Note

Draft status: MMv2-SocPsy (2026m04d05). This is the psychological and social science presentation of the e7Day model, written for psychologists, social scientists, and behavioral researchers. Companion papers: b12-math (formal derivations), b12-theophil (theological context), b12-syseng (engineering applications), b12-intro (general readers). Draft by Claude Opus 4.6 (dv_ClaOp46_MMv2_2026m04d05).

The e7Day Model: Self-Assessment, Compassion Capacity, and the Psychology of Self-Correction#

Study a2-SocPsy in the HEAVEN series

Honestly Examining Axioms — Vetting Every Narrative

Abstract #

Why do individuals, organizations, and civilizations repeat the same self-destructive patterns? Why is honest self-assessment so difficult? Why does helping often fail, and why do heroes become villains?

This paper presents the e7Day model’s answers to these questions, drawn from a formal axiom system of 21 axioms and 9 theorems. The model identifies a self-assessment bifurcation at the heart of human behavior: when a person or group assesses itself as adequate (OK), self-correction stops and a self-reinforcing trap (BABL) is entered. When the assessment is adequate-but-incomplete (OKO), self-correction can continue — but requires perpetual effort.

The framework connects to established psychological theories at multiple points: Erikson’s 8 psychosocial stages [Erikson, 1950] share the model’s 8-stage structure with binary outcomes at each stage; Maslow’s hierarchy [Maslow, 1943] shares the cascading dependency; Kohlberg’s moral development [Kohlberg, 1971] parallels the transition from rule-following to general reasoning; Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy [Bloom et al., 1956] parallels the cascade from knowledge to evaluation; and Tuckman’s group stages [Tuckman, 1965] independently exhibit the same OKO tension at the “storming” phase.

The Compassion Capacity Theorem (th7) provides a five-gate model of why helping fails: even well-intentioned, experienced, aware helpers can fail if the communication channel is noisy (Gate 4) or if the helper has stopped growing (Gate 5). The “supervillain theorem” — a sub-result of Gate 5 — formalizes why former heroes become the most dangerous agents: high influence from past success combined with frozen expertise produces maximally harmful “friendly fire.”

1. Introduction: The Self-Assessment Paradox #

The Dunning-Kruger effect is well-established: individuals with low competence tend to overestimate their ability, while those with high competence tend to underestimate it. But the e7Day model proposes something stronger and more structural: the problem is not that incompetent people overestimate themselves. The problem is that any self-assessment of adequacy — regardless of actual competence — stops the self-correction process.

Consider:

An incompetent person who says “I’m fine” stops learning because they see no need to learn.
A competent person who says “I’m fine” stops adapting because they see no need to adapt.
An expert who says “I’ve mastered this” stops listening because they see no need to listen.

In each case, the mechanism is identical: the self-assessment of adequacy (OK) precludes the feedback loop required for error detection. The actual competence level is irrelevant. What matters is whether the agent’s self-model is open (OKO: “I am adequate but incomplete, and I must keep checking”) or closed (OK: “I am adequate, and no further checking is needed”).

The e7Day model formalizes this mechanism within a broader framework of system construction. The self-assessment bifurcation (m6.ax4) is one axiom in a system of 21, but it may be the most consequential for psychology: it predicts that self-destructive behavior originates not in external circumstances but in internal self-assessment.

1.1 The Model in Brief #

The e7Day model defines 8 construction stages (VOID through TRUST), each building on all prior stages. For psychologists, the stages map to developmental dimensions:

Stage	Name	Psychological Dimension
m0	VOID	Pre-differentiation. No categories, no self-other distinction.
m1	TYPE	First distinction: self vs. not-self. Scope of identity.
m2	EQUAL	The tension between uniqueness (indivisible individual) and fungibility (interchangeable role). Every person faces this: “Am I irreplaceable, or am I a role that anyone could fill?” Verdict: OKO. The tension is permanent.
m3	VALUE	Unconditional vs. conditional knowledge. What do I know for certain? What depends on context?
m4	LOGIC	Directed activity vs. reflective guidance. Conscious processing vs. unconscious pattern-matching.
m5	CARE	Self-managing, other-caring behavior. When noise overwhelms the caring channel, compassion collapses.
m6	HOPE	Self-assessment and agency. The OK/OKO bifurcation.
m7	TRUST	Consolidation, rest, integration. Without periodic rest, accumulated errors drive the person toward BABL.

