Search Results

Any discussion around politics that doesn't first address our different priority of inflexible needs quickly runs into errors. The more we address our specific needs, the less we rely on the generalizing of politics. The most important distinction in politics is not between left and right nor between populists and elites, but between overgeneralizing and addressing specific needs. Let's get to the specific needs politics exist to serve. Let's unpack politics, like you've never seen it unpacked before . Which do you think is more likely? You formulate your political views based on reasoning through the options on each side. OR You gravitate toward those views that best express your priority of inflexible needs. In other words, can you really be persuaded to change your political views? Or do your political views point to something deeper, which cannot be simply changed at will? If the latter, do we needlessly provoke each other's defensiveness by trying to change what we cannot readily change? Do we miss our full human potential to solve politicized problems when we fail to support each other to fully resolve needs we cannot change? If we can respect the inflexible needs behind our political differences, and only question what each other does to publicly address such needs, perhaps we can find more room to love one another. We can then honor the needs of others as we would have them honor own own, even while we experience different political perspectives. Ready to turn hostile politics into opportunities to give and receive some love? Good! Then let’s spread some love . CONTENTS Your political beliefs Your political differences Politics defined Your needs takes sides Your political orientation Deep & wide False balance or false dichotomy? Your politicized needs Hold your ground No conversion Issue by issue Spread the love Let's unpack politics, like you've never seen it unpacked before . Let’s appreciate why it can be so difficult for you to politically agree with others. Or for others to agree with you. Then pave the way to overcome polarization, to spread some love . 1. Your political beliefs Are you sure you freely choose your political positions after carefully reasoning each option ? If so, others should be able to freely choose it too, and agree with you. But they don’t, do they? Why? Because, in all honesty, you are compelled to choose a position that best fits your painful needs . As others are compelled to choose what best fits their needs. Reasoned arguments emerge after the fact. You politically believe what you need to believe . 2. Your political differences Needs . That’s the frequently overlooked part of politics. While you need the same basic things as others, how you need them differs from how others need them. And they can’t change how they need ‘em any easier than you can change how you need whatever is vital for you. The more your situation differs from theirs, the more differently you need from them. The more you need differently, the more your politics naturally diverge. 3. Politics defined Defining politics this way illuminates its risks for polarization. Instead of encouraging specifics , status quo politics spurs generalizing . You then avoid specifics that risk undermining party unity, and for agreeably relieving pain . Instead of engaging your specific needs, status quo politics enables avoidance . You then use politics to avoid dealing with the cause of the pain , instead of resolving the needs in a way that stops the pain. Instead of unifying around what can be done to resolve these needs, status quo politics favors polarization . You then get more out of fighting each other than fighting to resolve each other’s affected needs. ​ conflict porn = enjoying the conflict more than finding a solution. 4. Your needs takes sides So why does anyone become a liberal? Or a conservative? Mostly, because each partisan side serves a particular way of experiencing and expressing needs. One side experiences their psychosocial needs in the opposite direction as the other side. Your psychosocial situation prioritizes the opposite set of psychosocial needs . Liberals ​Conservatives ​must relieve unmet social needs . While guarding their more resolved self-needs . If a liberal , you feel you must relieve your social need for greater acceptance , for example, than your need for personal resilience . So you rely more on government protections against discrimination, than try to personally overcome repeated rejections by others. Meanwhile, you guard your more resolved self-need for personal authenticity , like being culturally nonwhite, or being gay, or trans, or a Muslim, against pressures to cooperate and conform with more traditional norms. The vulnerability of being disadvantaged can make that much more difficult. So you find solace among others of similar experience, and like-mind. ​must relieve unmet self-needs . While guarding their more resolved social needs . If a conservative , you feel you must relieve your self-need for self-sufficiency , for example, more than your need for equal social treatment . So you endeavor to provide for your own the best you can, before seeking fair help from others you don’t personally know. Meanwhile, you guard your more resolved social need for family cohesion , like safeguarding traditional marriage and the nuclear family, against pressures to allow self-expressions that risk destabilizing established cohesion. The expanding role of impersonal government can make that much more difficult. So you find solace among others of similar experience, and like-mind. Whether liberal or conservative , you become oriented to this distinction. Arguments cannot change who you are, or how you experience your needs sharply different from others. Arguments provide you and your cohorts a guarded shell, a fence to protect your vulnerable differences. Arguments that tend to politically privilege dishonesty on both sides. 5. Your political orientation Your political orientation is the outward expression of your inward psychosocial orientation . Any tension between your self-needs and social needs creates the lens through which you see all things political. ---- For example, if your undermined self-need for privacy  floods your thinking, you can hardly find space to consider another’s affected social need for intimacy . What you do with your own reproductive organs is too private a matter for you to open to another’s prying eyes. Or if your strained social need for reliable local supports  feels threatened by government mandates, you can barely appreciate another's vulnerable dependence upon such government provisions. You struggle to stick with your self-initiative , against temptations to depend more on impersonal others. 