This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Many cognitive failures do not arise from ignorance or irrationality. They arise from something more subtle: systems that reason coherently while operating on structurally misaligned premises.
I want to propose a simple diagnostic model for this failure mode.
Let:
G = articulated knowledge (what an agent can formally explain or justify)
N = grounded integration (how much that knowledge is experientially or causally anchored)
D = expressed certainty or confidence
Then define:
M = (G + N) − D
This is not meant as a literal measurable equation, but as a structural heuristic.
The core claim is simple: when confidence (D) exceeds the combined grounding of articulated knowledge and experiential integration (G + N), systematic epistemic distortion becomes more likely.
In other words, coherent explanation can outpace contact with reality.
AI systems: high linguistic coherence paired with limited world-grounded integration.
The point is not to moralize error, but to describe a recurrent structural asymmetry.
If this framing is useful, it should:
Clarify when overconfidence is structurally predictable.
Distinguish ignorance from coherent misalignment.
Help design systems that reduce D without collapsing agency.
A longer development of this framework is available in my book Mécroyance, which explores its philosophical and cognitive implications in more detail. (Link file:///C:/Users/Nicole/OneDrive/Bureau/M%C3%89CROYANCE%20Ang%202.pdf )
Many cognitive failures do not arise from ignorance or irrationality. They arise from something more subtle: systems that reason coherently while operating on structurally misaligned premises.
I want to propose a simple diagnostic model for this failure mode.
Let:
Then define:
This is not meant as a literal measurable equation, but as a structural heuristic.
The core claim is simple: when confidence (D) exceeds the combined grounding of articulated knowledge and experiential integration (G + N), systematic epistemic distortion becomes more likely.
In other words, coherent explanation can outpace contact with reality.
This pattern appears in several domains:
The point is not to moralize error, but to describe a recurrent structural asymmetry.
If this framing is useful, it should:
Help design systems that reduce D without collapsing agency.
A longer development of this framework is available in my book Mécroyance, which explores its philosophical and cognitive implications in more detail. (Link file:///C:/Users/Nicole/OneDrive/Bureau/M%C3%89CROYANCE%20Ang%202.pdf )