It’s here!

My book Kinetic Architecture is officially live!

If you’ve been here for a while, you already know why I wrote this book.

You’ve been here for the conversations about executive dysfunction and freeze, about knowing exactly what you need to do and somehow still not being able to make your body begin, the ones about burnout, rebuilding, how to safely enter a task, create a ritual, and the infuriating experience of being handed advice that makes perfect sense and still doesn’t work.

And I hope somewhere along the way I’ve helped you realize that maybe the problem was never that you needed more discipline or motivation. But that you needed different scaffolding. A new foundation. The right architecture for rebuilding a life you can actually live inside.

That is Kinetic Architecture.

It is the framework underneath so much of what we’ve been doing here: identifying what is actually standing between you and movement, understanding the conditions creating it, and changing those conditions instead of continuing to demand more from yourself.

The book gives you a way to identify four kinds of friction—Distance, Sequencing, Sensory, and Cognitive—and then actually work with them. Not theoretically. Not once you feel better, become more disciplined, find the right routine, or finally turn into the version of yourself who can somehow do all the things.

From where you actually are. Today.

And now it’s real.

I wrote a book!!!

I keep saying that because I still can’t believe I did this!

This book took me a year to write, and two years to develop the framework underneath it, and in reality, 15 years of building environments and experiences before I ever understood that the knowledge I had spent my career using to change conditions for other people could be used to rebuild my own life.

I didn’t begin any of this thinking it would become a book. I began because I needed my life to work again.

And somewhere in that process, it became something I could give to you.

But even then, I wrote this entire book without telling anyone I was doing it. Not my friends. Not my family. No one. Because even after I knew how much this framework had changed my life, I was still me. I was still a neurodivergent person who knew intimately what it felt like to have every intention of doing something and still not know whether I would be able to get it done.

I was afraid.

Subscribe now

What if I told everyone I was writing a book and never finished it? What if executive dysfunction won that day (it did, many days), or freeze came back, or I simply couldn’t carry something this big all the way to the end? More than anything though, it was something that deeply mattered to me and I didn’t want anyone taking that from me.

So for a year, I just kept writing. And slowly, as it became something, my biggest cheerleaders throughout the process became people I have never met: you.

There is a dedication at the beginning of the book:

To everyone wondering what might have been,
I hope you find in these pages what still can be.

And to myself.

Because I could not have done this years ago. Before any of this was a book, it was something I built for myself. Every part of this framework came from trying to rebuild my own life. I was the first person I needed it to work for. The fact that it worked well enough that I could eventually turn around and give it to you is extraordinary to me, but the me-of-years-ago needed this so bad.

I think so many of us have spent enormous parts of our lives constructing ourselves around everyone and everything else: what was required, what needed to get done, what would make things work, what would keep everything together, what would make us easier to live with, work with, understand, accomodate.

We became extraordinarily good at adapting ourselves to our conditions. Kinetic Architecture ask us to reverse that.

What happens when, instead of continually rebuilding yourself to fit the life around you, you start rebuilding the conditions of your life to fit you?

That’s what I did and that’s what I want to give you. Because there is still so much that can be…and I hope this helps you build it.

So to everyone who has been here while I figured this out, wrote about it, talked about it, tested it, changed it, and eventually turned it into 140 pages I can finally put in your hands:

It’s here. Thank you.

Kinetic Architecture is officially available on Amazon.

GET YOUR COPY OF KINETIC ARCHITECTURE

I hope you see yourself in it.

But more than anything, I hope you see what still can be.

Last week, we began something new.

I invited you into the way I build frameworks—not by looking for answers within the problem itself, but by following curiosity wherever it leads. We started with James Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games, a book I bought years ago when I was first building my consulting company. At the time, someone had recommended it as an interesting way to think about business. I bought it immediately, never read it, and eventually it disappeared into a pile.

It came back into my mind after writing about informational resolution and emotional orientation. Not because I thought it contained the answer to that idea, but because I had a feeling there might be something here of interest…I never know where my ideas will come from and that’s the commitment I made with this publication. We’re not reading books to finish them, necessarily. We’re reading them to see what they illuminate.

For those unfamiliar with it, Carse’s central premise is deceptively simple. There are finite games, which are played to be won, and infinite games, which are played so that play can continue. It’s an intriguing distinction, but surprisingly, it isn’t the part of the book that has occupied most of my thinking this week.

Instead, I got stuck on a sentence from page four.

“Whoever must play, cannot play.”

Read more

Last week I wrote about informational resolution and emotional orientation.

After publishing it, one book kept coming back to mind.

Not a new book…not even a book I’ve read.

One that has been sitting on my shelf for years.

I bought Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse when I was first building my consulting company. Someone had recommended it to me as something worth considering in my own endeavors. Like many books that seem important the moment you buy them, it eventually found its way into a pile.

Where it stayed.

Then, after writing last week it came back into my mind for an entirely different reason.

I genuinely don’t know…that’s what makes this interesting. Because we already use this language all the time.

“They’re playing games.”

“He’s stringing you along.”

We recognize that something is happening. What usually follows, though, is trying to explain why. We start sorting people into increasingly specific buckets—attachment styles, personality disorders, manipulation, insecurity…the list goes on.

