Reification of the Self-Model: A Predictive Processing Account of Identity-Based Suffering and Preliminary Findings from a Somatic Inquiry Intervention

Abstract

Contemporary models of perception increasingly characterise the brain not as a passive receiver of sensory input, but as a predictive system that actively constructs experience from the top down. Drawing on the theory of constructed emotion (Barrett, 2017), predictive accounts of selfhood (Seth & Tsakiris, 2018; Seth, 2013), and their enactive and somatic extensions (Thompson, 2007; Gendlin, 1997), this paper develops a theoretical account of how identity-level predictive structures may contribute to chronic psychological distress.

We propose that a significant class of human suffering — spanning clinical presentations and the more prevalent experience of sustained functional impairment — is better understood as a crisis of rigidity within the self-model than as a disorder of content. This framing is developed through the lens of phenomenological psychopathology (Stanghellini et al., 2019), and aligned with an ancient diagnostic taxonomy: the Ten Fetters (samyojana) of the Pali Canon (Bodhi, 2012), which we read as a historically precedented map of the same structural constraints.

We then describe an exploratory pilot study (n=19) of the Odoki Method, — a structured somatic inquiry intervention delivered by trained guides — designed to interrupt these predictive structures through guided somatic attention, without requiring participants to engage with the theoretical account. Pre- and post-intervention data on validated psychometric measures suggest meaningful shifts in wellbeing, depressive symptomatology, and anxiety, and point toward a set of mechanistic hypotheses warranting more rigorous investigation.

Theoretical Background & Literature Review

1. The Predictive Brain and Simulated Reality

Predictive Processing and Core Affect (Lisa Feldman Barrett)

Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion proposes that the brain functions as a predictive system rather than a passive recorder of sensory input (Barrett, 2017). Rather than reacting to the world, the brain continuously generates and updates an internal model of the body-in-the-world, anticipating sensory input on the basis of prior experience.

Two features of this account are particularly relevant here.

First, the brain’s primary regulatory task is allostasis — the ongoing management of the body’s metabolic resources. To do this, it monitors internal bodily signals (interoception) and generates a continuously updated, pre-verbal summary of physiological state, which Barrett terms core affect. This affective baseline ranges across dimensions of valence (pleasant to unpleasant) and arousal (activated to deactivated), and constitutes the organism’s implicit, somatic answer to the question of whether it is safe.

Second, the brain deploys learned conceptual categories to interpret this raw affective signal. An accelerated heart rate may be categorised as fear in one context and excitement in another. Without such top-down conceptual scaffolding, internal and external sensory experience would, as William James observed, remain a blooming, buzzing confusion. The categories that the brain applies are not neutral; they are shaped by prior experience, language, and culture.

Predictive Accounts of Selfhood (Anil Seth)

Seth and colleagues extend the predictive processing framework to the experience of selfhood (Seth & Tsakiris, 2018; Seth, 2013). On this account, the sense of being a unified self — persisting through time, bounded by the body, the subject of experience — is itself a top-down predictive construction rather than a direct readout of reality. Sensory data functions not as the source of experience but as a corrective signal, keeping the brain’s internal simulation anchored to physical constraints. Seth terms this everyday perceptual experience a “controlled hallucination”: controlled because the predictions are continuously tested against sensory feedback, hallucinatory because the resulting experience is a brain-generated model rather than unmediated contact with the world (Seth & Tsakiris, 2018).

Crucially, this account extends to the observer. The felt sense of a stable, continuous self is, on this view, another layer of prediction — one with deep evolutionary roots in the need to maintain a coherent agent in the world, but no less constructed for that.

2. Embodiment and the Lived Experience

Enactive Embodiment (Evan Thompson)

Thompson, developing the enactive framework first proposed by Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, argues that cognition is not the passive representation of an independently existing world but a process of sense-making (Thompson, 2007). A living system does not merely process information; it actively brings forth a world through its organised, metabolic activity. Mind and life are continuous rather than separate.

