Search Results

First recognize every need as an objective fact The objective reality of need points to many overlooked strong correlations. Introduction Anankelogy first recognizes how needs occur as objective facts, independent from our subjective experiences. You require water whether feeling thirsty or not. You need social connection despite any thought about it. Anankelogy defines need as essential to function. If you can function without it, then it is not literally a "need". For example, you never literally need a bottle of water. If you can access a resource in different ways, such as water from a drinking fountain, then anankelogy does not count that as "essential to function". To get more specific, anankelogy breaks down the experience of need in a four-part funnel. core need - optimal homeostatic balance, essential to functioning resource need - something necessary to restore homeostatic balance access need - how to get the necessary resource, or any substitutes psychosocial need - who is to access it, yourself or someone else Anankelogy differentiates between the inflexible core and flexible external aspects of our experience of needs. You have no choice about requiring something like water, solitude or social connection to restore equilibrium. You have choices how to address such needs. As objective fact, independent of awareness. The objective fact of needs Anankelogy invites us to discover the many significant correlations with our objective needs. Proper use of social science can test the veracity of these theorized relations. The findings can give credibility to our efforts to resolve more needs, which then removes more pain and restores more wellness. Anankelogy isolates these objective dimensions of needs 1. Needs recur as an objective fact. A need is an essential requirement to function, independent of subjective experience. Needs require resources to be accessed in order to restore functioning, independent of subjective experience. Testable hypothesis: The more we must have something particular to stay alive or to function, and the less we can function without that particular something (or someone), the more that essential requirement exists outside of subjective experience. 2. Function fluctuates as an objective fact. When a need is not resolved, capacity to function gets reduced independent of subjective experience. For example, if the need to handle a threat is not resolved, one's function goes down regardless of subjective experience. Fear predictably rises, outside of subjective experience. Testable hypothesis: The worse we can function when a particular need is not met, and the better we can function when that need is met, the more removed that function, or wellness, exists from subjective experience. 3. Emotions occur as objective events. The content of emotions is generally subjective, like how to deal with one's fear. But the conveyance of fear as a warning when faced with something one cannot handle occurs independent of subjective experience. Sure, the details of that fear are subjective, such as the belief that the threat can't be handled or the belief it must be handled alone. But the occurrence of fear to warn of a possible threat always emerges outside of subjectivity. Testable hypothesis: The more we identify the same emotion to a particular need, the more removed that emotion from subjective experience. Here are five survey questions to test if emotions predictably occur as objective events. We could add more items, perhaps a total of ten. Respondent instruction: Identify the emotion that best characterizes your response. Q1: When stumbling upon a skunk and it starts to lift up its tail, I feel ___. curious bewildered afraid amused Q2: When running late to an appointment because traffic is unusually thick, along with new road construction, I feel ____. exasperated frustrated annoyed disappointed Q3: When learning my neighbor lied to me about why my trash cans came up missing, I feel ____. betrayed angry irritated exploited Q4: When losing a loved one to a sudden death, I feel ____. sad depressed grief lonely Q5: When caught lying to my friend about something I was too embarrassed to admit, I felt ____. exposed vulnerable irritated guilty Operationalized hypothesis: The more agreement among respondents (i.e., inter-rater reliability) identifying the most likely feeling, the more likely the identified emotion occurs independent of subjective experience and outside of personal biases. Emotions can then be characterized as occurring as objective fact. Null operationalized hypothesis: The less agreement among respondents, with diverse labeling of a corresponding emotion, the more likely the identified emotion points to subjective experience and personal biases. Emotions then cannot be characterized as occurring as objective fact. Democratizing science Anankelogy democratizes social science with what it calls relational knowing. Abbreviated RK, it empowers you to relate more accurately with your experienced needs. As you observe two things change in apparent association with each other, you frame your own testable hypotheses. You naturally entertain the notion of one "variable" causing the other. But scientific discipline encourages you not to rush to that conclusion. Know the four types of associations The discipline of social science reminds us to put the descriptive over the normative. We delay the gratification of acting upon our initial assumptions. We carefully describe all that can be observed, to ensure the greatest accuracy. We look at four different ways the association could be correlated. more-more: more of this, then more of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) "The more generous with your time, the more others test your patience." more-less: more of this, then less of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) "The more defensive you get, the less others open up to you." less-more: less of this, then more of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) "The less you eat well, the more easily you get sick." less-less: less of this, then less of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) "The less honest you are, the less others will trust what you say." Consider these knowable correlations in the testable hypotheses below. Each can be tested with the tools of social science, such as surveys, interviews, experiments, and the like. While suggesting a relationship between the two identified variables we observe changing at about the same time, we recognize how correlation is not necessarily causation. Even a spurious relationship can illuminate further inquiry. Embracing ambiguity Consider these five degrees of certainty using 'relational knowing'. Appears or seems - worthy of further investigation, exploration, but low to no certainty until tested Presents - can identify a way to test and measure this apparent association. Demonstrates - preliminary measures suggest a significant correlation. Demonstrates as indicated by - reliable measure points to a significant correlation. Demonstrates as verified by - reliable measure independently used that results in about the same findings. Any suggestion of absolute certainty ought to ring alarm bells. The more we feel certain about something, the less we seek to know further about that item or topic. Our dynamic understanding then risks crystallizing into beliefs that often cannot hold sufficiently true over time in newer situations. The less we feel certain...the more we seek...topic. Defining need Definition of need: something necessary to function. Or more simply a necessity to function. That "something" could be variable and therefore dependent on perception and culture. The raw necessity to function occurs prior to, and independent from, any perception or any human culture. Function occurs independent of subjective experience. If you do not receive sufficient nutrients, for example, your ability to function will objectively decline. List qualifier... PART A: Predictable results of resolving needs PART B: Predictable consequences of unresolved needs These assertions could be verified or invalidated using social science research tools. Keep in mind that science seeks to invalidate plausible but unsupportable assumptions more than it seeks to prove anything. I anticipate strong correlations in each of these. But such anticipation increases the risk of confirmation bias. Appropriate application of science mitigates this risk, such as using the null hypothesis to try to invalidate an untested theory and using double-blind experiments where neither the tester nor the tested know the anticipated results. With all research involving human subjects vetted through an IRB. Format Each entry below follows a simple pattern. The testable need-based hypothesis (sub header). Summary introduction to this testable hypothesis. Testable assumptions. Reasonable connection. Theorized hypothesis. Null hypothesis. Implication. Hypothesis in reverse. Quick caveat: I admit my grasp of statistics and academic research has grown a little rusty in the decade since completing two graduate degrees. I welcome critique to improve my suggested use of such research to invalidate or validate these wisdom-inspired correlations. PART A: Predictable results of resolving needs Anankelogy suggests a high correlation can be found in these associations. The more a need resolves, the less pain there can be to suffer. The sooner you remove a threat to functioning, the quicker your pain fades. The more your needs fully resolve, the better you can function. The more your needs fully resolve, the more you can reach your full potential. The more your needs fully resolve, the less drawn to unhealthy habits. The more you refill what your life requires, the less you crave unhealthy substitutes. The more you can fully resolve their needs, the easier to sustain peakfunction. The more you replenish what your life requires, the better you can function. The more fully replenishing what’s required, the easier to overcome addiction. Part B looks at each of these in reverse, at correlations of needs not resolving, A1. The more a need resolves, the less pain there can be to suffer. click to download After working a couple hours straight under a tight deadline and drinking coffee, you desperately need a restroom break. As soon as you go, you feel immediate relief. That applies to any other physical or emotional need you experience. As soon as your friend positively replies to your request for their help, your anxiety subsides. When you still cannot get everything accomplished as you had hoped, some anxiety persists. Your emotions faithfully report the level of your objective needs. Testable assumptions: This hypothesis rides on these guiding anankelogical assumptions. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, occurring independent of awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs, and that there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Apart from the body compelled to warn of a perceived threat, it is impossible to experience any pain. No perceived (or vicariously felt) threat means no felt pain. Reasonable connection: Because every need exists as an objective fact for objective functioning, and pain only exists to report a threat to functioning (i.e., unresolved need), there should be a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The more a need resolves, the more the accompanying discomfort fades. The less a need resolves, the more intense the accompanying pain. Null hypothesis: The more a need resolves, there will be no significant decrease in the intensity of its pain. The less a need resolves, there will be no significant increase in the intensity of the pain. Operationalized: The more your air conditioner cools you down to an optimal body temperature on a hot day, the more your uncomfortable sweating goes away. The less your body can return to your optimal temperature, the more uncomfortably you sweat. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, all services and institutions addressing needs of a populace could better relate to their pain. They can anticipate higher levels of reported pain likely points to lower rates of resolved needs. This also suggests that offering or providing long-term pain relief risks perpetuating pain. The body must continue warning of a threat to functioning until that perceived threat gets fully unremoved. B1 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A2. The sooner you remove a threat to functioning, the quicker your pain fades. When you arrive at the public restroom, you find you must wait in line for an available stall. Your body faithfully reports your need to go, however uncomfortable that message. But as soon as you finish what you came there for, that discomfort rapidly goes away. Your body loses reason to report such a threat to functioning once your bladder gets emptied. Testable assumptions: This hypothesis rides on these guiding anankelogical assumptions. The more one resolves a painful need, the less cause for the body to signal a threat. The sooner the removal of a reported threat, the sooner the body ends its painful warnings, allowing the accompanying pain to fade. Reasonable connection: Because every perceived threat that materializes negatively impacts functioning, and every removed threat removes cause to warn with pain, one can predict that removing a threat also removes the warning message of pain. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The more one respects pain to report threats, the more endurance to the sharp pain of reported threats. The more they endure such sharp pain of reported threats, the more effectively they can remove such threats. The sooner they remove these threats, the quicker their pain gets removed. The more pain removed, the more they can respect their pain and appreciate it to report threats, cycling back to the first relation. Anankelogy adds two types of testable correlations: reflexive and cyclic. To complement standard social science correlations, anankelogy introduces two unique types of testable associations. Its nature-based paradigm anticipates not only linear links, but reflexive and cyclic relations. Reflexive correlations. An empirically observable association between two or more variables that seem to change each other. While correlation is not necessarily causation, social science research typically anticipates one variable (the dependent variable) to change as an apparent consequence of another preceding variable (the independent variable). Anankelogy recognizes the possibility of variables reflexively impacting each other. This can point to a cyclic correlation between a string of variables. Cyclic correlations. The nature-based paradigm of academic anankelogy anticipates a string of dependent variables looping together. As variable A changes along with B, B changes with C. Then as C changes along with D, those changes in D link to changes in A. Each independent variable gets identified as a dependent variable to its preceding variable, in that part of the ongoing cycle. This suggested correlation can illustrate such cyclic correlations using the 4-part cycle of discomfort avoidance. (Start in the eastern quadrant.). 4-part cycle of discomfort avoidance Respect pain. The more you respect pain to report threats, the more you can endure the sharp pain of reported threats. Endure pain. The more you can endure the sharp pain of reported threats, the more you can effectively remove such threats. Remove threats. The more you remove these threats, the more of your pain gets removed. Remove pain. The more of your pain removed, the more you can respect your pain to report threats. Null hypothesis: The sooner one removes a pain-reported threat, there is no significant change in the timing of that pain’s decrease or removal. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, clients and patients complaining of physical or emotional pain could be better understood as perceiving a threat to be removed. Instead of focusing on relieving their symptoms or pain, more attention could be given to the threats prompting the pain. The pain serves to warn against the threat constraining their lives. Anankelogy recognizes how pain is not the problem as much as the threat any pain solely exists to report. Instead of always trying to ease each incident of physical or emotional pain, we may be better served by removing the actual threats prompting such pain. Anankelogy suggests each of us has one can be called an “easement orientation”. We either embrace the discomfort of realizing there’s a threat to be removed or we avoid the discomfort and likely overlook a threat that persists to prompt more warnings with pain. We either present a resolve-over-relieve or a relieve-over-resolve easement orientation. The more overcome with pain, the more likely oriented to relieve the distress. Lessen your pain’s intensity by engaging the message of your pain. Unless overwhelmed by pain from too many unmet needs, your pain can fade before fully resolving the need. Instead of reacting to your pain by trying to avoid it, go toward your pain and make it serve you by taking these mindful steps. Acknowledge your pain. Recognize it is only there to warn you of some apparent threat to remove. Feel your pain lose its agonizing edge once you face it down. Identify what that threat may be doing to limit your wellbeing. Feel your pain start to fade as soon as you get its message about what you need in that moment. Do anything to try to remove that threat, or distance yourself from such a threat, and start restoring your functioning. As you perceive the threat going away, your pain loses its intensity. Partially remove a portion of that threat, or significantly distance yourself from the threat, so you can get back to fuller functioning. Your pain then loses cause to exist. Mostly remove the threat or remove yourself from that threat, to restore most of your lost functioning. You now only feel mild discomfort, reminding you how that threat is not yet totally gone but is mostly out of the way. Fully remove the threat, or fully remove yourself from that threat, to restore full functioning in that area. Your pain fully dissipates and then gives way to feeling relief. Moving promptly through these steps greatly reduces the risks of slipping into unhealthy habits. Failing to identify and remove threats significantly increases the risk of addiction, as coping mechanisms for dealing with the objectively occurring pain of objectively unmet needs. Short-term relief may be necessary. But the pain will return, often in a different form, if you continue to neglect the threat. As soon as possible, identify the threat and take steps to remove that threat, or remove yourself from it. But remain attentive to the underlying threat. Or that pain will find another way to compel your attention, and possibly pull you into some debilitating addiction. Let your pain serve you instead of you serving it. B2 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A3. The more your needs fully resolve, the better you can function. One day you're fine. You wake up the next day feeling like warmed over death. You feel too sick to go work. Did you cross over some invisible line overnight? Wasn't there some phase between being well and waking up unwell? Anankelogy suggests there indeed is such a phase. Between the wellness of "peakfunction" and the unwellness of "dysfunction" lies a phase called "symfunction". But then what exactly is function? Anankelogy defines function as the level of ability to continue existing and doing things as naturally possible. Anankelogy identifies four distinct levels of such functioning: peakfunction - prioritize resolving all needs fully; completely well symfunction - prioritize easing needs pragmatically with others; mostly well dysfunction - prioritize relieving pain of unresolved needs; increasingly unwell misfunction - prioritize surviving under threat of demise; totally unwell Testable assumptions. According to anankelogy, a need is a requirement of something or someone in order to function. Consider this: Every instance of not accessing what's required to function always diminishes the capacity to function. The more one replenishes what's been depleted, and removes threatening excess, the more their functioning returns to a more optimal level. Apart from this necessity to function, we have no needs. Reasonable connection: What academic anankelogy defines as function generally equates with accessible anankelogy's concept of wellness. A colloquial way to phrase this hypothesis could be: The more your needs fully resolve, the more well you will be. Inversely, the less your needs resolve, the closer your slide toward being unwell. Theorized hypothesis: The fewer needs demanding attention, the more one can fully function. The more needs demanding attention, the less one can fully resolve. Null hypothesis: The fewer needs demanding attention shows no significant change in one's ability to function. IMPLICATION: If a service provider, like a doctor or counselor, only helps you ease your pain, they risk limiting your full potential. The more professionals help you identify and address such needs, to ultimately resolve them, the greater the chances to reach more of your life's potential. Need-response sets itself apart from standard pain-relieving options by focusing on the needs causing such pain. B3 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A4. The more your needs fully resolve, the more you can reach your full potential. Everything feels fine for you this day. Nothing hurts. Your mind entertains some ways to stretch your horizon. Testable assumptions. When all of your needs fully resolve, you enjoy the capacity to more freely pursue more of your life's potential. As soon as you experience a need demanding your attention, you cannot focus as much on pursuing your life's full potential. When suffering the emotional strain of too many unmet needs insisting on your attention, you rarely can afford to pursue your life's potential. Reasonable connection: If you must attend to basic needs, then you likely cannot afford as much attention to addressing the higher growth needs like interpersonal intimacy, mutual trust, developing competencies, nurturing economic stability and the like. Theorized hypothesis: The more your needs resolve, the better you can function. The better you can function, the more your attention tends to get pulled toward reaching more of your life's potential. The less your needs resolve, the less you can fully function. And the more your focus shifts away from pursuing your full potential and toward doing something about the mounting emotional strain warning you of these unmet needs. Null hypothesis: The more your needs resolve, there is no significant difference in your capacity to function, nor in your ability to pursue your life's full potential. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, more attention can be given to ensuring needs properly resolve, instead of increasing access to resources or relying on reasoning, or any of the other less effective modes for pursuing one's potential. B4 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A5. The more your needs fully resolve, the less drawn to unhealthy habits. When your needs properly resolve, you suffer less emotional pain. Since you suffer less pain, you typically do not seek as many comforting distractions. For example, when your need for social connection gets routinely satisfied by the quality time you spend with your closest friends, you feel little to no reason to seek validating "likes" on social media. Anankelogy recognizes three levels of resource needs for redressing your emotionally felt needs. Primary resource: What our body has evolved to utilize to restore optimal balance. E.g., water for thirst, interpersonal connection for loneliness, empathy for resolving conflicts. Primary resources fully resolving needs correlates with peakfunction. Alternate resource: What can allow a need to at least partially resolve. E.g., sweetened juice, casual friends, sympathy or pity toward those opposing you. Alternate resources partially easing needs correlates with symfunction. Substitute resource: What can only provide relief from the pain of the unresolved need. E.g., alcohol, social media “friends”, apathy or antipathy toward hostile foes. Substitute resources relieving pain correlates with dysfunction. Testable assumptions. Without the emotional strain warning you of unmet needs, you unlikely seek ways to distract yourself. While your daily routine results in properly resolving needs, you leave little to no room to slip into unhealthy habits. As you establish a routine that results in healthy living, you experience no incentive to indulge in unhealthy habits. Reasonable connection: As your needs remain mostly resolved, you can sustain the inertia to maintain healthy habits. Your raised capacity, and absence of emotional strain, can incentivize you to steer clear of poor habits. As you enjoy eating a healthy diet, for example, you feel less tempted to indulge in junk food on a regular basis. Theorized hypothesis: The quicker your needs fully resolve, the quicker your emotional strain warning you of the evoked need starts to fade. The sooner your identify the need, the less emotional strain you will suffer. The quicker you attend to the need, the less drawn to ways to distract you from the mounting discomfort from the painful need. Null hypothesis: The quicker your needs fully resolve, there will be no significant difference in the level of emotional discomfort you will experience. IMPLICATION: The sooner you can fully resolve a need, the less of a chance for emotional strain to build. Without mounting emotional strain from unmet needs, there is less of a chance to slip into unhealthy habits to cope with such pain. Anankelogy recognizes how there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Once a need gets fully resolved, your body has no reason to signal any emotional discomfort about that need. You then experience pleasure or relief. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain exists to report. When feeling pain, thank your body for warning you of an apparent threat to remove. In other words, instead of habitually shrinking from that discomfort, move toward it to identify and address the need. Flee from pain and it will chase you; chase pain and it will flee from you. Then feel that pain go away. Flee from pain and it will chase you; chase pain and it will flee from you. B5 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A6. The more you refill what your life requires, the less you crave unhealthy substitutes. Let this build upon the previous hypothesis. Slipping into unhealthy habits begins with feeling satisfied with pain-relieving substitutes. The more you can reliably access primary resources to properly resolve your needs, which your life requires, the less likely you habitually indulge in unhealthy substitutes. You eat a healthy meal, so your hunger goes away. Or you grab a quick snack, but the hunger won't go away. You cope by eating more junk food, which leaves you craving for more. Then you find you lack the energy to prepare a healthy meal. You spend quality time with a friend who truly listens to you, so your loneliness fades. Or you call a friend, but they don't have the time to give to you. So you browse social media, hoping for 'likes' to your posts to give you that feeling you're being acknowledged. No amount of such shallow affirmations will actually satisfy you. Testable assumptions. The more responsive to your inflexible needs, by promptly replenishing what your life requires and promptly removing any threats, the less you seek to "replenish" with substitute resources. Desiring what is unhealthy almost always begins when not being able to access what is healthier. When alternate or substitute resources are more readily available than much-needed primary resources, we tend to be like electricity and take the shortest path. We grow dependent upon what is most readily available, whether that satisfies our needs (primary resources) or reliably eases our needs (alternate resources) or satisfies our desperation to get rid of the persisting pain of unmet needs (substitute resources). Reasonable connection: You can maintain a healthy habit only as long as primary resources remain available to you. Once you must adjust to lesser resources and then find them consistently accessible, your risk goes up to becoming emotionally attached to such lesser resources. As your life accommodates such compromised wellbeing, you become attached to the familiarity of lesser resources. You then rarely if ever seek primary resources anymore, and may lack the energy to do so. Theorized hypothesis: The quicker you replenish whatever your your life requires, which typically refills what has become depleted, the more likely you maintain a good habit of continually accessing such primary resources. The more you faithfully resolve your needs with healthy options, the less likely you crave any unhealthy options. Null hypothesis: The quicker you replenish whatever your your life requires, there will be no significant incentive to maintain healthy habits. Slipping into unhealthy habits could routinely occur regardless of promptly resolving needs. IMPLICATION: Social norms anticipate the predictable availability of resources. Wherever primary resources remain consistently accessible, social norms may cast lesser resources as taboo, or even forbidden. For example, Islamic and other cultures forbid alcohol because of its known damaging effects on personal and social wellbeing. The robust accessibility of healthier options like water, tea and juice make it easier to curtail access to alcohol. Wherever primary resources remain persistently inaccessible, social norms may normalize lesser resources as acceptable, and even preferable. For example, the adversarial judicial system and politics normalizes the lesser resource of dealing with conflicts with antipathy between both parties, leaving little if any room to encourage empathy for each other's affected needs. If no institution exists to resolve all needs of all involved in a conflict, we will understandably crave the less healthy substitute of offering pain relief to the winning side in a court or ballot contest. Yes, it is still better than violently attacking one another. In any distorted economy where a few can horde access to the best resources, and social systems can manufacture scarcity despite an abundance of primary resources, the number of people who slide into craving less healthy option will naturally rise. Anankelogy identifies the problem of excessive resourcing, where access to primary resources gets horded or wasted. Which spills over into manufactured discontentment. Instead of supporting each other to access much-needed resources, we find ourselves in a consumerist society of cutthroat materialism fueling hyper-individualism and alienation. This cultural climate normalizes the excesses of capitalism norms. Consequently, an increasing number must resort to lesser resources and accommodate compromised wellbeing along with mounting pain. Even the materially wealthy become spiritually poor in the process, who never find meaningful contentment unless they find purpose in sharing their excess wealth. But that doesn't heal society's disconnected materialistic sickness. Current norms tend to perpetuate this imbalance, with a marketplace willingly serving up unhealthy substitute resources. "We're just providing what the market wants," serves up as a convenient yet clueless excuse, rationalizing away complicity in diminishing our personal and collective wellbeing. A society that ensures all can access what they require in life may seem too socialistic or communistic. Or perhaps cast as too Pollyanna, too unrealistic, too impractical. Meanwhile, the complicit pay the price with their taxes that goes to public services to bail out those trapped in craving unhealthy substitutes. B6 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A7. The more you can fully resolve your needs, the easier to sustain peakfunction. Resolving your needs enable you to sustain your capacity to function. As Abraham Maslow noted, resolving your basic needs (like security) sets a foundation for your to attend to your higher needs (like intimate connection with others). Indeed, as your more basic needs feel resolved, your higher growth needs awaken. But if you must suddenly defend yourself from a permeating threat, those growth needs typically get put on the back burner. Promptly removing that threat frees your focus to reach more of your life's potential. You can then sustain peakfunction capacity. With your needs consistently resolved so you can continually functioning optimally, you may reach a state of flow enabling you to reach more of your life's potential. Which enables you to remain more attentive to the presenting needs of others. Helping them resolve their needs serves your own higher need for meaningful purpose in life, as an aspect of peakfunction. Testable assumptions. Fully resolved needs serve as a prerequisite to fully function, to optimal wellness. Partially resolved needs leaves you functioning at a less than optimal level. Promptly and fully resolving needs as they occur provides you the inertia to pursue your optimal goals. Reasonable connection: You don't have to seek optimal wellbeing to experience this pull toward reaching your full potential. As your needs somehow get fully resolved, you naturally feel pulled to attend to higher needs tapping into your full potential. Theorized hypothesis: The longer you maintain wellbeing by promptly resolving every need that arises, the greater your capacity to reach and sustain peakfunction. Null hypothesis: Promptly resolving your needs has no significant impact on your ability to function. If at a higher level of functioning, there will be no significant change in your likelihood of reach or sustaining peakfunction. IMPLICATION: We may assume reaching our full potential demands developing a unique set of skills. Or having the luck or talent to go where few if any have gone before. Instead of emphasizing individual prowess, with out Wester bias, we could cultivate a sociocultural climate incentivizing the proper resolution of our needs, and then see our potential for human flourishing blossom. Much of what hinders our full potential is symfunctionality, fed by divisive social norms anchored in adversarialism and privileged alienation of toxic legalism. Anankelogy considers this