6. Your political orientation You believe with others what you need to believe . Your painful needs prioritize your perspective, to compel you to see what the other oriented side cannot easily see. If your social needs resolve less than your guarded self-needs , you're inwardly wide-oriented . If your self-needs resolve less than your guarded social needs , you're inwardly deep-oriented . If wide-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize inclusion of the historically excluded . You feel the injustices they endured. If deep-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize cohesion of the traditionally grouped . You feel the necessity to remain grounded. If wide-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize the most vulnerable, to serve widening demand . For you, “Each according to their need.” If deep-oriented , you’re compelled to prioritize the most productive, to ensure a deep supply . For you, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” If wide-oriented , you rely on public goods, like public welfare . A safety net for the disadvantaged. ​If deep-oriented , you rely on private rights, like private enterprise . A meaningful service bringing depth to lives. If wide-oriented , you wonder if it is effective for the needy many . You likely see an active role for government, to effectively provide for the many who can barely provide for themselves. If deep-oriented , you wonder if it is efficient for the creative few . You likely see a minimal role for government, to efficiently produce for us all only what we cannot do for ourselves. If wide-oriented , you yearn to improve collective capacity , for those vulnerable to others. If deep-oriented , you yearn to improve individual capacity , for those with untapped potential. ​If wide-oriented , you call for freedom from oppression for those historically deprived . If deep-oriented , you call for freedom to provide for your own against pressures to accept disincentivizing handouts. ​If wide-oriented , you generalize about wider inclusion , wider public supports , wider efficacies , and wider freedoms from oppression . deep-oriented , you generalize about deeper cohesion , deeper private rights , deeper efficiencies , and deeper freedoms to provide for your own. ​ Liberal beliefs express these inner priorities. Conservative beliefs express these inner priorities. 7. False balance or false dichotomy? These are mutually exclusive mostly to those who are not whole . “ It’s best to hold onto one without letting go of the other . ” Sweeping generalizations make them appear more contradictory than they actually are. Sure, there are false balances in politics. Some policies lead to better results than others. But comparing the underlying needs is a false dichotomy . Your needs are no more important than another’s. When their needs go unmet, they cease to function as well as you when your needs go unmet. You could affirm the need for inclusion without neglecting cohesion . You could honor private property without neglecting public services. You could be both effective and efficient . All without the self-serving generalizing , or pain- avoidant outrage, or echo-chamber polarizing . The real political difference is not between between between No, the overlooked political difference is between between between A politics that overlooks the needs of others is not a legitimate politics at all. So generalizer , beware. Avoider , beware. Polarizer , beware. Judgment begins in earnest, as a helpful evaluation for how well you did or did not love your political friend and foe alike. Instead of waiting for the ballot box, let’s measure your impact now. After all, what gets measured gets done. By overcoming polarization, we can do it together now. 8. Your politicized needs Politics socially conveys your needs . No matter what position you or others take on any issue, your only honest difference is how to respond to needs. Not in the needs themselves. If I told you I'm thirsty, hot and tired, would you ever say, "I disagree"? If I said I'm lonely and need someone to talk to, would you debate it? The needs themselves are not open to debate. You can choose how you respond to these needs. You generally cannot choose the needs themselves. 9. Hold your ground So don’t let anyone trick you into giving up your political values for theirs. Their political values evolved to fit their needs, their situation, their prioritized needs . Not yours. Your politics don’t require replacement . They need refinement . Less pain-relieving generalizing, that doesn’t get to the cause of your pain. More need-resolving specifics, that removes the pain. Less mutual defensiveness . More understanding and engaging of one another’s differing situations. You don’t have to blindly compromise . You love in how you give, and convey the costs of that love. When political debating slips into disputing the needs themselves, reject this threat to love . 10. No conversion If you held to one side and then switched to the other, your needs allowed you to convert . It wasn’t the persuasion of political arguments alone. You can hardly go against what you painfully need. Your needs resist debate . Their needs resist your best arguments. As long as you experience a certain priority of psychosocial needs , your psychosocial orientation will not let you convert. Not any easier than to convert a lefthander to righthandedness, or introversion to extraversion, or same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attraction. It’s time to stop trying. It’s time to stop hating on others for differences they cannot change . It’s time to accept each other as It’s time to replace the status quo of politically privileged hate with this vitally needed unifying understanding love . 11. Issue by issue Issue by issue , we step back from hostile argument to appreciate the underlying inflexible needs . Together, we’ll replace the status quo of mutual hostilities with better loving understanding of each other’s affected needs. If we don’t, who will? So let’s apply this to the issue at hand. Ready? 