Those may all be relevant and important.

But I found myself wondering whether there might be another mechanism sitting underneath many of them.

Not one that replaces them, but one that help organize them.

What if part of what’s happening has less to do with the specific explanation we’ve assigned and more to do with whether or not someone is trying to end the interaction…or keep it going? And, knowing that, how can we proceed?

That feels like an interesting question. I don’t know whether the book is going to help answer it. But, as I begin, the question I have in mind is:

What mechanisms are hiding here?

If the book answers that question, wonderful. If It sends us somewhere completely unexpected instead, even better.

That’s how this discipline works.

Next Thursday I’ll share the first notes, connections, and the first spiderweb.

If you’d like to read along, grab a copy. Read a chapter. Read all or none or form your own questions. There’s no right way to participate.

We’ll read widely, follow unexpected questions, connect ideas across disciplines, and discover mechanisms worth borrowing to shape the architecture of our own lives.

Every framework I’ve built has started the same way.

Not by searching for answers within the problem itself, but by looking somewhere completely different.

My book Kinetic Architecture didn’t begin with executive dysfunction. It began with physics.

Newton’s law and mechanics of friction revealed a mechanism that had nothing to do with psychology—and everything to do with movement. Once that mechanism became visible, it could be borrowed from one discipline and deliberately translated into another, changing the way many people think about executive dysfunction, autistic burnout, activation, and momentum.

The mechanism already existed. The work was recognizing it, extracting it from its original context, and translating it somewhere new.

That’s how Emotional Architecture—and specifically, my brain—works.

It isn’t the study of a single subject. It’s the discipline of recognizing mechanisms wherever they appear, understanding why they work, extracting them from their original context, and asking one question:

How might this be borrowed to help us intentionally architect our own lives?

This publication is where I’ll continue that discipline in public, inviting you to think alongside me as I study, question, connect, and build.

Large human systems make their mechanisms unusually visible.

Across centuries, governments, religions, intelligence agencies, financial systems, businesses, families, militaries, and communities have functioned as humanity’s longest-running experiments on organizing people. They preserve—in visible form—the mechanisms that produce trust, legitimacy, identity, continuity, belonging, influence, resilience, and coordinated action.

• How do you build trust?

• How do you create legitimacy?

• How do environments shape behavior?

• How do rituals create continuity?

• How does identity become durable?

• How do stories orient people?

• How do structures endure?

Those systems aren’t the destination. They’re the laboratories.

The work is recognizing the mechanisms they reveal, then asking the question that interests me most:

What happens when we borrow those mechanisms and translate them to build differently?

Architecture isn’t simply about constructing buildings. It’s about creating structures that reliably withstand what they’re intended to hold.

The same is true of our lives.

The environments we create, the rituals we repeat, the sensory experiences we cultivate, the relationships we invest in, the stories we tell ourselves, the systems we build all shape how we think, feeling, and move through the world.

Emotional Architecture is the practice of making those things intentional.

That’s where this curriculum lives; where it goes is part of the adventure.

Some weeks we’ll read together.

Some weeks I’ll share bits from a museum, documentary, archive, conversation, or a paragraph that refused to leave me alone.

Some weeks the reading will unexpectedly turn into two days researching something that seemed completely unrelated—until it wasn’t.

That isn’t drifting off topic, it’s how I think. My mind works like a spiderweb, following systems instead of subjects, tracing underlying mechanisms and connecting ideas most people would never think to place side by side. If you have ADHD or naturally think in systems, that rhythm may feel familiar. If you don’t, I hope you’ll discover that knowledge doesn’t have to move in straight lines to become deeply organized.

As this project grows, I’ll also be sharing the evolving spiderweb itself. If you’re an Obsidian user, you’ll recognize it immediately. If you’re not, think of it as a living map of the investigation—one that grows with every book, question, rabbit hole, and connection we uncover together.

Subscribe now

How You Can Participate

There are plenty of ways to take part.

You might read every book alongside me.

You might skip the books entirely and only stay to see where we go next.

You might be here because you want a reading list that connects ideas you wouldn’t have thought to connect.

You might simply enjoy watching frameworks take shape.

Maybe you just want thoughtful community—real people thinking together, instead of another algorithm.

Or maybe you’re simply curious enough to follow a question a little further than you normally would.

However you arrive, you’re welcome.

Read with me. Question. Share your own sources. Take what works, leave what doesn’t. Your comments are part of the work, not an afterthought…your unique way of thinking might be what sends someone down their next rabbit hole.

Over time, the syllabus will grow. So will the questions.

Some investigations will become frameworks.

Others will simply change the way we think.

Both are worthwhile.

If you’re hungry for thoughtful conversation, ambitious books, unexpected connections, and the slow process of building understanding rather than simply consuming information, I think you’ll feel at home here. Subscribe BELOW to join along.

A quick housekeeping note/Where we’ll begin: You’ll receive one more post from me shortly. I want the above to serve as a permanent introduction, separate from where we’re actually beginning. That way, whether you’re discovering this today or years from now, you can enter where I begin today or jump into whatever we’re exploring when you arrive.

Over the past two years I’ve become increasingly convinced that we’re constantly trying to resolve two different internal states, and we often mistake one for the other.

The first is what I call informational resolution.

