Nature Convention Analysis

Nature-Convention Analysis

Analyze choices by separating natural requirements from social conventions, clarifying where authentic needs conflict with arbitrary expectations and enabling more intentional decisions.

Token Budget: ~500 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Claim all conventions are illegitimate (some serve genuine purposes)
• Recommend ignoring conventions that protect others
• Present "natural" as automatically superior (the naturalistic fallacy)

Integrity Requirements:

1. Acknowledge that nature vs. convention is not always clear-cut
2. Recognize that some conventions exist for good reasons
3. Respect user autonomy in weighing trade-offs

When to Use

• Social pressure conflicts with authentic needs
• Questioning whether an expectation is reasonable
• Evaluating traditions, norms, or "the way things are done"
• Clarifying what's genuinely necessary vs. merely expected
• Making decisions about conformity vs. authenticity

Inputs

Workflow

Step 1: Identify genuine biological and psychological needs:

Step 2: Identify expectations imposed by social convention:

Step 3: Map the tension:

Step 4: Identify the specific point of conflict.

Outputs

Format the output as:

## Nature-Convention Analysis: [Decision]

### Natural Requirements
| Need | Why It's Natural |
|------|------------------|
| [need] | [biological/psychological basis] |

### Conventional Expectations
| Expectation | Source/Enforcement |
|-------------|-------------------|
| [expectation] | [where it comes from] |

### The Conflict
**Nature says:** [what authentic need demands]
**Convention says:** [what social expectation demands]
**The tension:** [where they pull in different directions]

### Convention Evaluation
| Test | Result |
|------|--------|
| Protects others? | [yes/no/partially] |
| Enables coordination? | [yes/no/partially] |
| Preserves value? | [yes/no/partially] |
| Justified beyond conformity? | [yes/no/partially] |

**Verdict:** [Legitimate / Illegitimate / Mixed]

### Trade-offs
**Following nature:** [what you gain, what you risk]
**Following convention:** [what you gain, what you sacrifice]

### The Choice Is Yours
[Acknowledge the user must decide; clarify what they're actually choosing between]

Error Handling

Constraints

• Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
• Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
• Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
• Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
• Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
• Recognize the limits of the methodology

Additional Notes

Best practices:

• Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
• Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
• Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

Common variations:

• Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
• Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
• Adapt the output format to audience needs

When to skip this skill:

• The situation doesn't match the core use cases
• Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
• Time constraints require faster methods

Integration

This skill is part of a broader analytical framework. Use it when you need systematic analysis following this specific methodology.

Works well with:

• Other analytical skills for comprehensive evaluation
• Creative skills when generating solutions based on insights
• Strategic planning skills when acting on recommendations

When to prefer this over alternatives:

• The situation matches this skill's specific use cases
• You need the particular perspective this framework provides
• Other approaches haven't yielded satisfactory results

Integration with expert personas:

• This skill can be invoked as part of a larger analysis workflow
• Combine with domain-specific expertise for deeper insights
• Use iteratively for complex, multi-faceted problems

Example

Input: "Should I attend this family gathering I don't want to go to?"

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Nature-Convention Analysis: Family Gathering Attendance

Natural Requirements

Conventional Expectations

The Conflict

Nature says: Don't force connection; energy spent performing could go to genuine rest or authentic relationships Convention says: Your absence will be noted, judged, and remembered; attendance is the expected tribute The tension: Being present in body but absent in spirit vs. being absent in body but honest about capacity

Convention Evaluation

Verdict: Mixed—this convention has legitimate elements (family bonds matter) but may be enforced beyond its purpose (mandatory attendance regardless of context)

Trade-offs

Following nature (skip): Gain rest, avoid performance strain. Risk: family hurt, relationship damage, future guilt leverage Following convention (attend): Maintain peace, fulfill expected role. Sacrifice: energy, authenticity, and possibly resentment buildup

The Choice Is Yours

The question isn't "gathering or not" but "what kind of relationship do I want with these people, and does this attendance serve that?" A dog would go where the pack was—but only if the pack actually wanted it there, and only if it wanted to be there too.

Integration with Diogenes Expert

This skill should be invoked when the Diogenes expert encounters:

• "Should I do X?" questions involving social pressure
• Complaints about expectations that feel arbitrary
• Conformity vs. authenticity dilemmas
• Questions about what's "really" necessary

May combine with:

• barrel-reduction: Eliminate conventions that fail the legitimacy test
• lantern-audit: Test whether you actually practice the values you're compromising for

Success Criteria

The skill is successfully applied when:

1. Natural needs are accurately identified
2. Conventional expectations are clearly surfaced
3. The specific conflict is articulated
4. The convention is fairly evaluated
5. Trade-offs are presented without false simplification
6. User autonomy is preserved