12. Spread the love You will never find a lasting political solution until you first appreciate your difference in needs . If you want to be understood, seek first to understand. Look at your situation. How does it prioritize your needs? When looking into situations others face, do you only see your own familiar needs? If raised in a more urban environment , do you only see the need for cultural diversity in rural situations? Do you not see their need to maintain local initiative , for resourceful responsibility , to provide for their own in the middle of nowhere? Do you think they chose these needs? If raised in a more rural environment , do you only see the need for private property rights in urban situations? Do you not see their vulnerabilities to insensitivities , their need for government protections against less visible forms of exploitation , to avoid being re-traumatized ? Do you think they chose these needs? If you do not love others in how you respect their difference in needs, why on earth would you expect them to respect your differing needs? Issue by issue, we pull you out of your shell. Together, we cross a bridge to the other political side, to respect their needs as we would have them respect our own. Issue, by issue, we dare you to love. If you don’t, who will? So, please, Together, Let's unpack politics Check out my eCourse on Udemy Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics Realize how your differently experienced needs create political differences and fuels polarization. Your responsiveness to such unpacking of our political differences Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this politics category. Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love. Check out recent posts of interest to you. Add a rating below to let others know how much of a good read this was for you. Write a comment below to give others an independent perspective on this content. Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts. Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love. back-to-top

Do you treat the wrongly convicted innocent as if they are guilty? below is the script for this video Let me introduce you to a fresh concept: “ innocence offending ”. Anyone who treats a wrongly convicted innocent person as “guilty” offends that person if complicitly denying them of their stolen rights . All under color of law . This exists as a legally privileged offense. By innocent, I mean the convicted person had no role in the reported offense. But surely there aren’t that many innocent people in prison, are there?   Scale of the problem Well, actually, there are. Between 4 and 6% of all prisoners are actually innocent . Not wrongly convicted because of some legal technicality. But they played no role in the crime whatsoever. Or there was no crime. Like when an infant dies from an undiagnosed brain hemorrhage, and the mother is found guilty of shaken baby syndrome . That amounts to about a hundred thousand innocent people who are falsely incarcerated. Sure, some of these have sorted pasts, but many—like myself—have no other criminal record. With around nineteen million Americans with a felony record , that comes to about a million innocent lives treated as if they are felons when they’re actually not. Damaging consequences Many of these innocent defendants serve the full time in prison, being denied for parole because they could not show remorse, and then get released without their rights restored. They endure what are called “ collateral consequences of criminal conviction ”. Meaning that they may be excluded from certain types of jobs, or not allowed to be licensed for certain professions, and not allowed to own or posses a firearm. There are thousands of such restrictions on the books, damaging the lives of the innocent beyond prison. All because the adversarial judicial system mistakenly marked them as felons. Injustice in the name of justice The law privileges such violation of rights because misapplication of the law produced the wrongful conviction in the first place. The tables then turn. These innocent defendants become victims of the very legal system we count upon to protect us from victimizers. The current legal system remains slow in identifying and admitting such errors. And even slower in correcting them. At the time of this writing, less than four thousand have been exonerated . The legal system moves like molasses. Depressing despair What can the wrongly convicted innocent do if the legal system itself is the primary offender? What can you do about it? What if you find out that you could be an innocence offender ? That refers to anyone who violates the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent. If you passively defer to the imperfections and errors of the adversarial judicial system, you could be smeared as a complicit innocence offender. What you can do What can you do to avoid becoming complicit in this hidden crisis? You can start by checking your beliefs. Elites who benefit from this imperfect adversarial system count on you accepting a number of myths that keep them in power. You risk being complicit if you believe and act upon any of these widely held but false views about the accused and wrongly convicted. Or about the criminal justice system in general. Face your misconceptions I give you twelve of these questionable myths that might already accept without question. How much do you believe any of these statements? Do you believe that people generally get what they deserve? Do you believe that all or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent? Do you believe that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Do you believe that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Do you believe that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Do you believe that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Do you believe that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Do you believe that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Do you believe that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Do you believe that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice? Do you believe that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Do you believe that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? The more you believe such falsehoods, and dismiss viable claims of innocence, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”. You become something of a “ useful   idiot ” to those who benefit from such general ignorance of the judicial system’s many imperfections.   They're using you Current power structures disincentivize them from alerting you to their failures. They exploit your diminished awareness to hold significant influence over you. They benefit from your naivety for how the adversarial judicial system actually works—or doesn’t work. The more you accept these widely accepted assumptions, the more they are served at your expense. And at the expense of the innocent. Hope Want to do something about it? Well, that comes next. Question your beliefs about 'justice' Do you accept or questions such beliefs? See also: Innocence Denying (Slate article), especially by prosecutors Hofstra Law Review (also from Lara Bazelon ) Innocence Project Injustice Watch NPR Plus: 17 cases of denied innocence

