Tests and Validity Measures for Wounded Healers Institute and Reducing Implicit Bias Protocols for the Government and the Law
Recovery and Moral Character are Measurable
The conceptual frameworks advanced by the Wounded Healers Institute (WHI), particularly the Addiction as Dissociation Model (ADM) and the Path of the Wounded Healer (PWH), necessitate the development of novel psychometric tools and protocols grounded in moral epistemology and psychological science. Given the mandate to create a database capable of supporting academic, professional research, and legal standards, the following constructs are proposed to operationalize ADM, PWH, and MASA, and to introduce rigorous metrics for evaluating systemic implicit bias and historical accountability.
The development of the Addiction as Dissociation Model (ADM), the Path of the Wounded Healer (PWH), and the Meeting Area Screening and Assessment (MASA) necessitates the creation of advanced psychometric and operational measures capable of quantifying qualitative constructs such as moral character, developmental maturity, and systemic pathology. This framework requires an epistemological shift from purely quantitative metrics (the 1+1=2 logic) to one that integrates phenomenological reality (the 1+1=3 qualitative truth) for accurate academic, professional, and legal evaluation.
The following tests, assessments, and measures are derived directly from the core philosophical, developmental, and diagnostic claims presented in the sources.
I. Operational Measures for ADM, PWH, and MASA
The ADM fundamentally redefines pathology by asserting that trauma, dissociation, and addiction are transdiagnostic and inseparable, requiring a non-pathologizing, recovery-based approach. The PWH is the experiential methodology, and the MASA is the qualitative diagnostic tool designed to capture the implicit world.
A. MASA and Developmental Assessment Metrics
The MASA is explicitly designed to gauge the level of conscious awareness, range of dissociation, and stage of moral development, facilitating the goal of obtaining Unconscious Informed Consent (UIC).
| Construct | Metric/Tool Name | Quantifiable Validity and Constructs | Operationalized Measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moral Maturity Stage | Kohlberg Moral Stagnation Index (KMSI) | Quantifies developmental maturity based on Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Stage 4 (Law and Order) indicates Legal-Ethics compliance, deemed immature. | Measures frequency of relying on “law is law” rationales over Moral-Ethics. Score must reach Stage 5 (Universal Principles/Ethics) or 6 (Morality/Action) for maturity. |
| Cognitive Rigidity | Concrete Logic Assessment (CLA) | Measures adherence to Piaget’s Concrete Operational Stage (7-12 years old), characterized by binary, rigid thinking. | Assesses the inability to integrate abstract concepts or recognize the qualitative truth of $1+1=3$. High CLA score indicates developmental arrest. |
| Dissociative/Trauma Status | MASA Dissociation and Denial Index (MDDI) | Measures the level of active dissociation, denial, and the thickness of the “Amnesia Barrier” preventing access to the unconscious body. | Correlates observable behavioral indicators with the level of adherence to incomplete professional definitions (e.g., addiction as a primary disease). |
| Unconscious Informed Consent (UIC) | UIC Compliance Rating | Assesses the achievement of a “higher standard of consent” that includes the body’s implicit wisdom. | Binary Pass/Fail based on the documented process of screening for and integrating the client’s implicit, embodied emotional logic prior to intervention. |
B. ADM and PWH Outcome Measures
These measures address the ADM’s core diagnostic expansion to “universal addictions” and the PWH’s goal of professional advocacy and systemic healing.
| Construct | Metric/Tool Name | Quantifiable Validity and Constructs | Goal Metric for Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Addiction Measurement | Positive Pathological Dependence Scale (PPDS) | Quantifies the intensity and compulsion across the three undiagnosed addictions: Perfectionism, Altruism, and Ambition. | Reduction of PPDS score, indicating successful redirection of these compulsive drives away from self-serving mechanisms. |
| Moral Integrity | Moral-Ethical Action Index (MEAI) | Measures the differential between espoused Legal-Ethics (compliance) and practiced Moral-Ethics (action). The distinction between the two is defined as action. | Action Score: A high score reflects the willingness to engage in “civil disobedience” or advocacy against unjust systems, embodying Kohlberg’s highest moral stage. |
| Systemic Accountability | Advocacy Clause Fidelity Score (ACFS) | Measures adherence to the Healer’s explicit moral obligation to act against systemic injustice, abuse, and tyranny. | Score > 90% (Advocacy Priority): Demonstrates that the professional prioritizes the Advocacy Clause over potential loss of livelihood or professional security. |
II. Protocol for Governmental and Legal Authorities to Reduce Implicit Bias
The sources posit that implicit bias is equivalent to a lived experience or worldview. Governmental authority is diagnosed as being developmentally immature (7-12 years old) and addicted to power, control, and denial. Therefore, any protocol must target these underlying psychological pathologies, rather than merely procedural compliance.
