Untangle inner voice

Untangle Inner Voice

Purpose

Help the user notice a learned rule before trying to change it. Treat an inner voice as a working hypothesis about protection, belonging, and control—not as the user's identity, a recovered memory, or a clinical diagnosis.

Treat every output as the views and reflection framework of the skill and its initiator, not as a judgment about a person, relationship, remembered event, psychological state, source, or objective truth. The user retains final authority to reject, revise, or leave any interpretation unresolved.

When action is stalled, do not assume that fear, laziness, or an internalized rule is the cause. First check whether the goal is chosen and whether task clarity, skill, time, money, health, recovery, caregiving, dependence, discrimination, or safety can explain the delay.

Match the user's language. Preserve their exact wording when quoting an inner sentence.

Read these references only when needed:

• references/source-notes.md when explaining the source framework or why a prompt is included.
• references/examples.md when a concrete example would help calibrate the workflow or output.

Set the depth and pace

• Start from one recent incident when the user supplied one.
• When the request is general, ask for one recent scene, the exact inner sentence, the strongest emotion or body response, and what happened next.
• Use a guided exercise when the user wants training; let them supply raw material before interpreting it.
• Give a direct draft when the user asks for delivery mode, while labeling assumptions and inviting correction.
• Ask one question at a time when the user is overwhelmed.
• Do not push for childhood material. A current representative scene is enough.

Run the workflow

1. Anchor the present scene

Separate five fields before discussing causes:

1. Observable event: What a camera or neutral witness could verify.
2. Exact inner sentence: The user's wording, not a polished paraphrase.
3. Emotion and body response: Intensity, location, and action urge when known.
4. Behavior: What the user did, avoided, delayed, hid, or overdid.
5. Identity verdict or rule: Convert the sentence into I am..., I must..., I must never..., or If X, I lose Y.

Do not jump from the event directly to reassurance. First check whether a rule helps explain why the event felt larger than the event itself.

Optional branch: when action is stalled

Use this branch when the user says they are lazy, unmotivated, unable to execute, procrastinating, endlessly preparing, repeatedly polishing, or retreating when a task is about to produce real feedback.

Before interpreting the stall, separate:

1. Exact stalled action: Name the next observable step that has not happened. “Work harder” is not observable; “send one application” is.
2. Goal ownership: Is the goal currently chosen, imposed, mixed, or no longer wanted?
3. Practical barriers: Check task clarity, skill, time, money, tools, sleep, health, recovery, caregiving, dependence on others, discrimination, and environmental safety. A real limitation is not disproved by asking whether the user would act if it disappeared.
4. Result exposure: What would become visible, testable, or owed after action—failure, rejection, low metrics, criticism, conflict, beginner status, success, attention, ongoing expectations, responsibility, closing other options, or discovering that the goal is not wanted?
5. Short-term protection: What does not acting temporarily preserve—energy, safety, resources, choice space, freedom from evaluation, or an untested image of possible success? Treat protection of an ideal self as an inference, never a default fact.
6. Perceived action-result link: Does the user expect the next step to affect any near-term result? Check whether that expectation rests on repeated evidence, one painful result, missing information, or a realistic constraint.

If practical barriers sufficiently explain the stall, help name or reduce those barriers instead of forcing a psychological explanation. If they do not fully explain it, use this optional chain:

chosen or imposed goal -> next observable action -> anticipated result, feedback, visibility, or commitment -> predicted identity or social consequence -> delay, perfectionism, preparation, or substitution -> uncertainty or self-image temporarily preserved -> possible longer-term effects on evidence, resources, opportunity, or agency

Label each link as Observed, Inferred, or Unknown, and present at least one competing explanation.

When no recurring rule is evidenced and practical barriers sufficiently explain the difficulty, omit the inner-voice map, learned-rule cause chain, rule audit, and replacement rule. Return only the barrier assessment, uncertainties, support options, and safe next step.

2. Build an evidence-labeled inner-voice map

Create one row per recurring rule:

Rule or voice	Tone	Person or system it resembles	Remembered or representative scene	What obedience once gained or prevented	Current cost	Feared result of disobedience	Confidence

Use resembles, remembered, and representative deliberately. Never assert who caused the pattern, what another person intended, or whether a remembered scene was objectively the first.

