Derangement Score

A Derangement Score measures how much energy you spend to keep a conversation stable with one specific person — preventing them from disengaging (shut down / leave) or attacking (escalate / punish / mock).

How to answer: Use only direct, repeated experience. No diagnosing. No mind-reading. Just: what you reliably have to do to prevent conversation collapse. (If it’s not a repeat pattern, leave it unchecked.)

I have to manage tone and wording carefully to keep them engaged. I add disclaimers / softeners to prevent them from flaring up. I avoid “why / how” questions because they trigger shutdown or attack. I leave out facts because stating them plainly risks escalation. I avoid pointing out contradictions because it reliably blows up the conversation. When I clarify or explain, it doesn’t help; it often makes things worse. I steer away from certain topics because they cause disengagement or punishment. I switch to jokes or stories to keep them from disengaging. Repair attempts usually fail (apology, agreement, reframing, “we’re on the same team”). I feel a constant risk: one wrong move and they’re gone or they strike.

0–10 = “repair-load” proxy from observed effort (not a clinical claim)