We have a question, uncertainty, or gap in our understanding, and we seek information that resolves it.

The second is what I call emotional orientation.

This isn’t about answering a question. It’s about arriving somewhere emotionally. Feeling safer. More certain. Less threatened. Understood. Hopeful. Aligned.

Sometimes these two forms of resolution happen together. Often they don’t. Communication just happens to be the place where that mistake becomes easiest to see.

Consider a political interview. A moderator asks a direct question: “Will you support this legislation?” The politician responds with a story about their childhood, a reflection on their values, a criticism of the opponent, and a hopeful vision for the future. The original question is never actually answered.

Some viewers are left frustrated. “They never even answered the question.”

Others walk away saying, “Wow, I’m really impressed.” They were—in this case, literally—emotionally moved.

How is that possible?

Because they weren’t evaluating the same exchange.

One group was waiting for informational resolution. They wanted the uncertainty resolved. The other group wasn’t primarily evaluating the information at all. They were evaluating how the candidate resolved them emotionally. They left feeling assured, inspired, understood, or aligned. Their emotional orientation changed, even though the informational question remained unanswered.

This misunderstanding happens constantly, and not just in politics. It happens in marriages, workplaces, therapy offices, classrooms, organizations, and perhaps most notably in conversations between neurodivergent and neurotypical people. Often, one person is attempting to resolve uncertainty while the other is attempting to regulate emotional experience.

You know that experience where you feel like you’re having two entirely different conversations with someone? This is often why. You think you are asking a simple question, but the other person is not just receiving the question. They are also receiving everything they believe might come with answering it.

You may be asking, “Did you send the email?” But what they may be hearing is, “So why didn’t you see the one I flagged?” “Can I trust you?” “Are you the kind of person who’s prompt or procrastinates?” “Is this going to become another example of how I disappoint you?” The actual question may be small, but the emotional implications attached to it may feel much larger. Or it’s a question that needs more context for them to answer. “Do you like the color green?” Isn’t as simple as yes or no. You may need to know the shade, where it’s being applied, how much of it, etc. before you can even assess if you like the color or not.

This is where communication starts to break down. From your perspective, they are avoiding answering. From theirs, they may be trying to manage the emotional consequences of giving one. They are thinking about vulnerability, responsibility, commitment, consistency, what will now be expected of them, or how the answer may be used later. None of that is the question you asked. But it may be the questions their nervous system is answering.

Bringing us back to where we opened—that informational resolution and emotional orientation are separate desired processes within ourselves. Every experience we have gives us information, but not every experience changes how our nervous system orients. Think of a time you’ve resolved sensory friction.

An example for me: I hate the feeling on my hands when I do the dishes, so historically have hated doing them. To make it more possible for me to enter this task, I solved my sensory friction by wearing gloves. I have resolved why I hated doing the dishes, yet my initial nervous system response at the thought of doing them is sensory disgust.

Which raises a much more interesting question: when does information stop being something we know and become something we feel to be true? And once it does, what does it take for our emotional orientation to change again?

I don’t think information alone answers the question.

Your brain wants novelty. Your nervous system wants predictability.

Those are not the same system. They do not want the same things. And most of us— especially those of us who are neurodivergent, ADHD, anxious, recovering, rebuilding, and paying attention—have them completely inverted.

I want you to follow this carefully because the order matters.

You’re burnt-out so life has gone flat.

It probably didn’t happen all at once but the friendships, the experiences, the going-out, the trying-new-things, the being-with-people…we’re not doing those things, or we’re doing them in a depleted way that doesn’t actually register.

But the brain still needs dopamine. And it is going to find it somewhere. So it starts hunting it in the only place left—the small repeating parts of the day. The morning routine. The coffee ritual. The supplement stack. The journaling method. The wind-down. We keep redesigning these, optimizing these, switching it up, because that is where novelty is now available to us.

And the nervous system still wants safety. So it is going to find it somewhere. The staying-in, the not-reaching-out, the not-engaging, the canceled plans, the long quiet stretch where nothing actually happens—that has become the predictable part to the nervous system. That is what has rhythm. And to the nervous system, predicting that is rewarding. It reads it as familiar and known, which is safe. The disengagement is the routine. The not-living is the ritual.

The architecture is upside down.

Novelty has migrated into the foundation. Sameness has migrated into the life. And both systems are starving, because neither is getting what it was built for.

What Most Advice Is Missing

You cannot fix this by going harder.

The standard prescription—get a real morning routine, build the perfect day, here is my five-step protocol—is a setup. It is a setup because it asks you—someone depleted, frozen, novelty-starved—to immediately adopt a complete, ambitious, sweeping new system. And then, when that system collapses by Friday—and it will collapse by Friday—you get to feel like a failure on top of everything else.

Yay.

Think about how absurd this would be in any other domain.

Nobody who has not run before signs up for a 5K next Saturday. Nobody expects to go from couch to 5K in five days. We would not even consider that a reasonable goal. We would call it ridiculous, because it is. And yet we pick up a book, or watch a video, or read a thread, and it gives us a fully-formed path to the new you! The journaling, the cold plunge, the meditation, the workout, the protein, the sunlight, the gratitude…do all of it starting Monday and feel transformed by Friday!