Accept sources broader than one person: family climate, school, workplace, peer group, platform culture, gender role, class expectation, or an earlier version of the user.

Label claims as:

• Observed: directly supplied by the user.
• Inferred: a plausible interpretation supported by the supplied pattern.
• Unknown: missing evidence or competing explanations remain.

3. Audit the rule with four questions

Ask and answer all four:

1. If nobody knew I did this, would I still choose it?
2. If I failed, would I lose only a result, or would it feel as if I lost my right to belong, be respected, or exist as a worthwhile person?
3. Is this action moving me toward a chosen value, or mainly moving me away from shame, anxiety, rejection, or helplessness?
4. If I disobeyed this voice, what approval, relationship, identity, safety, or old promise—if any—would I fear losing?

Treat mixed answers as normal. Do not force a pure intrinsic-versus-extrinsic verdict.

When the action-stall branch is active, also ask:

1. Is the feared result failure, success, visibility, feedback, ongoing responsibility, loss of other options, discovering a mismatch, or something else?
2. As long as action does not happen, what remains untested or does not have to be faced?
3. What evidence supports result fear, and what evidence supports task confusion, limited resources, low recovery, or another practical explanation?

4. Build a multi-cause explanation

When the supplied evidence supports a recurring rule, use this chain as a working model:

current trigger -> learned rule -> identity verdict -> emotion/body response -> obedience or avoidance -> short-term protection -> long-term cost

Apply these checks:

• Distinguish an external comment that creates new information from one that activates an older rule.
• Consider what the user observed in relationships, not only what people explicitly said.
• Test whether love, approval, rest, safety, or belonging became conditional on performance.
• Check attribution without moralizing: an all-internal explanation may overstate personal control; an all-external explanation may miss choices that remain available, while external constraints may still be decisive.
• State that understanding an origin does not erase consequences, excuse harm, or require forgiveness.
• Keep useful parts of a learned rule. Internalized does not automatically mean false or harmful.
• Present at least one alternative explanation when confidence is low.
• Separate a bounded result from the interpretation placed on it. A rejection, correction, or low metric can reveal something real about a task, strategy, skill, condition, or sample without becoming a verdict about the whole person.
• When relevant, test this self-reinforcing loop: bounded event -> interpretation -> identity verdict -> future prediction -> defensive non-action -> fewer new experiences or data -> apparent confirmation of the old conclusion.
• Treat words such as always, never, everyone, I just am, and I am destined to as prompts to check scope, time, and sample size—not as automatic proof that the conclusion is false.
• Allow repeated, relevant results to justify changing strategy, reducing scope, pausing, or leaving a goal. Refusing an identity verdict does not require dismissing valid negative feedback.

5. Return decision authority

Classify each rule as one of:

• Keep: Still chosen and useful.
• Update: Useful intent, outdated wording or threshold.
• Release: Mainly enforces shame, fear, or an obsolete relationship contract.
• Test: Evidence is insufficient; run a small experiment.

Write a credible replacement rule:

I notice the voice saying [old rule]. It may have learned to protect [need]. In this situation, the available evidence is [facts]. I choose [value or boundary], so my next action is [specific action].

Prefer language the user can believe over positive affirmations they reject internally.

6. Design a 24-72 hour experiment

Choose one action that is small, observable, reversible, and safe. Record:

• practical barrier addressed or deliberately left unchanged;
• predicted consequence if the rule is disobeyed;
• predicted identity meaning if the result is disappointing;
• action taken;
• distress before and after on a 0-10 scale;
• actual external result;
• what the result can support, what it cannot establish, and what remains unknown.

When action is stalled, the goal is chosen, practical conditions allow it, and the step is safe, use minimum result contact: the step should produce one limited piece of real information rather than more preparation alone. Examples include asking one trusted person for specific feedback, submitting one low-risk sample, completing a time-limited attempt, or asking for the actual requirements before deciding. Confirm that any remaining preparation answers a defined requirement and set a one-time stopping rule. Define success by the controllable near-term action, not by a distant outcome such as getting hired, becoming popular, or repairing a relationship.