Central to this account is the distinction between the physical body as an object in the world and the lived body as the subjective site of experience. Any meaningful shift in how a person experiences themselves is, on this view, not merely a cognitive event but a change in the biological and experiential state of the whole organism.

The Felt Sense (Eugene Gendlin)

Gendlin provides a precise phenomenological description of how the body carries meaning that has not yet been articulated in language (Gendlin, 1978; 1997). He terms this the felt sense: a holistic, meaningful, but initially unformulated bodily awareness of a situation or problem. A felt sense is not a discrete named emotion, nor a simple physical sensation. It is a complex, implicit knowing — a somatic register that exceeds whatever conceptual labels the mind has so far applied to it.

Gendlin’s account provides an experiential complement to Barrett’s interoceptive constructs: where Barrett describes the computational architecture by which the brain generates affective summaries, Gendlin describes what it is like, from the inside, to attend to that somatic signal before it has been conceptually packaged.

3. Phenomenological Psychopathology: The Shift to Suffering

Phenomenological psychopathology examines psychological distress as a disturbance in the structure of lived experience — in how a person experiences time, space, intersubjectivity, and selfhood — rather than as a collection of symptoms to be catalogued (Stanghellini et al., 2019). Two concepts from this tradition are particularly relevant to the present account.

The first is ipseity: the minimal, pre-reflective sense of I-ness that anchors experience, making thoughts and perceptions feel immediately one’s own. In severe psychopathology this structure can become radically destabilised, as in prodromal psychosis, where the boundaries between self and world dissolve. The literature implies, however, a continuum extending to non-clinical populations. In individuals with maintained daily functioning, the characteristic disturbance is not a dissolution of ipseity but a defensive rigidity around it — the person locked into a braced, defended sense of self, chronically organised against an unpredictable environment.

The second is hyperreflexivity, a concept developed particularly by Sass and Parnas to describe an exaggerated, self-observing inward gaze that arises when pre-reflective experience is disrupted (Sass & Parnas, 2003). When the natural flow of experience breaks down, the mind turns an intellectualising attention on itself in an attempt to restore coherence. In clinical extremes this process can crystallise into delusional frameworks. In functional individuals it more commonly produces rigid, oppressive self-narratives — the mind repeatedly re-running the same interpretive loops without resolution. In both cases the primary driver of suffering is not the raw experiential data but the secondary conceptual activity the mind deploys to manage it.

These two concepts — defensive rigidity of the self-boundary, and hyperreflexivity — together describe a structural account of suffering that cuts across diagnostic categories. It is this structure, rather than specific symptom content, that the Odoki Method is designed to address. The relationship between hyperreflexivity as process and the consequent hardening of the self-model is developed further in Section 6.

4. Contemplative Neuroscience and the Relaxation of Priors

A growing body of work in contemplative neuroscience has used the predictive processing framework to model the computational mechanics of deconstructive meditation practice (Laukkonen & Slagter, 2021).

Within a hierarchical predictive system, high-level abstract priors are maintained by assigning them strong precision weighting — a measure of the computational confidence the brain places in its own predictions. The higher this weighting, the more aggressively a prior filters and shapes incoming sensory data to match existing expectations, and the less available the system is to genuine updating. Laukkonen and Slagter propose that deconstructive practices operate by systematically manipulating this precision weighting: by directing attention away from high-level conceptual content and toward low-level interoceptive and somatosensory streams, the relative precision of abstract cognitive structures is reduced. When the confidence assigned to high-level priors is turned down, the habitual, automatic character of those priors — their tendency to reassert themselves regardless of incoming data — begins to loosen.

This neuro-computational framing provides a precise contemporary vocabulary for describing what the Pali Canon’s taxonomy of identity-based suffering, discussed in the following section, appears to map at a structural level: the layered architecture through which a fluid organism maintains the experience of a fixed, separate self, and the sequence in which those layers may be systematically addressed.

