< Back Idaho Innocence Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

Resolved needs improve your understanding. < Back C03 General Principle List of all principles Resolved needs improve your understanding. Image: Pixabay - Tama66 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more your needs fully resolve, the more your thinking gets freed up for other things. The less your needs resolve, the less you can focus on anything but those emotionally pressing needs. You naturally prioritize functioning first. The more your needs resolve, the further you can reach your functioning capacity. The less you will then be distracted by emotional pressures or distorting biases. You can then absorb more input into what actually exists. Your expansive attention to soak in more truth can lead to a series of epiphanies. Instead of clinging to generalizations offering relief, you encounter more of reality. Description Which do you think is more likely? Your feelings must continually be checked by rational thinking and democratic laws. OR You can understand more when your mind is not compelled to focus on pressing needs. Anankelogy Everything you understand fits in some way with your ability to function. If anything gets in the way of your capacity to fully function, your mind can hardly focus on anything else but its priority to keep your life going. If you did not understand how falling off a tall cliff could kill you, your mind could entertain fancy ideas of gliding over the edge with a pair of untested homemade wings. But once aware of the dangers, your understanding bends to prioritize your survival . Your biases prioritize your need , your self-continuance. You believe what your life requires you think as true or not . If they didn’t, you risk not being around to contemplate less important things than your own survival. As soon as you perceive any threat to your wellbeing, this priority for your self-continuance commandeers your understanding. Everything else must wait. This innate priority to persist unscathed fuels your motivated reasoning . To paraphrase Upton Sinclair , it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck requires them to not understand it. Your interpretation of the situation will tend to amplify what seems beneficial, potentially exaggerate what could hold you back, and filter out what seems irrelevant. Your reasoning serves your motivation to continue without painful risks to your wellbeing. This dynamic often kicks in to avoid the pain itself. Your ability to think clearly can easily fall off the cliff when compelled to avoid the very warning that serves your self-continuance interests. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats they exist to warn you about . The more your needs resolve, the less pain to distract your thinking or to twist your understanding. Need-response The more your needs resolve, the more reliable your intuition. Your instincts serve you well when grounded on the reality of what previously led to your full wellbeing without infringing on others. Your more accurate conclusions provide a more reliable lens for framing your perceptions. Of course, the opposite is true. The less your needs resolve, then the less reliable your intuition. Your unresolved needs prioritize your attention toward their increasingly urgent relief. Your innate priority to ensure your continued functioning willingly takes cognitive shortcuts. As your needs resolve, your attention can soak in more of what you observe as actually there. Your mind integrates this input. When seeing what attracts other’s interest in you, for example, you don’t have to stumble around trying to get on their good side. Your understanding improves to appreciate what is real. Each time a familiar need recurs, you instantly can rely on your perceptions. You can rely on your understanding of what’s happening. You can respond quickly, without much reflection. You can enjoy your need resolving again. That’s the wonder of your reality-cultivated intuition. Reactive Problem Bombardments of stimuli in modern society tend to overtax our mental capacities. The less we filter out the less relevant, the more sensations we feel pulled to process. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed. To manage this cognitive load, we often draw on our generalizations and categorizations. Instead of processing the inputs ourselves, we accept other’s processing as sufficient. Sometimes, that is not enough. Worse, the generalizations and categorizations of others may throw you completely off . Consequently, we’ve become a hyperrational society. We process less emotionally rich content. And try to force our needs to fit neatly into rational constructs that avoid messy details. When this results in poor outcomes, we typically revert the same failed routines trapping us in pain. When someone complains of a need they cannot resolve, we’re slow to listen and quick to argue. We’re slow to empathize and quick to take an opposing side. We’re slow to fully understand and quick to categorize and overgeneralize—for our own relief ultimately at their expense. If honest with ourselves, we’d admit we endure the slow burning pain of many unresolved needs. You likely don’t feel fully understood by anyone. You likely don’t feel fully accepted for who you uniquely are. You likely don’t enjoy the peace of living up to your full potential. We’ve all become accustomed to living lives of quiet desperation. And if honest, we don’t really understand why. Responsive Solution Responsivism —the belief and practice to respond better to the needs of others—counters the limits of “adversarialism ”. The more personally responsive to the needs of others, the less we feel we must oppose others we don’t actually understand. The more you can replace habits of avoiding others with routines of engaging each other, the better you can understand others and understand yourself. The more you can replace habits of alienation with norms of mutual encounters, the more you can face the reality that our hyperrationality easily ignores. This speaks to an advantage of anankelogy over other social sciences. Anankelogy recognizes how the biases of the anankelogist can be reduced or cleared up when the anankelogist is held accountable to promptly and fully resolve each need. The more responsive the need-responders to their own needs, the more they can be trusted to be professionally responsive to the needs of others. With responsivism , you can develop the skills to become a professional need-responder . Responsivism equips you to rebuild your interpersonal routines. You’re incentivized to resolve needs, and not settle for self-defeating relief from your unmet needs’ recurring pain. You sharpen the habit of engaging others despite the momentary discomforts while being vulnerable. You shift from develop the skills of cultivating mutual understanding, shutting down reason for mutual defensiveness that keeps us in the dark. You open our world to fresh understanding. You take in new insights that can liberate your life. As more of your needs fully resolve, and you support others to resolve their needs, you find a depth of understanding you may not have realized even existed. You can then richly understand the underappreciated scope of the full power of love. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Surely I will not fully understand reality simply because my needs are better satisfied. I suspect there is more to cognitive distortions than unaddressed needs. What about false beliefs that form from trusting bad sources? Doesn’t motivated reasoning have a lot to do with conflicts of interest? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

