Playbook Designs for Inclusive Futures

Research and Sense-Making
1

Thinking ahead to the planned discussion on the how of our interactions, and the complexities of DEI as a practice rather than a tick box exercise

I’ve been reflecting on a recent study about Persian taarof, and its relevance to how we communicate around diversity and systems change. I’d really like to explore how we might design communication protocols that make our forums more inclusive — across cultures, genders, and neurotypes.

Hidden Rules, Neurodiversity, and Communication in Systems Change

This study looks at how AI is failing to address the Persian practice of taarof—a ritual dance of politeness where what is said often diverges from what is meant. For example, when an Iranian taxi driver waves away your payment with “be my guest,” the expected response is to insist several times before paying. What looks like generosity is in fact a coded exchange of respect.

Researchers (Sadr et al., 2025) built TAAROFBENCH to test how well AI models navigate these scenarios. Native Persian speakers scored 82% accuracy, but large language models managed only 34–42%. The AI systems defaulted to Western directness: completely missing the underlying cultural compression.

This resonates deeply with my own experience. Communication is not just about words—it’s about hidden codes. As Gregory Bateson (1972) reminds us, meaning is always contextual, carried in patterns of relation. Speakers compress meaning, and listeners must decompress it correctly. When we don’t share the same frame, misalignment easily arises.

Neurodiversity as a Parallel Case

For neurodiverse people, this isn’t an occasional cross-cultural challenge—it’s daily life. Research on the “double empathy problem” (Milton, 2012) shows that misunderstandings between autistic and non-autistic people are mutual. Both sides misinterpret each other’s codes.

I’ve seen this play out in many forums. Someone will speak with what seems to be bluntness, intensity, or excessive detail. Others read it as domineering or aggressive. To me, it often looks like a neurodiverse communication style: deeply ethical, but inflexible. And more than once, I’ve watched such people get excluded—not for the substance of what they said, but for how they said it.

In practice, these ND traits are often misread:

  • Bluntness taken as rudeness

  • Insistence taken as aggression

  • Excessive detail taken as domination

  • Ethical clarity taken as rigidity

This isn’t malice—it’s a different compression scheme. Just as AI misses taarof, groups miss the ethical and conceptual value of ND modes of expression.

A Case in Point: Greta Thunberg

The global response to Greta Thunberg illustrates these dynamics vividly. Thunberg communicates with directness, intensity, and uncompromising ethical clarity. Her blunt insistence that leaders “listen to the science” and her refusal to dilute urgency to fit into established diplomatic norms resonate with many as moral leadership. Yet critics often dismiss her as rude, naïve, or inflexible.

Scholars link this style to autistic communication traits: low tolerance for hypocrisy, strong adherence to principle, and difficulty playing along with the rituals of political performance (Rosqvist, Chown, & Stenning, 2020; Yergeau, 2018). To many, this comes across as moral leadership. To others, it provokes ridicule and hostility.

The reaction to Thunberg mirrors what the taarof study and the “double empathy problem” describe: it’s not a failure of skill, but a clash of compression codes. Her moral urgency doesn’t fit conventional politeness rituals, and so she is both celebrated and dismissed.

This example underscores why international forums addressing systemic crises cannot rely on hidden Western, or academic rules of civility as the only valid mode of discourse. Doing so risks excluding precisely those who carry the strongest ethical compass in the room.

Why This Matters for Systems Change

Systems-change and metacrisis research emphasises plurality, reflexivity, and what Bateson (1972) called “double descriptions.” Nora Bateson (2016) likewise insists that we need multiple patterns of framing to see into complexity. If our forums reproduce hidden defaults of communication—whether cultural or neurotypical—we risk suppressing exactly the diversity of perspective that’s most needed.

For me, the exclusion of ND voices is not just a question of fairness. It narrows the ethical bandwidth of our collective. In a time when our decisions carry planetary consequences, that seems like an unacceptable loss.

Mechanisms That Might Help

Drawing on both intercultural communication and neurodiversity studies, I think we could experiment with mechanisms like:

  1. Surfacing hidden rules — making group norms explicit, not assumed.

  2. Multiple channels of participation — balancing live dialogue with asynchronous text, transcripts, and reflective writing.