1.2 Connections to Existing Theories #

The e7Day model was developed independently of the psychological literature, making the convergences non-trivial:

Erikson [Erikson, 1950]: 8 stages, binary outcomes, cascading dependency
Maslow [Maslow, 1943]: hierarchy of needs as cascading dependency
Kohlberg [Kohlberg, 1971]: moral development as rule-following to principle-based reasoning
Bloom [Bloom et al., 1956]: cognitive objectives from knowledge to evaluation
Tuckman [Tuckman, 1965]: group development with OKO at “storming”

Each of these is examined in detail in the sections that follow.

2. The Erikson Parallel: Eight Stages with Binary Outcomes #

Erikson’s 8 psychosocial stages [Erikson, 1950] share three structural features with e7Day:

Eight stages (the same count as e7Day’s m0–m7)
Binary outcomes at each stage (positive vs. negative resolution, paralleling OK/OKO/KO)
Cascading dependency (“the results from each stage, whether positive or negative, influence the results of succeeding stages” — Erikson’s own words match mc.ax4 precisely)

The most compelling specific mappings:

2.1 Stage 7: Generativity vs. Stagnation = Gate 5 #

Erikson’s Stage 7 (middle adulthood) presents the crisis of generativity vs. stagnation: the individual either continues contributing to the next generation (generativity) or becomes self-absorbed and stagnant.

This maps precisely to Gate 5 of the Compassion Capacity theorem (th7): an agent who stops expanding their scope of concern stagnates, and the resulting frozen expertise generates “friendly fire” at the boundaries of what they no longer understand. Erikson’s “stagnation” IS Gate 5 failure: the hero who stops cycling.

The parallel extends to the consequences: Erikson describes stagnation as producing self-absorbed rigidity. The e7Day supervillain theorem (Section 5.3 below) describes the same outcome in structural terms: high causal influence + frozen scope = maximally dangerous agent.

2.2 Stage 8: Integrity vs. Despair = BABL/ZION #

Erikson’s Stage 8 (late adulthood) presents the crisis of integrity vs. despair: the individual either achieves a coherent sense of life meaning (integrity) or falls into regret and bitterness (despair).

This maps to the BABL/ZION bifurcation. Integrity is the OKO resolution: “my life was imperfect but meaningful, and the imperfections were learning, not failure.” Despair is the OK resolution that failed: “I was supposed to be adequate, and I was not.” The person who expected OK and found OKO experiences despair; the person who expected OKO and found OKO experiences integrity.

2.3 Stage 1: Trust vs. Mistrust — Reversed Position #

A notable difference: Erikson places Trust at Stage 1 (infancy); e7Day places TRUST at Stage 7 (the final stage). This reversal reflects the difference between individual development (trust is learned first, in infancy, through the caregiver relationship) and system construction (trust is the final stage, the consolidation that caps the construction). Both are correct for their respective domains: the child must trust before it can develop; the system must be complete before it can rest.

