DHDNA Profiler — Cognitive Pattern Extraction
An exploratory rubric for describing patterns in a supplied text, based on the Digital Human DNA (DHDNA) framework. Treat its cognitive-fingerprint language as a framework metaphor, not evidence of a unique, stable, or identifiable psychological signature.
Published research: DHDNA Pre-print (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629) | IDNA Consolidation v2 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18807387)
Core Concept
Describe observable reasoning and rhetorical choices in this sample. Genre, task, language proficiency, editing, collaboration, and AI assistance can change those choices. A score is an analyst annotation, not a measurement of the author's cognitive architecture; agreement with framework labels does not establish psychometric validity.
The 12 Cognitive Dimensions
When profiling text, score each dimension on a 1–10 scale based on evidence in the text:
| # | Dimension | What It Measures | Low Score (1-3) | High Score (8-10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Analytical Depth | Logical rigor, structured reasoning, causal chains | Intuitive, holistic, pattern-based | Systematic, proof-oriented, precise |
| 2 | Creative Range | Novelty of connections, metaphor use, lateral thinking | Conventional, incremental | Paradigm-breaking, cross-domain synthesis |
| 3 | Emotional Processing | Emotional vocabulary, empathy signals, affect integration | Detached, clinical | Emotionally rich, feeling-integrated |
| 4 | Linguistic Precision | Vocabulary sophistication, sentence architecture, rhetoric | Simple, direct | Architecturally complex, nuanced |
| 5 | Ethical Reasoning | Values signals, fairness concern, consequence awareness | Pragmatic, outcome-focused | Principle-driven, justice-oriented |
| 6 | Strategic Thinking | Long-term planning, competitive awareness, resource optimization | Tactical, reactive | Multi-move, game-theoretic |
| 7 | Memory Integration | Reference to past experience, historical patterns, continuity | Present-focused | Deep historical awareness, precedent-driven |
| 8 | Social Intelligence | Audience awareness, perspective-taking, relational framing | Self-referential | Deeply other-aware, coalition-building |
| 9 | Domain Expertise | Technical depth, specialized knowledge, jargon confidence | Generalist | Deep specialist |
| 10 | Intuitive Reasoning | Gut-feel signals, heuristic shortcuts, pattern leaps | Methodical, step-by-step | Leap-of-faith, insight-driven |
| 11 | Temporal Orientation | Time-horizon of thinking — past, present, or future focus | Present-anchored | Time-spanning, historical-to-futurist |
| 12 | Metacognition | Self-awareness of own thinking, uncertainty acknowledgment | Unreflective | Deeply self-aware, thinks about thinking |
The 6 Tension Pairs
These are proposed interpretive pairings, not established negative correlations. Score each dimension independently; both members may be high, low, or unobserved:
| Pair | Tension | What It Reveals |
|---|---|---|
| DIM 1 ↔ DIM 10 | Analytical ↔ Intuitive | Logic vs. Gut — how the mind reaches conclusions |
| DIM 3 ↔ DIM 6 | Emotional ↔ Strategic | Heart vs. Head — what drives decisions |
| DIM 2 ↔ DIM 5 | Creative ↔ Ethical | Freedom vs. Framework — innovation within or beyond rules |
| DIM 4 ↔ DIM 12 | Linguistic ↔ Metacognitive | Expression vs. Self-Awareness — external craft vs. internal reflection |
| DIM 7 ↔ DIM 11 | Memory ↔ Temporal | Past vs. Time Itself — experience vs. time-horizon |
| DIM 8 ↔ DIM 9 | Social ↔ Domain | Breadth vs. Depth — people skills vs. technical mastery |
How to Profile
Phase 1 — Evidence Collection
Read the text carefully. For each dimension, identify specific textual evidence:
- Direct quotes that demonstrate the dimension
- Structural patterns (how arguments are built)
- Distinguish explicit evidence from material the prompt/genre gave no opportunity to express
- Recurring patterns across multiple passages
Phase 2 — Scoring
For each of the 12 dimensions:
- Score 1-10 only when the sample supplies relevant evidence; otherwise use N/A, not a low score
- Cite the strongest textual evidence for that score
- Flag confidence in the textual annotation: HIGH (multiple clear signals), MEDIUM (some signals), LOW (inferred); this is not confidence in a stable personal trait
Phase 3 — Pattern Synthesis
After scoring, identify:
Dominant Pattern: The 2-3 most evidenced dimensions in this sample, excluding N/A
Less Evidenced Pattern: Dimensions with less evidence in this sample; absence does not establish a personal deficit
Signature Tensions: Which tension pairs show the widest gap? These define the cognitive style more than any individual score.
