Passivity index

Ishtiaque Zico

Passivity index

Self-audit tool. Am I active or passive? Count where the defaults decide.

Contents

This tool audits how much of my thinking I hand over to algorithms, language standards, time pressure, templates and outside sources. It runs in the browser. Nothing is stored. Nothing is sent.

How to use it

Review the past 30 days. Check each statement that applies. Skip what does not belong to your life. There is no ideal score. The aim is to see a pattern, not to correct yourself.

The quick scan takes 15 statements, three from each kind of capture. The deep audit takes all 56 and adds sight: whether you can see the system behind your compliance.

An unchecked statement counts as no. Finish a part before you read its number. At the end, a note field lets you say in your own words where the pattern was habit and where it was protection.

0 checked / 0 skipped / 56 unchecked

1. feed

What I consume and how I find it. I consume what is served. I scroll and swipe. I stop searching for what I need. The algorithm dictates across my screens, shops, and subscriptions.

I open a feed or streaming app without a question in mind

I allow auto-play or recommendations to choose what comes next

I accept an AI chat response without checking another source

I consume news through headlines or notifications without reading the full story

I allow notification badges to decide what I attend to first

I buy products or order food based on what an app recommends

I follow trending topics instead of pursuing my own questions

I trust star ratings or review scores instead of reading full accounts

I discover music, books, or films through algorithm playlists, not personal search

I scroll past what I intended to find and watch what the algorithm inserted

0 / 10

2. voice

How I speak, write, and present myself. I rely on tools to correct my words. I adjust my voice to match a polished standard. I censor myself before others read it.

I accept grammar or style corrections from software without questioning the standard

I rewrite messages to remove my local speech pattern or emotional tone

I switch to a prestige language or dialect to sound credible in professional settings

I use AI to draft or rewrite messages that feel hard to write in my own words

I delete sentences because they sound too local, too raw, or too emotional

I apologize for my English or add disclaimers before I speak or write

I adopt professional jargon I do not believe in to fit the expected register

I avoid local idioms or mixed-language expressions in writing meant for others

I let AI rewrite my text and accept its version without restoring my original words

I rehearse a professional self that sounds different from how I talk at home

0 / 10

3. pace

How I respond to time pressure and urgency. Machines process instantly. My body requires time. I internalize speed as a professional requirement and measure my worth by throughput.

I feel anxiety or guilt from unread notifications or unanswered messages

I apologize for taking more than a few hours to reply to a casual message

I break a deep-focus moment to respond to a non-urgent notification

I measure a day by tasks completed rather than quality of thought

I treat a deadline set by someone else as more real than my own rhythm

I check messages during meals, rest, or face-to-face conversation

I feel guilty for taking a break or a slow day without measurable output

I schedule activities back-to-back without recovery time

I rush through a task to meet a speed expectation that nobody explicitly set

I treat fast response as respect and slow response as rudeness

0 / 10

4. form

How I fit my experience into templates and categories. Lived experience is uneven. Forms are flat. I compress reality to fit drop-down menus, applications, and reports.

I choose a generic category on a form because the accurate one does not exist

I leave out important context because a template has no space for it

I describe my work using labels or categories created by someone else

I write for a donor, platform, or employer vocabulary instead of my own

I accept a system's definition of "complete" when I know something is missing

I compress my identity into a bio or tagline that flattens what I actually do

I pick a pre-written response or emoji reaction instead of composing my own words

I reduce a complex experience to fit a rating scale or character limit

I select the closest available option on a form even when it misrepresents me

I shape a report or story to match what the audience expects instead of what happened

0 / 10

5. source

Where I get my knowledge and who I trust first. I reach for a tool before forming my own position. The reflex is not passive consumption. It is active craving for external answers.

I ask AI or a search engine before forming my own first thought on a question

I feel less confident in my judgment when I have not checked a digital tool first

I trust aggregated scores or algorithmic ratings over my own direct experience

I use AI-generated summaries instead of reading the original material

I find it hard to sit with an unresolved question without reaching for a tool

I copy-paste AI output into my work without rewriting it in my own understanding

I default to whatever framework or vocabulary the AI suggests

I feel that my own knowledge is less reliable than what a search engine returns

I check multiple AI tools for confirmation instead of sitting with my own reasoning

I trust a confident AI answer even when my lived experience says otherwise

0 / 10

6. sight

Whether I see the system behind my compliance. This section separates survival from surrender. It is scored separately and gives context to the capture score above.

