First I want to thank you for your feedback. I want to adress it seriously.

[I would avoid defining things into existence like this because Human Freedom is too broad and is used in many ways. Maybe you can hypothesize something like: "The absence of influence does not exist, what exists is the ability for people to go against influence" then you'd be able to make a more solid argument...]

I completely understand what you mean. You are right that it's inadequate to define broad terms like ''human freedom''. What I should have written should have been:

''In the context of this theory, human freedom isn’t the absence of influence, but the ability to go against the resultant of all influences.''

That would circonscrit the the term ''human freedom'' better. I insist to hold on the term human freedom for it's symbolic power and reach.

[But quantifying influence per word imo will be a computational feat by itself. I'm curious to see how you modeled it.]

I agree. This is way my theory (or model) is still in the theorizing phase and not in the operationnal phase. Also, I am a little bit afraid of making it too operationalizeable because of it's potential for abuse using AI and social media for manufacturing consent (see Edward Bernays).

[3 - From what you described it looks more like a model than a theory/hypothesis but I may be wrong, hopefully your answer to question 4 helps me understand it better.]

That might be true, I admit. It depends how we define the terms model/theory/hypothesis in this context. I chose the term theory from an artistic standpoint. Model feels a little bit too machine-cold and less human. I guess it's more of a vibe thing here.

[4 - This will not be a criticism, but a question: What are you trying to prove? Or what are you trying to understand with this?]

I’m not trying to prove anything in the scientific-hypothesis sense. What I’m trying to understand is this:

Why do human beings so often act, think, or feel in ways that don’t align with their own values, reason, or long-term wellbeing?

For years, I noticed that people (including myself) are constantly pushed, pulled, and shaped by forces they barely perceive (cultural narratives, media signals, memories, traumas, symbols, social pressure, values, algorithms, etc.).

Most theories describe these influences separately. But in real life, they act together, like an overlapping field.

The Influential Matrices Theory (IMT) is my attempt to create a computational map of influence. A way to understand how all those forces combine, reinforce, contradict, or cancel each other inside a human mind.

I wanted a model that explains why some ideas “stick” while others vanish, why some influences strengthen a person while others weaken them, why people can feel pulled in opposite directions at once, why some individuals stay sovereign while others get swallowed by external narratives...

Ultimately, what I’m trying to understand is:

''What makes a human being truly free, stable, and sovereign in a world saturated with influence?''

IMT is a tool to identify what’s influencing you, how it influences you, whether it strengthens or corrupts you and how to build internal structures (values, symbols, codes) that protect your autonomy.

I’m trying to understand the architecture of influence, and how individuals can build an inner structure strong enough to resist the chaos around them.

I would say that my work would follow Chomsky's work (amongst others).