rigid conformity to familiar social norms as cisconventionality. And recognizes how nature fills this void with a corrective transconventionality. Those spiritually compelled to transcend divisive social norms to connect deeply with life's full potential are recognized as transspirits. Where cisconventionality prioritizes compliance to social norms, to fit social expectations even if they lead us astray from life's full potential, transconventionality prioritizes the proper resolution of needs to reach life's full potential. "Ciscons" tolerate the gradual debasing of symfunctionality and dysfunctionality, like the boiling frog of creeping normalcy. Transspirits get compelled to directly resolve the needs which norms emerged to serve, but not to settle on partial resolution or on pain relief but to fully resolve needs to remove pain and reach more of life's full potential. Instead of appreciating such norm-challenging transspirits yearning peakfunction for us all, ciscons often cling to the familiarity of acclimated symfunction. And then deride transspirits, who could potentially liberate their full potential, as outlaws and outcasts. (I speak from experience.) For example, ciscons cling to the divisive norm of labeling asymmetric warfare participants as "terrorists" while conveniently ignoring how their own side has engaged in violent acts that can be characterized as terrorism, as targeting noncombatants. Yes, Palestinians who resisted Israeli settlers with deadly violence is disgusting. So is the deadly violence of the Sullivan campaign that killed hundreds of noncombatant Iroquois during the American Revolutionary War, with General Washington's blessing. The transspirit recognizes both sides as asserting their inflexible needs for security and self-determination. Many a ciscon falsely claim empathy for each side's needs as a kind of moral neutrality. They have bought into the myths of excessive resourcing, that only one side gets to claim the land or whatever resource being fought over. Their symfunctionality tends to blind them (i.e., diminishes awareness) from the evil this normalizes. Divisive norms compromising full potential can be organized by culturally established gender traits. Blending these traits can liberate life's full potential. And that's exactly why some transspirits (like myself) experience a transgender dimension. Not as a gender identity, but compelled spiritually to integrate all complementary sides of humanity to reach our full potential. That includes honoring the inflexible needs of others as one's own, as an act of social love. B7 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. Good science offers satisfying answers. Great science produces better questions to ask and test, to continually dive deeper into the realms of meaningful reality. A8. The more you replenish what your life requires, the better you can function. All desires begin as an emotional signal to replenish something depleted that is essential to function. For example, thirst for water after your body's water level has fallen beneath its optimal level. Or desiring friendship to satisfy the need for social connection after feeling some loneliness. Once adequately replenished, your body signals your satisfaction with a feeling of pleasure. Your thirst feels quenched. Feelings of loneliness shift to feeling affirmed. These satisfied desires enable you resume optimal functioning. Resolving needs improves wellness. That assumes you replenish what's depleted with a primary resource. Water for thirst. Trustworthy friends for loneliness. When resorting to alternate or substitute resources, such as alchol to alleviate thirst or social media "friends" to pacify loneliness, you cannot resume optimal functioning. When not resuming optimal functioning, your body continues to signal with emotions to attend to such needs. Anankelogy recognizes how emotions personally convey needs. Anankelogy also recognizes how your emotions prioritize your self-continuance. When suffering needs not fully resolved, your emotions "biases" your compromised wellness, your constrained abiity to function. In short, your biases prioritize your needs. You can hardly concentrate on other matters while your capacity to focus or stay well remains constrained. Once your needs fully resolve, your capacity opens up to your life's potential for profound growth. You can think more clearly, empathize more easily with others, and see beyond your previously self-absorbed myopia when struggling with unmet needs. You can then focus more freely, without your scope narrowed by biases. Basically, resolved needs improve your understanding. The more your needs resolve, the easier to sustain your wellbeing. The quicker you replenish with primary resources anything depleted, the better you can focus on matters outside of yourself. You can care more for others, be more empathetic to their pain, and do more for what others need. You can more freely honor the needs of others as your own, to inspire others to honor your needs as their own. Love unleashes our lives' potential. Testable assumptions. All natural needs sit equal before nature. Nobody's needs matter more than anybody's else's needs. No one can function optimally at the expense of others. Natural needs never clash with each other. Your need for solitude, for example, never competes with another's need for your friendship. The problem of excessive resourcing, of demanding access to resources beyond what is proper for living a contented and meaningful life, can trick us into believing myths of scarcity. Needs could never evolve if actually clashing with other needs. Reasonable connection: While emotions personally convey needs, laws impersonally convey needs. But social norms can never fully or accurately convey your needs to others who may affect them. Translating your emotions into loving ways to invite other's empathy and care can go a long way to sustain your wellbeing. Theorized hypothesis: The more you properly resolve your needs, by replenishing what's depleted with primary resources and removing threats, both while imposing as little if anything upon others, the more your capacity to function optimally will remain sustained. Null hypothesis: The more you properly replenish primary resources when they become depleted, or remove threats, no significant change will occur to your capacity to function. IMPLICATION: Illicit desires emerge only when we cannot properly replenish resources when they get depleted. Illicit sexual desires, for example, emerge as a consequence of not being able to properly satisfy the benign desire for meaningful intimacy. All desires start as benign or even benevolent longing for something to restore wellbeing, as life has evolved for such needs to be fully and properly satisfied. When situations compel us to settle for alternate or substitute resources, our emotions persist to warn us of not meeting our full wellness. Biases then creep in, to prioritize our attention to address whatever may be lacking. And often with little regard for what others need, to prioritize our own self-continuance. The tendency toward cognitive bias correlates with unresolved needs. Your body easily overrides your best attempt to remain rational or impartial when it compels you to give your full focus to redress unresolved needs. Bias prioritizes addressing unresolved needs. Apart from unresolved needs, or the habits developed from experiencing them, you experience little to no cognitive bias. The scientist struggling with bias should self-reflect on their pressing needs in the moment. The scientist whose needs promptly resolve fully tends to be freer to focus on their work. Since their body is not compelling them to prioritize attention to a necessity to sustain functioning, their thinking can remain open to processing more data. Including disconfirming evidence challenging their pliable assumptions. When weighed down by unresolved needs, they tend to cling to assumptions that can offer some semblance of relief. Even if only because of their familiarity, at a time their mind gets contracted to focus on what can be trusted to provide relief. When needs fully resolve, the mind can then turn more of its attention to untapped possibilities. Ideas can flow freely, independent from what one's life requires. Theories can then reflect more of reality outside of oneself. Boundless epiphanies may emerge, as one discovery sheds light on another. Good science offers satisfying answers. Great science produces better questions to ask and test, to continually dive deeper into the realms of meaningful reality. Science is well served by the scientists whose needs promptly and properly resolve, to sustain their optimal functioning. Which then helps us all to function better. B8 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A9. The more fully replenishing what’s required, the easier to overcome addiction. If you maintain a healthy diet and do not feel stressed out by life's demands, what are the real chances of you getting addicted to junk food? If you do find yourself indulging too much processed foods, then take proactive steps to prepare healthy meals as you get your life in order, can you see your risk of addiction to junk food significantly decline? Addiction typically emerges as a coping mechanism to deal with unbearable emotional pain. The numbing effect of alcohol, for example, helps distract us from emotional pain like overwhelming meaninglessness, perpetual loneliness, and devastating discouragement. When unable to replenish what your life requires to sustain your wellbeing, your may begin to desire alternative or substitute resources. You placate agonizing feelings of loneliness, for example, by seeking "likes" from social media "friends" who barely know you, if at all. If you never connect deeply with a trustworthy friend, you risk becoming emotionally attached to your shallow social media "friends". The ease and familiarity serves as low hanging fruit, as your diminishing capacity to function makes it harder to emotionally invest in true friends. For most of us, the pain we feel is preferable to the pain we fear. We know how to handle the low grade, albeit gradually climbing, level of familiar pain. It's generally easier to cope with the mild discomfort of being occasionally annoyed by a foe, for example, than risk triggering their painful rage if shouting some complaint. Creeping normalcy sets in. We acclimate slowly to increasing pain and decreasing capacity to function. As capacity shrinks, along with collapsing cognitive bandwidth, we become less equipped to handle the less familiar discomfort that often accompanies the resolution of stubborn needs. While addictions on the surface seem bad, they may actually be better than suffering overwhelming agony and allowing oneself to become functionally paralyzed. Removing that pain by resolving your needs with primary resources creates meaningful steps to liberate from any attachments to alternate or substitute resources. You can then focus better as your capacity improves, as your cognitive bandwidth allows more room for better planning and decision-making. Desiring what you actually require and can access replaces your Illicit desires. Testable assumptions. There is no such thing as pain nor desire apart from unresolved needs. Illicit desires typically emerge as a fallback to an apparent absence of primary resources. Satisfying your needs with what it actually requires tends to break any attachments to what only placates your feelings, which were signaled when those needs were unmet. Reasonable connection: Access to primary resources to fully resolve needs often depends upon the cooperation of others. Western culture risks overemphasizing what the individual should do to overcome addiction to substitute resources. This approach does not limit itself to what individuals can do but includes what others can do to affect addictive behavior. As anankelogy notes, wellness is psychosocial. Theorized hypothesis: The more you can fully resolve your needs with reliable access to primary resources, the lower your risk for becoming emotionally attached (i.e., addicted) to readily accessible alternate or substitute resources. Null hypothesis: The more you can fully resolve your needs with primary resources, there will be no significant difference in your risk to becoming addicted to alternate or substitute resources. IMPLICATION: Efforts to help individuals overcome their addictions could be greatly enhanced by identifying and addressing socioenvironmental barriers to primary resources. After exhausting attempts to change internally, persisting dysfunction indicates likely external factors to change. When seeming to blame society for their personal problem of addiction, the addict's frustration sheds light on the psychosocial reality of human wellness. Instead of reacting by countering with the hyper-individualism extreme of personal responsibility, we would do well to address both internal and external factors fueling dysfunction and addiction. We can start by recognizing the path from symfunction when settling on wellness-compromising alternate resources that slides into dysfunction when resorting to pain-relieving substitute resources. Symfunction comes with constant emotional reminders of unresolved needs, which takes up some of your cognitive bandwidth. The less your needs resolve, the less cognitive bandwidth to contemplate and reflect on other matters. Poor moral choices often begins with an inability to see or find primary resources necessary to fully resolve needs. Often beyond one's personal control. This leaves you susceptible to relying upon generalizations, even overgeneralizations, that overlook vital specifics for resolving needs and solving problems. Which feeds a vicious cycle, of avoiding more essential specifics. As emotional discomfort increases, avoidance typically sets in. You then cling more tightly to comforting generalizations. Which pulls you deeper into painful symfunction, and potentially into dysfunction. Following simple rules, like only try to change what you can change which is yourself, becomes attractive. It eases your pain, but unlikely removes all pain after neglecting its external contributors. Legalism then serves as another addiction. Sustainable liberation from addiction must integrate internal changes with proper external changes. Or we all risk slipping further into symfunction, then down into dysfunction. With the social science of anankelogy, we can find the discipline to meaningfully liberate far more from the blight of addictions. B9 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller NOTE: Part B remains unfinished at the time of publishing this post, and will be completed as time and energy affords. Thank you for your understanding. PART B: Predictable consequences of unresolved needs Anankelogy suggests a high correlation can be found in these associations. The less resolved a need, the more intense the accompanying pain. The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more the pain intensifies. The less a need resolves, the less you can function. The less your needs resolve, the less you can reach your full potential. The more in pain from unresolved needs, the more drawn to pain coping behaviors. The less you refill what your life requires, the more you crave unhealthy substitutes. The less you can fully resolve a need, the greater your risk for dysfunction. The less you can replenish what your life requires, the less you can function. The less replenishment of what’s required, the harder to overcome addiction. B1. The less resolved a need, the more intense the accompanying pain. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, independent of subjective awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs. Furthermore, it anticipates that the more urgent the need for one's functioning, the more intense that emotion. Not just randomly, but with a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Reasonable connection: When pain pesists, including emotional pain, there is likely some need or needs not being adequately addressed. Testable assumptions. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, occurring independent of awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs, and that there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Apart from the body compelled to warn of a perceived threat, it is impossible to experience any pain. No perceived (or vicariously felt) threat means no felt pain. Reasonable connection: Because every need exists as an objective fact for objective functioning, and pain only exists to report a threat to functioning (i.e., unresolved need), there should be a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The less a need is resolved, the more intense the accompanying pain. The more a need resolves, the less intense the accompanying pain. Null hypothesis: The less a need is resolved, there will be no significant increase in intensity of the pain. The more a need resolves, there will be no significant decrease in the intensity of the pain. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, services addressing pain could focus more on the underserved needs that likely fuel the pain. The finding could help need-responders serve clients with the assurance their emotional and physical pain will likely decrease the more the service can help them to fully resolve their identified needs. This could be tested using the tools of social science research. This correlation could be tested using a survey in a clinical setting. Select a common need that conveys a specific need of a client. For example, fear or anxiety. "Apart from your need to handle something menacing, you feel no fear." Clients seeking the services of need-response are expected to report anxiety as a key feature. Survey how much they experience the need and accompanying emotion. For our example, add the level of anxiety a client experiences when experiencing the need to handle something they report as menacing. Use a Likert scale to assess their level of anxiety, from the most intense to no anxiety felt at all. After helping them handle the menacing threat and they demonstrate an ability to actually handle it, resolving their need, assess their level of anxiety again. Give this survey to a population of at least 400, anticipating a 50% response rate. After receiving usable data from at least 200 respondents, to improve the reliability of the findings, collate the data using SPSS software. Apply linear regression analysis. Process the data in a chi square table. Let this table show how much changes appear at random (supporting the null hypothesis) and how much follows a predictable pattern (supporting the theorized hypothesis). Write up the results for peer review. Follow any actionable critique to improve this testing process. Rince and repeat these steps above. A1 inverts this hypothesis. B2. The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more the pain intensifies. Pain is faithful. It consistently warns you of a perceived threat. Short of mood altering interventions, it will not abandon you until your body perceives all threats are removed. If it wasn't so unpleasant, we perhaps would be more grateful for pain's faithfulness. Thankfully, pain's predictability can be anticipated with these testable correlations: The less a threat gets removed, the more their pain persists. The more one suppress their pain, the more their pain persists The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more pain intensifies. Anankelogy adds the research tool of reflexive correlations. When a correlation suggests an accompanying relationship, and that relationship points to another association, back to the first examined correlation, we can recognize the cyclic nature of our needs. Testable assumptions. Both physical and emotional pain only occurs when perceiving a threat to one's functionability. Pain consistently warns of a perceived threat until perceiving that threat is removed. The more such pain is ignored, the more it likely persists to faithfully warn the body of the perceived threat. Reasonable connection: Pain serves its purpose by maintaining the warning of an apparent threat to functioning, to wellbeing. Theorized hypothesis: The longer a perceived threat persists, the more pain the body measurably sends to evoke a self-protective response. Null hypothesis: As a perceived threat persists without abatement, there will be no significant change in the measurable level of pain. IMPLICATION: After a long while, such residual pain switches to biostructural pain to pull all stops to insist the threat gets removed, or to remove oneself from the threat. Then eventually the accumulating pain emerges as a threat itself, resulting in metapain. When a primary resource to remove the threat remains unavailable, an alternate resource offers some partial relief. But that may merely delay the pace of mounting pain, if the hypothesis is correct. A substitute resource may momentarily stall the alarm of pain. Which may prove necessary to reclaim some focus. But reliance on substitutes risks addiction. A2 inverts this hypothesis. B3. The less a need resolves, the less you can function. Anankelogy links inflexible needs (like water, social connection, security, self-determination, and belonging) to functioning, or more colloquially known as wellness. The less you can satisfy your thirst, or remain lonely, or left insecure, or controlled by others, or rejected from any group, the less you can function. Unresolved needs compromise wellness. Anankelogy recognizes how wellness is psychosocial. Your wellness, or capacity to function, depends both on internal psychological and biological factors as well as external cultural, social and environmental factors. Western culture emphasizes the internal to the risk of neglecting external factors. Which risks blaming the individual for not properly resolving their needs because of factors beyond their personal control. For example, the judicial system blaming a Black youth for offensive behaviors after that adversarial system previously denied the youth a stable childhood with his father for dubious reasons. The pattern unfolds in these reflexive correlations along three separate yet complementary paths. G: Picture being able to fully meet your childhood needs with your father's guidance. Y: Then picture your dad being taken away at a time you are too young to understand. R: Finally, imagine seeking guidance and only finding it among similarly impacted peers. Testable assumptions. One's capacity to function depends on both internal and external factors. Western bias can cast a blind spot on such impactful external factors. The less one can function, the more powerless to contest this destructive bias. Reasonable connection: If anyone should be able to resolve their needs with their given social environment, then incidents of lowered wellness (like anxiety, depression and addictiveness) would be statistically low. Mounting rates of poor wellness outcomes (or "mental illness") indicate otherwise. Theorized hypothesis: The less one can access primary resources to fully resolve their needs, the less they can function. Null hypothesis: The less one can access primary resources to fully resolve their needs, there will be no significant change in one's capacity to function. IMPLICATION: If verified, this phenomenon can serve as the process for symfunction capture. Which can predict outcomes when something other than primary resources (i.e., less-than-optimal resources) gets repeatedly used to react to felt needs. Symfunction creep. Having to occasionally settle for less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction strain. Acclimating to less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction trap. Having to rely mostly upon less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction capture can pull one into dysfunction. Which serves as a precursor to addiction. Which can have profound implications for addressing the problem of addictions. A3 inverts this hypothesis. B4. The less your needs resolve, the less you can reach your full potential. "Empty stomachs have no ears," goes the African proverb. As economic inequality widens under current norms, fewer can now access the essential primary resources to enable them to function optimally. They likely struggle with increasing pain and illness. Economic norms, in our alienated consumerist culture, incentivize the public market to cater to the manufactured demand (i.e., exploitive advertising) of mollifying alternate and pain-relieving substitute resources. The increased demand for less-than-optimal resources can drive down costs and prices, fueling this vicious cycle. Essentially, keeping the average Joe from living his dream could mean big business. Testable assumptions. Availability of a necessary primary resource gets shaped by market forces beyond the individual's control. Affordability of resources tend to favor less-than-optimal resources. Routinely accessing less-than-optimal resources compromises the capacity to function enough to pursue human flourishing. Reasonable connection: The equitable availability of primary resources, to fully resolve needs, is affected in part by what anankelogy recognizes as excessive resourcing. The more economic norms privilege accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, the less the marketplace gets incentivized to enable us all to properly resolve needs. Not only material needs, but emotional needs as well. Theorized hypothesis: The more the consumerist marketplace makes less-than-optimal resources more affordably available than expensive (or scarce) primary resources, the less consumers who cannot readily access primary resources can effectively function to pursue their full potential. Null hypothesis: The more the consumerist marketplace makes less-than-optimal resources readily available, there will be no significant impact on the consumer's capacity to pursue or reach their full potential. This could be easily tested with publicly available data This could be tested by comparing sales data of products with high-fructose corn syrup and health data of obesity and type 2 diabetes rates. Can it be assumed that those suffering such health effects are not reaching their full potential? Does this inexpensive sweetener incentivize those struggling with the pain of unmet needs to "self-medicate"? Foods laden with HFCS offer virtually no essential nutrients and displace nutrient-dense, whole foods in your diet. And does that undermine their capacity to pursue any human flourishing? If so, what does this imply about the ethics of food sellers using HFCS? IMPLICATION: Current economic norms readily serve the status quo social contract standard of manipulated consent of the people. The less this results in resolved needs or fewer people reaching their full potential, the more need-response challenges this status quo standard with a new one: measurably improved wellness outcomes. A4 inverts this hypothesis. B5. The more in pain from unresolved needs, the more drawn to pain coping behaviors. "Just because the pain is in my head," you could say, "doesn't mean I can do much about it." Unreplenished resources insist attention with obsessive desires. Unremoved threats persist in warning with pain. Your emotions don't care if such resources remain out of reach. If you can do little if anything about the lack of accessible resources to address such needs, then the resulting emotional strain can become unbearable, and overwhelming. Much like electricity seeking the shortest path, you will opt for substitute resources just to cope with the agony. This can devolve into your new normal. You may have to accommodate getting by somehow with less. You acclimate to an apparently manageable level of constant emotional pain. You survive on less than healthy coping behaviors, but at least you get to see another day. You might even find yourself emotionally attached (i.e., addicted) to social norms as a preferred way to cope with all of that emotional pain. As long as others act predictably according to the laws, you can trust you'll avoid harsher pains. Testable assumptions. Rising pain prompts the most readily available form of relief. Relieving pain can easily feel more important than patiently removing the cause of pain. Laws provide one way to cope with the subtle emotional pain of unresolved needs. Reasonable connection: Besides coping with addictive substances or behaviors, relying on legalistic solutions provides another way to cope with unresolved needs. Coping with illicit substances or questionable behavior taxes one's self-image. Coping with toxic legalism appears for more noble and socially supported. Theorized hypothesis: As the pain of unresolved needs mounts, one's coping behaviors also rise. The less one's needs fully resolve, the more one relies upon laws to manage their risk for more pain. Null hypothesis: As the pain of unresolved needs mounts, there is no significant change in one's coping behaviors. The less one's needs fully resolve, there will be no significant change in one's reliance upon laws. IMPLICATION: The aim of the legal system is not to properly resolve needs of all involved in a conflict, but to offer relief from pain for the winning side. Both the adversarial judicial system and the adversarial political system relies heavily on manipulating public perception that the law is the best and only option available to deal with unmet needs. Need-response challenges the legitimacy of such legalistic solutions, by raising the standard from "consent" of the manipulated people to measurably improved wellness outcomes. Any social structure holding us all accountable to improving wellness outcomes, by properly resolving needs, will produce far fewer offenders, addicts, or annoying legalists. And cultivate more space to nurture our potential to love each other better. A5 inverts this hypothesis. B6. The less you refill what your life requires, the more you crave unhealthy substitutes. There is no such thing as desire apart from unreplenished primary resources. Drinking water removes thirst. Meaningful social connection removes loneliness. Finding meaningful personal space removes feeling socially smothered. When the water your body requires feels out of reach, you understandably will settle for a soft drink. When your friends cannot be found, you understandably settle for social media "friends" affirming your posts. When the solitude you crave eludes you, you understandably shut out the noise with your ear phones and favorite music while in a noisy crowd. If all you can find is something that can help numb the pain, you understandably will settle for such an unhealthy substitute. Spread over time, you may end up craving such unhealthy substitutes. And lose hope of being free from pain, as you acclimate to the familiarity of this consistent discomfort. Testable assumptions. First Second Third Reasonable connection: Theorized hypothesis: Null hypothesis: IMPLICATION: unbearable emotional attachment to legalism - unhealthy substitute drawn to legalistic solutions that rarely resolve your needs lack legitimacy offer adversarial options which prevent you from resolving needs, restoring wellbeing, and removing pain reinforces your dependence upon legalistic authority as the familiar way to cope A6 inverts this hypothesis. B7. The less you can fully resolve a need, the greater your risk for dysfunction. summary intro focal cycle; focal range Testable assumptions. First Second Third first, symfunction then symfunction capture Reasonable connection: Theorized hypothesis: Null hypothesis: IMPLICATION: A7 inverts this hypothesis. define dysfunction B8. The less you replenishes what your life requires, the less you can function. summary intro Testable assumptions. First Second Third Reasonable connection: Theorized hypothesis: Null hypothesis: IMPLICATION: A8 inverts this hypothesis. B9. The less replenishment of what’s required, the harder to overcome addiction. summary intro Testable assumptions. First Second Third Reasonable connection: Theorized hypothesis: Null hypothesis: IMPLICATION: While no one sits above the law, no law sits above your natural needs. A9 inverts this hypothesis. BONUS: Theory explaining what shapes our political views The second foundational principle of anankelogy recognizes the priority of one's needs as objective fact. This applies to the basis of one's political views. Anankelogy recognizes political orientation as the outward flexible expression of one's inward inflexible psychosocial orientation. WIDE oriented: When your self-needs get more resolved over time than your social needs, you naturally develop a "wide" psychosocial orientation. You tend to guard your resolved self-needs, like guarding your turf. You generalize how others are to respect your less resolved social needs. In the American political spectrum, you likely favor progressive policies. You guard your unconventional individuality, while championing social policies like equal rights and social justice. DEEP oriented: When your social-needs get more resolved over time than your self-needs, you naturally develop a "deep" psychosocial orientation. You tend to guard your resolved social-needs, like guarding your turf. You generalize how others are to respect your less resolved self-needs. In the American political spectrum, you likely favor conservative policies. You guard the social cohesion of your family, while championing individual rights like personal property and personal protection with you your own firearm. This understanding challenges the widely accepted reductive view that political beliefs can be debated and readily changed. Because "political beliefs" outwardly express an inward inflexible orientation, any challenge can feel like an existential threat. The meaningful difference here is not lateral; it is not between the political left and political right. Neither side can change their priority of needs, lest they compromise their wellness and suffer pain. The vital distinction is vertical: between immature and mature development. Or what anankelogy identifies as one's epistemic reliance level. The immature preconventional gravitate toward overgeneralized political views, correlating with high incidents of dysfunction. The maturing conventional benefit from the wisdom of the crowd but risk groupthink, correlating with stifling symfunction. The matured postconventional can readily empathize with all sides, correlating with the liberty to reach peakfunction and enjoy human flourishing. Current politics tends to pull down from optimal peakfunction and into more familiar zones of symfunction and dysfunction. Unfortunately, the familiar pain we feel is often preferable to the growth pain we fear. If politics was more about honoring the priority of needs in ways with the least negative impact upon the needs of others, political conflicts would naturally clear up. As more politicized needs resolve, personal and collective wellbeing could improve. And less pain suffered. To dive deeper into this need-focused appreciation of politics, check out this video and post on Let's Unpack Politics. Anankelogy Principles Every social science operates on a series of assumptions that shape what gets asked and researched. Anankelogy is no different in this respect. These principles guide the start of anankelogy in this adventure of discovery and improved lives. Foundational A natural need is an objective fact. An organically prioritized need is an objective fact. Basic Resolving needs improves wellness. Emotions personally convey needs. Your emotions prioritize your self-continuance. Your feelings alert you to the status of your needs. Beliefs exist to serve needs. You believe what you need to believe. Your biases prioritize your needs. All beliefs include error. All your behaviors serve your needs. Needs resolve and evolve. Needs get queued and then evoked. General There is no good nor bad except for need. Your feelings serve you, or you serve them. Resolved needs improve your understanding. You don’t choose your needs; your needs choose you. Natural needs never clash with each other. All natural needs sit equal before nature. Wellness is psychosocial. Problems persist without solution where needs resist full resolution. The more you generalize, the less of reality you realize. Big changes may seem stronger. But small changes often last longer. Pain There is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Natural pain is inherently good. Pain is perhaps nature’s least appreciated gift. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain tries to report. Reacting to your pain tends to leave you in more pain. Any unquenchable desire becomes another pain. We typically prefer the pain we feel over the pain we fear. Take the easy course, then life gets hard. Take the hard course, then life gets easy. A life full of comfort is a life not fully lived. A life full of pain is a life filled with too many unmet needs. Conflict We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. Opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it. A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. There is less reason to debate when you can vulnerably relate. Violence is weakness turned outward. Resilience is strength turned inward. When violence seems the only answer, quickly rethink the question. Rights and responsibilities depend on each other. The more you offer to ease their needs, the more they seek to ease their pain. The standard applied sets the standard replied. What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce. Mutual respect resolves more needs than mutual defensiveness. Self-righteousness is a weak savior. Arrogance is no savior at all. Authority You don’t need anyone’s permission to breathe. The more an authority undermines resolving needs, the less its legitimacy. You don't exist for human authority; human authority exists for you. Power is not really ‘power’ unless resulting in resolved needs. Legitimacy of authority can be lost when imposing a hidden cost. Authority proves less necessary where needs freely resolve. Love While no one sits above the law, no law sits above your natural needs. Our laws do not govern but guide; our needs govern. Our laws do not resolve needs; people do. It is against the grain of law to fully resolve needs. Laws impersonally convey needs. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law. Each of these principles should be testable with the tools of social science. Conclusion (but not necessarily conclusive) I bring to the table a fresh perspective for better understanding and resolving our needs. As an indigenous person, I am less socially conditioned into Western constructs. For example, I am inclined to maintain a holistic view while examining minute details. I am less prone to disconnecting the parts from the whole of nature. Or objectify people. Or slip into reified reduction. Wisdom-informed relations anchored in an indigenous relationship of appreciating the central role of nature I am intuitively compelled to brainstorm ideas and experience epiphanies, independent of pouring through available research on the subject matter. dismissive - avoidant reduction: "believed, theory" - myth of choice, free of consequences Until the Anankelogy Foundation can establish its own research department, these correlations will have to rely on clinical findings when testing our new need-responsive interventions. Anankelogy adds the insight that bias results primarily from unresolved needs compelling attention for their relief. The more a researcher or scientist stays atop of their needs, the less prone to confirmation or other forms of bias. Without unattended needs compelling their attention, they remain freer to recognize more of reality. They experience more epiphanies, as ideas can instantly blossom out of intuitive connection unimpeded by emotionally charged unmet needs. If put under the microscope of social science research, you will find high correlations between the objective fact of needs and various outcomes of how such needs are addressed and experienced. With near-100% correlations, I can confidently guarantee… Ø the less you resolve your need, the more in pain you will be; Ø the less your needs resolve, the less fully you can function; and Ø the more you relieve the pain of your unresolved needs without getting to its source, the more pain you ultimately experience as your body persists in warning you of the threat not yet fully removed. back-to-top

Impartially establishing innocence independent of biased adversarial law Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – in brief After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. Steph consistently maintains their innocence and has no other history of criminality. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to the need for justice. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty, unable to use their talent and degrees. Steph proactively addresses the needs for which laws ostensibly exist to serve. Steph raises the standard for justice to measurably improved wellness outcomes for all. Steph now holds all accountable to this higher standard, anchored in love. Steph welcomes anyone to engage them to better understand what this can mean for them. All legitimate personal and public relations with Steph will now expect acknowledgement of these facts. Acknowledging these facts improves the person's rapport with Steph. Failure to acknowledge these facts sours the person's rapport with Steph. Yes, Steph will be keeping score. Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – full 1. After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. 2. Steph empirically demonstrates their innocence and cause for being scapegoated. 3. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to justice needs. 4. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty and homelessness. 5. Steph unpacks the threat to wellbeing from power differentials PART 2 6. Steph proactively addresses the needs for which laws ostensibly exist to serve. Being a "transspirit" compels Steph to prioritize respecting the inflexible needs that norms exist to serve, over respecting such relatively flexible norms themselves. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve. Steph invests their education and transspiritual gifts to convert the problem of damaging power differentials into an opportunity to improve overall wellness. It applies anankelogy's new insights to solve problems by resolving needs. Starting by leveling the playing field of power differentials, with is called "impact parity". Steph now tests this new profession of need-response on their own problem of power differentials. Steph will soon test these four pioneering tools: Tool 1 - mutuality process form: To incentivize mutual empathy to solve problems. Tool 2 - law-fit: To fit any cited norm to the needs it affects. Tool 3 - quantifiable evil: To unpack how power differentials explicitly damage the vulnerable. Tool 4 - exaction invoice: To quantify the hidden costs from power differentials. That last one invites the powerful impactor to earn legitimacy with a testimonial by converting the itemized amount into good faith effort to mutually support each other's needs. impact parity to redress problem of power differentials Click for comprehensive details 6.1) Impact parity If impact disparity can contribute to unwell outcomes and illegitimate authority, then balancing the impact between both sides in a power differential can set the stage for improving wellness outcomes and improving legitimated authority. In other words, if a power differential can produce negative outcomes, then the right conditions should be able to produce positive outcomes. For both sides. The impactee needs improved wellness. The impactor needs improved legitimacy. As each need something of value from the other, both sides can be incentivized to respond to each other's needs more responsibly. Both sides can engage each other equally, to demonstrate good faith effort to properly resolve inflexible needs. 6.2) Fair trade The impactee begins with a baseline wellness score for their current level of impacted anxiety, depression and addictiveness. Their impacted wellness gets assessed after each engagement with the sent need-response tool below. These self-reported levels get independently verified by periodic measuring of the impactee's allostatic load. As the impactee's wellness level improves with declining anxiety, depression and addictiveness, the impactor's earned legitimacy rises. Of course, the impactor is not responsible for the impactee's wellness. Then neither is the impactor's influential advantage divorced from any impact on the impactee's wellness. Likewise, the impactee is not responsible for the impactor's trustworthiness to the public. But each incremental improvement correlating with the impactor's good faith effort can vouch for the impactor's demonstrable trustworthiness (i.e., earned legitimacy). Impactee wellness impact significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Impactor legitimacy level significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure The more the impactee's wellness levels improve, controling for other variables, the more the impactor's legitimacy goes up. The more the impactee's wellness declines, controling for other variables, the more the impactor's legitimacy stagnates or goes down. Need-response tools Steph introduces four need-responsive tools to incentivize impactors to listen to those they impact, for their own benefit. Each is initiated by the impactee, to incentivize the identified impactor to properly respond to the identified impacted need, or needs. Tool 1 Tool 2 Tool 3 Tool 4 mutuality process law-fit quantifiable evil exaction invoice These tools remain untested until now. Steph will test each on the power differentials impacting their own wellness outcomes. Which will likely alter them, to fit what is necessary for all sides. 6.3) Need-response tool 1: mutuality process form We first shift from crippling adversarialism to engaging mutuality using the 'praise sandwich'. Any "bad news" from the impactee to the impactor gets sandwiched between the "good news" slices of affirming the impactor's affected needs and a warm invitation to sustain this proactive cooperation. Defensiveness gets negated from the start. Good faith effort can then grow legs. A) Affirm the other side's affected need or needs B) Bring up own affected need or needs C) Continue building rapport to mutually respect needs Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE mutuality intent by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt firm yes soft yes equivocal soft no firm no no reply 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each othe's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation Impactee wellness impact significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Impactor legitimacy earned significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Applied to the wrongful conviction The A) I realize the school neeeds to B) C) Applied to medical billing The A) B) C) Applied to employers The A) B) C) 6.2) Need-response tool 2: law-fit How well do applied norms fit the needs they ostensibly exist to serve? Application of law is only as good as is its accountable respect for all affected needs. Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. - Plato Anankelogy, the study of need, recognizes while no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve. At best, laws impersonally convey needs. When your moral compass relies less on impersonal laws and more on personal love to honor the inflexible needs of others as you would have them honor your own, then you are set free from the bounds of legalism. In contrast to conventional wisdom about civil disobedience, to prioritize moral conscience over laws and authorities, need-response goes beyond individual conscience by introducing the plumb line of honoring all objectively occurring needs in us all. Individual conscience can be incorrect; engaging others to relate more personally with their affected needs goes much further to properly resolve needs for which laws ostensibly exist. 6.x.x) Law-fit form Now there is a helpful mechanism for identifying the needs affected by laws and their enforcement. It's call law-fit. It fits any law or social norm to the needs it is expected to serve, then includes the actual impact on our inflexible needs. 1) State the cited norm(s) 2) Identify the need(s) to be served by the cited norm(s) 3) Describe the apparent impact on all needs from enforcing the norm(s) Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE post-legalism shift by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each other's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation Applied to the wrongful conviction Does the law adequately address the complainant's presenting need or needs? 1) MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a) 2) To protect children from sexual predation of adults 3) The complainant's need to be affirmed and supported for experiencing same-gender attraction was never properly addressed. If it had, the wrongful conviction most likely would never have happened. Instead, the adult authorities apparently projected their sexual anxieties onto the asexual trans defendants under color of law. Item 3 departs significantly from item 2, which indicates poor legitimacy. At the time, there were few if any legal protections for children to be out as LGBTQ+. Applied to medical billing Does the law adequately address healthcare consumers' wellness needs? 1) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260): Federal No Surprises Act 2) To protect healthcare consumers from "surprise billing" of unexpected large medical bills, in contrast to the ethics of transparent medical billing 3) Steph is slipping into medical debt from being coerced into making uninformed healthcare decisions that result in large copays beyond their means to pay it promptly. Item 3 departs significantly from item 2, which indicates poor legitimacy. The social power of healthcare providers toxic legalism that undermines societal wellness. Applied to employers Does the law adequately address the problem of abusive managers who use their anger to coerce employee compliance to their expectations, with their unquestioned assumptions? 1) No statute recognizes the wrongly convicted innocent, nor asexual employees, nor transspirit worker, as a protected class. "The line between the legal definition of harassment and general unkindness can be a blurry one." Abusive use of anger to manipulate worker compliance, even applied to intrinsically motivated workers, is not explicitly illegal (unless aimed at a protected class), and under law does not by itself constitute a hostile work environment. 2) For intrinsic motivations to be encouraged and not disincentivized by any boss abusing their authority by coercing compliance with anger with the implicit threat of compromising the worker's economic security. 