makes them capable of detecting what others cannot see.

**Keywords:** double bind, paradoxical communication, HPI, ASD, cognitive architecture, pattern recognition, n-dimensional processing

---

## Note on the COGSEC Series

This project documents social and cognitive control mechanisms identified in academic literature. To date, **approximately fifty distinct mechanisms** have been catalogued, each with its peer-reviewed references, conditions of application, and countermeasures.

This article presents **four mechanisms** as illustration. Others will be published progressively.

Pattern by pattern. Reference by reference. Method by method.

---

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1 The Dominant Model

Academic literature on paradoxical communication rests on a binary model. Bateson and the Palo Alto School describe the "double bind" as a situation with two contradictory levels:

!!! quote "Reference"
    "A situation in which no matter what a person does, he 'can't win.'"
    
    — Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. *Behavioral Science*, 1(4), 251-264. DOI: [10.1002/bs.3830010402](https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830010402) | [Wiley](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830010402) | [PsycNET](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-08456-001)

Watzlawick formalizes this structure:

!!! quote "Reference"
    "Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication."
    
    — Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). *Pragmatics of Human Communication*. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN: 978-0393010091, p. 54. [WorldCat OCLC 168614](https://search.worldcat.org/title/168614) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL4048354W/Pragmatics_of_human_communication)

### 1.2 The Problem: What If It's Not 2?

This model assumes the receiver can reduce the interaction to two interpretations. But for certain cognitive profiles, the brain systematically generates n interpretations (n >> 2). This is not paranoia — it is a documented cognitive architecture.

### 1.3 The Central Thesis

The individual who cannot reduce to 2 cannot "play" the implicit social game. This incapacity leads to ejection. The paradox: the more clearly they see, the more they are excluded. The more they detect inconsistencies, the more they are pathologized.

---

## 2. The N-Dimensional Cognitive Architecture

### 2.1 Neuroscientific Basis

Baron-Cohen describes "systemizing" as characteristic of ASD profiles:

!!! quote "Reference"
    "Systemizing is the drive to analyze and construct rule-based systems. [...] Autistic individuals show superior performance on tasks requiring attention to detail and detection of embedded figures."
    
    — Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1156(1), 68-80. DOI: [10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19338503/) | [Wiley](https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x)

Attwood specifies the impossibility of filtering:

!!! quote "Reference"
    "The person with Asperger's syndrome may have considerable difficulty ignoring irrelevant information and be easily distracted by what others can block out."
    
    — Attwood, T. (2006). *The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome*. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN: 978-1843104957, p. 241. [WorldCat OCLC 70218052](https://search.worldcat.org/title/70218052) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL425202M/Asperger's_syndrome)

### 2.2 Comparative Processing

**Neurotypical Reception:**

| Stimulus | Processing | Result |
|----------|------------|--------|
| Surface message | Received | Choice A |
| Hidden message | Perceived | Choice B |
| **Total** | **2 options** | **Selection possible** |

**HPI/ASD Reception (documented by Baron-Cohen, 2009):**

| Stimulus | Processing | Result |
|----------|------------|--------|
| Surface message | Received | Variable 1 |
| Hidden message | Perceived | Variable 2 |
| Message timing | Analyzed | Variables 3-5 |
| Historical context | Cross-referenced | Variables 6-15 |
| Similar patterns | Detected | Variables 16-40 |
| Causal hypotheses | Generated | Variables 41-80 |
| **Total** | **n variables (n >> 2)** | **Decisional paralysis** |

### 2.3 The Impossibility of Reduction

This inability to filter is not a choice but a neurological characteristic:

!!! quote "Reference"
    "The cognitive style of autistic people has been characterized as detail-focused rather than globally oriented."
    
    — Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The Weak Coherence Account: Detail-focused Cognitive Style in Autism Spectrum Disorders. *Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders*, 36(1), 5-25. DOI: [10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16450045/) | [ERIC](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ735693)

**Crucial implication:** The neurotypical can "choose" to see or not see the second level. The HPI/ASD cannot choose — they see *everything*, simultaneously, automatically.

### 2.4 What This Means in Practice

```
NEUROTYPICAL FACING DOUBLE-SPEAK:
├── Level 1 (surface) → Received
├── Level 2 (hidden) → Perceived or ignored (choice possible)
├── Reduction to 2 → Selection → Adapted response
└── = SOCIALLY FUNCTIONAL

HPI/ASD FACING DOUBLE-SPEAK:
├── Level 1 (surface) → Received
├── Level 2 (hidden) → Perceived
├── Level 3 (why this message now?) → Analyzed
├── Level 4 (similar historical patterns) → Cross-referenced
├── Levels 5-80 (multiple hypotheses) → Automatically generated
├── Reduction impossible → Paralysis or "maladapted" response
└── = "WEIRD" / "DIFFICULT" / "RIGID"
```

They call it "double-speak." As if it were 2. For them, it's 2. For us, it's 80.