  3. Normalization of clarification — treating “Did you mean…?” as a sign of respect, not a stumble.

  4. Gentle structuring — time-boxing or rotating turns so intensity is balanced without shaming.

  5. Reframing inflexibility as principle — seeing rigidity as principled commitment, which can strengthen ethical dialogue.

  6. Practicing double empathy — recognising that misreadings go both ways, NT and ND alike.

Towards Multicultural Humility

Practicing awareness of these hidden rules—whether in Persian taarof or ND communication—does more than prevent exclusion. It surfaces the assumptions we normally take for granted. It shows us how easily meaning slips between words and intentions, and reminds us that our own interpretive frames are limited.

This is what I would call cultural humility: recognising that we don’t know what we don’t know. For systems-change work, that humility may be one of the most important protocols we can develop.

Extending to Gender and Other Variation

It’s also worth remembering that compression codes differ not only across cultures and neurotypes, but also along gendered lines. Communication research consistently shows that what is read as “assertive” in one gender may be judged “aggressive” in another, or what is praised as “detailed” from one speaker may be dismissed as “long-winded” from another (Tannen, 1990).

The taarof study itself (Sadr et al., 2025) found models reproducing gender stereotypes even when prompts were not gendered—suggesting that bias is baked into training data as well as human interpretation.

If we are to design protocols for genuinely inclusive forums, then we must attend not only to neurotypical/ND differences, but also to how gender, culture, and power intersect to shape which communication styles are heard as legitimate.

Some Things We Might Discuss:

  1. Hidden Rules

    • What hidden assumptions or “compression codes” do we notice operating in our own group?

    • Where might these be excluding certain ways of speaking or knowing?

  2. Plurality of Styles

    • How can we make space for different tempos, levels of detail, or forms of insistence without losing flow?

    • What might balance look like in practice?

  3. Protocol Design

    • What protocols could we try that actively welcome and surface differences, rather than smoothing them over?

    • How might we structure time, turn-taking, or asynchronous follow-up to support inclusion?

  4. Ethics and Urgency

    • How do we make sure voices of strong ethical clarity (like Greta Thunberg’s) are not dismissed as “too rigid” or “too much”?

    • Can we treat these voices as a compass, even if the style feels uncomfortable?

  5. Humility and Learning

    • What practices might help us remember that we don’t know what we don’t know?

    • How can curiosity and humility become norms in our dialogue?

Further Reading

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chandler.

  • Bateson, N. (2016). Small Arcs of Larger Circles: Framing through Other Patterns. Triarchy Press.

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.

  • Laszlo, E. (2001). Macroshift: Navigating the Transformation to a Sustainable World. Berrett-Koehler.

  • Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887.

  • Rafiee, H. (1991). Polite verbal wrestling: The pragmatics of taarof in Persian. Iranian Studies, 24(1–4), 19–30.

  • Rosqvist, H. B., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (2020). Neurodiverse communication and the politics of directness: Insights from the Greta Thunberg phenomenon. Autism in Adulthood, 2(1), 6–14.

  • Sadr, N. G., et al. (2025). We Politely Insist: Your LLM Must Learn the Persian Art of Taarof. Brock University / Emory University.

  • Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. William Morrow.

  • Yergeau, M. (2018). Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke University Press.

1 Like
2

I thought of a response, then delegated to Copilot to furnish the details (see below). My seed idea was that Bateson’s multiperspectival roughly equates to Meadows’s highest form of leverage.

======================

Relate Nora Bateson’s idea of multiple patterns of framing to the work of Donella Meadows on leverage.

Copilot said:

Copilot

Great question—this invites a rich synthesis of systems thinking and epistemology.

:puzzle_piece: Nora Bateson: Multiple Patterns of Framing

Nora Bateson, building on her father Gregory Bateson’s work, emphasizes that understanding complex systems requires multiple simultaneous perspectives—what she calls “multiple patterns of framing.” This means:

  • No single model or lens can fully capture a living system.

  • Meaning emerges from the interrelationships between perspectives.

  • Context and relationality are central—knowledge is not static but alive and evolving.

Her approach is deeply transcontextual, meaning it looks at how patterns repeat across different contexts (e.g., biology, culture, emotion, economics), and how those patterns interact.

:gear: Donella Meadows: Leverage Points

Donella Meadows, in her seminal work “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System,” identifies 12 leverage points—ranging from shallow (e.g., parameters) to deep (e.g., paradigms). The deeper the leverage point, the more transformative the change:

  • Paradigms (deepest level): The mindsets out of which systems arise.

