Reglasang pra Reglasang or Rules of the Rules is a formal Kristang Beginsel Lembransa or Creole-Indigenous Thinking Protocol. It is suitable for small-group pairwork focusing on logic, decolonial, metacognitive or critical thinking, and is more successful when autistic and ADHD neurodiverse architecture (directness and deep cognitive reframing / metacognition) is mimicked by neurodiverse participants.
Group size: Pairs
Time: 5 to 15 minutes
Steps:
1. Participants should be in pairs.
2. A question, question set, subject or topic of discussion is proposed or delineated.
Steps 3 and 4 can also appear in reverse order (i.e. step 4 first, then step 3).
3. Participants address the question, question set, subject or topic of discussion as they normally would.
4. Participants make and refine hypotheses about why the question, question set, subject or topic of discussion was even proposed at all. They may or make optional use of the following question stems to support them:
| Question stems / focus | Description |
|---|---|
| Kifoi: Purpose of question | Why is this question being asked at all? |
| Ki: Content of question | Why was this content in this question or question set asked? Why were these ideas / this content focused on and not others? |
| Keng: Background of asker | What is the asker’s background such that this might influence why they might be asking the question? |
| Kantu: Specificity of response | Is the question focusing on a very narrow or a very broad part of reality or knowledge? Why wasn’t it zoomed out or sharpened? |
| Klienggu: Quantity and quality of response | How long of an / how much / how little data / what kind of data / answer is the question actually asking for? Is there a way to subvert this demand? |
| Klai: Method of question phrasing | Why was this particular method or phrasing used to ask this question? Why not another? |
| Undi: Spatial context of asking | What kind of environment, situation or context are the question asker and the pair in such that this question would be asked? |
| Undura: Questions prior to this question | What other questions were asked prior to this one that might have led up to this question? |
| Kiora: Temporal context of asking | What events or situations have come to pass and/or are anticipated to pass such that this question is being asked in this particular way? |
| Kiamba: Overall sequence of asker’s intent | Where does this question sit in the asker’s overall discernible plan, direction or intent? |
| Diskeka: Expected answer or answers to the question | What kind of answer is the asker expecting, and should this answer be given? Why or why not? What alternative answers are there? |
Autistic and ADHD neurodiverse architecture: Participants should be as honest and unself-conscious as possible, and as focused on depth, accuracy and metacognitive analysis as possible.
Purpose
This protocol helps participants to
- distinguish content from intent: what is being asked versus why it is being asked;
- reveal hidden assumptions, framing traps, and “pre-loaded” premises embedded in questions;
- detect power dynamics in inquiry (gatekeeping, legitimacy tests, bad-faith prompts, forced binaries, scope manipulation);
- practise decolonial metacognition by treating questioning itself as a controllable technique rather than a neutral default;
- strengthen logical clarity by testing the boundaries, scope, data-demands, and implied evaluation criteria of a question;
- generate strategic response options (answer directly, reframe, refuse the frame, widen/narrow scope, request constraints, redirect);
- support neurodiverse directness by legitimising explicit analysis of subtext without requiring social guesswork or politeness theatre.
Application
This protocol is best used with any questions, question sets, texts, tasks or content that:
• appear neutral but contain embedded assumptions (e.g. “Why did you choose to…?” where the “choice” is itself debatable);
• compress multiple issues into a single demand (stacked or compound questions);
• force binary framing when the topic is structurally plural or ambiguous;
• demand disproportionate evidence, credentials, or justification relative to the scope of the inquiry;
• are unusually vague (“What do you think about this?”) or unusually narrow (“Answer in 50 words only”);
• shift evaluative criteria mid-conversation;
• function as legitimacy tests rather than genuine inquiry;
• arise in high-stakes contexts where sequence, timing, and environment materially affect meaning;
• seem disconnected from prior discussion, suggesting strategic repositioning;
• feel “off” structurally, even if socially acceptable on the surface.
Reglasang pra Reglasang is particularly effective when participants suspect that the structure of a question, text or task is doing more work than its visible content.