You would never expect that of your body. Do not expect it of your nervous system.

Here is what happens when you actually start.

Read more

Not because they aren’t useful. But because they start in the wrong place. Love languages asks how you give and receive love. They don’t ask whether the conditions of the relationship are actually built for your nervous system. And for neurodivergent people, that matters more than anything.

Everything is a Nervous System Disruption

Any new relationship—any person, any deepening of an existing connection—is a disruption to your nervous system. Even good things change it. Even wanted things disorient it. Your nervous system doesn’t distinguish between good disruption and bad disruption. It registers change. It recalibrates. It works to find a new baseline.

This is why relationships are so energetically expensive for neurodivergent people. Not because we love wrong, but because we feel every shift.

Which means the person you choose, and the conditions under which you choose them, will impact your nervous system on a scale that almost nothing else in your life will.

This deserves more than a love language quiz.

Read more

Water is one of the most overlooked regulation tools available to you.

Not because people don’t know it matters, but because it’s treated like a general health habit instead of what it actually can be: a direct input to your nervous system.

There is a lot that feels out of your control when you’re dysregulated. Your environment, your energy, your ability to follow through.

Water is not one of those things.

It is accessible.

It is immediate.

And your body responds to it whether you’re paying attention or not.

Subscribe now

Here’s the impact water has on the nervous system:

1. Your brain depends on it to function clearly

Even slight dehydration makes it harder to think, decide, and process. What feels like mental fog or resistance is often just a system that doesn’t have what it needs.

2. It directly impacts your emotional baseline

Low hydration increases stress signals in the body. Which means things feel heavier, faster, and harder to regulate.

3. It supports your energy without requiring effort

No activation energy.

No planning.

No build-up.

It’s one of the few inputs that gives back immediately.

4. It is physically grounding

When your body receives water, it registers that as a stabilizing signal. Not symbolically—physically.

There is a reason people feel better after they drink water. Not just in theory but in their actual body.

So the question isn’t should you drink more what. It’s:

How do you make drinking more water happen consistently without turning it into another task?

Read more

There are words that quietly change the cost of action.

Nothing about the task changes.

You’re still going to the same place.

At the same time.

To do the same thing.

And yet, the word you use to orient yourself can change what your nervous system believes is about to happen.

And that belief determines whether you move—or hesitate.

This is not separate from the work we’ve already been doing. Everything here is in service of the same outcome:

Movement First → Ignition Follows

What the Words Actually Mean

Start (verb): To begin; to initiate something.

Enter (verb): To go into; to come into a place, state, or activity.

The difference is not in the definition.

It’s in what each word quietly assigns as your responsibility.

What “Starting” Implies

“Starting” is not just about the first step. It implies a trajectory.

When you say you’re going to start something, there is an unspoken structure attached:

Begin → Continue → Complete

Even if you don’t consciously think it, the body registers the responsibility for constructing the sequence as it unfolds and starting places you at the point of origin.

Which means the nervous system doesn’t just register begin it registers build this, carry it, and see it through.

“Start” rarely feels like a simple step. It feels like ownership of the entire process.

Why That Creates Resistance

Because most tasks are not actually single actions.

They are structures:

• Dishes → wash, dry, reset

• Emails → open, respond, manage

• Get ready → sequence, transition, complete

When you frame them as something to start, the system reads:

I am responsible for building this structure from zero

And if there’s any uncertainty about capacity, the hesitation to that shows up immediately. Not because you can’t do it. Because the entry point includes construction.

What “Entering” Assigns Instead

“Entering” changes your position.

Not in space—in responsibility.

When you say you’re going to enter something, the structure becomes:

• This already exists

• I am stepping into it

You are no longer responsible for building the frame.

Only for participation within it.

That distinction matters because most of what we do daily is not something we create from nothing, it’s something we re-enter.

The Same Moment, Different Load

Compare what your system feels:

• “I need to start my emails.” & “I’m opening my inbox.”

• “I need to start cleaning.” & “I’m going into the kitchen for a bit.”

One assigns you to build and carry this. The other assigns you to step inside and engage.

What Actually Changes

Not the effort.

Not the outcome.

Not the reality of what needs to be done.

What changes is this:

Whether the task feels like something you have to construct or something you can simply continue.

For a nervous system that is sensitive to overload, the difference is immediate.

Construction requires:

• Planning

• Sequencing

• Holding the whole structure in mind

Entering requires:

• Contact

• Orientation

• One point of engagement

That shift reduces the load before anything happens.

And that’s the entire point—because movement has to happen before anything else can.

Not perfect movement.

Not complete movement.

Just enough movement for the system to recognize:

We are not at zero anymore.

That’s ignition.

But here’s what’s vital for this to actually work…

Read more

You were doing well. Not perfectly, Not dramatically—just…well.

Maybe you were getting your steps in most days. Cooking instead of grazing. Answering emails or phone calls. Keeping the house roughly under control.

Nothing extraordinary…just traction somewhere.

For a neurodivergent nervous system, traction matters more than scale. Because traction means something rare is happening: the system is cooperating.

Your brain and your body are moving in the same direction. You’re not negotiating with yourself every hour of the day. You’re not silently questioning every action before it starts. You’re moving. Maybe not with everything…but enough things that you actually feel less of an internal fight.