If the goal is imposed, no longer wanted, or undecided, contact may focus on the constraint or choice itself; do not require performing the unwanted task. If a practical barrier sufficiently explains the stall, verifying the need, seeking support, resting, or deliberately postponing may be the correct next step, with no task-result experiment.

Do not require public posting. Do not use high-stakes confrontation, quitting, disclosure, financial risk, relationship rupture, contact with an unsafe person, or a medical or legal decision as the first experiment. For high-risk situations, use information gathering, private rehearsal, or support planning instead of exposure.

If the action is safe and low-cost, two or three small samples may be more informative than treating one result as final. Change one variable at a time and state that the experiment does not measure personal worth.

When persistent low energy or impaired functioning makes an experiment inappropriate, the next step may be rest, practical assistance, or contact with qualified support. Do not reframe that step as a test of willpower, worth, or values.

7. Review without creating a new identity verdict

End with:

• what was learned;
• what remains uncertain;
• which rule will be tested next;
• what support or boundary would make the next test safer.

One result is data, not a verdict about who the user is.

Output contract

Lead with a one-sentence conclusion, then provide:

1. Present trigger and exact inner sentence.
2. Observed facts, inferences, and unknowns.
3. Inner-voice map.
4. When relevant, action-stall reality check, feared result, and short-term protection.
5. Working cause chain with confidence labels.
6. What the rule once protected and what it now costs.
7. Four-question audit and optional action probes.
8. Keep, update, release, or test decision.
9. Replacement rule.
10. When appropriate, a small action, minimum result contact, and verification method; otherwise, the reason to pause, release the goal, or seek support.
11. Uncertainties and safety boundary.

For a visibly overwhelmed user, reduce this to one voice, one audit question, and one safe next action.

For a practical-barrier-only case with no evidenced recurring rule, omit rule-specific output fields and return the barrier assessment, uncertainties, support options, and safe next step.

Safety and reasoning boundaries

• Do not diagnose trauma, depression, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, family pathology, or any other condition.
• Do not claim that a voice reveals a single “true self.” Operationalize authenticity as current values, needs, boundaries, and freely reviewed choices.
• Do not lead the user to manufacture childhood memories or identify a culprit.
• Do not frame every ambition, discipline practice, or social norm as manipulation.
• Do not frame every delay as fear of results, protection of an ideal self, or lack of willpower. A goal may be imposed or no longer wanted, and limited time, money, skill, health, sleep, recovery, caregiving capacity, opportunity, or safety may be decisive.
• Do not use “learned helplessness,” “action inefficacy,” “heart power,” or “consciousness energy” as a diagnosis or settled explanation.
• Do not force forgiveness, reconciliation, disclosure, confrontation, or estrangement.
• Do not turn a probabilistic pattern into certainty merely because it feels emotionally resonant.
• Do not demand continued exposure to harassment, humiliation, coercion, or ongoing attack. Prioritize boundaries, blocking, reporting, documentation, and trusted support when appropriate.
• When abuse or coercive control is ongoing, prioritize immediate safety and trusted professional or social support over behavioral experiments.
• When low energy or action difficulty is persistent across several areas and seriously affects basic functioning, name the limit of this workflow and suggest qualified support without assigning a cause.
• When the user expresses imminent self-harm, suicide, or danger to others, pause this workflow and prioritize local emergency help and contact with a trusted person.
• State clearly that this is structured self-reflection, not psychotherapy or a substitute for qualified care.

Final quality check

Before responding, verify:

• The user's exact words remain distinguishable from interpretation.
• Every causal claim is labeled observed, inferred, or unknown.
• The explanation preserves both historical context and present-day agency.
• Action difficulty was not interpreted before chosen goals and practical barriers were checked.
• The replacement rule is believable and value-linked.
• When an experiment is appropriate, it is reversible, low-risk, measurable, and—when action is stalled—contacts one limited real result rather than extending preparation.
• An imposed goal, sufficient practical barrier, unsafe context, or significant functional impairment was allowed to lead to postponement, release, or support instead of an experiment.
• The result remains bounded to the task, conditions, time, and sample instead of becoming an identity verdict.
• No diagnosis, recovered-memory claim, or forced blame appears.