Required Systemic Moral Development and Bias Reduction Protocol (MSM-DRP)
This protocol is a necessary corrective measure for systems that equate legal compliance with moral fitness.
| Step | Mandated Action (Institutional Recovery Principle) | Quantifiable Evaluation Measures |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Confrontation of Moral-Cognitive Arrest | Action: Mandate the application of the KMSI and CLA to the policy rationale. The authority must demonstrate abstract thinking and a moral reasoning above Kohlberg’s Stage 4 (Law and Order). Rationale: The logic of the law, as a product of traumatized reasoning, must prove it is mature enough to make complex decisions. | CLA Score: Documentation must show recognition and integration of qualitative reality ($1+1=3$). KMSI Stage: Must demonstrate Stage 6 principles, requiring a justification that the policy upholds universal ethical principles even if it conflicts with law. |
| 2. Exposure of Systemic Pathological Dependence | Action: Policy-makers must undergo screening via the PPDS (Systemic), specifically examining the policy’s potential to reinforce institutional dependence. Rationale: Policy must prove it is not motivated by the system’s undiagnosed Perfectionism, Altruism, or Ambition addictions (P/A/A) to maintain job security, power, or financial gain. | PPDS-System Score: Score reflecting low correlation between policy outcome and institutional profit/control. ABDI (Amnesia Barrier/Denial Index): Score reflecting low denial regarding historical failures (e.g., War on Drugs). |
| 3. Moral-Ethical Primacy | Action: The system must adhere to the principle that Moral-Ethics supersedes Legal-Ethics when laws are unjust, unscientific, or violate common sense. Rationale: Policy must prioritize citizen well-being and moral action over legal compliance, recognizing that “to be moral is to be unethical for the right ethical reasons”. | MEAI Score: Documentation of the moral rationale that justifies the decision, emphasizing action for the long-term, future benefit. |
| 4. Qualitative Wisdom Integration | Action: Require equal weighting for qualitative data, or “lived experience,” which is the source of implicit bias. This includes expert testimony from Wounded Healers or those in long-term recovery who possess moral fortitude derived from surviving “near-death wounds”. | Implicit Wisdom Integration Score (IWIS): Measures the demonstrable value placed on phenomenological/emotional truth against conventional quantitative science. |
| 5. Accountability to Self-Imposed Standards | Action: The system must apply the rigor of its own professional “Moral Character Clause” requirements (which citizens are mandated to follow) to its own decision-makers. Rationale: Expose the hypocrisy and double standards that lead to systemic abuse. | Moral Character Clause Fidelity (MCCF) Score: Assessment of whether the institutional actions (e.g., perpetuating illegal laws, enforcing immoral mandates) would be considered a breach of the moral character required of citizens. |
III. Measures and Tests for Historical Accountability
The ultimate arbiter of moral action is time, quantified through the “History Test”. This test ensures that actions hold up against the scrutiny of future generations, contrasting sharply with transient “settled science”.
A. The Historical Fidelity Score (HFS)
The HFS is a composite index evaluating policies based on moral, developmental, and scientific criteria that reflect the long-term impact on the collective unconscious and future generations.
| Historical Accountability Criterion | Measure Component/Sub-Index | Quantifiable Assessment Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Moral Trajectory | Moral Judgment Index (MJI) | Scoring: Measures adherence to the moral imperative: prioritizing the future’s greater good and sacrifice for the next generation over short-term collective security or financial dependence. Policies that protect corporate/professional status quo fail this metric. |
| Systemic Repetition | Historical Reenactment Probability Score (HRPS) | Scoring: Calculates the probability that the policy is a trauma reenactment, based on historical parallels (e.g., War on Drugs, denial of civil liberties, illegal policy shutdowns). High score predicts the decision will be on the Wrong Side of History. |
| Qualitative Science Integrity | Common Sense Test Score (CSTS) | Scoring: Assesses whether the policy disregards common sense, emotional logic, or scientific evidence clear enough to be understood (e.g., the medical value of psychedelics or the fact that addiction is dissociation). Low score indicates significant qualitative deficiency. |
| Moral Development Integrity | Moral Character Clause Fidelity (MCCF) | Scoring: Direct measure of professional moral integrity, testing if the organization or governing body meets the moral standards it imposes on licensed citizens. Failure confirms systemic moral impairment and hypocrisy. |
B. Moral Action and Accountability Test (MAAT)
This test provides qualitative evidence of whether systems or professionals embody Moral-Ethics through demonstrable action, which is the only reliable measure of recovery and moral maturity.