  • Goals: The purpose the system is trying to achieve.

  • Information flows: Who has access to what information.

  • Rules and structures: The architecture of the system.

Meadows argues that changing the paradigm—the way we frame and understand the system—is the most powerful leverage point.

:link: Connecting the Two

Here’s how Bateson’s “multiple patterns of framing” relates to Meadows’ leverage points:

Bateson Meadows Connection
Multiple framings Paradigm shift Bateson’s insistence on multiple framings aligns with Meadows’ deepest leverage point: changing the paradigm.
Transcontextuality Interconnected systems Bateson’s view of patterns across contexts supports Meadows’ systems thinking—seeing feedback loops and interdependencies.
Relational knowing Information flows Bateson’s emphasis on relationships complements Meadows’ focus on who knows what and how that shapes behavior.
Epistemological humility Leverage through mindset Bateson’s caution against single truths echoes Meadows’ insight that the most powerful interventions are often conceptual, not technical.

:brain: Synthesis

To shift a system meaningfully, Meadows says we must change how we think. Bateson adds: we must think in many ways at once. Together, they suggest that:

  • Transformation comes not from tweaking systems, but from rethinking how we see them.

  • Multiple framings are not just helpful—they are necessary to access deeper leverage points.

  • Systems change is not just structural—it’s cognitive and relational.

1 Like
3

Thanks Gen, really appreciate the care you are taking in helping us think through this issue. Everything you say here seems very helpful and relevant.

An useful question for me is whether this discussion can feed into a write-up that could help frame discussions here on the forum and elsewhere - for example we could aim to update or supplement the current ground rules on the forum about page, and likewise add something to the Research Group guidance doc. One of us could draft something like this for review or discussion by others?

Some related elements I’d like to see brought into such a framing would be:

  • strong awareness of and care to avoid unhealthy social media dynamics involving polarisation and simplication, including clarification of the function of short-form vs long-form messaging vs forum tools vs video conferencing.
  • clear differentiation of criticising ideas vs criticising a person, with a much greater tolerance for the former than for the latter.
  • vision alignment - what structures or guidance can encourage people to speak or write in alignment with their unique personal visions, and respect those of others. This would embrace not only values but also goals or projects, which might include things like collaboration, community-building or research goals, as well as ethical critique or socratic questioning.
1 Like
4

Apologies for my excessive further reading, it was “helpfully” suggested by my AI, and I have not read them all at all, just excerpts.

To answer @JonahW rules are great, but as Nora Bateson tells us everything is deeply contextual. So the ruleset approach has distinct limits as it ignores the prosocial and “feeling into” any specific instance.

With the ruleset approach someone “break the rules” they banned, automatically. It an easy solution that provides a sense of safety and comfort for “us” and may miss an opportunity to meet an “other” and some complexity, or shadow, or call to serve. What adjustments to the intersubjective space be made, what understanding and affordance could be made, by all parties?

Conflict then is something that contains information of interest. It could become a collective call to attention, and introspection.

I might suggest that we might collectively focus on a practice of becoming what I Ching calls a “superior person”. Rather than an externally imposed crude ruleset, we internalise a compass and personal resilience? How could we have the potential to hold space for someone filled with rage, and insults?

I have sat with being called a “f***ing libtard c*nt” and death threats on social media. It’s been a subject of meditation and acceptance practice for me. I’m not suggesting we court or trigger such interactions, but be more prepared to meet the realities and undercurrents of our species, and still find gold.

2 Likes
5

Meadows leverage scale = 5 (on the second, revised leverage scale).

1 Like
6

Yes completely agree about the importance of context here. I wasn’t specifically suggesting a ruleset approach of that type. Just some kind of written guidance, e.g. that expresses an ideal of collective practice. Or do you think any kind of written output will miss the point here? In which case are we suggesting a kind of unwritten norm passed on through ongoing interaction? My sense is that even if such unwritten norms are more fundamental, it can be helpful to have a written - and dynamically updated - document to refer to, especially for potential new entrants.

7

Meadows leverage - 1 (on both scales) Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System - The Donella Meadows Project

Although it sounds great to go straight to focusing entirely on maximum leverage, I’ve argued elsewhere that focusing exclusively on highest transparadigmatic perspectives is tantamount to requiring full spiritual realization as the only change model. Great if it works, but most folks are not there yet, rather somewhere on the road (even if in a metaphysical sense they really are there already). For that reason, lesser leverage, like rule tweaking (@JonahW above) may well be worth considering as skillful means for helping people stay on productive pathways to superior personhood.