Clinging to false beliefs about the imperfect judiciary can lull you into "innocence offending" Do you ever slip into “ innocence offending ” by treating the wrongly convicted innocent as if guilty? If so, you could be classified as an “innocence offender”. And you would be in good company. Innocence offender: Someone who mistreats a wrongly convicted innocent person as if guilty.   There is no law against violating certain rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, since it was the law itself that illicitly stripped those rights away. Your complicity may be encouraged. But you can resist and instead to the right thing.   Check for yourself by how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Then see how each gets debunked by AI.   Are you unwittingly an ‘innocence offender’? An innocence offender  is anyone who violates the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, typically by deferring to unacknowledged imperfections and errors of the adversarial judicial system. In other words, from believing what is not true. From trusting what is false.   You risk being complicit in their violated innocence if you believe and act upon widely held but false views about the accused and wrongly convicted. Until you have experienced the many shortcomings within the adversarial judicial system, you likely accept these falsehoods.   Do you believe any of these? People generally get what they deserve . All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent . High conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime . The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world . Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur . A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer . If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong . No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way . Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability . The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice . Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable . The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system .   The more you take such things for granted, and dismiss a viable innocence claim , the more likely you are an “ innocence offender ”.   The more you believe such things, and dismiss claims of innocence, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”.   Unlike the adversarial system anchored in alienating laws, need-response anchors itself in liberating discipline of principles called ‘ character refunctions ’. Such as humility, grace, patience, resilience, and more.   Be skeptical of the government, including the judiciary Those who run our judicial system benefit from general ignorance around the judicial system's many imperfections. Current power structures disincentivize them from alerting you to their failures. The more you accept these widely accepted assumptions, the more they are served.   The bad news is this: You become their “ useful idiots ” as they exploit your naïveté for how the adversarial judicial system actually works—or doesn’t work.   Need-response goes beyond the biased-riddled adversarial approach to address all sides more honestly. It holds a higher standard, and instills more discipline, to nurture more of our integrity.   Let’s ask Perplexity to debunk these myths Expand the text to check how this AI debunks these myths. 1. How true is it that people generally get what they deserve? Debunk the myth: People generally get what they deserve. The belief that “people generally get what they deserve” is a common worldview, but it’s more myth than reality. Here’s a breakdown:   1. The Psychological Root: Just-World Belief Psychologists call this the just-world hypothesis —the tendency to assume life is fair and that good things happen to good people, while bad things happen to bad people. It offers a sense of order and control: if the world is fair, then I can avoid misfortune by behaving “right.” But this is a cognitive bias , not reality.   2. Counterexamples from Life Suffering without fault : Children born into poverty, people facing chronic illness, or those hit by natural disasters did not “deserve” their struggles. Injustice : Corruption, exploitation, and systemic inequalities allow people to thrive or suffer irrespective of merit. Randomness : Accidents, chance encounters, or sheer luck often shape lives in unpredictable ways.   3. The Harms of Believing the Myth Victim-blaming : It leads to saying things like “They must have done something to deserve it,” which increases stigma instead of compassion. Disregard for structural issues : It shifts blame from unjust systems (racism, economic inequality, sexism) to individuals. False security : People may overestimate how much control they have, which can magnify feelings of guilt when misfortune strikes.   4. A More Accurate View Life is uneven : Outcomes are shaped by a mix of personal choices, structural forces, opportunity, and luck. Responsibility matters, but not absolutely : Effort and character do influence outcomes—but never in isolation. Compassion is wiser than judgment : Recognizing randomness and inequality encourages empathy, social responsibility, and fairer systems.   Conclusion The idea that “people generally get what they deserve” is not accurate. It oversimplifies a world driven by both human agency and uncontrollable factors. Real wisdom is accepting complexity—people sometimes reap the rewards of their choices, but just as often, circumstances beyond their control shape their lives.   2. How true is it that all or most prisoners claim they are innocent? Debunk the myth: All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent. The myth that all or most prisoners claim they're innocent is not supported by evidence: in reality, the majority of prisoners admit guilt, and only a minority persistently claim innocence after conviction.   Actual Prisoner Claims Research shows that only about 15% of incarcerated individuals claim innocence of their convicted crime, while most acknowledge their involvement. Surveys and criminology experts consistently debunk the misconception that virtually everyone behind bars claims they were wrongly accused.   Why the Myth Persists Popular culture, media portrayals, and social beliefs have promoted the idea that prisoners routinely deny guilt. However, in prison communities, claiming innocence without supporting evidence can lead to skepticism or conflict among other inmates. Many prisoners openly admit to their crimes, especially those caught "red-handed" or who accepted plea deals.   Wrongful Convictions Rates While it's true some prisoners are innocent, wrongful conviction estimates are typically around 4-6% of the prison population—meaning most inmates are not wrongly imprisoned. Innocence projects and exonerations highlight the reality of lawful errors, but these cases represent a small fraction compared to the millions serving sentences.   