Research & Validation Roadmap
A theory of desire that states how it could be wrong, and a path for scientific institutions to check.
The argument
The Dark Hierarchy is a theory of recognition-dependent desire. It does not stop at assertion. It says desire arrives through four channels, that those channels form a gradient and not a set of types, and that in every case it could examine the structure does not depend on the gender of the object. These are claims a research group can test, and the book says plainly that “no exception it could document” is not the same as “no exception”.
The seven reader instruments are built on that theory. They give a reader a private reflection today. They are also designed so that, with consent and ethics approval, they can become a validated measure tomorrow.
Six hypotheses
| ID | Claim in the book | Test | Weakened if |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Four distinguishable channels (visual, emotional, tactile, intellectual) | Confirmatory factor analysis against one- and two-factor alternatives | A single factor, or another structure, fits better |
| H2 | A gradient, not types | Dimensional versus latent-class and taxometric models | Discrete classes fit clearly better than a continuum |
| H3 | Stable over time | Test–retest reliability at 4 and 12 weeks | Reliability falls below a pre-registered threshold |
| H4 | Not gendered: profile is not explained by the gender of the object of desire | Equivalence tests across gender and orientation groups | A pre-registered effect exceeds the equivalence bound |
| H5 | Attachment as confirmation history | Convergent and incremental validity against an established adult-attachment scale | No distinct variance beyond the established scale |
| H6 | Dark night is distinguishable from system failure | Prospective follow-up of classification against outcome | Classification does not predict outcome |
The roadmap
Seven instruments with face validity. Local-first by default. No research claim is made.
The tools are free; in return, each result adds a few anonymous, rounded counters to a research tally (at most once per tool per month), stated plainly before first use. It gives descriptive distributions and a feasibility signal for H2. Item-level or linked data is never collected here: that needs a separate, consented study under an institution's ethics approval.
A separately consented, pre-registered study under a university or research institute’s ethics approval, with item-level data and, where needed, pseudonymised retest linkage. This is where H1 and H3–H6 are tested.
Pre-registered results with open materials. Null and contrary findings are published.
Anonymous by design
Cloudflare processes IP addresses transiently at its edge to deliver requests; the service does not store them. Full protocol, hypotheses and governance gates are in docs/RESEARCH_PROTOCOL.md and the data-protection assessment in docs/DPIA.md in the site repository.
For institutions
A 381-page work with a full apparatus; seven instruments with documented item logic; a privacy-hardened data pipeline; a ready route to participants among readers; credit and co-authorship on terms agreed in advance.
An ethics sponsor, a methodological lead, access to established comparison measures, and a commitment to pre-registration and open reporting.
Departments of psychology, sexology, philosophy of psychology, gender studies and religious studies are all natural homes. Write with a short outline.
inbox@echoxstudios.art