8

yes indeed! It can be written , and should be. Maybe about forming a stance and method. Manner of engagement, a soft procedure? I’m trying to be open to what we can collectively emerge. Looking forward to our exploration next Friday.

1 Like
9

Thank you for this thread, @Gen It raises issues that are important to me.

And also by way of preface, I do appreciate people flagging how they use AI. I feel rather disconcerted if something generated with a LLM turns up unflagged as someone’s authentic contribution.

Another appreciation: I do find it very helpful when people contextualise what they write, as appropriate, with personal information. Just as it helps greatly when people state any diversity they own, which might affect the nuance of what they write and how it might be read.

I suspect plenty of neurodiversity in my family. Some diagnosed; some undiagnosed; some suspected; some denied and dismissed. I’ve never been formally assessed for neurodiverse traits. Quakers generally appreciate plain speech; and that’s one of the reasons I feel at home there. People try to say just what they mean, without beating about the bush. I suspect I would have personal difficulty with taarof, as I really like to be able to take what people say at face value. That’s not to say that such practices are wrong, just that to be able to function well in such a culture I would need to know what the explicit rules are, and preferably not excluded for failing to grasp them implicitly.

And I see that it isn’t symmetrical. One can point out explicitly the difference between two or more codes, and that’s relatively easy; but trying to implicitly intuit a code that is not one’s own, that’s hard! And I really like the “Mechanisms That Might Help”!

Reminds me also of the way in which words themselves are used with different meanings and connotations in different sub-cultures. I want to apply ontological commoning to that kind of situation.

I do agree it would be useful to write these matters explicitly — though perhaps maybe not as rigid rules? Maybe personal stories can help contextualise; maybe matters may be expressed poetically. Maybe case studies can be helpful, particularly when stories are written about things that have happened right here. The problem I have with explicit defined rules is that there is often too much room to argue over the meanings of terms appearing in those rules. There’s plenty of ancient support for looking at the spirit of rules, not the letter. Along with that, to being open to express the spirit of helpful guidelines in various different modes, tones, registers, languages. As there will always be differences of nuance, that invites an attitude of regarding such agreed guidelines as relational works in progress, not as definitive matters cast in stone.

(no AI was used in the writing of this piece — I guess you can tell from its rambling, disjointed nature :wink: )

1 Like
10

I’m pondering this… it seem we need to form process

that not only meets people where they are at, which is very variable, but calls us all to be superior to our earlier selves. A method for direction-ing.

I would be cautious about imagining that individuals cannot spontaneously come to a spiritual realisation. There is a lot of framing the spiritual journey from a masculine perspective…long and arduous, monasteries, retreats and meditations, and lengthy and specific practices etc, but there is no reason is HAS to be so.

There are many paths, I have witnessed portals of transformation which are the pain of collapse and the facing of dissolution ( I think Eckhart Tolle gives a good description of this) which I believe will increasingly draw many to an awakening as the impact of the polycrisis deepens.

The polycrisis can lead to awakening to the metacrisis, and sensing of what is wrong beneath it all. Becoming aware of the gravity of our predicament, the suffering and dying that has, is and will happen, that pain IS a catalyst of awakening.

It might be paradoxical that getting involved in research and measures to “save” civilization risks delaying the awakening by bypassing this process. We risk dissociation by objective theory and words, rather than feeling into the currents that lie beneath.

To enter the the alchemical process of transmutation to gold ( personal transformation to a superior being) we need to go through the crucible of fire.

Disclosure as per @Asimong suggestion : My neurospicy recipe: Aphantasia ( complete lack of visual mental projection) Low level internal voice. ADHD, inattentive type, Very low sense of linear time. Hyper focus when interested, excessive intensity or disinterest (for others lol, I’m ok with it) Very high pattern recognition and conceptual thinking. I think in Concept, and have to translate into words, not always well. I use my own designed AI agents extensively to help with that, but I rarely post an AI “answer”, my ideas are my own.

11

Oh … this debate has been going in Buddhist circles for quite a few centuries now. A common way to frame it is satori comes by accident, but some practices make people more accident prone.

1 Like