3. The Maslow Parallel: Cascading Dependency #

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [Maslow, 1943] is the most widely recognized cascading-dependency model in psychology. The structural parallel to the WoLC is direct:

Maslow Level	WoLC Stage	Correspondence
Physiological	BASE/LIFE	Physical survival as foundational prerequisite
Safety	TYPE (m1)	Defining what is safe (in-scope) vs. unsafe (out-of-scope)
Love/Belonging	CARE (m5)	Caring relationships, social bonds
Esteem	HOPE (m6)	Self-assessment, self-worth, recognition by others
Self-actualization	ZION cycle	Perpetual growth and realization of potential
Self-transcendence	th7 Gate 5	Perpetual scope-expansion beyond the self (added 1969)

Maslow’s later addition of self-transcendence (1969) strengthens the parallel: the need to grow beyond one’s current scope, perpetually, is precisely Gate 5 of the Compassion Capacity theorem. An agent that self-actualizes (reaches the top of the personal hierarchy) but does not self-transcend (expand scope beyond the self) becomes stagnant — Erikson’s Stage 7 failure, Gate 5 failure, the supervillain theorem.

4. The Self-Assessment Bifurcation #

4.1 The Formal Structure #

The e7Day model’s axiom m6.ax4 states:

OK self-assessment → BABL (sufficient; self-reinforcing)
ZION → OKO self-assessment (necessary; not sufficient)

In psychological terms: any person or group that declares “I am adequate / we are adequate” stops the self-correction feedback loop. The declaration does not need to be explicit; it can be implicit in behavior (not seeking feedback, not questioning assumptions, not testing one’s own conclusions).

4.2 Connection to Dunning-Kruger and Cognitive Dissonance #

Dunning-Kruger describes a specific instance of the OK/OKO mechanism: low-competence individuals lack the metacognitive skill to detect their own incompetence, producing OK self-assessment by default. The e7Day model generalizes this: any self-assessment of OK, at any competence level, produces the same structural consequence (BABL). Dunning-Kruger is the low-competence special case; the expert who stops learning is the high-competence special case. The mechanism is identical.

Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) describes the discomfort of holding conflicting beliefs. In the e7Day framework, OKO self-assessment IS a state of productive cognitive dissonance: “I am adequate AND incomplete.” The discomfort is not a bug; it is the driver of self-correction. Agents who resolve the dissonance by dropping the “incomplete” part (returning to OK) enter BABL. Agents who sustain the dissonance (maintaining OKO) remain in the ZION prerequisite.

The cost asymmetry is existentially significant:

False OK (claiming adequacy when inadequate): catastrophic, self-concealing. The agent cannot detect the error because the error disables error-detection.
False NOT-OK (claiming inadequacy when adequate): harmless, self-correcting. The agent continues checking and eventually discovers its actual competence.

This asymmetry explains why humility is a better default than confidence: the worst case of humility (unnecessary effort) is self-correcting, while the worst case of confidence (undetected incompetence) is self-concealing.

For the formal derivation, see b12-math, Sections 2.8 and 3.2 (th3).

4.3 The BABL Trap in Group Dynamics #

The self-assessment bifurcation applies to groups as well as individuals. A group that develops a collective identity of adequacy (“we are the best team,” “our culture is superior,” “our methodology is correct”) enters collective BABL:

Groupthink (Janis, 1972) is collective OK self-assessment: the group’s self-image suppresses dissent, creating an illusion of unanimity.
Institutional capture is organizational BABL: the institution’s processes become optimized for self-perpetuation rather than for the mission they were designed to serve.
Cultural narcissism is civilizational BABL: a civilization’s self-image prevents it from recognizing the conditions under which it will fail.

In each case, the mechanism is the same: OK self-assessment → no self-correction → OSCR collapse (over-simplify, over-complicate, over-reach).

5. The Compassion Capacity Theorem #

Theorem th7 is the most practically consequential result for psychology and social work. It formalizes why helping often fails and what structural conditions must be met for compassionate assistance to be effective.

5.1 Gate 1: You Can Only Help with What You Have Survived #

An agent without repair-history for a given fault class cannot provide informed assistance for that fault class. OKO self-assessment generates repair-history (because the agent acknowledges faults and repairs them). OK self-assessment does not (because the agent denies faults exist).