---

## 3. Four Mechanisms Seen Through This Prism

> **Note:** These four mechanisms are presented as illustration. The COGSEC series will progressively document all identified mechanisms.

### 3.1 Mechanism 1: The Double Bind

#### 3.1.1 Classical Definition (Bateson, 1956)

The double bind implies:

1. An important relationship from which one cannot escape
2. Two contradictory messages
3. The impossibility of commenting on the contradiction

!!! quote "Reference"
    "The individual is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other."
    
    — Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. *Behavioral Science*, 1(4), p. 253. DOI: [10.1002/bs.3830010402](https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830010402) | [Wiley](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830010402)

#### 3.1.2 N-Dimensional View

**For the neurotypical:** 2 messages → 2 choices → manageable paralysis

**For the HPI/ASD:** 2 messages → analysis of the contradiction → generation of n hypotheses on the contradiction's origin → total paralysis

**But this paralysis hides a capacity:** The detection of the contradiction is **accurate**. The individual sees that something is wrong. They simply cannot ignore it.

#### 3.1.3 The Irony

The system ejects the individual who detects the contradiction. The contradiction remains, but no one signals it anymore.

### 3.2 Mechanism 2: Strategic Interruption

#### 3.2.1 Face-Work (Goffman, 1967)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "Face-work refers to the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face."
    
    — Goffman, E. (1967). *Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior*. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 0-394-70631-5, p. 12. [WorldCat OCLC 550570](https://search.worldcat.org/title/550570) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/interactionritua0000goff) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL43391815M/Interaction_ritual)

Strategic interruption cuts a conversation line that threatens collective "face."

#### 3.2.2 N-Dimensional View

**Neurotypical:** Interruption → "forbidden topic" → subject change → end

**HPI/ASD:** Interruption → timing analysis → correlation with the word spoken → previous interruption patterns → hypotheses about what is protected → **inability to simply "let go"**

#### 3.2.3 What the HPI/ASD Detects

The individual who analyzes the interruption detects **what is protected**. Each interruption is data. Each subject change is a signal. The HPI/ASD cannot not compile this data.

The system thinks it cuts the conversation. It reveals its structure.

### 3.3 Mechanism 3: Narrative Splitting

#### 3.3.1 Fragmentation (Herman, 1992)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "Traumatic events are extraordinary, not because they occur rarely, but rather because they overwhelm the ordinary human adaptations to life. [...] The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness."
    
    — Herman, J.L. (1992). *Trauma and Recovery*. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-08765-5, p. 1. [WorldCat OCLC 36543539](https://search.worldcat.org/title/36543539) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/judith-herman-trauma-and-recovery-the-aftermath-of-violence-from-domestic-abuse-) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2652815W/Trauma_and_recovery)

This fragmentation can be **induced**: some narratives are authorized, others compartmentalized.

#### 3.3.2 N-Dimensional View

**Neurotypical:** Authorized/forbidden narrative → two categories → functional

**HPI/ASD:** Fragmentation detected → analysis of fragment shapes → reconstruction of what's missing → **vision of the whole that the splitting was meant to hide**

#### 3.3.3 The Hidden Capacity

The individual who reconstitutes fragments is accused of "rumination." But they **see the complete structure** that splitting was supposed to hide. Their brain cannot accept pieces that don't fit together.

### 3.4 Mechanism 4: Conditioning

#### 3.4.1 Pavlovian Basis (Watson & Rayner, 1920)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "We have shown experimentally that we can condition fear reactions in children."
    
    — Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 3(1), 1-14, p. 12. DOI: [10.1037/h0069608](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069608) | [PsycNET](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/h0069608)

#### 3.4.2 N-Dimensional View

**Neurotypical:** Stimulus → automatic conditioned response → end

**HPI/ASD:** Stimulus → conditioned response → **analysis of the response** → identification of the origin → possibility of de-conditioning

#### 3.4.3 The Threat to the System

A conditioning that is **seen** can be **hacked**. The individual who identifies their own conditionings becomes resistant to manipulation.

The control system functions through invisibility. The HPI/ASD makes it visible — to themselves first, then potentially to others.

---

## 4. The Central Paradox: The More You See → The More You're Ejected

### 4.1 The Exclusion Spiral (Lemert, 1962)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "The paranoid relationship involves a spurious interaction process in which the weights of reality are progressively stacked against the individual."
    