That cooperation has a quieter name: trust.

The nervous system has stopped interrogating every movement. It isn’t asking whether this task will overwhelm you, derail you, exhaust you. It trusts that the next action is safe to take.

And when that trust is present, motion becomes easier. Not effortless—but friction drops. You move without constant internal debate.

That’s what traction really is.

When Momentum Breaks

Then something interrupts it.

You get sick. Your schedule explodes. The world gets loud. Your energy drops.

Something knocks the rhythm out. Maybe even something good.

But you miss a day. Then another. Then suddenly the thing that was working…isn’t happening anymore. And the moment you notice it, a familiar thought appears:

“I broke the habit.”

That’s the language most of us were given. Habits are supposed to be built, protected, maintained. So if the habit disappears, the assumption is that something failed—your discipline, your motivation, your care.

And now you have to rebuilt it.

You have to start all over again and force yourself back into the habit. For many neurodivergent people, this is the point where everything stops.

Because rebuilding a system feels enormous. You’re no longer dealing with one action—you’re staring at an entire structure that feels like it collapsed. So the nervous system does what nervous systems do when the entry point feels to large: it avoids it. Not because you’re lazy. Because the restart feels bigger than the system can currently tolerate.

Subscribe now

Habit Isn’t the Problem. Momentum Is.

Something important is being misdiagnosed here. You didn’t break the habit. You broke momentum. And those are not the same thing. Not even close.

Habits live in the language of psychology. Momentum lives in the language of physics. Momentum is simply motion that is already happening. Once a system is moving, it takes very little effort to keep it moving. But when motion drops to zero, restarting feels heavier than continuing ever did.

This is not a moral failure. It’s simply mechanics.

And, more importantly, it’s trust mechanics.

When momentum is flowing, the nervous system trusts movement. It assumes the next action will go roughly the way the last one did. But when momentum disappears, the silent trust disappears with it.

Every action becomes a question again.

Can I do this?

Will this overwhelm me?

Will I be stuck inside this, unfinished, and restart a whole downward spiral?

So the system hesitates.

Which means the advice people give—rebuild the habit—is solving the wrong problem.

The nervous system doesn’t actually need the habit rebuilt. What it needs is the trust restored.

And trust returns through motion.

The Momentum Trust Principle

When movement is happening, the nervous system trusts the next step.

When movement stops, trust collapses and every action becomes a question of doubt again.

Habits don’t return by forcing the system back online.

They return when the questions stop.

And the questions stop when motion restores trust.

This is the part most people get wrong…

Read more

We’re taught to describe emotions with adjectives.

Sad. Lonely. Excited. Afraid.

These words are treated as if they are universal containers—as though saying them reliably evokes the same internal experience for everyone. But for many neurodivergent people, this isn’t how emotion is actually accessed.

The adjective names the emotion, but it does not instantiate it. And for someone like me, that gap mattered—greatly. When language fails to evoke the feeling it’s meant to describe, describing my inner world can start to feel flattened, imprecise, or even untrustworthy—not because I don’t know what I feel, but because the linguistic structure being offered was too low-resolution to hold it.

What works for me, and for many others, is what I call symbolic emotional referencing: a linguistic process in which an emotion becomes most easily felt, recognized, and communicable when it is accessed through a symbol—like a lyrics, a scene, an image, or a character—rather than through an adjective.

Instead of saying “I feel lonely,” the feeling arrives fully when a specific lyrics comes to mind. The symbol carries what the word cannot. It isn’t metaphor for metaphor’s sake. It’s compression.

A lyric, a scene, a painting can hold sadness, longing, hope, fear, and ambiguity simultaneously—information density that no adjective can replicate. The symbol preserves complexity when language tends to collapse it.

And when the symbol is correct, the body confirms it—literally—with an internal sensation called frisson.

Frisson is the somatic response—chills, a tightening in the chest, a wave, a catch in the breath—that occurs when something emotionally precise lands. It’s often discussed in relation to music, and many neurodivergent people encounter it first through sound.

And that’s not incidental. Many of us are highly sensitive to sound. We feel tone, harmony, resonance, and timing with unusual intensity. Because of that, frisson is sometimes misatrributed as just a sensory reaction, or confused with general sound sensitivity. It’s also distinct from ASMR. ASMR is typically soothing, repetitive, and regulating.

Subscribe now

But in this context frisson isn’t about stimulation, it is about recognition. Frisson arrives when something lands exactly right—not because it is pleasant, but because it is precise. And for people who’ve had so much of their lived-experiences denied, this confirmation matters more than many know. Not everyone experiences frisson. But many neurodivergents report experiencing it frequently and intensely, not as novelty but as a reliable signal that meaning has landed where language usually fails.

Frisson says: Yes. That’s accurate.

In architectural terms: the symbol instantiates the emotion, and frisson confirms the structural fit.

This is why symbolic emotional referencing often bypasses explanation entirely.

When someone asks you to describe your perfect life, you may not be able to envision one. You may not even have words to describe it.

But you might have ‘Our House.’

Not the concept. The song. And that is precision, not avoidance.

Sometimes the reference isn’t even the whole song. It’s just a line, a fragment. A moment that carries the full emotional load—context, tension, discomfort—without needing to be unpacked.