Psychological implication: Therapists, counselors, mentors, and support workers are more effective in domains where they have personal experience of difficulty and recovery. Not because suffering is inherently ennobling, but because repair-history provides the repair procedure. An agent who has never navigated depression cannot provide informed guidance for navigating depression — they can only provide generic advice, which optimizes for the wrong objective (Gate 3).

5.2 Gate 2: Your Compassion Has Boundaries #

At any given time, a finite agent’s compassion scope is bounded by their repair-history, which is a proper subset of all possible problems. This creates in-group/out-group boundaries wherever experiential data runs out.

Psychological implication: Compassion fatigue is not a moral failure; it is a scope limitation. A social worker who specializes in addiction has limited scope for helping with grief, and vice versa. Acknowledging scope boundaries is not weakness; it is structural honesty (OKO).

The PERFECT/PERFIDE tension manifests here: do you prioritize depth within your existing scope (PERFECT — serve fewer people better) or breadth across more fault classes (PERFIDE — serve more people less deeply)? The trade-off is permanent.

5.3 Gate 5: The Supervillain Theorem #

Gate 5 is the most psychologically striking result:

An agent who stops expanding their compassion scope becomes, eventually, a supervillain.

The mechanism:

The agent achieves significant influence through past cycles of growth (the “hero” phase).
The agent stops cycling (stops learning, stops listening, stops engaging with novel contexts).
Their scope freezes at the level it was when cycling stopped.
Novel situations arise outside the frozen scope.
The agent applies their large influence (from prior success) to situations they no longer understand.
The result is “friendly fire” — confidently wrong intervention at the boundaries of frozen expertise.

Psychological examples:

The activist who fought for justice in one context and now applies the same tactics to a different context where they are counterproductive.
The parent who raised one child successfully and insists the same approach works for a child with fundamentally different needs.
The leader who built a company and cannot adapt when the market shifts because “I know how to do this.”
The therapist who mastered one modality and dismisses all others.

In each case, the agent is not malicious. They are frozen — still operating from a once-valid but now-outdated map. The combination of high influence (from past success) and outdated scope (from stopped cycling) makes them maximally dangerous precisely because their track record gives them credibility.

The dictator pattern: Dictators often gain power as heroes — individuals who genuinely solved a crisis. The transition from hero to tyrant is Gate 5 failure: the hero stops listening (stops cycling), their scope freezes, and their accumulated power becomes a weapon against the people it was meant to serve.

The ASON trap: “Nothing” is ambiguous. An agent who believes they have fully understood “nothing” — fully understood humility, fully understood beginner’s mind — has fallen into ASON (Ambiguous Semantics Of Nothing). The only way to navigate ASON is perpetual openness to not-knowing: “I know that I know not” (Socrates), “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt. 5:3).

5.4 The Eternal-Life Corollary #

If the conditions requiring the Hero Journey (the perpetual growth cycle from e7He, paper a3 forthcoming) persist indefinitely, then the only viable model of long-term flourishing is perpetual cycling — perpetual growth, perpetual learning, perpetual expansion of scope.

“Arrived” — whether conceived as retirement, enlightenment, or salvation — is formally indistinguishable from deadlock. Any conception of flourishing that terminates at a fixed state violates Gate 5 and, by the supervillain theorem, eventually produces harm.

This has implications for:

Retirement: A model of retirement as “arrival” (no more growth needed) predicts Erikson’s Stage 8 despair. A model of retirement as “new cycling” (growth in new domains) predicts integrity.
Therapy endpoints: “Cured” (OK) vs. “managing well” (OKO). The OKO model predicts better long-term outcomes because it maintains the self-correction feedback loop.
Educational goals: “Mastery” (OK) vs. “expertise-in-development” (OKO). Bloom’s revised taxonomy [Bloom et al., 1956] places “Create” (perpetual generation of novelty) above “Evaluate” (judgment) — consistent with Gate 5’s requirement for perpetual expansion.