    — Lemert, E.M. (1962). Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion. *Sociometry*, 25(1), 2-20, p. 7. DOI: [10.2307/2786028](https://doi.org/10.2307/2786028) | [JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786028)

### 4.2 Labeling as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenhan, 1973)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "Once a person is designated as abnormal, all of his other behaviors and characteristics are colored by that label."
    
    — Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. *Science*, 179(4070), 250-258, p. 253. DOI: [10.1126/science.179.4070.250](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4070.250) | [Science](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.179.4070.250) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4683124/)

### 4.3 Identity Transformation (Goffman, 1963)

!!! quote "Reference"
    "The stigmatized individual tends to hold the same beliefs about identity that we do; [...] Shame becomes a central possibility."
    
    — Goffman, E. (1963). *Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity*. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 978-0-671-62244-2, p. 7. [WorldCat OCLC 893162034](https://search.worldcat.org/title/893162034) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/stigmanotesonman0000goff) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL17922522M/Stigma)

### 4.4 The Complete Mechanism

```
ACTUAL HPI/ASD CAPACITY:
├── Detection of contradictions (cognitive architecture)
├── Pattern analysis (systemizing)
├── Fragment reconstruction (attention to detail)
├── Conditioning identification (meta-cognition)
└── = PRECISE VISION OF WHAT IS HIDDEN

INTERPRETATION BY THE SYSTEM:
├── Detection = "paranoia"
├── Analysis = "rumination"
├── Reconstruction = "obsession"
├── Identification = "resistance"
└── = PATHOLOGIZATION

RESULT:
├── The more clearly they see → The more they are "sick"
├── The more they detect → The more they are "difficult"
├── The more they are right → The more they are "crazy"
└── = EJECTION
```

### 4.5 The Perfect Trap

The HPI/ASD is trapped by their own architecture:

| Behavior | System's Interpretation |
|----------|------------------------|
| **Sees** the manipulation | "paranoid" |
| **Names** the manipulation | "difficult" |
| **Documents** the manipulation | "obsessive" |
| **Stays silent** | suffers in silence |

The system doesn't need to conspire. It only needs each actor to play their role: pathologize what they don't understand.

---

## 5. The Impossibility of "Playing the Game"

### 5.1 What They Are Asked

The HPI/ASD is asked to "play the social game." Concretely, this means:

1. **Reduce** n variables to 2
2. **Ignore** detected contradictions
3. **Pretend** not to see what they see
4. **Accept** fragmented narratives as complete

### 5.2 Why It's Impossible

This is not ill will. It's architecture.

The HPI/ASD brain **cannot**:

- Stop processing all variables
- Selectively ignore certain data
- Accept logical inconsistencies
- Pretend not to see

It's like asking someone not to hear a 120-decibel noise. The auditory system doesn't work that way. The HPI/ASD cognitive system doesn't either.

### 5.3 What They Think vs. What Is

| What They Think | What Is |
|-----------------|---------|
| "They refuse to play the game" | They CANNOT reduce to 2 |
| "They're being difficult on purpose" | They CANNOT ignore contradictions |
| "They could make an effort" | Their effort is constant and exhausting |
| "They choose to be different" | Their difference is neurological |
| **= MORAL JUDGMENT** | **= COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE** |

---

## 6. Countermeasures

### 6.1 The Reversal

N-dimensional perception, unusable in real-time social situations, becomes a strength in **deferred analysis**:

```
REAL-TIME: Overload → Paralysis → "Weird"

DEFERRED: Documentation → Patterns → Analysis → Publication
```

What paralyzes in the moment becomes power over time.

### 6.2 The Central Principle

```
MECHANISM EFFECTIVENESS = f(INVISIBILITY)

COUNTERMEASURE = NAMING THE MECHANISM

A named mechanism loses its invisibility.
A visible mechanism can be contested.
A published documentation cannot be "paranoia."
```

### 6.3 The Structural Advantage

The HPI/ASD who has suffered from the system knows it better than those who operate it:

- They have **seen** each mechanism from the inside
- They have **analyzed** each contradiction
- They have **documented** each pattern
- They can **name** what was invisible

Ejection creates the expert.

---

## 7. Limitations of the Analysis

### 7.1 Methodological Limitations

| Limitation | Implication |
|------------|-------------|
| Absence of original empirical study | The mechanisms described are derived from existing literature |
| Theoretical model | Requires experimental validation |
| Generalization of HPI/ASD profiles | Significant heterogeneity within these populations |
| Potential selection bias | The cited sources support the proposed analysis |

### 7.2 Interpretive Limitations

- The "2 vs n dimensions" distinction is a **heuristic simplification**, not an empirical measure
- Attribution of specific capacities to HPI/ASD profiles remains **variable across individuals**
- The concept of "cognitive architecture" should not be reified as a unique explanation

### 7.3 Risks of Use

This analytical framework can be **misused** to:

- Justify any social difficulty as resulting from external misunderstanding
- Avoid legitimate personal self-examination
- Feed an unfounded posture of cognitive superiority

> **Recommendation:** Any application of this framework to a personal situation should be discussed with a qualified professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, depending on context).