5. The Pali Canon: An Ancient Diagnostic Taxonomy

The Ten Fetters (samyojana) appear throughout the Pali Canon as a systematic account of the cognitive and affective structures that bind the organism to suffering. For the canonical enumeration, see the Saṁyojanasutta (AN 10.13; Bodhi, 2012). Rather than approaching them through a religious or soteriological lens, we treat them here as a historically precedented psychological taxonomy: a map of the cognitive-linguistic structures through which a dynamic organism constructs and maintains the experience of a fixed, separate self.

Read in alignment with the predictive processing account above, the Ten Fetters describe a layered architecture of this construction, from its deepest pre-reflective allostatic roots through to its most elaborated conceptual and linguistic forms. This structural alignment is developed in detail in Section 6.

The convergence between this ancient taxonomy and the contemporary predictive account is not offered as evidence for either. It is noted as a structural alignment that motivated the design of the Odoki Method, and that may prove productive in guiding future mechanistic investigation.

6. The Odoki Framework: Systemic Theory and Deadlock

Thread 1: The Collision of Allostatic Safety and Linguistic Categorization

When we bring Barrett and Seth together with Thompson and Gendlin, a coherent picture of how psychological suffering becomes self-sustaining begins to emerge.

The brain’s primary directive is allostasis — the ongoing management of the body’s metabolic resources. To discharge this function, it continuously generates a subconscious predictive summary of the body’s internal state, experienced as a baseline affective tone. This is the organism’s somatic answer to a persistent implicit question: am I safe?

When the answer is no, the system registers a state of metabolic alarm. But the brain cannot tolerate an unresolved threat signal. It immediately deploys a second layer of prediction — linguistic and conceptual categorisation — in an attempt to identify and manage the source of danger. The vague somatic contraction of unsafety is assigned a label: I am an anxious person, I am fundamentally broken, I cannot cope. This is Barrett’s conceptual act at work: the predictive engine reaches for the most available category and applies it.

The difficulty is that this categorical move, designed to resolve the alarm, tends instead to entrench it. The organism stops experiencing a shifting, temporary biological state and starts experiencing a permanent identity. The metabolic signal becomes a self-description.

Thread 2: The Rigidity of the Locked Safety Loop

This allows us to describe suffering with some structural precision. The problem is not the presence of an unsafety signal — that is a normal feature of biological life. The problem is the rigidity that follows from its conceptual capture.

When the brain categorises a somatic contraction as a permanent identity trait, it initiates a self-reinforcing loop:

1. The brain predicts threat, generating an interoceptive summary of unsafety.
2. It applies rigid top-down linguistic concepts, interpreting the unsafety as evidence of a fixed, vulnerable self.
3. That self must now be defended, which consumes metabolic resources.
4. This metabolic cost generates a fresh interoceptive signal of unsafety, reinforcing the original prediction.

We term the consequence of this process the reification of the self-model: the gradual hardening of what is in fact a fluid, dynamic biological state into a felt, fixed identity structure. In individuals with maintained daily functioning, this loop rarely produces the reality-shattering disruption characteristic of psychosis. What it produces instead is a chronic, low-grade but pervasive sense of being trapped — unable to change the conceptual narrative because the allostatic system is signalling danger, and unable to resolve the allostatic signal because the conceptual narrative keeps the alarm active.

Thread 3: The Traditional Diagnostic Intersection

The Ten Fetters of the Pali Canon, read through the predictive processing framework developed above, describe this same architecture with notable structural precision.

The deepest layers of the taxonomy — māna and avijjā (the ninth and tenth fetters, roughly: conceit and ignorance) — correspond to the most primal allostatic level: the organism’s baseline defensive orientation, its pre-reflective resistance to the dissolution of a separate self. This is not yet a cognitive event. It is a somatic set — the body organised around its own continuity before any conceptual elaboration has occurred.