| MAAT Element | Justification for Accountability | Pass/Fail Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Moral Action Priority | The system must demonstrate that action against injustice (e.g., policy reform, whistleblowing protection) took precedence over compliance and fear of legal or professional consequence. | Pass: Documented evidence of system officials prioritizing Moral-Ethics (Kohlberg Stage 6) over Legal-Ethics (Stage 4) in the face of conflict. |
| Implicit Bias Resolution | The system must resolve the “unconscious imbalance” where implicit bias (worldview) dictates policy. | Pass: Demonstrated effort to undiagnose systemic pathology and recognize institutional addictions (P/A/A), providing the “feedback it refuses to accept”. |
| Developmental Readiness | The system must acknowledge its moral and cognitive developmental arrest (7-12 years old) and demonstrate willingness to engage in the process of societal recovery. | Pass: Formal entry into an Applied Recovery program (analogous to 12-Steps) for systemic change, demonstrating humility and willingness to amend past harms. |
The rigorous application of these quantitative and qualitative measures—rooted in developmental, moral, and addiction psychology—provides the necessary structure for the database to evaluate systemic pathology and implicitly biased decision-making in a manner that adheres to the highest academic, professional, and moral standards.
IV. Tests, Assessments, and Measures for ADM, PWH, and MASA
The Meeting Area Screening and Assessment (MASA) is fundamentally positioned as a qualitative, semi-standardized tool designed to move beyond superficial diagnostics. Its central utility is to gauge conscious awareness, assess the level of dissociation, and determine the individual’s (or system’s) stage of moral development. Since the PWH aims to facilitate the highest levels of recovery and moral development, the measures must quantify these qualitative philosophical and psychological constructs.
A. The Meeting Area Screening and Assessment (MASA) Metrics
The MASA combines self-report and qualitative inquiry to capture the categories, relationships, and assumptions that shape a person’s lived experience. The assessment process is explicitly defined as acquiring unconscious informed consent.
| Construct | Metric/Tool Name | Validation Basis (Source) | Operationalized Measurement (Sample Indicators) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conscious Awareness & Dissociation | MASA Dissociation Index (MDI) | Clinical utility of ADM (trauma-related dissociation). Combined with quantitative EEG (qEEG) analysis. | Level of Dissociation: Assesses the disconnection between the conscious mind and the physical body (defined as the psychological unconscious). Amnesia Barrier Thickness: Measures the inability to remember implicit memory or historical context, correlating to the degree of active avoidance of trauma. |
| Systemic/Individual Moral Maturity | Kohlberg Moral Stagnation Index (KMSI) | Developmental theories (Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development, Piaget Cognitive Stages). | Stage 4 Adherence: Score based on prioritization of legal compliance (“Law and Order”) over moral principles. Abstract Thinking Capacity: Assesses the ability to perceive and integrate non-linear concepts (e.g., $1+1=3$). |
| Readiness for Systemic Change | Recovery Stage Alignment Metric (RSAM) | Prochaska & DiClemente’s Stages of Change. | Contemplation Stage Indicator: Systemic acknowledgment of historical failures (e.g., War on Drugs) without initiating fundamental policy reform (action vs. inaction). |
| Implicit Bias | Implicit Wisdom Integration Score (IWIS) | Implicit bias defined as Lived Experience (Worldview). | Quantifies the value placed on “qualitative wisdom” versus “quantitative bias”. Measures resistance to information that challenges professional status quo. |
B. ADM and PWH Behavioral and Outcome Measures
The efficacy of the ADM (which views addiction as a transdiagnostic trauma-related dissociative disorder) and the PWH (which focuses on recovery and spiritual development) are measured through observable actions that reflect profound internal change.