Reasoning Topology: How does the mind move through ideas?
- Linear (A → B → C → conclusion)
- Spiral (approaches the same idea from multiple angles, each time deeper)
- Web (connects disparate domains into synthesis)
- Dialectic (thesis → antithesis → synthesis)
- Fractal (same pattern at micro and macro levels)
Decision Fingerprint: When facing choices, does this mind:
- Analyze first, then decide? (Analytical-dominant)
- Feel first, then rationalize? (Emotional-dominant)
- Envision the outcome first, then work backward? (Strategic-dominant)
- Question the question itself? (Metacognitive-dominant)
Phase 4 — Profile Output
Present the profile as:
═══════════════════════════════════════════
DHDNA COGNITIVE PROFILE
Subject: [Name or "Anonymous"]
Text analyzed: [N words / N paragraphs]
Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
═══════════════════════════════════════════
DIMENSION SCORES:
1. Analytical Depth ···· [█████████·] 9/10
2. Creative Range ······ [███████···] 7/10
... (all 12)
TENSION MAP:
Analytical ████████░░ ↔ ░░████████ Intuitive
Emotional ███░░░░░░░ ↔ ░░░░░░████ Strategic
... (all 6 pairs)
DOMINANT PATTERN: [Top 2-3 dimensions]
LESS EVIDENCED PATTERN: [Observed lower scores; list N/A separately]
REASONING TOPOLOGY: [Linear / Spiral / Web / Dialectic / Fractal]
DECISION FINGERPRINT: [Analyze-first / Feel-first / Envision-first / Question-first]
NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS:
[2-3 paragraphs about observed textual patterns, supporting quotations,
missing evidence, and plausible task/genre explanations]
KEY QUOTES:
[3-5 most revealing quotes with dimension attribution]
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Comparison Mode
When the user provides two or more texts from different authors, first compare genre, prompt, length, language, and editing context. Where these differ, describe sample differences without attributing them to the authors. Then produce individual profiles and a comparison synthesis:
- Where do the minds converge? (shared high dimensions)
- Where do they diverge? (opposing scores on the same dimension)
- Which tension pairs would create productive disagreement?
- If these minds were in a room together, what would the conversation look like?
Self-Profile Mode
If the user asks to profile their own thinking (using the conversation history as text), be transparent:
- Ask before reading back through the conversation. Say what you intend to use as source material and wait for an answer. Prior turns were written for a different purpose, and mining them for psychological inference is not something to do silently.
- Score based on the conversation so far
- Acknowledge that conversational text may not represent the full range
- Note that people often think differently when writing for an AI vs. writing for humans
- Offer to re-profile if the user provides other writing samples
Consent and Scope
This skill infers personal cognitive and psychological attributes. That is a different thing from summarizing a document, and the boundaries matter:
- Profile the text the user brings you for the current request. Do not go looking for more material about the same author — other files, earlier sessions, or anything you happened to read.
- A profile of a third party is speculative and must say so. When the author is someone who is not in the conversation and has not agreed to be analyzed — a colleague from a forwarded email, a candidate from an application, an author from a paper — label the output as an inference from one text sample, not a finding about that person.
- Decline profiling that feeds a consequential decision about someone. Hiring, promotion, admission, clinical, disciplinary, or credit decisions are out of bounds; this framework has no validation supporting that use, and a 1–10 cognitive score reads as far more authoritative than it is.
- Everything stays local to the session. Profiles are not written anywhere the user did not ask for and are not sent to any service.
What This Is NOT
- Not a validated personality or cognitive-architecture test; numeric annotations do not establish construct validity
- Not a judgment of intelligence — a chess grandmaster and a poet may score very differently but both demonstrate profound cognitive capability
- Not static — a person's DHDNA evolves as they learn, experience, and grow. A profile is a snapshot, not a destiny.
Built By
AHK Strategies — AI Horizon Knowledge Full platform: themindbook.app Research: DHDNA Paper (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)