The more accessible layers of the taxonomy, moving toward sakkāya-diṭṭhi (the first fetter, identity-view), represent the progressively more elaborated conceptual and linguistic structures built on top of that somatic foundation. These are the top-down models that rush in to label, explain, and rationalise the underlying allostatic signal — and that, in doing so, lock it in place.

The convergence between this ancient map and the contemporary predictive account does not validate either. What it suggests is that the structural relationship between somatic alarm and conceptual entrenchment has been consistently observable across radically different frameworks and historical periods — which lends some support to the claim that it reflects something real about the architecture of human suffering.

The Theoretical Deadlock

These three threads converge on a problem that is not merely clinical but logical. If the brain is a predictive system that uses its existing high-level priors to interpret all incoming data, and if those priors have become organised around the defence of a reified self-model, then any attempt at self-correction faces a structural obstacle: the very apparatus being used to address the problem is the problem. Cognitive effort, philosophical reflection, and intellectual insight all operate within the same predictive hierarchy that maintains the loop. They cannot easily generate the kind of genuine prediction error that would be required to loosen its most deeply weighted priors.

This is not a counsel of despair. It is a specification of what an effective intervention would need to do: introduce a disruption that originates outside the individual’s existing predictive hierarchy, operates at the level of somatic attention rather than conceptual content, and provides sufficient safety for the system to tolerate the resulting uncertainty without immediately re-closing around a defensive prior.

Relational Interception: The Guide as a Neuro-Computational Necessity

The guide in the Odoki Method is not primarily a source of emotional support, though the relationship carries that quality. The guide functions as a structural necessity: an external agent whose predictive hierarchy is unconstrained by the participant’s specific identity-defences, and who can therefore introduce a genuine corrective signal into the participant’s predictive environment.

This account is consistent with active inference models of the therapeutic alliance, which propose that an attuned relational partner functions as a stable external prior of epistemic safety — one that allows the individual’s system to down-weight the precision of its own defensive simulations without experiencing this as threat (McParlin et al., 2022). The guide’s sustained, non-reactive presence signals to the organism that the immediate environment is secure enough to permit loosening of the conceptual armour without catastrophic consequence.

The guide also serves a second, more specific function: attentional governance. Left alone, a participant attempting to attend to an ambiguous somatic signal will typically experience rapid conceptual slippage — the mind reasserting its habitual categories before the felt sense has been fully registered. The guide interrupts this slippage by holding attention on the somatic signal through precise, targeted relational prompts, preventing the brain’s automatic conceptual machinery from prematurely closing the prediction error that has been opened.

The narrative exclusion rule — the guide’s deliberate avoidance of the participant’s personal history and situational context — serves a specific neuro-computational purpose. If the guide learns the narrative backstory, their own predictive hierarchy begins modelling the participant’s situation, introducing top-down simulations that compromise their capacity to attend cleanly to the participant’s real-time somatic state. Remaining blind to narrative content keeps the guide’s attention anchored in the present somatic signal rather than in a conceptual reconstruction of the participant’s history.

The measurable consequences of this relational interception are described in the following section.

Methodology

Study Design and Context

This paper presents findings from an exploratory pilot study of the Odoki Method, conducted as an iterative clinical development protocol. The primary aims were to refine the delivery of the method through successive cohorts and to track psychometric change in participants using validated instruments. No control condition was included at this stage. The study is presented as preliminary evidence warranting more rigorous investigation, not as a demonstration of efficacy.

Participants

A convenience sample of 19 participants (n=19) was recruited through the extended networks of the project principals. No formal clinical prescreening was implemented. The cohort consisted primarily of individuals with maintained daily functioning experiencing chronic stress, burnout, or situational anxiety, alongside a small subset presenting with more severe subjective distress causing significant functional impairment. The recruitment method and sample composition impose clear limits on the generalisability of the findings, which are discussed in the conclusion.