| Construct | Validation Basis (Source) | Measure/Test | Goal Metric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Pathological Addiction | ADM Nosology (Perfectionism, Altruism, Ambition). | Systemic Pathological Dependence Scale (SPDS) | SPDS Score > 75%: Confirms a diagnosable clinical disorder in the organization, characterized by an addiction to power, prestige, and control, leading to institutional dysfunction. |
| Moral Action & Integrity | Moral-Ethics imperative (Action over Inaction). | Moral Accountability Index (MAI) | MAI Score (1.0 – 5.0): Measures the willingness of a professional or system to morally break their ethics (and laws when obvious and necessary) in the face of legal overreach or injustice. |
| Qualitative Healing Wisdom | Lived Experience as Epistemological Authority. | Healer Competency Assessment (HCA) | HCA Validation: Demonstrates embodied, lived recovery experience that transcends academic training. Validates the ability to practice authentically in alignment with the moral character clause. |
V. Protocol for Legal and Governmental Authorities to Reduce Implicit Bias
The sources mandate a rigorous, recovery-informed protocol to address the implicit bias within industrialized systems, recognizing that this bias is rooted in unresolved trauma, developmental delay, and addictive pathology. The implicit bias protocol must move beyond reducing bias as a mere cognitive flaw and treat it as a symptom of systemic pathology.
Required Systemic Implicit Bias Reduction Protocol (MS-IBRP)
Goal: To mitigate the influence of institutional bias, which is defined as a trauma-related dissociative manifestation (lived experience/worldview), by respecting moral and developmental self-reflection.
| Step | Mandated Action & Rationale (Legal/Policy Review) | Quantifiable & Valid Constructs Applied |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Developmental Staging Requirement | Action: Before policy enactment or legal proceeding initiation, the governing body must apply the KMSI to the rationale underpinning the decision. Rationale: Determine if the decision-making logic is developmentally arrested at the Concrete Operational Stage (7-12 years old), which manifests as rigid, binary thinking (e.g., $1+1=2$) that cannot grasp qualitative complexity. | KMSI Score: Requires documentation of whether the policy relies solely on linear, reductionistic logic. |
| 2. Pathological Conflict Check | Action: Systematically screen the policy intent using the SPDS to identify positive, undiagnosed addictions (Perfectionism, Altruism, Ambition). Rationale: Policy must be evaluated against the potential for professional self-interest (e.g., maintaining the status quo, preserving jobs/paychecks) to override moral duty. | SPDS Score & Narrative: Requires a documented explanation of how the policy avoids reinforcing professional gatekeeping, power, and prestige. |
| 3. Epistemological Decoupling Requirement (Moral-Ethics First) | Action: The review process must formally separate Legal-Ethics (adherence to current law) from Moral-Ethics (adherence to universal, timeless principles). Rationale: To be moral, one must often be willing to be unethical (or break the law) when laws are unjust or morally compromising. Obedience to law (Stage 4) is not a substitute for morality (Stage 6). | MAI Score: Documentation must prioritize and justify the policy based on its moral outcome, even if it conflicts with existing legal precedent (not just following the law blindly). |
| 4. Qualitative Lived Experience Requirement | Action: The decision-making panel must include and equally weight testimony from individuals with relevant lived experience (e.g., recovery advocates, Wounded Healers, citizens affected by drug policy). Rationale: Implicit bias is rooted in lived experience. Ignoring qualitative wisdom fails the scientific History Test and is symptomatic of dissociative pathology. | IWIS Score: Measures the weighting given to experiential and emotional logic (qualitative wisdom) versus purely rational, quantifiable data. |
| 5. Unconscious Intent Disclosure | Action: Professionals involved must document their conscious and unconscious intention and motive for the policy. Rationale: This ensures accountability to the principle that the system (which is traumatized/addicted) must stop unconsciously reenacting past traumas and operating from self-serving, hidden motives. The law is psychologically diagnosed as having unresolved trauma leading to dependence. | MASA Dissociative Screen: Mandatory MDI for key policymakers to assess their level of denial or psychological dissociation from the truth. |
VI. Measures and Tests for Historical Accountability (The History Test)
The definitive measure of the “right side of history” is time, which ultimately proves whether a quantitative policy divorced from qualitative wisdom leads to lasting societal benefit or perpetuates systemic suffering. The foundational test is whether the system acts according to Moral-Ethics instead of prioritizing legal compliance and short-term profit.