Once the symbol is found, it can be translated back into traditional descriptors if needed. But something, for us, is usually lost in the process.

Because for many neurodivergent people, describing an emotion in real time carries an additional cost.

In intense moments, there is often already a lot happen—sound, light, proximity, internal sensation. When someone asks, “How do you feel?” the act of answering can pull you out of the experience entirely. You shift from being in it, to translating it.

The work of explanation becomes the dominant task.

Symbolic emotional referencing changes that posture.

Instead of turning inward to assemble language, you offer the symbol. A song. A line. A scene. And in doing so, something subtle but important happens:

You get to remain inside your experience while the other person does the processing.

You’re no longer laboring to compress your inner state into words. You’re watching someone else encounter it.

That matters. When you play the song, you’re not explaining yourself. You’re allowing the other person to experience the shape of what you feel. You get to observe their reaction instead of monitoring your own coherence. The sensory load shifts outward.

This is part of why symbolic emotional referencing can feel stabilizing rather than evasive.

It preserves presence.

Because there is nothing like being able to communicate in your native emotional language. There are moments—especially relational ones—where being understood does not mean being explained. It means being recognized.

For many neurodivergents, the symbolic emotional reference isn’t poetic. It’s functional. It’s how emotional truth is preserved instead of flattened. It’s not about being indirect; it’s about staying oriented inside an experience instead of being pulled out of it by the demand to explain. This is simply how some of us understand.

I’m often told I shouldn’t use metaphor because “autistics don’t understand them,” and asked to translate my message into something more literal. When I explain that this is the way I understand and organize experience, the response is often: “If you can explain it like this, you can explain it another way.”

That assumption is revealing.

It treats one linguistic structure as universal and the other as decorative. It assumes translation is neutral. It isn’t.

This is why I share language.

Leave a comment

Last week we practiced detection.

Where freeze shows up, what slows, and how it feels.

This week, we looked at something more specific: where effort increases unnecessarily.

Not where life is hard.

Not where tasks exist.

But where we’ve quietly attached more requirements than the outcome demands. It’s shocking to see how much overwhelm isn’t coming from the task itself but from quietly expanding the actual goal.

Laundry becomes sorting, folding, reorganizing drawers. Throwing away expired food in the fridge becomes scrubbing the shelves and inventorying condiments.

Or, in my case, changing sheets.

The goal, clean sheets on the bed every Wednesday. That’s the task.

But—for me—I prefer to be freshly showered just before getting into clean sheets. Over time, “freshly showered” expanded into: hair washed , full body scrub, shave, oil, toner, lotion, skincare, dry hair, set hair. If I wasn’t doing quite literally EVERYTHING to be clean, wasn’t I not maximizing my effort?

Changing my sheets at 10am on a Wednesday started to feel like committing to an entire DAY of events because the event had to occur just before slipping right into bed, nothing in between. It was stressful forcing myself to commit to all that many many hours prior. (This is an example of distance friction we’ve talked about.)

But when I stripped it back, the answer was clear. Changing sheets and executing a full care ritual are two separate tasks—way more than two, actually, but I digress.

This is where I go back and implement the question I ask when overwhelmed: “What does winning look like?”

Winning, based on my goal, looks like clean sheets on the bed. My preference to be fully showered before getting into them? That’s optional effort. An important distinction, optional does not mean unimportant. It just means it does not belong to the core outcome.

That’s the pattern we’ve been looking for all week. Not because we won’t ever have to do a sequence of tasks, but because while we’re learning how to do something we often times have to completely undo it. We have to learn how to allow tasks to exist as isolated tasks. This is also part of our EXIT Strategy (linked here), where we enter with low demand.

You may not feel dramatically different. But if you can now catch yourself when a task inflates—and ask what winning actually looks like—you’ve already reduced unnecessary effort.

Most executive dysfunction and freeze isn’t a simple desire to avoid. It’s overload from invisible additions. When you identify those additions, something shifts. This isn’t breaking a task into baby steps, that just makes more tasks. This is removing tasks that literally are not required to achieve the core goal. You’re not just lowering expectations, you’re remembering what the only expectations of that goal should be.

And once you’re no longer constantly reacting to collapsed tasks, you can start planning in ways that actually support your system instead of fighting it (like me, getting my hair done on Wednesdays so that washing it is one less task). That’s where this is heading soon.

Sunday, we build again with Week 3, not by adding pressure, but by beginning my favorite topic…movement over motivation. Because precision—not intensity—is what creates momentum.

When executive dysfunction hits, the problem isn’t that you don’t know what to do.

It’s that everything becomes part of the task.

Laundry is never just laundry.

It’s sorting, folding, organizing drawers, deciding what still fits, noticing what needs to be replaced, remembering the thing you meant to mend, and silently accounting for how long it’s been since you last did it “right.”

Nothing stays singular.

This is why advice like “just start” or “break it into steps” so often fails.

The issue isn’t motivation. It’s task collapse—too many requirements fused into one moment.

When I notice this happening, I use a tool that’s part of a framework I’ve shared before (linked below, if you missed it): EXIT — a way of entering tasks when initiation is offline.

Today, I want to talk about Extracting what isn’t necessary.