Technical Infrastructure

All study activity was managed through a purpose-built web application, the Odoki Hub. This platform handled session scheduling, hosted the booking interface for video consultations, and served as the data collection portal for psychometric instruments. A Python data pipeline within the Hub enabled real-time data management and automated generation of visualisations. Video consultations were conducted via Google Meet.

Operational Parameters

Sessions were 30 minutes in duration and scheduled approximately weekly, though final frequency was determined by participant preference. The total number of sessions was not fixed in advance; progression was determined by the participant’s movement through distinct experiential stages. In earlier cohorts this required up to 20 sessions. As the lead guide’s practice developed and the method became more precisely operationalised, this reduced to as few as 10 sessions (approximately 5 hours of total contact time) in later cohorts.

The Narrative Exclusion Rule

A foundational operational parameter is the narrative exclusion rule: the guide does not learn, and actively avoids learning, the personal history or situational context of the participant. The participant is asked only to bring a stressful situation to mind as a means of activating the corresponding interoceptive state. The guide works exclusively with the resulting somatic signal — the immediate, lived experience of unsafety in the body — and not with the narrative content that triggered it.

Content-free approaches exist in somatic trauma therapies, typically to protect the participant from re-traumatisation. The narrative exclusion rule in the Odoki Method serves a different and complementary purpose: it protects the guide’s predictive hierarchy. A guide who learns the participant’s backstory begins, inevitably, to model that story — running top-down simulations of the participant’s situation that introduce interpretive assumptions and compromise the quality of somatic attention. Remaining blind to narrative content keeps the guide anchored in the participant’s present-moment somatic state, reduces the time otherwise spent on narrative trust-building, and preserves the clean attentional conditions that the method requires.

Data Collection and Psychometric Instruments

Psychometric data were collected at baseline and at completion of the intervention using three validated instruments, administered digitally through the Odoki Hub:

1. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR): Tracking shifts in depressive symptom severity.
2. Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7): Measuring changes in anxiety levels.
3. Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Monitoring holistic shifts in psychological wellbeing and functioning.

Data Analysis

Given the exploratory nature and small sample size of this study, inferential statistical analysis was not conducted. Two graphical outputs were generated to illustrate individual and cohort-level trajectories:

• Dumbbell plots (Matplotlib): Mapping pre- to post-intervention score changes for each participant across all three instruments.
• Sankey diagrams (Chart.js): Tracking cohort-level movement between severity categories across the course of the intervention.

Quantitative Analysis

1. Mental Wellbeing (WEMWBS)

The most consistent trend across the cohort occurred on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. 18 of 19 participants reported a positive increase in their scores. The cohort mean rose from 34.1 at baseline to 49.3 at completion, a shift of 15.2 points. This moves the cohort average from the low-average range into what the WEMWBS scoring framework characterises as flourishing.

The single participant who did not show an increase (A007) recorded a reduction of one point (27 to 26). This participant withdrew from the protocol before completion to pursue alternative modalities; their post-intervention score therefore reflects an incomplete intervention rather than a completed one.

2. Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR)

16 of 19 participants showed a reduction in QIDS-SR scores. The cohort mean halved across the intervention period, from 6.6 at baseline to 3.5 at completion.

The majority of the cohort presented with mild or minimal baseline scores, which limits the strength of conclusions that can be drawn about the method’s performance with more severely depressed populations. Within the cohort, however, the categorical shifts for higher-baseline participants were notable: the moderate depression bracket was entirely evacuated by the end of the intervention, with one participant moving from moderate to mild and another moving from moderate to the minimal range.

Of the three participants who did not show a reduction, one remained unchanged and two showed a one-point increase, both at the floor of the scale. These fluctuations are not considered clinically meaningful.

3. Generalised Anxiety (GAD-7)

The cohort began with a mean GAD-7 score of 10.8 (moderate anxiety bracket) and ended at 7.1 (mild anxiety bracket). 14 of 19 participants showed clear improvement.