3) Steph's productive potential continues to be undermined, to placate the boss's anxiety about expected performance. With costly consequences to their economic wellbeing. Item 1 shows how the law cannot effectively address every problem, especially this problem. This simple 3-step form can serve as a precursor to a more thorough process known as citationization. Which asks for more probing questions. How is the norm interpreted? How is the norm enforced? Who benefits the most from this norm's enforcement? How can we know if the purpose of the norm is being fulfilled? How is the norm's enforcement impacting the population? How effectively does this norm address the needs it exists to serve? Such inquiries can be adjusted to fit each particular power differential situation. Any bad law is no law at all. - Augustine of Hippo 6.3) Need-response tool 3: quantifiable evil Since anankelogy recognizes the objective fact of need, and of functional level, it recognizes an objective dimension to morality. This includes quantifying evil, identified as benefiting from harm, often with diminished awareness and where some viable alternative exists. This form provides space to identify these four factors. Need-response focuses on the harm from power differentials upon the vulnerable who are relatively less powerful. benefit The powerholder "impactor" gains something of value. harm The powerless "impactee" loses something of value, primarily the means to properly resolve their needs. awareness The impactor remains unaware of the harm. Typically from relying on loaded language, propaganda techniques, logical fallacies, inaccurate assumptions, and cognitive biases. alternative The impactor could pursue an option that does not harm the impactee. CR Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE redirection severity by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each other's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation Applied to the wrongful conviction T benefit harm awareness alternative Applied to medical billing T benefit harm awareness alternative Applied to employers T benefit harm awareness alternative None of these negate the moral agency of the impactee to responsibly choose and act upon the best option available to them. But the "best" option may not be good enough, if it interferes with human flourishing. If the impactor in the power differential can directly satisfy the impactee's need then it counts as a power problem. Otherwise it counts as a structural problem with one or more of these features: upchain: authority comes from a higher source downchain: authority delegated to underlings sidechain: authority shared, like in a committee nondescript: authority from some other arrangement 6.4) Need-response tool 4: exaction invoice 7.X) From ascribed legitimacy to earned legitimacy 6.3.1) Ascribed legitimacy MCOG 6.3.2) Earned legitimacy MIWO 7.4) From systemic exaction to the exaction invoice Exaction Invoice This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 While not a bill seeking collection of the totaled amount, it can serve as impactee-supplied documentation for any adjudication contest if the impactor remains in a legally privileged adversarial and avoidant stance. If the impactor opts out of this good faith alternative, it can be used as evidence to challenge the impactor's legitimacy to further impact the lives of the vulnerable. If the adjudication body compounds such biased adversarialism and privileged avoidance of the impactor's underserved inflexible needs, the results can be used as evidence to challenge that adversarial legal system's legitimacy to further impact the lives of the vulnerable. And then as a basis for asserting the higher authority of resolving needs with love. Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE coerced costs by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each other's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation 6.4.1) Applied to the wrongful conviction The Exaction Invoice 1 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 6.4.2) Applied to surprise medical billing The Exaction Invoice 2 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 6.4.3) Applied to the employer The Exaction Invoice 3 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 REACT or RESPOND 7. Steph raises the standard for justice to 'measurably improved wellness outcomes' for all. MoU Leave sick world of toxic legalism to enter th special world of need-responsive love. The imperfect adversarial legal process repeatedly fails to live up to the ideals of the "consent of the governed" social contract. Such consent gets easily manipulated. Steph lives by the higher "measurably improved wellness outcomes" social contract. Anything less results in a sick society. Click for comprehensive details 7.1) Memorandum of Understanding A Any powerholder lacking such mutual understanding shall be counted as not fully authorized to impact the identified impacted. Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is made and executed by and between: 1. Purpose This 2. Objectives, Scope and Major Activities The 3. Responsibilities of the Parties The two Parties 4. Duration and Option to Amend, Extend or Terminate This MoU 5. General Terms The 6. Signatures This MoU shall enter into force on the latest date of signing by qualified representatives of both institutions. /S/ /S/ 7.2) Shifting from "reacting" to "responding" In the face of persisting conventional problems, we apply these unconventional solutions. We leave the ordinary world of reacting to problems with cold legalism, to enter the special world of mutual responsiveness to each other's affeeected needs. This includes turning away from toxic legalism and toward need-respecting love. 7.3) Redressing toxic legalism From the sacred writings of the Apostle Paul to the more recent warnings from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, we know that excess dependence on the role of law compromises human flourishing. And we intuitively know that too much law and not enough love makes for a sick society. As the sage Jiddu Krishnamurti warned us, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Transspirituality compels Steph to transcend divisive social norms to connect with life's full and yet untapped full potential, for human flourishing. Unfortunately, conformists tend to misread Steph's nonconformity as some kind of pathology. Projection? transspirituality - Benefocent compulsion to transcend constraining conventional norms to connect with life's full potential. Transspirituality inspires Steph to question divisive social norms, to resist the creeping normalcy of depending on poor options We all are coerced into poor options dependence (CoPOD for short) Almost all of us drift into "symfunction" of adequate wellness that robs us of human flourishing. drift - symfunction capture - creeping normalcy of coersion to rely on poor options (CoPOD) ... need-response - to liberate from suffocating norms benefiting billionnaires more than the populace Need-response aims to nurture us out from the iciness of toxic legalism and into the warmth of need-respecting love. From REACT to RESPOND to needs 7.3.1) From hyper-individualism to psychosocial balance For example, in the wrongful conviction With surprise medical billing, Applied to workplace mangers, 7.3.2) From hyperrationality to emotional honesty 7.3.3) From overgeneralizing to relevant nuance 7.3.4) From avoidance to meaningful engagement avoidance culture 7.3.5) From adversarialism to mutuality process post-legalism exoneration 7.4) Cultivating human love and human flourishing Peakfunction The adversarial legal process basically offers pain-relief to the winning side in a legal battle. From toxic legalism to mutual love 8. Steph now holds all accountable to this higher standard, anchored in love. Pronouncement of Innocence innocence offending complicity Heralding Post-Legalism cultivating "Mutual Good Faith" Declaration of Liberty declare the liberty to properly resolve needs Heralding Love universal principles unilateral good faith...asserting higher authority of properly resolve needs in love Click for comprehensive details 8.1) Pronouncement of Innocence Nobody requires another's permission to breathe. Pronouncement of Innocence Steph Turner demonstrates being wrongly convicted and offers an alternative to faulty legalism Overlooked innocence Whereas the current structure of the adversarial judicial system remains slow to recognize, admit and correct its errors; Whereas academically estimated rates of wrongful convictions of the innocent, who had no role in the criminal act, span from 1 to 5% of all convictions, potentially even higher, and this totals over a hundred thousand; Whereas the current National Registry of Exonerations identifies exonerations nowhere near this number; Whereas wrongful convictions stem from known contributors that can be identified in a case; Context Whereas LGBTQ+ people have historically been targeted by law enforcement; Whereas the complainant had a clear motive to implicate the transgender defendant as a way to avoid being outed for same-sex attraction and risk rejection of her same-sex attraction at a time when acceptance was rare, and her stepfather uttered homophobic slurs; Whereas the defendant has no other criminal history; Whereas asexual transpeople present no threat of sexual violence to the public; Legalism limits Whereas the investigation did not question the defendant’s own three underaged daughters; who never accused the defendant of any criminal wrongdoing; Whereas the defendant continues to endure a history of being scapegoated along with legally privileged economic marginalization; Whereas repeated requests for legal assistance from innocence projects to review this case has not borne fruit and never because they could not find merit for its potential reversal in court; Post-legalist alternative Whereas a viable alternative to the limits of adversarial legal process can be found in the need-based mutuality process, as presented by the new professional service of need-response; and Whereas this mutuality process invites input from anyone affected, as long as they willingly submit to the discipline of this mutuality process to properly address each other’s needs; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that STEPHEN DENNIS TURNER effectively demonstrates their innocence of all charges from the alleged incident on 7th of July, 1993. 2026-06-07 Innocence Offending Violating the rights of the unexonerated innocent continues to be privileged by law 8.1.1) Innocence offending Anyone treating the wrongly convicted innocenct as if guilty, under color of law or unquestioning acceptance of any biased adversarial legalism, is complicit in that injustice. We call in innocence offending. legacy of harm 8.1.2) Widespread complicity – either support the innocent to rebuild their reputation and lives or fall complicit to this historical injustice accusations as projective admissions, moral inversion from reactive legalism 8.2) Unilaterally asserting the higher standard of properly resolving needs "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." - MLK step beyond the alienation of avoidance culture and beyond the adversarialism of oppo culture with thee power of love. Replacing alienation and adversarialism with love Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. creeping normalcy slowly destructing humanity But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. With the higher social contract standard of earned legitimacy, of measurably improving wellness outcomes (MIWO), 8.3) Declaration of Liberty As used here, liberty means the "freedom to properly resolve needs to cultivate human flourishing". 8.4) Unilaterally applying the higher standard of love You SHALL love "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." step beyond the alienation of avoidance culture and beyond the adversarialism of oppo culture with thee power of love. Replacing alienation and adversarialism with love 8.5) Unilaterally revising the social contract Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. creeping normalcy slowly destructing humanity But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. With the higher social contract standard of earned legitimacy, of measurably improving wellness outcomes (MIWO), Universal need-responsive principles: character refunctions gratitude grace endurance patience humility forgiveness perseverance trustworthiness honesty atonement discipline generosity kindness mercy equanimity empathy gentleness justice resilience love Like Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death! Indeed, the lack of freedom to properly resolve needs leads to a slow death. 9. Steph welcomes anyone to engage them to better understand what this can mean for them. dynamic effort to improve our wellness, starting with myself." Engage: Interact with Steph Express your support or your doubts. Have any questions? Click for comprehensive details 9.1) 9.2) validation honor REACT or RESPOND With great power comes great responsibility Is this making a difference? Check each impactor's responsiveness Check Steph's progress using this process If you need this kind of public declaration, Add your headline here This is a placeholder paragraph. Replace this text with your own content. to be proactive without premature opposition that inevitably provokes mutual defensiveness Never oppose another's inflexible need or needs. That never works. There is no greater revolution than to revolve back to love, to accountably honor the needs of others as one's own. "If you don't accountably honor my needs as I have accountably honored yours," Steph asserts, "then why shall I continue honoring yours?" Then adds, "Perhaps I should put this into transactional terms and send you a bill for what your one-sided extractions cost me." 5.x.x) Need-response tool 4: exaction invoice Such potent love can do far more to incentivize responsiveness to inflexible needs than caustic adversarialism. Those who fail to engage our good faith efforts shall risk 5.x.x) Earned legitimacy No [person] is above the law, and no [person] is below it. - Theodore Roosevelt firm yes soft yes equivocal soft no firm no no reply Steph introdues some new tools, yet to be tested

Let's ask AI how power differentials affect your wellbeing A "power differential" exists when one side of a relationship impacts the other more than impacted by it. impactor: impacts the other side more than is impacted by it. I.e., powerholder. impactee: impacted by the other side more than impacting it. I.e., relatively powerless. I asked three different AI platforms the same prompt question: "How do power differentials from professionals and government officials impact the wellness level of those under their influence, for good or bad?" Click these or scroll down for the results, provided verbatim. Gemini________________ Claude________________ Copilot________________ Click these buttons to check for yourself this prompt in all three AI platforms. Gemini_____________________________________________ Power differentials heavily dictate the wellness level of subordinates, significantly altering their physical health, mental stability, and community safety. When authorities wield power responsibly, they elevate public well-being, but systemic abuse or negligence rapidly degrades it. 📉 Negative Impacts (The Bad) Chronic Stress: Constant surveillance or fear of authority triggers cortisol spikes. This weakens immune systems and accelerates cardiovascular disease over time. [1] Help-Seeking Suppression: Fear of official judgment, deportation, or punishment stops individuals from reporting crimes or seeking medical care. Institutional Trauma: Negative experiences with law enforcement, Child Protective Services, or biased medical professionals cause long-term anxiety and systemic distrust. [1] Resource Deprivation: Officials hold the power to deny funding, housing permits, or clean water, directly forcing vulnerable communities into toxic living conditions. Learned Helplessness: Prolonged lack of agency over personal outcomes leads to depression, apathy, and a total loss of motivation. 