Parole and Innocence Dilemma Systems often require prisoners to admit guilt for parole consideration, which creates a dilemma for those who are actually innocent and refuse to confess falsely. Some innocent prisoners remain incarcerated for years, or die in prison, rather than falsely admit guilt. Conclusion In summary, most prisoners do not claim innocence, and the belief that they do is a persistent myth not backed by actual inmate behavior or data.   3. How true is that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Debunk the myth: high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime. High conviction rates do not significantly contribute to a reduction in crime, according to a broad consensus of contemporary research and statistical analysis.   Marginal Impact of Incarceration and Conviction Studies from multiple decades indicate that increases in incarceration or conviction rates have only a limited—and declining—effect on overall crime rates. For instance, between 1980 and 2000, a 10% increase in incarceration rates was associated with only a 2–4% reduction in crime, and after 2000, this correlation disappeared, with incarceration accounting for virtually none of the subsequent drop in crime. Most major declines in crime since the 1990s are attributed to factors such as an aging population, increased employment, higher graduation rates, and new policing strategies—not higher conviction rates.   No Effect on Violent Crime The crime reduction associated with higher conviction and incarceration rates is limited almost exclusively to property crimes, with research consistently finding no positive impact on violent crime rates. This is because as incarceration and conviction rates rise, more people sentenced are low-level or infrequent offenders, while sentences for violent and repeat offenders would occur regardless of changes in conviction rates.   Potential for Negative Effects High conviction and incarceration rates, especially when concentrated in certain communities, may even increase crime by destabilizing families and communities, leading to diminished economic opportunity and increased poverty. Over-punishing people at low risk of committing crimes can sometimes make them higher risk, further undermining public safety.   Decoupling Crime and Conviction National and state-level trends illustrate that crime rates can drop even when incarceration and conviction rates also fall, as seen in Utah and other jurisdictions. This evidence demonstrates that high conviction rates are not a necessary ingredient for reducing crime, and policy should focus on more effective approaches.   Conclusion In summary: The myth that high conviction rates lead to a significant reduction in crime is not supported by evidence; instead, crime is better addressed through social investments, improved policing strategies, and community supports.   4. How true is it that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Debunk the myth: The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world. The claim that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world is a myth; internationally, many other countries consistently outperform the U.S. in key areas of justice, fairness, and transparency.   International Rankings According to the World Justice Project and global indices, the U.S. typically ranks outside the top ten in rule of law, judicial effectiveness, and civil justice. For example, in the 2023 Rule of Law Index, the U.S. ranked 23rd globally—behind countries like Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.   Systemic Criticisms The American judicial system faces criticism for issues such as politicization, systemic bias, unequal access to justice, and inconsistent outcomes due to its highly decentralized federal structure. Challenges also include high incarceration rates, lengthy pretrial detentions, and disparities affected by socioeconomic status and race.   Global Exemplars Countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands are routinely recognized for their more transparent, efficient, and equitable judicial systems. These systems tend to offer swifter trials, more consistent rulings, and higher public trust.   Conclusion While the U.S. judicial system has strengths, particularly in constitutional rights and legal precedent, it is not the top-ranked globally, and several countries offer judicial systems that are considered fairer and more effective by international standards.   5. How true is it that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Debunk the myth: Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur. The myth that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur is decisively false; evidence shows that wrongful convictions are more common than most people realize, with thousands affected each year.   Wrongful Conviction Statistics Conservative estimates suggest that more than 10,000 innocent people are convicted every year in the United States alone. Since 1989, at least 3,175 people have been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted, spending a collective over 27,000 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Recent studies estimate that 3-6% of all prisoners in the U.S. could be innocent, representing tens of thousands of people currently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.   Common Causes of Wrongful Convictions Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause, involved in up to 72% of convictions later overturned by DNA evidence. Other significant causes are false confessions, official misconduct, flawed forensic evidence, and perjury or incentivized informant testimony. Flaws in legal defense, such as overburdened or underfunded public defenders, also contribute.   Ongoing Problem and Impact Exonerations are increasing, with record high numbers reported in recent years, indicating growing recognition but also the persistent scale of wrongful convictions. The consequences for the innocent are devastating, including years or decades lost to incarceration, destroyed reputations, and major financial, social, and emotional harm. The data exposes a justice system in which errors and failures can—and do—result in the punishment of innocent people much more often than is popularly believed. Conclusion In summary, wrongful convictions are a significant, recurring problem in the justice system, directly debunking the myth that they are rare.     6. How true is it that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Debunk the myth: A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer. The myth that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer is not supported by evidence or logic—police officers also regularly lie, both inside and outside the courtroom, and their profession sometimes incentivizes deceit as part of investigations or to protect themselves or colleagues.   