6. The Kohlberg and Bloom Parallels #

6.1 Kohlberg: From Rule-Following to General Reasoning #

Kohlberg’s three levels [Kohlberg, 1971] map to the WoLC’s middle stages:

Pre-conventional (punishment/reward) → VALUE (m3): operating on given values without questioning them
Conventional (conformity/law-and-order) → LOGIC (m4): following rules and processes
Post-conventional (universal principles) → HOPE (m6): reasoning from principles beyond any specific rule set — general moral intelligence

The transition from conventional to post-conventional morality is the transition from special-purpose rule-following (m4, LOGIC) to general-purpose reasoning (m6, HOPE). Kohlberg’s highest stage (universal ethical principles) requires exactly the kind of general intelligence that Balospe (m6.ax2) provides: the ability to navigate novel PERFECT/PERFIDE trade-offs that no existing rule covers.

6.2 Bloom: The Cognitive Cascade #

Bloom’s original taxonomy [Bloom et al., 1956] (Knowledge → Comprehension → Application → Analysis → Synthesis → Evaluation) is a 6-level cognitive cascade where each level builds on prior levels.

The most significant mapping: Evaluation at the top parallels HOPE (m6) as the self-assessment stage. The 2001 revision placed Create above Evaluate — paralleling TRUST (m7) as the stage where new construction cycles begin (the 6+1 periodicity: after evaluation, create anew).

7. The Tuckman Parallel: Storming = EQUAL #

Tuckman’s group development stages [Tuckman, 1965] provide the most precise single-stage mapping found in this research:

Storming is EQUAL (m2). During the storming phase, the team has been formed (scope defined, Stage 1) but now conflicts over fundamental trade-offs: roles, responsibilities, approaches, priorities. There is no consensus. The tension is inherent, not caused by bad behavior.

Critically: Storming has no “it was good” verdict. Groups do not celebrate the storming phase. They endure it. This parallels Genesis 1’s missing verdict for Day 2 and e7Day’s OKO verdict for EQUAL.

Groups that skip storming (pretend everyone agrees) enter collective BABL: the unresolved tensions persist beneath the surface and eventually erupt as OSCR collapse.

The engineering parallel (Tuckman’s “adjourning” = TRUST’s rest) is developed in the companion paper b12-syseng, Section 2.8.

8. Discussion and Future Work #

The EQUAL tension in relationships. The PERFECT/PERFIDE dichotomy manifests in every close relationship: do you preserve the other person’s uniqueness (PERFECT: accept them as they are) or optimize for compatibility (PERFIDE: expect them to adapt)? The model predicts that no stable resolution exists — only perpetual negotiation (OKO).

The Hero Journey as therapeutic model. The e7He model (paper a3, forthcoming) applies the e7Day architecture to individual growth. Gate 5 of the Compassion Capacity theorem predicts that perpetual Hero Journey cycling is necessary for sustained well-being — a testable hypothesis against longitudinal data on life satisfaction.

Compassion Capacity as clinical tool. The five-gate model could be operationalized as an assessment instrument: for any proposed intervention, check whether all five gates are satisfied. If not, identify which gate is failing and address it before proceeding.

9. Conclusion #

The e7Day model offers psychology and social science a structural account of self-correction failure. The central finding — that self-destructive behavior originates in self-assessment, not in external circumstances — connects to Dunning-Kruger, cognitive dissonance, groupthink, and the hero-to-tyrant transition.

The Compassion Capacity theorem provides a five-gate model for why helping fails. The gates are testable: repair-history (Gate 1), scope boundaries (Gate 2), other-awareness (Gate 3), channel quality (Gate 4), and perpetual scope-expansion (Gate 5). The supervillain theorem — heroes who stop growing become the most dangerous agents — is a structural prediction about influence decay that could be tested against biographical and historical data.