📈 Positive Impacts (The Good) Safety Architecture: Proactive officials enforce labor laws, environmental regulations, and safety codes that prevent injuries and shield the public from corporate harm. Psychological Safety: Compassionate professionals (like supportive doctors or ethical supervisors) reduce anxiety and create environments where individuals feel secure enough to thrive. Resource Equity: Accountable leaders use their authority to distribute healthcare, educational funding, and social services directly to marginalized groups. Empowerment Amplification: Traumatized individuals experience profound psychological healing when officials validate their rights, listen to their grievances, and enforce accountability. When Gemini AI prompted again... Power differentials shape wellness by controlling resources, validation, and autonomy. When authority figures use their power poorly, they create chronic stress and systemic harm. When used well, they build safety, equity, and community resilience. [1, 2] Negative Impacts on Wellness Chronic Stress: Constant subordination triggers prolonged cortisol release. This weakens immune systems. [allostatic load] Institutional Trauma: Margining practices or systemic neglect by officials causes deep psychological distress. Biased Healthcare: Medical gaslighting occurs when professionals dismiss patient symptoms. This worsens physical health outcomes. Loss of Autonomy: Top-down government mandates can strip away personal agency. This lowers self-esteem and mental health. Resource Deprivation: Discriminatory policies restrict access to clean environments, housing, and healthcare. This shortens life expectancy. [3] Positive Impacts on Wellness Systemic Protection: Strong public health policies eliminate large-scale health hazards. Clean water acts are one example. Psychological Safety: Empathetic professionals reduce patient anxiety. Clear communication fosters trust and healing. Resource Distribution: Supportive officials fund social safety nets. This relieves financial stress for vulnerable groups. Empowered Advocacy: Shared decision-making in medicine improves patient compliance and recovery rates. Community Resilience: Structural investments build safe spaces, parks, and clinics. This elevates collective well-being. [4, 5] [1] https://www.nashconsulting.com [2] https://www.newlocal.org.uk [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [5] https://www.sofi.com Claude_____________________________________________ Power differentials between professionals/officials and those under their influence have profound effects on wellbeing — both protective and harmful. Here's a comprehensive look: How Power Differentials Shape Wellness The Core Dynamic Power differentials are inherent in many relationships: doctor-patient, teacher-student, employer-employee, police-citizen, social worker-client. The asymmetry creates dependency, which amplifies both the benefit of good actors and the harm of bad ones. Positive Impacts on Wellness When authority is exercised responsibly, it can: Provide safety and structure — Effective law enforcement, public health mandates, and zoning laws create environments where people can thrive physically and psychologically Deliver expertise — A skilled physician or therapist uses their knowledge advantage to genuinely improve health outcomes; the patient benefits precisely because they defer to expertise Reduce decision fatigue — Trusted institutions (schools, clinics) absorb complex decisions, freeing individuals from overwhelming cognitive load Create equity — Officials can redistribute resources toward vulnerable populations, correcting market failures that would otherwise harm them Offer protection — Child protective services, labor regulators, and consumer protection agencies shield people from exploitation they couldn't resist alone Negative Impacts on Wellness Psychological Harm Learned helplessness — Chronic subordination can erode a person's belief in their own agency, contributing to depression and anxiety Surveillance stress — Communities under heavy monitoring (welfare recipients, parolees, certain immigrant groups) show elevated cortisol levels and chronic stress responses Epistemic undermining — When professionals dismiss a patient's or client's own account of their experience ("you're fine, nothing's wrong"), it damages self-trust and delays care Physical Health Medical paternalism — Historically, and still today, physicians overriding patient autonomy has led to harmful treatments, especially for women and minorities Environmental racism — Government zoning decisions have disproportionately placed toxic facilities near low-income and minority communities, with measurable health consequences Rationed care — Bureaucratic gatekeeping in insurance or public health systems can delay or deny life-improving treatment Social & Community Harm Institutional betrayal — When an organization fails to protect someone it was meant to serve (e.g., a school that ignores abuse), it compounds the original trauma significantly Stigma reinforcement — Social workers, courts, and medical professionals who pathologize poverty or cultural difference can entrench shame and social exclusion Coercive control — Welfare conditionality, mandatory treatment programs, or punitive policing can strip dignity and autonomy in ways that worsen mental health Key Variables That Determine the Outcome Factor Healthier Outcome Harmful Outcome Accountability Professionals subject to oversight Acting with impunity Consent & transparency Client/patient informed and involved Decisions made unilaterally Cultural humility Power-holder understands context Applies one-size-fits-all approach Trust Relationship built over time Transactional or adversarial Recourse Appeals, complaints, alternatives exist No exit or challenge mechanism Motive Genuinely service-oriented Self-interested or ideological What Research Shows Therapeutic alliance in mental health care is one of the strongest predictors of positive outcomes — meaning how a clinician relates to the power gap matters enormously Communities with high institutional trust show better public health compliance and better health outcomes overall Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) research shows that early exposure to abusive authority (parents, teachers, officials) has lifelong physiological effects on stress response systems Studies on procedural justice in policing find that how officers treat people — fairly and respectfully — matters more to community wellbeing than actual outcomes of individual encounters The Bottom Line Power differentials are neither inherently good nor bad — they are force multipliers. A competent, ethical professional with power over a vulnerable person can be a profound source of healing and protection. That same structural position in the hands of someone negligent, biased, or exploitative becomes a mechanism of harm that individuals often have little ability to resist. This is why accountability structures, informed consent, transparency, and community voice are not just bureaucratic niceties — they are essential wellness infrastructure. Copilot_____________________________________________ Power differentials held by professionals (e.g., doctors, social workers, educators) and government officials shape the wellness of people under their influence in both positive and negative ways. The core mechanism is simple: those with power control resources, decisions, and narratives, and this directly affects who gets to be healthy, safe, and heard. Below is a structured explanation grounded in the evidence from your search results. 🧭 Core Takeaway Power imbalances—especially when tied to structural oppression—are among the most upstream determinants of health and wellness. When power is used equitably, it improves community agency, access, and outcomes; when misused or concentrated, it reinforces inequities, stress, and poorer health. healthinpartnership.org SAGE Journals 🧩 How Power Differentials Affect Wellness 1. Structural Oppression → Chronic Inequities Power held by institutions often reflects historical systems like racism, patriarchy, and class hierarchy. These systems determine who has access to resources such as housing, healthcare, education, and political voice. These imbalances are described as “the most upstream cause of health inequities.” healthinpartnership.org They shape life expectancy, chronic disease rates, and exposure to harm. SAGE Journals 2. Decision-Making Control → Whose Needs Are Prioritized Government officials and professionals often decide: What policies get funded Which services are offered Whose knowledge counts in planning Webinar participants identified policymakers and healthcare institutions as the most influential actors in shaping health equity. partners4healthequity.org When communities lack influence, their needs are sidelined, reducing wellness. 3. Resource Distribution → Access to Care & Opportunity Power determines who gets: Funding Health services Infrastructure Representation Unequal distribution of resources perpetuates avoidable health differences. SAGE Journals 4. Community Agency → Psychological & Collective Wellness When communities gain power—through shared decision-making, organizing, or representation—wellness improves. Interventions that strengthen community knowledge and leadership rebalance power and improve health outcomes. SAGE Journals Multisector collaborations that intentionally shift power increase people’s sense of influence and belonging. 81% of participants in one study reported increased power to influence their community. pophealthinnovationlab.org 5. Stress & Autonomy → Mental & Physical Health Powerlessness is a chronic stressor. Feeling unheard or controlled by institutions increases stress, reduces trust, and worsens health. Conversely, shared decision-making and transparency reduce stress and improve engagement. pophealthinnovationlab.org ⚖️ When Power Is Used Well (Positive Impacts) Shared decision-making increases trust and improves health outcomes. Community power-building enhances agency and leadership. SAGE Journals Transparent governance reduces inequities and increases participation. Cross-sector collaboration helps communities address systemic drivers of health. partners4healthequity.org ⚠️ When Power Is Misused or Concentrated (Negative Impacts) Policies may reinforce inequities (e.g., underfunding marginalized communities). Professionals may impose solutions that don’t reflect community needs. Structural barriers persist, limiting access to care, safety, and opportunity. Community voices are minimized, reducing trust and worsening outcomes. Stress and disempowerment increase, harming mental and physical health. 📊 Summary Table: How Power Shapes Wellness Power Dynamic Positive Impact Negative Impact Decision-making power Shared governance improves trust & outcomes Exclusion leads to inequitable policies Resource control Fair distribution improves access Concentration deepens inequities Professional authority Expertise can guide effective care Paternalism reduces autonomy Community agency Empowerment boosts wellness Disempowerment increases stress Structural systems Reform can dismantle inequities Oppression perpetuates poor health 🔍 A Non‑Obvious Insight Power is not only about who holds it, but about which types of power are activated. Interventions that activate multiple forms of power—individual, collective, structural—are the ones that successfully shift inequitable systems. SAGE Journals This means wellness improves most when: Communities gain voice Institutions change their internal processes Policies redistribute influence and resources TAKEAWAY Power differentials significantly impact the wellness of those under the influence of powerholders. Producing both negative and positive wellness outcomes. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Until the new professional service of need-response came along, no current institution effectively bridged the two sides on an equal playing field. Only need-response incentivizes both sides to support each other to properly resolve needs to solve personal and social-structural problems.

Before you jump into practicing for a job interview, you may want to discuss some concerns and have some questions answered. We'll even walk you through the spreadsheet tool to optimize it to your interviewing preparation needs.

First read the instructions to the sender. Fill out as many fields as you can. You can always change them later, after we go over the tool together. Keep in mind this not a counseling session or legal advocacy. The aim is to identify and resolve the inflexible needs on all sides of your situation. With responsivism, we can do that together. I help guide you to incentivize the professional to respond to this alternative to unpleasant legal options. I cannot guarantee they will respond or cooperate. I can promise you that responsivism is better positioned to improve your wellness, and potentially theirs, than either psychotherapy or the services of an attorney. Review the cancellation policy to avoid any unpleasant surprises. Now let's start improving your wellness by having you speak to power in a way they are incentivized to listen to you. With the power of love, or honoring the needs of others as one would have others honor their own.

Anankelogy Principles A-Foundational - B-Basic - C-General - D-Pain - E-Conflict - F-Power - G-Structural - H-Love You will find these principles organized into eight distinct types. Foundational Principles lay the basis for anankelogy as a unique science. These create the foundation for the discipline study of need . As objective phenomena, many aspects of our needs can be examined by the scientific method . Basic Principles ground aspects of your experience with needs in the science of anankelogy. These establish anankelogy as a unique social science . General Principles add wisdom to experiencing needs anchored in the science of anankelogy. These provide insight into what this new profession of need-response can do that other professional fields cannot . Pain Principles start applying anankelogy to be more "need-responsive" in our lives. These apply primarily at the personal human problem level. Conflict Principles offer some insight for negotiating disputes you have with others. These apply primarily at the interpersonal human problem level. Authority Principles apply anankelogy to the legitimacy of those in positions of influential power. These apply primarily at the power human problem level. Law Principles apply anankelogy to the point of having laws and unwritten norms. These apply primarily at the structural human problem level. Love Principles cap these need-focused concepts with mutual respect for each other's needs. These give context to all the other types as we function best when we support others to function their best. One word for such positive regard is love. Get these inspiring principles in your inbox once a week! First name* Email* Join I want to subscribe to your mailing list. * A01 Foundational Principle A natural need is an objective fact. The more you drill down to the beginning of an experienced need, the more you find what exists prior to any human intervention. You don’t merely believe you must have water or that you need a friend, you experience these needs as essential to your capacity to function. Your ability to function after quenching a thirst or leaning on a friend exist independent of subjective feelings, as objective facts. The less your natural needs resolve, the less you can objectively function. Read More A02 Foundational Principle A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. The more something you require to fully function persists unsatisfied, the more your attention will be drawn toward its satisfaction. It matters less whether you believe you must prioritize it. The objective basis of your functioning subconsciously demands you focus on it over less pressing matters. Any subjective beliefs or feelings arrive after the objective fact of your life prioritizing it. The less you attend to your inflexibly prioritized needs, the less you can objectively function. Read More B01 Basic Principle Resolving needs improves wellness. Wellness is another word for function. All needs exist to serve function. The more you resolve your needs, the better you can function. The more you eat well, the better you can function. You eat, breathe, connect with friends and enjoy moments of solitude all for the sake of being able to function through life. The less your needs resolve, or the less you attend to your prioritized needs, the less you can function. Or the less well you will be. Where there is no function to serve, there is no need. Read More B02 Basic Principle Emotions personally convey needs. The less you can function because of some lack or some threat, the more your body will emote you do something to replenish that lack or remove that threat. Such responses are automatic. Your body conveys your needs to maintain function. You don’t even have to feel it, though you often do on some level. Where there is no need to convey, there is no emotion. Read More B03 Basic Principle Your emotions prioritize your existence. The more you sense some threat, even a mild risk to your safety, your emotions will automatically prioritize your continued existence. Without your assured continuance, little else matters to your life. Or you may no longer be around, or at least at your current capacity, for anything else to matter. Once triggered, it’s next to impossible to prioritize anything else. Read More B04 Basic Principle Your feelings alert you to the status of your needs. The more your functioning becomes limited from some unresolved need, the more your feelings call attention to it. Initially, such feelings remain vague. Then often out of the blue, they turn alarmingly urgent. Usually with something you could do right away to ease the pressure. You could react on this feeling. Or you could dig deeper into what your feelings can only suggest is really happening. Properly responding dissolves its intensity. Read More B05 Basic Principle Beliefs exist to serve needs. The more your interpreted perceptions help you to function in life, the more they crystallize into useful beliefs. The less relevant a fact is to your functioning, the less you cling to it. It matters little if you agree or disagree whether the sun will someday go nova. You can hardly be persuaded against holding as true what helps you survive today, or helps you get by, or helps you get ahead in life. Read More B06 Basic Principle You believe what you need to believe. The more a belief proves vital to your existence, the more it rises in your hierarchy of accepted truths. The more your life seems or actually depends on something being so, the more you must naturally defend it. The less relevant to your required means to function, the less you defend it. The less your needs resolve, the more tightly you cling to any belief you perceive helping you get by. Read More B07 Basic Principle Your biases prioritize your needs. The less resolve a need, the more your attention naturally turns to seek its relief. You find you must prioritize whatever you find available to ease the emotional pressure. Sometimes, you hit on exactly what your life requires. Your prioritized thinking leads you in a positive direction. Other times, you prioritize generalizations that offer hope for relief. Such biases easily lead you astray, and in pain. Read More B08 Basic Principle All beliefs include error. The more you generalize, the less likely the accuracy of those beliefs. If irrelevant to your life, then the result errors can pass unnoticed. As a factory worker, it matters little if I believe Abraham Lincoln was born in Illinois or Kentucky. If my livelihood depends on it, I better know he was born in Kentucky. There will always be facts beyond the reach of your conclusions. Humility helps you stay informed. Read More B09 Basic Principle All your behaviors serve your needs. The less some action contributes to your wellbeing, the more open you are to change them. The more an action enables you to function, the more likely to repeat that action. Even the most trivial of behaviors must align with what you need to function, or you will likely change it. If you keep giving cash to that homeless guy and then run out of cash, you inevitably change your behavior. Read More B10 Basic Principle Needs resolve and evolve. The more you satisfy a recurring need, like drinking water to quench a thirst, the more your repeated action predictably leaves you satisfied. The more you pacify your recurring needs with some alternative, like indulging in junk food for each meal, the less your hunger subsides. The more you habitually rely on alternatives, the more your life contracts to accommodate such limits. Read More View this list organized into these topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 6 A-Foundational B-Basic C-General D-Pain E-Conflict F-Authority G-Law H-Love