The five participants who did not improve (A003, A006, A009, A012, A015) warrant specific consideration, and two hypotheses are offered for future investigation.

The first is a transitional arousal hypothesis. A system that has been functioning in a hypo-aroused, depressive state may need to pass through a period of increased activation before it can fully regulate. An upward movement on the GAD-7 during this transition may reflect nervous system activation rather than worsening anxiety in any stable sense.

The second concerns the semantic limitations of the GAD-7 itself. The method works directly with somatic states that participants have previously labelled as anxiety. As the top-down conceptual structures that generate those labels begin to loosen, participants may encounter raw autonomic activation that they continue to code as anxiety on a self-report instrument, even when the underlying somatic shift represents movement toward greater flexibility rather than away from it. The word anxiety may be too coarse an instrument to track what is actually changing. This is a hypothesis, not a finding, and would require more granular phenomenological data to evaluate.

Phenomenological Integration

The qualitative feedback collected through the Odoki Hub contextualises the quantitative trajectories described above. Three themes are presented here, drawn from participant responses at completion of the intervention.

Bypassing Narrative Constraints

The velocity observed in later cohorts — participants completing the full process in as few as ten sessions — is consistent with participant accounts of what made the method distinctive. Several participants with prior therapeutic experience commented specifically on the absence of narrative content as a differentiating feature:

“I have been doing therapy since I was a child, and it was the first time I didn’t have to talk about personal stories, issues etc. I think Odoki is a great option for people who find it difficult to open up. It is a very unique approach, challenging traditional talking therapy — a way, in a very short amount of time, to reconnect with how you feel in the world and how you react to triggering situations.”

By not providing the predictive hierarchy with narrative material to work on, the method removes one of the primary routes through which the brain re-runs and reinforces its defensive loops. Attention is redirected toward the somatic signal before conceptual capture can occur.

Shifts in Perceptual Experience

The large WEMWBS shifts observed in the quantitative data are reflected in participant accounts that describe changes not in symptom levels but in the quality of experience more broadly:

“I would say that Odoki has given me a completely new way of understanding the world and the way I perceived it. It allowed me to calm my anxious mind, to pause and reflect in my day to day. It has opened up for me a new way of understanding and listening to my body.”

This framing — a change in how the world is experienced rather than a reduction in specific symptoms — is consistent with the theoretical account offered in Section 6. If the intervention is operating at the level of the self-model rather than at the level of symptomatic content, participant experience of its effects would be expected to have this character.

Between-Session Support: The Kiri Chatbot

A third theme concerns the role of between-session support. Several participants described the prototype Kiri chatbot, accessible through the Odoki Hub, as enabling continued engagement with the process outside of formal sessions:

“The insights build upon each other in a way which makes them feel very solid. The Kiri chatbot was invaluable in enabling me to do the exercises in between sessions, which makes a big difference to progress. It also means that you’re not reliant on having sessions to do the work — you can do it any time when you need it.”

This points toward a potentially important structural feature of scalable delivery: a digital interface that can stabilise and extend the between-session process without replacing the guide relationship. The current prototype has clear limitations, performing most reliably with highly engaged participants and showing reduced utility when participants diverge from the core inquiry framework. This is noted as a development priority rather than a current strength.

Conclusion and Future Horizons

The results of this exploratory pilot study suggest that the Odoki Method warrants more rigorous investigation. The findings — consistent improvements in wellbeing, meaningful reductions in depressive symptomatology, and partial reductions in anxiety across a small convenience sample — are not sufficient to establish efficacy. What they do establish is a pattern of change consistent with the theoretical account offered in this paper, and a preliminary evidence base sufficient to motivate a controlled mechanistic study.

The Narrative Exclusion Rule as a Theoretical Contribution

Traditional psychological interventions frequently operate within the content of the client’s cognitive-linguistic history. The Odoki Method inverts this: the backstory is not merely secondary to the process but is actively excluded from it. The pilot data suggest that this exclusion does not impede progress — and may accelerate it, particularly for participants with extensive prior therapeutic experience, for whom narrative engagement may have become its own form of defensive loop.