I comply with a system I disagree with because the cost of refusal is too high

I recognize that my compliance serves the institution, not my thinking

I can tell the difference between habits I picked and habits that were installed

I recognize when "professional" is a word used to enforce conformity

I see how language requirements work as access gates, not quality measures

I understand that my compliance may be survival, not agreement

0 / 6

Reading

0% Baseline. Begin the audit to see a reading.

By dimension

feed: 0%
voice: 0%
pace: 0%
form: 0%
source: 0%
sight: 0%

Pattern

most captured: Awaiting input.
least captured: Awaiting input.
moves to try: Check statements to see a pattern.

In your words

Where was this habit, and where was it protection or survival? Optional. It stays on this page unless you copy or save it.

Grounding

What it measures

The index applies the noticing step of the unlearning framework to six places where an outside system overrides inner intent. Five dimensions measure capture: how much thinking I hand to algorithms (feed), language standards (voice), machine-speed expectations (pace), bureaucratic templates (form) and outside knowledge tools (source). The sixth measures sight: whether I can see the system behind my compliance.

The two readings together make a profile. High capture with high sight is aware compliance: the defaults are visible, and structural cost keeps them in place. High capture with low sight is habitual capture: the defaults work below awareness. Low capture with high sight is resistance informed by structural literacy. Low capture with low sight may mean low exposure, or a privilege not yet examined.

What it does not measure

Personality. Intelligence. A clinical condition. Moral worth. This is not a psychological, psychiatric or clinical instrument. Scores are rough and interpretive. The tool locates patterns. It cannot see context: sometimes compliance is survival, sometimes surrender is strategy, and sometimes the reflex protects from a worse outcome.

Why yes or no

The tool asks for recognition (I do this, or I do not) instead of a rating from one to five. Concrete recall of behavior invites less self-serving distortion than abstract self-rating. Autistic adults report that rating scales often fail to fit lived experience, because the questions strip away context (Stacey and Cage, 2022). The skip toggle handles statements outside your life without forcing a false answer.

Habit or protection

The same checked statement can mean two things. Rewriting a message in a prestige register can be autopilot. It can also be masking: a learned move to avoid social or economic punishment, made under what Pearson and Rose (2021) call the illusion of choice. A yes or no cannot tell these apart, and a score should not pretend to. So the reading ends with a field for your own words. The profile code is a short tag: the letter of the most captured part (F feed, V voice, P pace, M form, S source), then A when sight is above half, or U when the system is not yet in view. It is a note to yourself, never a diagnosis.

How the statements were made

I wrote the 56 statements through interface autoethnography: close attention to where effort spikes, where voice adjusts and where autonomy moves elsewhere, in daily digital and institutional life. Each statement names one action in one context. The tool has not been tested with other users. I plan to revise the statements after a pilot.

Limits

All five capture dimensions weigh the same. This is a design assumption, not a finding. Some statements carry more consequence than others. The score averages percentages with no evidence that the dimensions are comparable. Seeing a personal pattern does not dismantle structural power. The tool works at the scale of one person.

Sources

Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Goddard, K., Roudsari, A. and Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(1), 121–127.

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7–8), 159–181.

Risko, E. F. and Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

Samuels, E. (2017). Six ways of looking at crip time. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3).

Pearson, A. and Rose, K. (2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 52–60.

Shaw, S. D. and Nave, G. (2026). Thinking: Fast, slow, and artificial. How AI is reshaping human reasoning and the rise of cognitive surrender. Working paper, The Wharton School. SSRN 6097646.

Stacey, R. and Cage, E. (2022). “Simultaneously vague and oddly specific”: Understanding autistic people’s experiences of decision-making and research questionnaires. Autism in Adulthood.

How to use it§

Reading

By dimension

Pattern

In your words

Grounding§

What it measures§

What it does not measure§

Why yes or no§

Habit or protection§

How the statements were made§

Limits§

Sources§

How to use it

Grounding

What it measures

What it does not measure

Why yes or no

Habit or protection

How the statements were made

Limits

Sources