Police Honesty and Incentives Law enforcement officers are often held to high standards of honesty, but documented cases and research show systematic police deceit, including lying during investigations, testimony, and even covering up misconduct. Police officers sometimes justify lying as serving a greater good, such as securing convictions, and organizational pressures can further reinforce dishonest behaviors.   Criminal Defendants and Credibility Criminal defendants face strong biases—courts and juries may assume they are less credible due to their status, background, or alleged behavior. However, there is no empirical evidence that simply being a defendant makes one more likely to lie than other participants in the justice system.   Comparative Evidence Officers sometimes lie to obtain confessions (legally permitted in interrogations), protect colleagues, or enhance their own careers. Systematic studies and commissions (e.g., the Mollen Commission on NYPD) have documented widespread police perjury and falsification of official records. The adversarial legal system frequently relies on credibility assessments because testimony from police officers and defendants is often conflicting.   Conclusion Both criminal defendants and police officers have complex motivations and pressures affecting truthfulness, and being a police officer does not inherently make someone more honest than a defendant. The myth persists due to biases and cultural perceptions, not due to any factual basis or evidence.   7. How true is it that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Debunk the myth: If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong. That's a great myth to unpack, because it touches on justice, fairness, and common misconceptions. Myth : If someone is arrested, they must have done something wrong. Reality : Being arrested does not equal guilt or proof of wrongdoing. Here’s why:   1. Arrest ≠ Conviction An arrest is when police take someone into custody based on suspicion  or probable cause, not proof. Conviction only happens after due process: formal charges, evidence considered in court, and a verdict.   2. Presumption of Innocence In democratic legal systems, people are innocent until proven guilty . This principle exists precisely because arrests can be mistaken or unjustified.   3. Mistaken Identity & False Accusations Innocent people get arrested due to misidentification, false reports, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Examples: eyewitness errors, unreliable informants, or fabricated evidence have all led to wrongful arrests.   4. Biases & Systemic Issues Studies show certain groups are disproportionately arrested because of racial, social, or economic biases—not necessarily because they commit more crimes.   5. Later Exonerations The Innocence Project has highlighted many cases where DNA evidence freed people who spent years in prison after wrongful arrests and convictions.   Conclusion Bottom line: An arrest is not proof of guilt. It’s only an indication that police believe further investigation or legal proceedings are justified. Judging someone guilty just because they were arrested  ignores due process, the presumption of innocence, and the very real issue of wrongful arrests.   8. How true is it that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Debunk the myth: No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way. The belief that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty is a myth; in reality, many people falsely confess to crimes they did not commit due to psychological, situational, and systemic pressures.   Why Innocent People Confess False confessions happen for various reasons beyond actual guilt, including mental illness, intellectual impairments, and vulnerability to authoritative pressure. Intense police interrogations can break down even mentally healthy adults, especially when conducted over long hours or with deceptive tactics. Juveniles are particularly susceptible to confess due to their impressionability and desire to please authority figures.   Types of False Confessions False confessions typically fall into three categories: Voluntary : Given without external pressure, often to protect someone, as a result of mental illness, or as self-punishment. Compliant : Made under pressure to escape stressful interrogations, with hope of leniency or reward, or to end the ordeal. Persuaded : Confessors come to believe they are guilty due to suggestive or manipulative interrogation tactics.   Systemic and Legal Factors Police are legally allowed to lie about evidence to suspects, which can cause confusion and panic, leading innocent people to confess. Threats, promises of lighter sentences, or plea bargaining can also coerce confessions from innocent suspects. Studies show false confessions are a significant cause of wrongful convictions, with DNA exoneration cases sometimes proving innocence despite confessions.   Evidence and Research Academic research and real-world cases repeatedly demonstrate that innocent people confess to crimes, debunking the myth. Nearly 30% of people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States had confessed to crimes they did not commit. Awareness of false confession mechanisms has led to reforms, such as videotaping interrogations to protect against coercion.   Conclusion In conclusion, confession is not irrefutable proof of guilt—innocent people sometimes confess due to powerful psychological, procedural, and social factors, which are well-documented in law, psychology, and criminal justice research.   9. How true is it that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Debunk the myth: Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability. Forensic evidence does not provide conclusive proof of culpability. It is important to understand that forensic evidence is often circumstantial, inherently probabilistic, and subject to limitations and potential errors. Scientific studies, legal cases, and expert analyses indicate that forensic evidence should be considered as one component of a broader investigative and evidentiary context, not as absolute proof of guilt.   Limitations of Forensic Evidence Forensic methods vary widely in their reliability. DNA evidence is considered highly reliable but cannot always clarify how or when the DNA was deposited, thus it may not conclusively prove guilt. Other forensic methods, such as fingerprint analysis or fiber comparison, have been found to have higher potential for error or subjective interpretation. Many forensic techniques lack robust scientific validation, raising concerns about their conclusiveness in court.   Circumstantial Nature and Probabilistic Interpretation Legally, forensic evidence is classified as circumstantial evidence, meaning it implies facts through inference rather than direct observation. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by excluding other logical explanations for the crime. This requires careful interpretation and corroboration with other evidence such as eyewitness testimony, alibis, or motive.   Errors, Biases, and the "CSI Effect" Human factors such as bias in forensic analysis and errors during evidence collection or processing can impact reliability. Jurors and the public often overestimate the certainty of forensic evidence due to portrayals in popular media (the so-called "CSI Effect"), leading to unrealistic expectations that a single piece of forensic evidence can definitively "seal" a case.   Conclusion Forensic evidence is a powerful investigative and evidentiary tool, but it is not infallible or inherently conclusive of guilt. Its value depends heavily on the context, quality of analysis, and corroboration with other evidence. Courts and legal professionals must apply rigorous standards and skepticism in interpreting forensic findings to avoid wrongful convictions. 10. How true is it that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice?   Debunk the myth: The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice. The myth that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice is false. While appeals provide a mechanism to challenge convictions or sentences, they have important limitations that often prevent them from fully correcting miscarriages of justice.   Reasons Appeals Don't Guarantee Correction of Miscarriages of Justice No New Evidence or Retrial : Appeals generally do not involve a new trial or introduction of new evidence; they focus on errors or legal issues in the original trial. This means that if crucial evidence was missed or withheld during the trial, an appeal may not adequately address that miscarriage. High Legal Threshold : The appellate courts require proof of specific legal errors or procedural unfairness, not just that the verdict was wrong. Many wrongful convictions persist because the courts do not deem the errors sufficient to overturn the conviction. Limited Scope on Fresh Evidence : Courts often restrict appeals from considering fresh evidence unless it was unavailable at trial due to exceptional reasons. This restricts the ability to correct cases where new proof of innocence arises post-conviction. Reluctance and Procedural Barriers : The courts and appellate systems are sometimes reluctant to overturn verdicts to preserve finality and efficiency. Legal aid and representation issues further limit successful appeals for those without sufficient resources or legal knowledge. Official Misconduct and Systemic Issues : Many miscarriages of justice stem from misconduct (e.g., police or prosecutorial wrongdoing) that taints the entire process. Appeals may not sufficiently address these systemic problems, which undermine fairness beyond just the trial errors.   Key Misconception Appeals Are Not Automatic Corrective Mechanisms : Appeals are legal reviews focused on trial fairness, not guarantees of correcting wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice. Winning an appeal might result in a new trial, reduced sentence, or overturned conviction, but this is far from assured or immediate.   Conclusion In summary, while the appeals process is important for justice, it is not a foolproof mechanism that will correct every miscarriage of justice due to procedural limits, evidentiary restrictions, and broader systemic challenges.     11. How true is it that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Debunk the myth: Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable. The myth that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable is false. Eyewitness testimony is often convincing but can be highly fallible and prone to errors. Research shows that memory is malleable and subject to distortion without the witness's awareness, meaning eyewitness identification is vulnerable to misidentifications even by confident witnesses.   Key factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identification include: Speed of identification : Faster decisions tend to be more accurate. For example, identifications made within six seconds can be twice as accurate as those made more slowly. Confidence level : High confidence can correlate with higher accuracy but does not guarantee it, as confident misidentifications also occur. Face-recognition ability : Individuals vary in their capability to recognize faces, significantly influencing the reliability of their identifications. Lineup conditions : Proper lineup procedures (fair lineup, unbiased instructions, and blind administration) improve accuracy. Unreliable memory : Memory is not a video recording but a reconstructive process influenced by stress, time delay, and post-event information.   DNA exonerations have revealed that a large proportion of wrongful convictions involved mistaken eyewitness identification, underscoring its fallibility. Despite jurors and the public often giving great weight to eyewitness testimony, scientific research cautions that it should not be accepted uncritically. Eyewitness memory is generally reliable only if it is uncontaminated and proper testing procedures are followed.   Conclusion Therefore, eyewitness identification should be carefully scrutinized, with consideration of confidence, decision time, lineup fairness, and individual differences, to avoid wrongful convictions based on unreliable eyewitness memory.   12. How true is it that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? Debunk the myth: The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system. The myth that "the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system" can be debunked by understanding the different roles, powers, and limits of judges compared to other key actors like prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries.   Judicial Powers and Limits Judges play an important role in presiding over trials, maintaining order, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, instructing juries about legal standards, and sentencing convicted defendants. They ensure court proceedings are fair and follow legal rules. However, judges’ power is bounded by laws, legal precedents, and checks such as appeals that can overturn their decisions. Judges do not act alone; they interpret law but do not create it, and their discretion is limited by legislations and procedural rules.   Prosecutorial Power and Influence Prosecutors wield significant power in the criminal justice system, especially before cases reach trial. They decide which cases to pursue, what charges to file, whether to offer plea deals, and whether to dismiss cases altogether. These decisions often have a greater impact on case outcomes than the judge’s rulings during the trial. Prosecutors influence the course of justice through discretion in charging and negotiation, shaping the system’s functioning more broadly than judges typically do.   