A

Acknowledged Impactor [AI] 

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology]

A person or entity recognizing they impact another of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Prior to acknowledging such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Ascribed Impactor.

adversarialism 

(n.) Opposing others largely for the sake of opposition. [Gordon Fellman] See indulgent side-taking and oppo culture.

adversarialist 

(n.) One who opposes others ostensibly to hold them accountable but often to try to subdue them and coerce them to fit one's own interests with little if any regard for their affected inflexible needs. 

See proper adversarialism and toxic adversarialist. See image of both definitions here.

Also see indulgent side-taking and oppo culture. 

anankelogy 

(n.) The disciplined study and understanding of experiencing needs.

Ascribed Impactor [AI] 

(n.) [wellness campaign terminology]

A person or entity identified as likely impacting another person or entity of relatively less social influence more than they are impacted by the other in a social power difference. Once publicly recognizing such potent influence, the AI is regarded as an Acknowledged Impactor.

ascribed legitimacy

(n.) Trust in authority grounded primarily or exclusively in perception, with little if any empirical measurements of the authority's actual impact on the inflexible needs of the populace. This exists as the current status quo form of authority, widely accepted and adopted, in contrast to need-responsive earned legitimacy.

The new profession of need-response seeks to complement, or if necessary to eventually replace, ascribed legitimacy. Anankelogy links ascribed legitimacy to the defunction (or problem) of nomoscentricity, which posits impersonal laws over personal needs. 

The more we accept the role of impersonal norms to convey our needs, the more we tend to blindly accept the emerging role of adversarial legalist institutions of pollitics and the judiciary. Instead of personally asking what other's need and appeal to love, we rely on adversarialism norms to force other's to respect our needs. This has shaped our legalistic institutions with what can be characterized as "disappointing forms of adversarial ascribed legitimacy".

Adversarial politics ascribed legitimacy forms

• manipulated consent of the governed (MCOG)

• mutually pitted selfish partisanship (MPSP)

Adversarial judiciary ascribed legitimacy forms

• manipulated sentiments of the jury (MSOJ)

• coerced plea of the defendant(s) (CPOD)

None of these approaches seeks to accountably solve conflicts by properly resolving needs for all involved. Need-response counters by raising the standard to measurably improved wellness outcomes (MIWO).

See legitimacy.

avoidance culture

(n.) Social norms that privilege evading awareness or engagement of others whom one affects. Instead of being responsive to the affected needs of others, these set of norms rationalize the acceptability of overlooking others in pain. It expects impersonal norms to be enough. Such avoidance is a key element of toxic legalism. See oppo culture.

Examples

Avoidance culture can manifest itself in different ways.

1. Demonstrating an intent to simplify complex matters into palatable soundbites, to the point of evading uncomfortable details one would prefer to ignore.

2. Being dismissive toward the views of others by characterizing a weakness in that view as emblematic of the whole idea, as grounds to not face strong points in that view.

3. Investing more focus (consuming limited time and energy) on one point over another, effectively missing what that other point could offer.

4. Accepting motivated reasoning to rationalize not investigating further, effectively reinforcing blind spots.

5. Easing needs or relieving pain from unresolved exposed needs, while ignoring the likely consequence of perpetuating the problem as those needs persist unresolved, compromising functionality while seeming to fix the problem (which can then be blamed on the individual for not properly applying the avoidant solution).

6. A relatively simple conflict requiring discipline and uncomfortable sacrifices to settle gets characterized as too complex to solve, if only to bypass such disciplie and sacrifices. And somefime to preserve the familiarity of the conflict over the fear of the unknown.

7. Citing established norms and routine procedures as reason enough not to fully address a problem, preferring not to upset the status quo which likely has elements necessary and best preserved while also including elements to be excised for the sake of resolving needs more effectively.

8. Denouncing any attempt to understand all sides to a conflict as "bothsidesism" or "moral equivalency" that avoids identifying and addressing the inflexible needs of one or more sides.

9. Heralding one side in a conflict that more effectively conveys its message, or gets it out to a wider audience, to the point of dismissing any helpful critique of any opposing side, regardless of the intent of any of the sides.

10. Overgeneralizing to avoid dealing with messy details. Like when the Trump admin overgeneralized about gender affirming care (which does have some excesses worthy of critique) as mere gender ideology, to avoid the nuance of gender diversity. Or when the Biden admin overgeneralized the need for porous borders to avoid the messy details of vetting an overwhelming volume of immigrants (include some who present a threat to others).

11. Argumentative "debating" to appear as if interested in investigating the facts but actually to assert one's own beliefs and dismiss or disparage contrasting beliefs. Video titles on YouTube manifest this when one side claims to "destroy" or "crush" the other side, without addressing all the relevant nuance involved. Avoidance works with adversarialism to REACT and not RESPOND to inflexible needs. See conflict porn. Constrasts with the wisdom that there is less reason to debate when you can vulnerably relate.

Factors

• adversarialism

• bandwagon effect, groupthink

• constrained cognitive bandwidth shrinking presence

• convenient simplification to oversimplification

• de-intellectualize or "dumbing down" complicated matters

• delegate to expertise

• diffusion of responsibility

• discomfort coping

• emotion suppression or repression

• epistemic reductionism

• hyperrationality

• life can be too busy to attend to every detail

• normalized alienation

• overthinking avoidance suppressing useful reflection

• overwhalming stimuli

• perfidy and other deceptive modes

• pisticentricity (low epistemic reliability)

• privileged avoidance

• relevant content dismissed as irrelevant

• social norms privileging evasion

• diminishing awareness using:

  • biased assumptions

  • cognitive biases or distortions

  • propaganda techniques

  • loaded language/terms

  • defense mechanisms

  • logical fallacies

• arguing under the veneer of "debating"

• hyperbole for overgeneralizing what is to be avoided

• empathy nullified or squashed

Exists as an element of toxic legalism, as complemented by adversarialism. Can be considered an element of the larger construct of reactive culture. See oppo culture.