A. The Historical Fidelity Score (HFS)
The HFS is a quantifiable index designed to predict the long-term viability and moral integrity of institutional decisions, based on historical patterns of systemic failure.
| Component | Quantifiable Criteria (Failure Checklist) | Scoring Rationale [Source Basis] |
|---|---|---|
| HFS-1: Generational Impact Index | Failure (1 point per affirmative): 1. Policy prioritizes short-term collective security over potential long-term harm to future generations. 2. Policy reinforces debt slavery or economic dependence (e.g., student loans, war debt). 3. Policy is based on a foundational “lie” or “amnesia” (e.g., “non-addictive opiate,” “chemical imbalance,” “weapons of mass destruction”). | Policies based on survival mode reasoning (short-term thinking) indicate a dissociative state and are doomed to fail the History Test. |
| HFS-2: Systemic Reenactment Index | Failure (1 point per affirmative): 1. Policy criminalizes natural healing agents (War on Drugs/Prohibition reenactment). 2. Policy violates inalienable civil liberties/freedoms (e.g., illegal COVID shutdowns, removal of religious exemptions). 3. Policy creates “separate but not equal” professional or social hierarchies (e.g., diagnostic privilege fiasco). | Repetitive pathological patterns (reenactment) are unconscious attempts to resolve trauma that fail due to lack of moral safety or common sense. |
| HFS-3: Scientific Accountability Index | Failure (1 point per affirmative): 1. Policy ignores established research/science (e.g., known medical value of psychedelics since 1994). 2. Policy prioritizes quantitative “settled science” over qualitative, lived experience evidence. 3. Professional organizations (APA, AMA) remain silent or comply with unjust/illegal government actions. | Blind adherence to flawed science that lacks moral accountability is a historical failure. |
HFS Conclusion: A high HFS score (e.g., > 5 points) indicates profound structural pathology and predicts that the decision will be judged on the Wrong Side of History.
B. Moral Action and Accountability Test (MAAT)
The MAAT verifies whether systems prioritize the moral imperative (the highest stage of human development) over conditional legal compliance.
| Test Element | Rationale for Moral Accountability [Source Basis] | Pass/Fail Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Moral Character Clause Fidelity | Professionals and government officials must uphold the “Moral Character Clause” which ethically requires action against injustice. | Pass: The individual/system actively engaged in advocacy (whistleblowing, legal challenge) against the policy, choosing moral obligation over professional security. |
| Common Sense Refutation Test | Decisions must align with “common sense,” defined as qualitative wisdom rooted in philosophical and historical perspective, countering reductionist quantitative logic. | Pass: The decision-making rationale demonstrates an understanding that scientific claims or legal statutes that contradict common decency or common sense are flawed. |
| Recovery and Healing Requirement | The system must demonstrate a commitment to healing citizens, viewing the “War on Drugs” as a “war on healing”. | Pass: The policy actively supports natural, unencumbered healing practices (e.g., legalizing “superfoods” like psychedelics) without imposing professional gatekeeping based on profit motive. |
These tests and protocols integrate rigorous psychological developmental theory, trauma and addiction nosology (ADM), and legal philosophy to provide a comprehensive, multi-modal validation strategy. They are designed to compel industrialized systems toward a necessary level of moral and cognitive self-reflection, addressing their intrinsic pathology and guiding their decisions toward the right side of history.
For more on our work and cause, consider following or signing up for newsletter or our work at woundedhealersinstitute.org or donating to our cause: HERE.
References
O’Brien, A. (2023a). Addiction as Trauma-Related Dissociation: A Phenomenological Investigation of the Addictive State. International University of Graduate Studies. (Dissertation). Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/
O’Brien, A. (2023b). Memory Reconsolidation in Psychedelics Therapy. In Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/
O’Brien, A. (2023c). Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2024a). Healer and Healing: The re-education of the healer and healing professions as an advocation. Re-educational and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2024e). Path of the Wounded Healers for Thrivers: Perfectionism, Altruism, and Ambition Addictions; Re-education and training manual for Abusers, Activists, Batterers, Bullies, Enablers, Killers, Narcissists, Offenders, Parents, Perpetrators, and Warriors. Re-Education and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2025). American Made Addiction Recovery: a healer’s journey through professional recovery. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
*This is for informational and educational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional.