The convergence with Erikson (8 stages, binary outcomes), Maslow (cascading dependency), Kohlberg (rule-following to general reasoning), Bloom (cognitive cascade with evaluation at top), and Tuckman (OKO at storming) suggests that these independent theories are windows into the same underlying structure.

The system is designed to be tested against psychological data.

#AuditTheMath

Appendix: Authorship Contributions #

Same as b12-math, Appendix B. See that paper for the full statement.

References #

[al-Ghazali, n.d.]

al-Ghazali, A. H. (n.d.). The Niche of Lights (Mishkat al-Anwar).

[Aquinas, n.d.]

Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Summa Theologica, Part I, Questions 3–11.

[Asch, 1956]

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718, doi:10.1037/h0093718

[Ashby, 1956]

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

[Beddington et al., 2008]

Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., … Thomas, S. M. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057–1060. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/4551057a, doi:10.1038/4551057a

[Benci & DiNasso, 2003]

Benci, V., & Di Nasso, M. (2003). Numerosities of labelled sets: a new way of counting. Advances in Mathematics, 173(1), 50–67. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9, doi:10.1016/s0001-8708(02)00012-9

[Bernal, 1929]

Bernal, J. D. (1929). The World, the Flesh and the Devil: An Enquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

[Beyer et al., 2016]

Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (2016). Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

[Bezos, 2019]

Bezos, J. (2019). Going to Space to Benefit Earth.

[Bloom et al., 1956] (1,2,3,4)

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.

[Brower, 2008]

Brower, J. E. (2008). Making sense of divine simplicity. Faith and Philosophy, 25(1), 3–30. URL: https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20082511, doi:10.5840/faithphil20082511

[Caplan et al., 2020]

Caplan, Y., Stewart, N., Smittenaar, P., & Sgaier, S. K. (2020). Fighting COVID-19's disproportionate impact on black communities with more precise data. Stanford Social Innovation Review. URL: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fighting_covid-19s_disproportionate_impact_on_black_communities_with_more_precise_data

[Clayton & Peacocke, 2004]

Clayton, P., & Peacocke, A. (Eds.) (2004). In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[Cooper, 2006]

Cooper, J. W. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers — From Plato to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

[Davis, 1983]

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

[Ehlert & Loewe, 2014]

Ehlert, K., & Loewe, L. (2014). Lazy updating of hubs can enable more realistic models by speeding up stochastic simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(20), 204109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901114, doi:10.1063/1.4901114

[Ericsson et al., 1993]

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

[Erikson, 1950] (1,2,3)

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton.

[Ferguson et al., 2020]

Ferguson, N. M., Laydon, D., Nedjati-Gilani, G., Imai, N., Ainslie, K., Baguelin, M., … Ghani, A. C. (2020). Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team.

[Festinger, 1957]

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[Giordano et al., 2020]

Giordano, G., Blanchini, F., Bruno, R., Colaneri, P., Di Filippo, A., Di Matteo, A., & Colaneri, M. (2020). Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy. Nature Medicine, 26(6), 855–860. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7, doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7

[Gould & Wilson, 2020]

Gould, E., & Wilson, V. (2020). Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus—Racism and Economic Inequality.

[Godel, 1931]

Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692, doi:10.1007/BF01700692

[Godel, 1970]

Gödel, K. (1970). Ontological Proof.

[Hare, 2017]

Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the Friendliest: Homo sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 155–186. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201, doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201

[Hare & Woods, 2020]

Hare, B., & Woods, V. (2020). Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity. New York: Random House.

[Hartshorne, 1941]

Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago/New York: Willett, Clark & Company.

[Hartshorne, 1948]

Hartshorne, C. (1948). The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[Hegel, 1812]

missing publisher in Hegel1812

[Heschel, 1951]

Heschel, A. J. (1951). The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.

[Hick, 1966]

Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan.