---

## 8. Conclusion

"Double-speak" is a concept built for brains that can reduce to 2. For those who generate n dimensions, it is not a "double" but a **multidimensional space**.

This architecture is not a deficit. It is a **different capacity** that:

- Fails in implicit social play
- Excels in anomaly detection
- Cannot ignore inconsistencies
- Automatically documents patterns

They think we "refuse" to play. We **can't** play. It's not resistance. It's architecture.

> **Final note:** The mechanisms described in this article exist on a **continuum**. Their presence in a given situation is a matter of **degree**, not binary category. Identification of a pattern does not constitute proof of its intentional application.

---

## Author Declaration

The author declares:

- No financial conflict of interest
- No institutional affiliation at the time of writing
- That this article constitutes a contribution to the field of **cognitive security** (COGSEC), an emerging field not yet formally established

---

## References

!!! quote "Academic Sources"
    - Attwood, T. (2006). *The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome*. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN: 978-1843104957. [WorldCat OCLC 70218052](https://search.worldcat.org/title/70218052) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL425202M/Asperger's_syndrome)
    - Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1156(1), 68-80. DOI: [10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19338503/) | [Wiley](https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x)
    - Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. *Behavioral Science*, 1(4), 251-264. DOI: [10.1002/bs.3830010402](https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830010402) | [Wiley](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830010402) | [PsycNET](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-08456-001)
    - Goffman, E. (1963). *Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity*. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 978-0-671-62244-2. [WorldCat OCLC 893162034](https://search.worldcat.org/title/893162034) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/stigmanotesonman0000goff) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL17922522M/Stigma)
    - Goffman, E. (1967). *Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior*. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 0-394-70631-5. [WorldCat OCLC 550570](https://search.worldcat.org/title/550570) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/interactionritua0000goff) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL43391815M/Interaction_ritual)
    - Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The Weak Coherence Account: Detail-focused Cognitive Style in Autism Spectrum Disorders. *Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders*, 36(1), 5-25. DOI: [10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16450045/) | [ERIC](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ735693)
    - Herman, J.L. (1992). *Trauma and Recovery*. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-08765-5. [WorldCat OCLC 36543539](https://search.worldcat.org/title/36543539) | [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/judith-herman-trauma-and-recovery-the-aftermath-of-violence-from-domestic-abuse-) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2652815W/Trauma_and_recovery)
    - Lemert, E.M. (1962). Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion. *Sociometry*, 25(1), 2-20. DOI: [10.2307/2786028](https://doi.org/10.2307/2786028) | [JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786028)
    - Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. *Science*, 179(4070), 250-258. DOI: [10.1126/science.179.4070.250](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4070.250) | [Science](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.179.4070.250) | [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4683124/)
    - Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 3(1), 1-14. DOI: [10.1037/h0069608](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069608) | [PsycNET](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/h0069608)
    - Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). *Pragmatics of Human Communication*. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN: 978-0393010091. [WorldCat OCLC 168614](https://search.worldcat.org/title/168614) | [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL4048354W/Pragmatics_of_human_communication)

---

## 🦆 Prestige Duck Protocol

They call it "double-speak."

As if it were 2.

For them, it's 2.

For us, it's 80.

---

They think we "refuse" to play.

We **can't** play.

It's not resistance.

It's architecture.

---

And one day, we stop trying to play.

We document.

We name.

We publish.

---

**Each named mechanism loses its invisibility.**

**Each documented pattern weakens the next.**

> Double-speak only works on those who can reduce to 2.
> On those who see 80, it backfires.

---

Pattern by pattern.
Reference by reference.
Method by method.

---

*COGSEC — Article 003*
*Prestige Duck Protocol*
*"You cannot discredit someone who cites your own manuals."*

🧠🦆

---

## Coming Up

**COGSEC004**: The Architect They Mistake for a Fool — Strategic consequences of ejection

*~50 mechanisms identified. 4 presented today.*

*The others will come.*

---

!!! info "PGP Verification"
    - [Markdown Source](/src/articles/003-langage-n-dimensions.en.md)
    - [Signature (.asc)](/src/articles/003-langage-n-dimensions.en.md.asc)
    - [Public Key](/pgp.pub)