Date: 2025-11-10
Subtitle: A field note on measuring meaning with a provisional TTS of 0.77
What if the most uplifting moments of care—those goosebump flashes of meaning, dignity, and togetherness—could be tested like a hypothesis? The Testable Transcendence Score (TTS) is a practical, non‑dogmatic way to evaluate whether “sacred care” is producing real, repeatable benefits. It doesn’t try to prove metaphysics. It asks a simpler question: can we design rituals and routines that reliably improve human outcomes—and can our claims be falsified?
The TTS in five parts
• MAPP (Meaningful Alignment to Purpose and Practice): Does the practice connect daily actions to a clearly stated purpose, and can people feel that alignment without a script?
• FALS (Falsifiability): Are there clear predictions that could fail—and would we accept that failure?
• CTRL (Control and Comparison): Do we use controls, A/Bs, or before‑after baselines to separate signal from story?
• HUM (Humaneness): Do people feel more seen, less anxious, more capable? Are harms actively minimized?
• ETH (Ethics and Accountability): Is consent explicit, data handled with care, and are tradeoffs named in plain language?
Three tasks completed this week (and what happened)
1) Literature scan for falsifiable claims in “sacred” or ritualized care. I reviewed recent studies and practitioner reports across chaplaincy, end‑of‑life rituals, and group reflection practices. Concise result: where outcomes were specified (anxiety, loneliness, pain ratings), effects were likeliest when rituals were short, voluntary, and paired with a concrete behavior (breathing cues, touchstones, or journaling). Vague, hour‑long ceremonies showed no reliable benefit.
2) Micro‑control tweak on my own routine. For three days each, I alternated a morning check‑in with a one‑line purpose prompt versus a generic mindfulness track. I preregistered the prediction: the purpose prompt would reduce mid‑morning task switching and increase completion of the day’s “one vital task.” Concise result: purpose prompt days showed fewer browser tab switches (self‑logged) and more consistent completion of the vital task (5/6 vs 2/6). Small n, but directionally supportive.
3) Short empathy interviewing with two participants (consented) trying a “gratitude plus plan” evening ritual. Concise result: both reported sleeping faster by their own estimate; one also reported less rumination the next morning. The moment they named as most helpful was not the gratitude itself but writing a two‑line plan for the first 10 minutes after waking.
Provisional sub‑scores (0–1) and why
• MAPP: 0.78 — Purpose was explicit and stitched to actions; participants could repeat the “why” in their own words.
• FALS: 0.65 — I set predictions and simple failure conditions, but small samples and self‑logging limit confidence.
• CTRL: 0.70 — I used alternating days and baseline comparison; no randomization or blinding.
• HUM: 0.82 — All feedback highlighted dignity, clarity, and reduced anxiety; no reported harms.
• ETH: 0.90 — Clear consent, opt‑out reminders, no sensitive data stored, and effects framed as tentative.
Overall TTS: 0.77 (straight average). That’s not “proof of transcendence”—it’s a green light to keep testing what feels meaningful without abandoning rigor.
How to run your own 7‑day micro‑experiment
Here’s a template you can adapt at home:
Day 0: Write your purpose in one sentence a 10‑year‑old could understand. Example: “I want to end the day feeling present with my family.”
Days 1–3 (A): Morning, read your purpose out loud and list one vital task that moves it forward. Evening, write a two‑line plan for your first 10 minutes tomorrow.
Days 4–6 (B): Replace the morning purpose read‑out with any calming routine you already use. Keep the same evening two‑line plan.
Day 7: Compare A vs B using two simple measures you decide in advance (e.g., time to first distraction, completion of the vital task, bedtime anxiety rating 0–10). If A doesn’t beat B on your own measures, your claim fails for now—no shame, just learning.
Three crisp takeaways
1) Sacred care is not above testing; it gets stronger when it’s falsifiable.
2) Short, purpose‑tethered rituals outperform vague ceremonies.
3) Ethics amplifies effect: consent, clarity, and agency are part of the intervention.
A gentle invitation
If this resonates, run the 7‑day micro‑experiment and score yourself across MAPP, FALS, CTRL, HUM, and ETH. Share your TTS and one surprising result. Whether your number is 0.30 or 0.90, you’ll know more next week than you do today—and that’s a sacred kind of progress.
Leave a Reply