[Hindmarsh et al., 2005]

Hindmarsh, A. C., Brown, P. N., Grant, K. E., Lee, S. L., Serban, R., Shumaker, D. E., & Woodward, C. S. (2005). SUNDIALS: suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 31(3), 363–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1089014.1089020, doi:10.1145/1089014.1089020

[Jack & Dill, 1992]

Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self scale: schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1), 97–106. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x, doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x

[Janis, 1972]

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

[Kermack & McKendrick, 1927]

Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 115(772), 700–721. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1927.0118, doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0118

[Kissler et al., 2020]

Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H., & Lipsitch, M. (2020). Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science, 368(6493), 860–868. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793, doi:10.1126/science.abb5793

[Kitcher, 1981]

Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531. URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/289019, doi:10.1086/289019

[Kohlberg, 1971] (1,2,3)

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Beck, C. M., Crittenden, B. S., & Sullivan, E. V. (Eds.). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Moral Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 23–92). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

[Kripke, 1963]

Kripke, S. A. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94. URL: http://saulkripkecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Semantical-Considerations-on-Modal-Logic-PUBLIC.pdf

[Kruger & Dunning, 1999]

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

[Kruglanski & Webster, 1996]

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263, doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263

[Lawvere, 1973]

Lawvere, F. W. (1973). Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico e Fisico di Milano, 43, 135–166. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02924844, doi:10.1007/BF02924844

[Leibniz, 1710]

missing publisher in Leibniz1710

[Leveson, 2011]

Leveson, N. G. (2011). Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[Levin et al., 2012]

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0, doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0

[Loewe, 2006]

Loewe, L. (2006). Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetical Research, 87(2), 133–159. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672306008123, doi:10.1017/S0016672306008123

[Loewe & EvoSysBio Group at UW-Madison, 2015--2026]

Loewe, L., & EvoSysBio Group at UW-Madison (2015–2026). Prototype Evolvix: A Domain-Specific Language and Compiler to Simplify Accurate Mass-Action Modeling in Biology — Simulating Systems where Parts randomly meet to trigger Actions at defined Rates.

[Loewe, 2026a]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Axioms — Discussions and Caveats.

[Loewe, 2026b]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Axioms ax1–ax14: Formal Panentheism.

[Loewe, 2026c]

Loewe, L. (LLoL) (2026). PET Theorems th1–th4.

[Lucanus, n.d.]

Lucanus, M. A. (n.d.). Pharsalia (De Bello Civili), Book I, line 81.

[Luhmann, 1995]

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[Mallet, 2012]

Mallet, J. (2012). The struggle for existence: how the notion of carrying capacity, k, obscures the links between demography, Darwinian evolution, and speciation. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 14, 627–665. URL: https://mallet.oeb.harvard.edu/files/malletlab/files/mallet_the_struggle_2012_kindle.pdf

[Marcia, 1966]

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281, doi:10.1037/h0023281

[Martin-Lof, 1984]

Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic Type Theory. Naples: Bibliopolis.

[Maslow, 1943] (1,2,3)

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346, doi:10.1037/h0054346

[McCollum et al., 2006]

McCollum, J. M., Peterson, G. D., Cox, C. D., Simpson, M. L., & Samatova, N. F. (2006). The sorting direct method for stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with varying reaction execution behavior. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 30(1), 39–49. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007, doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2005.10.007

[Meadows, 2008]

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Wright, D. (Ed.). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

[Meyerowitz-Katz & Merone, 2020]

Meyerowitz-Katz, G., & Merone, L. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 101, 138–148. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464

[Moltmann, 1981]

Moltmann, J. (1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

[Mosley et al., 2025]

Mosley, T. J., Zajdel, R. A., Alderete, E., Clayton, J. A., Heidari, S., Pérez-Stable, E. J., … Bernard, M. A. (2025). Intersectionality and diversity, equity, and inclusion in the healthcare and scientific workforces. Lancet Regional Health — Americas, 41, 100973. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973, doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100973

[Mullins, 2013]

Mullins, R. T. (2013). Simply impossible: a case against divine simplicity. Journal of Reformed Theology, 7(2), 181–203. URL: https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-12341294, doi:10.1163/15697312-12341294

[Hippo, n.d.a]

of Hippo, A. (n.d.). City of God (De Civitate Dei), Books XI–XII.