This is not a claim that narrative is irrelevant to human suffering. It is a more specific claim: that directing attention to the somatic signal prior to its conceptual capture may produce structural change that narrative-level work, however sustained, does not easily reach. This hypothesis is testable, and testing it is a priority for future research.

Reification of the Self-Model: A Proposed Mechanism

The theoretical account developed in this paper proposes that a significant class of psychological suffering is maintained not by specific thoughts or memories but by the structural rigidity of the self-model — the process by which a dynamic biological state becomes organised around the defence of a fixed identity. We have termed this reification of the self-model, and proposed that it represents a common pathway underlying presentations that differ considerably at the level of symptomatic content.

If this account is correct, interventions that address the self-model at the structural level — rather than working on its contents — would be expected to produce broad-spectrum effects across symptom domains. The pattern observed in the WEMWBS data, where improvements in general wellbeing were more consistent than improvements in specific symptom measures, is at least consistent with this prediction. It is not evidence for it.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are significant and should be stated plainly. The sample is small (n=19), recruited entirely through personal networks, and assessed by the same individual who delivered the intervention. There was no control condition, no independent assessment, and no follow-up data. The single-guide design means that observed effects cannot yet be distinguished from individual practitioner skill. Work is underway to address this last point through the training of additional guides, and early indications suggest comparable outcomes, but this has not yet been formally assessed.

Future Research

The appropriate next step is not a randomised controlled trial. Before the method can be meaningfully evaluated against a control condition, the proposed mechanism needs to be more precisely characterised. We propose the following sequence:

Mechanistic studies should be the first priority. Targeted investigations — potentially integrating real-time physiological measures such as heart rate variability, alongside detailed phenomenological data collection — would allow the proposed process of somatic prediction error and self-model loosening to be examined directly, rather than inferred from psychometric endpoints alone. Computational psychiatry offers the methodological framework within which such studies could be designed and interpreted.

Expanded cohort studies with independent assessment, a wider recruitment base, and systematic follow-up would strengthen the preliminary psychometric case and provide the data required to specify the population and presentation for which the method is most appropriate.

Randomised controlled trials represent the appropriate endpoint of this research pathway, once the mechanism is sufficiently well characterised to permit the design of a meaningful comparator condition.

The Odoki Method is offered here not as a validated intervention but as a theoretically grounded and empirically promising candidate for systematic investigation. The convergence between the predictive processing account of identity-based suffering, the phenomenological psychopathology literature, and a 2,500-year-old contemplative taxonomy suggests that the structural problem the method addresses is both real and tractable. Whether the method itself is an effective solution to that problem is a question for the research programme outlined above.

References

Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154

Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.). (2012). Saṁyojanasutta (AN 10.13). In The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya. Wisdom Publications. https://suttacentral.net/an10.13/en/bodhi

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787

Gendlin, E. T. (1978). Focusing. Bantam Books.

Gendlin, E. T. (1997). Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning: A Philosophical and Psychological Approach to the Subjective. Northwestern University Press.

Laukkonen, R. E., & Slagter, H. A. (2021). From many to (n)one: Meditation and the plasticity of the predictive mind. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 128, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.021

McParlin, Z., Cerritelli, F., Friston, K. J., & Esteves, J. E. (2022). Therapeutic alliance as active inference: The role of therapeutic touch and synchrony. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 783694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783694

Sass, L. A., & Parnas, J. (2003). Schizophrenia, consciousness, and the self. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007017

Seth, A. K. (2013). Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007

Seth, A. K., & Tsakiris, M. (2018). Being a beast machine: The somatic basis of selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(11), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.08.008

Stanghellini, G., Broome, M., Fernandez, A. V., Fusar-Poli, P., Raballo, A., & Rosfort, R. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Phenomenological Psychopathology. Oxford University Press.

Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.