i-need.to How to Start How It Works Pricing Log in/Sign up Draft your "I-need" message Fill in this form to express your need to the recipient. Then click the "Start Drafting Your Message" button to proceed. State what you need from the recipient in one line Your name Your email Email addresses entered here are not saved. Recipient name Recipient email This email is also not saved, and only used for this purpose. Select relation level Start with a personal level until you get familiar with this process. Scroll down to learn more about your relation level . Start Drafting Your Message Mockup of for this new solution Anankelogy Foundation A. Affirm the recipient. Thank the recipient for anything they have already done for you. Normal Text I-need msg B. Bring up your affected need Here is where you add details to the need you are expressing. Normal Text C. Continue cultivating rapport. State your intent to keep this mutual. Invite them to express any specific need they have of you. Close with a sincere "Thank you." Normal Text Personal "I-need" messages Start expressing your specific needs to those you personally know. Like your close friends and close family members. Social "I-need" messages Then express your specific needs to those you do not personally know. Like coworkers and colleagues. Professional "I-need" messages Apply your growing skill to effectively convey your needs to those who you rely upon for some service. They tend to have more social influence than you. Official "I-need" messages Leverage both your sharpened skills and growing social network to redress officials in the government or elsewhere. Speak truth to power with the power of love, of honoring their needs as you compel them to honor your own. Emotions exist to address needs. But may compel you to settle for less than resolving your needs. Behaviors exist to address needs. But may revert to habits that do not resolve needs. Rules exist to address needs. But may put the needs of others ahead of your own. Let's address our specific needs to resolve them with love. To incentivize each other to honor the needs of others as our own. with "I-need" messages

The Unexonerated: innocence profile < Back Peter Simpson NY Peter Simpson Estimated innocence score: 75 % Likely innocent when compared to cases already exonerated witness lied to protect the actual perpetrator Highlights of this wrongful conviction - burn patterns were junk science - witness testimony debunked by evidence - key witness lied to police - investigators ignored true motive Key contributing factors to this wrongful conviction not a factor - minor factor - major factor - central factor 1. Witness misidentification? 2. False confession? 3. Official misconduct? 4. Junk science? 5. Jail informant? 6. Inadequate defense? not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor Other contributing factors How many other of 58 factors? 6 EIF version: E1.1 Click here to view more information at a separate website Click here for documentation to verify this innocence claim Wrongly convicted in NY of: arson Wrongly convicted on March 3, 2006 Sentence: 15–30 years Custody status: transitional housing Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Here is where the claimant admits the weak spots in their case. This is the "flip side" to their narrative. They put it out there to show they have nothing to hide. They proactively cultivate trust by being transparent. Nobody's perfect Synopsis This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will have a couple of sentences here that summarizes this compelling case of innocence. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. Summary Accuser's needs Other's needs See claimant's full Estimated Innocence Report Post-Conviction Journey Appeal results Every exonerated person had their case first reviewed by the judicial appeals process. Every time, the panel of judges overlooked the injustice of that miscarriage justice. The appellate process focuses on procedural standards. Is it possible to faithfully follow every procedural norm and still find an innocent person guilty? Yet, this happens much more frequently than many would like to admit. Most innocence projects remain under-resourced. Only a handful of lawyers, and often only law students or paralegals, invest hours going through case documents. They don't always find something that can be reversed in court. They tend to seek something they can trust will have a greater chance of being granted a hearing in court. And has a greater chance for success of a conviction reversal. They could risk their funding streams if championing cases with a harder, or little, chance to prevail in court. So they tend to serve those "low hanging fruit" cases of greater promise for overturning a wrongful conviction. Where does this leave the countless souls who are innocent in prison and beyond, who cannot get an innocence litigator to go to bat for them? That's what this Public Exoneration option is for. Innocence Movement Results Add your name to the petition to support exonerating Peter Innocence support petition What do you think about this claim of innocence? First, select the innocence claimant "With what I know of the case, I think the claimant is...* First name* Last name* Email* Submit Your first name Your last name Email Based on what I know, I think the claimant is... Submit Thank you for your support. If we get enough supporters, we may launch our own Public Exoneration campaign. Learn more below. tally count Latest tally of feedback to this innocence claim. Clearly guilty 0 Likely guilty 0 Likely innocent 0 Clearly innocent 0 Appellate Process Presents mission creep of prioritizing its institutional needs over the needs of the public. Innocence Project Replicates this mission creep when working exclusively within the adversarial legal process. Public Exoneration Corrects this mission creep by prioritizing needs over institutionalized adversarial legalism. After the adversarial options repeatedly fail, the new professional service of need-response counters with a mutual process that responsibly addresses each other's needs. When hate keeps failing to produce desired outcomes, it's time to try the power of love . Learn more "I am exploring the option to build up a campaign that takes my pursuit for overdue exoneration to the court of public opinion." of Peter Simpson I am considering a Public Exoneration campaign. Perhaps my proxy and I will follow another campaign and see how it works out for them. Proxy for innocence claimant: Melissa Simpson Public Exoneration progress: 0 How you can help us free Peter The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. Overview PDI step 1 PDI step 2 PDI step 3 PDI step 1 Demonstrate your innocence Sets a foundation to display your innocence Introduction Preview the 12 questions Solve personal problems Download & complete worksheet Learn More... PDI step 2 Declare your innocence Publicly establishes your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload finished worksheet We distribute it to key recipients Learn More... PDI step 3 Follow up Expand awareness of your innocence Engaging responsive authorities Incentivizing authorities' responses More responsive or reactive Your final answers to the 12 questions Learn More... Overview Is this for you? Prove your innocence without lawyers Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Follow up Learn More... Quickly show how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person by how you’re among the few who took your case to trial. Despite being found guilty, show how you consistently maintained innocence. In the face of certain parole denial, you faithfully stood your ground. This service works primarily for those who have already done their time. But now cannot get a meaningful job or find stable housing. All because of an undeserved felony record. For only a $49.48 one-time fee, establish your innocence with your own record of proven integrity. Let us inform the DA of your demonstrable innocence. We presort your claim of viable innocence for them. No lawyers involved. We incentivize the DA and others to recognize your demonstrated innocence. If they dare refuse, we are ready to appeal to the higher court of public opinion. Failure is not an option. Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link How you can help us free Peter The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. FIT BASE phase TEAM phase GROW phase GOAL phase BASE phase Set a firm foundation Sets a foundation to display your innocence Leverage your innocence Gain need-responsive skills Solve personal problems Invite peer supporters Learn More... Review your Estimated Innocence Report with your need-responder. Develop strategies to optimize its strengths and address any weaknesses. Together, you craft your dynamic “exoneration plan”. Learn to proactively endure discomforts, to resolve conflicts with authorities, to relate more integrally with reality, and more. Sharpen these skills to later incentivize unresponsive authorities. Get any personal problems out of the way. Improve yourself where you can. Remove any doubt that you are innocent of the conviction. Set the tone for your immanent exoneration. Invite friends and family who believe in your innocence. Learn to show them how they can back your efforts. And how they can attract more backers to support your case of compelling innocence. TEAM phase Build your support team Publicly establishes your innocence Onboard peer supporters to your team Practice your new skills Solve interpersonal problems Invite professional sponsors Learn More... Incentivize your followers to upgrade as supporters and contributors. Show them how they can personally benefit by becoming more centrally involved. Or at least by participating. Guide your contributors to develop the same need-responsive skills you recently sharpened. Invite your supporters to watch, to encourage them to develop these skills on their own. With these new skills, work on any interpersonal problems. Practice solving problems. Demonstrate your capacity to endure discomforts. Publicly validate your innocence. Introduce innocence lawyers and other innocence activists to this alternative to adversarial legalism. Invite then to sponsor your campaign to boost their legitimacy. Incentivize their involvement. GROW phase Engage innocence lawyers Expand awareness of your innocence Leverage your growing support Onboard professional sponsors Learn to solve power problems Practice speaking truth to power Learn More... Let your growing support network publicize your innocence, your testament to human endurance, your readiness to face conflict with respect for each other’s affected needs, and more. Demonstrate these skills to supportive professionals. Incentivize them to improve their responsiveness to neglected needs with such skills. Vouch for their improved responsiveness. Assess the responsiveness of professionals to your compelling case of innocence. Demonstrate how mutual regard for each other’s needs create s better results than legalistic adversarialism. Invite the most supportive professionals to practice these skills with you. Learn to speak the truth of your innocence in ways that authorities will openly listen. GOAL phase Engage the prosecutor Incentivize authorities to exonerate you Hold court of informed public opinion Replace cold adversarialism with love Effectively address structural problems Declare your avowed liberty Learn More... Give the courts every reason to process your innocence claim. Let them compete with the court of public opinion, as your team connects with media outlets to publicize your case. Upend the norms of the adversarial judicial process by demonstrating this more loving approach to solving conflicts. Let your loving character boldly exemplify your innocence. Unpack the imposing social norms that hinder just outcomes. Invite prosecutors, judges and policymakers to shift incentives. Publicly reward just outcomes over conviction rates. Declare your widely supported innocence before a candid world. Let your support network contest the legitimacy of any official resistance to exonerate you. Reward all who do the right thing. FIT Check if it’s a good fit This is a preliminary phase to prepare the way Self -assessment Invite supporters Get prepared Meet your service provider Learn More... Start by checking if this unique service is a good fit for you. Can the innocence claimant lead this effort themselves? Or should they delegate the leading role to another? Spread the costs early by inviting friends and family to back your wellness campaign. For free for them to merely follow. Or $4.99 per week for them to participate. Or $14.99 each week to get hem centrally involved. Get oriented to how this service operates. Connect with others exploring this alternative. Learn how this process takes a pioneering approach toward exoneration. Meet the professional need-responder. First through texting. Then in person online. No financial commitment for the first thirty days. I want to support Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Exonerating Peter If the public exoneration campaign has already begun, check here at your level of support. Please note that until you join their campaign, none of these will be accessible. Followers, Supporters & Contributors Follow developments of their exoneration campaign. Progress Updates Supporters & Contributors Join the forum actively supporting their exoneration campaign. Exoneration Forum Contributors only Oversee activities contributing to their ultimate exoneration. Executive Committee sample testimonials Tanya Simpson , Claimant's cousin I was skeptical at first. I mean, how can something outside the official process help my cousin? Then I was pleasantly surprised by the amazing results. Jonathan Glenn , Claimant's coworker I always knew that Claimant was fully innocent of all charges. Now I'm glad to be a part of process that can finally help liberate my friend. Daniel Walker , Claimant's father These have been some painful years waiting for the legal process to correct this mess. Thankfully, this alternative is finally helping to bring my child home. < Back Next >

Earn your first qualification to be a credentialed need-responder. Discover how you can replace your habitual reaction to pain with your potential to respond to the needs behind that pain. See this improve your life as it also helps you improve the lives of others. Most of us react to our situations instead of responding to the needs in the moment. You can now develop the skills to shift from habitually reacting upon your feelings to routinely responding to each other's needs. PROGRAM OUTLINE 1. Let's get started 2. Let’s stretch your discomfort zone 3. Let’s expand your emotional tolerance 4. Let’s understand your “easement orientation” 5. Let's share your improving easement orientation 6. Let's show others you can face your pain boldly 7. Let’s wrap up The more you face your pain upfront and address the underlying needs, the less pain you will suffer in the long run. Qualified need-responders do not avoid discomfort, but take such displeasures face on. Embracing your natural occurrences of pain serves as your first huge step toward becoming a credentialed need-responder. You can take your time to complete this self-paced course. To resume where you left off last, simply click the 'Go to Current Step' button. You've got this! Soon enough, you will be credentialed as a personal need-responder.