[Hippo, n.d.b]

of Hippo, A. (n.d.). Confessions, Book VII.

[Oppy, 2006]

Oppy, G. (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Ottati et al., 2015]

Ottati, V., Price, E., Wilson, C., & Sumaktoyo, N. (2015). When self-perceptions of expertise increase closed-minded cognition: the earned dogmatism effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 131–138. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003

[Perrow, 1984]

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

[Plantinga, 1974a]

Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. New York: Harper & Row.

[Plantinga, 1974b]

Plantinga, A. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Rittel & Webber, 1973]

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730, doi:10.1007/BF01405730

[Schelling, 1960]

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Senge, 1990]

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

[Shannon, 1948]

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3 & 4), 379–423, 623–656. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x, doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

[Simons, 1987]

Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Sobel, 2004]

Sobel, J. H. (2004). Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Stutt et al., 2020]

Stutt, R. O. J. H., Retkute, R., Bradley, M., Gilligan, C. A., & Colvin, J. (2020). A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with `lock-down' in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2238), 20200376. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376, doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

[Talic et al., 2021]

Talic, S., Shah, S., Wild, H., Gasevic, D., Maharaj, A., Ademi, Z., … Ilic, D. (2021). Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 375, e068302. URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068302, doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-068302

[Tay & Diener, 2011]

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779, doi:10.1037/a0023779

[Tetlock, 2005]

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[Tuckman, 1965] (1,2,3)

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100, doi:10.1037/h0022100

[Varzi, 2016]

Varzi, A. C. (2016). Mereology.

[Wasserman et al., 2020]

Wasserman, D., van der Gaag, R., & Wise, J. (2020). The term “physical distancing” is recommended rather than “social distancing” during the COVID-19 pandemic for reducing feelings of rejection among people with mental health problems. European Psychiatry, 63(1), e52. URL: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60, doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60

[Whitehead, 1929]

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: Macmillan.

[Wilde, 2018]

Wilde, R. (2018). Joseph Stalin's Death—He Did Not Escape the Consequences of His Actions.

[Wink, 1984]

Wink, W. (1984). Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

[Wintour, 2020]

Wintour, P. (2020). Covid-19 Will Devastate Poorest Nations if West Does Not Act, Warns UN: G20 Told to “Step Up Now or Pay Price Later”.

[Wurth et al., 2020]

Wurth, R. C., Braxton, M. L., & Cohen, C. L. (2020). Racism and Covid-19 Threaten Our Health—We Can't Fight Them as Separate Battles.

[Balospecom, 2026]

Balospe.com (2026). Formal Foundation Test for the e7Day Axiom System.

[Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000]

Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

[Gregory of Nyssa, n.d.]

Gregory of Nyssa (n.d.). Life of Moses (De Vita Moysis).

[John of Ephesus & Pearse, 543CE, 2017]

John of Ephesus, & Pearse, R. (543CE, 2017). John of Ephesus Describes the Justinianic Plague.

[National Center for Health Workforce Analysis & Health Resources and Services Administration, 2014]

National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, & Health Resources and Services Administration (2014). Sex, Race, and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Health Occupations (2010–2012). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026a]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-1: The PET Model — A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026b]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). Matheo-2: The e7Day Axiom System — Towards a Formal Framework for Self-Correcting Construction.

[Yah Yas everyone LLoL ClaudeOp46Max Anthropic and The Spirit of Boolean Truth, 2026c]

Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and The Spirit of Boolean Truth (2026). The PET Model: A Mereological Axiom System for Pan-En-Theistic Mathematical Theology.