That instruction sounds obvious—until you’re inside executive dysfunction, where everything feels necessary, urgent, and unfinished.

Here’s the question that cuts through fastest:

“What does winning actually look like here?”

Not ideally.

Not eventually.

Not in a “functional adult” version of your life.

Here. Now. In the state you’re currently in.

For laundry, winning is not folded drawers.

Winning is clean clothes.

That’s it.

This question works because it forces the goal to clarify before effort begins.

It collapses the task on purpose instead of letting it collapse accidentally into overwhelm.

It’s also exactly what we’re working with this week in February Freeze: identifying unnecessary effort before it becomes the thing that keeps us stuck.

At this point, the tool sounds straightforward enough, right?

You ask, “What does winning look like?”

You feel a moment of relief.

You finally see the real goal.

But you’ve been here before, where still nothing moves.

It’s not because the tool failed.

It’s because it was applied incompletely.

When executive dysfunction is active, the brain has a habit of quietly reattaching requirements—without announcing that it’s done so. The task looks simpler on the surface, but the extra effort is still there, just unspoken.

If you’ve ever tried something that made sense, felt promising, and still didn’t create movement, this is usually why.

Using this question accurately requires one more step. This is where this either works—or doesn’t.

Read more

Part of what I offer—always—is structural support in the moments where someone cares deeply and cannot figure out how to move.

Sometimes that looks like February Freeze.

Sometimes that looks like letters.

Both are about the same thing: removing friction so something can continue.

So I’m introducing a new section, “Letters,” that will function as a free, small reference library for navigating institutional accountability without getting stalled by sequencing friction.

Many of us are justice-oriented by default. That’s not a personality quirk, it’s a structure especially common among neurodivergent people. We notice patterns, power imbalances, harm, inconsistency. We see what’s wrong, and we want to do something about it.

And then we hit the wall.

We care…but caring creates a pileup.

Who do I send this to?

Who actually has jurisdiction?

What do I say?

How do I say it without sounding incoherent, hysterical, or legally risky?

That pileup creates freeze.

People get stuck between urgency and uncertainty, and the result isn’t action—it’s paralysis. Because the steps aren’t sequenced.

This section will exist to help fix that. I don’t believe in my people struggling just because they couldn’t find the right phrasing.

Please know though, this is not a manifesto telling you what position to hold or what outcome to demand. These are letter I’ve sent—given as scaffolding—for you to edit, adapt, and use for your own situations so you don’t need to invent wording from scratch or stall because the execution feels too heavy.

They reflects my own interpretations and opinions based on publicly available information and cited sources, and are provided for informational purposes only—not as legal advice or definitive statements of fact.

Last week was about detection. The goal was noticing where freeze exists without judging it, fixing it, or trying to move it.

This week builds directly on that; however—hopefully—different than you’ve been doing it. Usually, once something is seen clearly, the next question becomes, “How do I work through this?”

Here, we build from a different framework. We’re instead going to ask, “What effort am I applying here that’s isn’t actually helping?”

Freeze isn’t sustained by stillness alone. It’s often sustained by misdirected effort—mental pressure, internal negotiations, over-preparing, self-monitoring, or trying to motivate ourselves out of a state that doesn’t respond to motivation.

This week is about learning to recognize that extra effort.

Not to remove responsibility.

Not to “do less” as a philosophy.

We are looking to see where energy is being spent without producing movement—and how much of that effort is or isn’t actually necessary.

Nothing new needs to be added yet. No behavior needs to change.

We’re simply observing where things are harder than they need to be by looking for places where we’re compulsively defaulting to additional cognitive load that might resemble stories about:

• Efficiency

• Timing

• Process

• Perfection

• All or nothing mentality

This is still a low-demand week, so if it initially feels simple, good, that’s intentional. Systems don’t reorganize under pressure—they reorganize under clarity.

The goal is that by the end of this week you will start to see patterns of what can be released.

Read more

Healing the nervous system doesn’t fail because people aren’t trying hard enough.

It fails because most of us were taught to move straight from noticing a sensation into interpreting it.

We feel tension and immediately ask what it means.

We’re stuck and decide something is wrong with us.

We notice resistance and try to solve the story.

That jump—from detection to interpretation—is where things lock up. It’s often driven by emotional scrutiny instead of clear mechanical observation.

But the nervous system doesn’t adapt to emotional analysis. It adapts to accurate information. And accurate information begins with clean observation—without opinion attached.

Before the system can change, it has to be seen accurately. Not analyzed or evaluated or improved. Just registered.

That’s the step most people skip, and it’s why effort so often backfires. This is the logic behind February Freeze.

February Freeze

February Freeze is the furthest thing from a productivity reset or a motivation challenge.

It’s just noticing:

• Where things feel paused

• Where starting feels heavier than expected

• What happens internally when momentum stalls

Not:

• Naming

• Diagnosing

• Fixing

• Deciding what it means

February Freeze is a structured month designed to slow the jump from noticing → judging → forcing.

If you’ve been following along with February Freeze, this first week of ‘noticing’ has been intentionally simple. Not because change is small—but because trust is. (If you haven’t been following along, stay with me please because this still all works/applies. Also, you can join in at any point if you feel compelled!)