Other Key Actors and Checks Defense attorneys protect the accused’s rights and challenge prosecutorial power, while juries serve as ultimate fact-finders in many trials by deciding guilt based on evidence presented. This system of checks and balances means no single actor, including judges, holds absolute power. Instead, power is distributed among various participants who interact to ensure fairness and justice.   Conclusion While judges have crucial responsibilities and control court proceedings, they are not the supreme power in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors often have more influence over the initiation and resolution of cases, and the system’s design distributes power among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. Thus, the claim that judges are the most powerful is a myth; power in the criminal justice system is balanced and shared among multiple actors.   Need more independent verification to challenge these views? Ask Google AI                                   Ask Claude                                      Ask Copilot Download your own self-assessment tool. Word document, PDF, or Excel spreadsheet. Word document click to download PDF click to download Excel spreadsheet click to download Are you lulled into serving elites? The more you passively accept these myths, instead of unpacking the falsehoods for what they are, the easier for elites to exploit you. They oversee media production that fan the flames of fear , much to their own benefit at your expense. Why let them?   They benefit when you slip into complicity, violating the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent. You then unwittingly becoming an 'innocence offender' with your complicity in denying the innocent their full rights. Yes, you become a sycophant to elites who benefit from this status quo.   Let’s stop spreading the cultural cancer of adversarialism The more you accept these widely accepted falsehoods, the more easily you are exploited by elites. The more invested in our adversarialist legal system, despite its many faults, the more these elites may try to manipulate your views to defend it.   Need-response prioritizes your inflexible need  over the adversarial law of politics and the judicial system. Those systems routinely fail to faithfully address your affected needs, or to help you remove pain, or help you restore wellness. Only need-response aims to do that. Sources Hal Arkowitz & Scott O. Lilienfeld (2010). Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts , Scientific American . Accessed 2025-08-28.

We start with SMS using your phone number. You can then opt to using FB Messenger or WhatsApp. When ready to start at your scheduled time, simply text to the number 248-872-5500 and text the following message: "This is [YOUR NAME], and I am ready to begin." You should then receive a prompt reply. Have ready any questions or concerns you need to cover. Ten minutes can go by fast. You can always follow up at any time with an email to engage@anankelogy.org.

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 session is free. If you find value in it, please show your appreciation with a donation. Offer what you can afford to help us sustain this for you and for others. We take Law-Fit to a deeper level, called "citationization". We go through a series of steps to mold the flexible apparatus of law to address inflexible needs. 1. GETTING STARTED To gage any improvement, we first get a baseline of your initial wellness level. We will review your personal information. You have the option to pay for this service out of pocket or to invite others to invest in your supported effort to speak truth to power. As they participate in your wellness, their wellness can improve. We can discuss how this crowdfunding approach can make a profound difference. 2. CONTEXT We will unpack the power relations you find yourself in. And then explore how they affect your wellbeing. We will incentivize these powerholders to shift from legal adversarialism to supportive mutuality. We will prioritize resolving each other’s needs over mindless compliance to laws. 3. CHALLENGES We will likely face some challenges on the way. Some powerholders may resist. We will address those things you should be able to solve on your own. If you take the crowdfunding route, we will invite your supporters to help you tackle some of these challenges. They will gain something along the way. 4. OPPORTUNITIES We dive deeper into law-fit with the ‘citationization’ process. What is the intended purpose of the cited law? How can we know if it’s working as intended? What about any unintended side effects? We shift from alienation to mutual engagement. We may discuss the option of scaling this up into a full ‘wellness program’. We can explore if going this route with a ‘wellness warmup’ is right for you and your situation. 5. ROADMAP We equip you to speak truth to power. We roll out need-response to powerholders in four key steps: 1) NRI: This introduces them to this pioneering alternative. 2) NOI: We let them know we are now applying this process specifically to them. 3) MOU: We negotiate how to better serve each other’s needs. 4) NRA: We avow to resolve your needs with or without their cooperation. 6. OPTIONS We can wind down when those in positions of power finally fit your inflexible needs to flexible laws. We can explore what you could do next. Or decide to end it here. Keep in mind this service is completely new. It will likely evolve as we use it in real time.

i-need.to How It Works Pricing Articles I need relation level Click anywhere to create your own "I-need" message. solving general problems by resolving specific needs. Scroll down to review these samples one at a time. We're mutually each other's A nankelogy Foundatio n Mouse over the "I need" field to see examples. Click anywhere in the image to start. slider Sample "I need" statements Sample "I need" statements Personal relation level Send a PERSONAL "I-need" message to someone you personally know, and who personally knows you. Such as a friend or family member. Use these as a guide to inspire your own "I need" expressions to them.

i-need.to How It Works Pricing Articles Mockup of for this new solution 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 Anankelogy Foundation 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

My Portfolio Welcome to my portfolio. Here you’ll find a selection of my work. Explore my projects to learn more about what I do.

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.