Subscribe now

Detection without interpretation is how you establish a baseline.

It’s how you stop arguing with your own experience.

It’s how you learn the difference between what’s happening and what you assume is happening. And that difference matters more than we realize.

Because freeze isn’t loud.

It doesn’t announce itself.

It’s an unwanted intruder that creeps itself in disguised as waiting, thinking, resting, or being “careful.”

This week wasn’t about solving freeze.

It was about learning how your freeze behaves when no one is rushing it.

And that also can feel slow, almost too basic.

You might even wonder if you’re “doing enough.” But trust isn’t built through big gestures. If it were, most of us would already feel regulated, steady, and unstuck.

Trust is built through repetition. Through small confirmations. Through showing the nervous system it doesn’t have to defend itself to you. And, maybe most importantly, that we will treat it with dignity.

That’s how this process builds. It’s Emotional Architecture.

The daily prompts are one layer—a way to help you deepen your noticing.

But even if you haven’t written a single word, these weekly check-ins are doing something important:

• They’re training your attention

• They’re changing what you notice

• They’re creating continuity instead of pressure

And that’s what allows the next layers to work…because we’re building up to so much more.

Where We’re Going

February is about detection.

I get asked all the time, “How did you start your rituals?” or “How do I even begin building them into my day?”

This is how I started.

Not with motivation or discipline. Not with a perfect routine. But by learning how to notice what was actually happening in my system before trying to change it.

March will be about movement—marching, gently, without force.

And April is where this starts to feel embodied. Less like something you’re doing, more like something you are.

This builds. On purpose. Trust the architecture.

Next Week:

Next week, we move from detection into identifying friction—not by trying harder, but by seeing where effort is being unnecessarily increased.

What feels heavier than it needs to be.

Where resistance shows up before you even begin.

Where simplicity has been buried under expectation.

You don’t get there by force.

You get there by first seeing clearly.

If you’re participating in February Freeze, Week 2 will arrive in your inbox on Sunday.

If you’re not, you’re still right on time.

This isn’t about keeping up.

It’s about staying in contact.

Slow doesn’t mean stagnant.

Sometimes it’s the first sign that something frozen is finally starting to thaw.

Distance friction.

Sensory friction.

Sequencing friction.

Cognitive overload.

The need for an EXIT plan before we enter a task.

Those frameworks matter. They explain why someone can deeply want to act—and still feel completely unable to do so.

But there is another kind of freeze I rarely hear named.

I call it participation withdrawal.

When someone is frozen in executive dysfunction, they are usually very aware of what they’re not doing.

They’re thinking about the tasks…often ad nauseam.

They’re aware of the obstacles.

They feel the effort, the resistance, the overwhelm.

Participation withdrawal is different.

In participation withdrawal…

Read more

Read more

Not forcing movement.

Not fixing yourself.

When the world is heavy, freeze is easy. We feel too responsive, so we freeze. But some responsiveness is necessary.

All month, I’m running February Freeze: a low-demand, nervous-system check-in designed to help you notice freeze as it’s happening, so it doesn’t harden into something bigger.

Think of it like pipes in freezing temperature. You don’t blast the water on full. You let the faucet drip, just enough motion to keep things going.

We begin tomorrow!

Paid Subscribers receive:

• A daily check-in for the entire month of February

• A simple weekly focus/explanation

• A PDF you can print to write on or import and use digitally

No pressure. No productivity. No catching up necessary if you miss a day.

If February tends to be a month where you go quiet, stall out, or feel yourself hardening, especially lately, this is a way to stay a little bit liquid.

Upgrade to a paid subscription (only $6) to receive the full February Freeze series.

February Freeze Week 1

Detect Without Interpretation

Read more

Keep an eye on your Inbox: Sunday, February 1 you will receive your material for Week 1 (which runs Monday - Sunday).

February is cold.

The news is colder.

And a lot of bodies are quietly locking up right now.

That’s freeze.

Not the dramatic kind. The subtle kind.

The kind that looks like stillness. Like waiting. Like “I’ll do it later.” The kind that pretends it’s a need for rest.

This month I felt I needed to offer everyone a little more structure to keep from becoming ice.

Freeze is a nervous system response to threat—real or perceived—and those of us with sensitive nervous systems may be feeling the stillness take-over. When the world feels unpredictable, loud, or unsafe, the body does something very intelligent: it slows everything down. It conserves. It holds. It pauses.

The problem isn’t freeze.

The problem is getting stuck there.

So February Freeze is our way of staying in motion without forcing ourselves into schedules, panic, or productivity. It’s about noticing when the system has gone still, reducing the friction that keeps us locked there, and introducing just enough movement to remind the body it’s still alive, still adaptive, still capable of change.

Resistance comes in all different shapes and sizes, this is a quiet kind.

Not shouting. Not hustling. Just refusing to be taken over.

Welcome to February Freeze: a 4 week, 28 day check-in for all paid subscribers.

Each week of the syllabus offers a different way to soften freeze—through awareness, simplicity, movement, and rhythm—and a daily prompt to introduce connection. We will build on this month after month.

The daily check-ins are intentionally small.

You don’t need much to do them.

Missing a day doesn’t ruin anything.

You just need to stay a little bit fluid.

We’re moving through this together.