Your emotions prioritize your existence. < Back B03 Basic Principle List of all principles Your emotions prioritize your existence. Image: Pixabay – Cleverpix (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? You only feel like you must prioritize something because you’re basically an irrational being. OR Your life includes a built-in mechanism to ensure your existence before all else. Anankelogy Your emotions typically convey the intensity and urgency of a need. If experiencing mild anxiety, for example, you can usually focus on other things. But if paralyzed by panic from a deadly threat which is about to hit you, you can hardly think about anything other than what you must do to survive. This could also occur in mild incidents. For example, you can be generous to others to a point. But if giving everything away to the point you have nothing left to live upon, your emotions will kick in to warnof this threat to your survival. Whether mild depression or encroaching anxiety, your life prioritizes your capacity to continue existing. You can feel happy in one moment and then abruptly feel frightened when threatened. That fear prioritizes your attention to handle whatever now threatens your continuance. This spans from ensuring you do not get killed in that moment to avoiding any later risk of harm that could eventually limit your ability to fully function. Need-response Need-response counters the limits of impersonal law that often overlooks actual threats to wellbeing. Impersonal legal systems tend to neglects the objective reality of the unchosen needs of all impacted by a conflict. The more ignored, the more adversarial legal systems tend to prioritize one party’s needs over the other. Both in a court battle and at the ballot. The winner in a legal battle cannot be assured their needs resolve. Political or judicial victories do not always lead to better lives. Usually, the victory only provides some relief from the pain of their negatively impacted needs. Only by ensuring a path for all sides in a conflict can resolve their objectively prioritized needs can a sustainable solution be achieved for lasting peace. Reactive Problem The more we rely on adversarial legal systems, like the adversarial judicial system and polarizing politics, the more we tend to overlook this prioritizing force of self-continuance. No law can curb a person’s prioritized self-continuance when threatened. Legal systems suffer from a lack of legitimacy when trying to impose its will to coerce suppression of an unchosen need for continued existence. No one chooses to require security, or safety from violence, or avoidance of overwhelming pain from damage. Provoking such needs in the name of authority, especially if evoking reactions it seeks to put down, reflects poorly on its legitimacy. The more our adversarial legal systems neglect the forceful prioritization of existence, either on a personal or collective level, the more the forces of nature will overrule the forces of human authority. Resorting to violence to put down violence easily risks more violence. What such blind authority reactively resists they tend to reinforce , getting more of what they claim to seek to reduce. Familiarity bias tends to normalize the resulting cycle of violence, often displacing more responsive alternatives. Responsive Solution Need-response goes to the core of a conflict by addressing each unchosen need and each unchosen priority presented in that conflict. These are kept distinct from chosen responses to such needs. To effectively address the clashing responses to each other’s unchosen needs, need-response applies some familiar qualities it calls character refunctions . Grace : Invite all parties in a conflict to humbly admit their imperfections, to then reach them where they honestly at in their struggle to address their prioritized needs with questionable actions. Empathy : Encourage each side in a conflict to see the experience through the eyes of the other, to relate more directly to the affected unchosen needs of the opposing side or sides. Humility : Welcome each side to drop any pretense that they know best what should be done, to allow room to learn how each one’s ability to function is honestly impacted by the conflict. Mercy : Incentivize each side to let go of any right to retribution to make room to repair any damage and restore mutual respect for each other’s unchosen needs. Discipline : See that each delays any immediate gratification of their anger so they can prioritize mutual respect that can in the long term assure less provocation of prioritized self-continuance. Gratitude : Inspire each side to appreciate the generosity from the other side when they show deference to their affected unchosen needs. Resilience : Hold each side accountable to enduring the challenging difficulties as long as humanly possible to optimize the opportunity to support each other’s prioritized continuance. There are many more of these that can help resolve a conflict. And curb the extremes that can erupt when urgently seeking one’s own survival, or reduction from the risk of harm. Need-response can tailorize each one of these to apply to a specific conflict you find yourself in. In the heated moment of prioritizing self-existence, these qualities can quickly go by the wayside. Need-response can turn a challenging conflict into an opportunity for mutual support with these aptly applied qualities. To prioritize the power of love over coercive laws . Whenever someone’s prioritizing self-continuance gets provoked, need-response offers better tools than adversarial legal systems to ensure each other’s affected needs can resolve. Then to remove the cause for pain that often provokes conflicts. In the process, the improves each other’s level of functioning to ensure they can prioritize mutual support from that point forward. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: In the heat of the moment, who can do anything but defend oneself? What about the rationalizations we use when feeling threatened by some foe? Poor judgment lets some folks feel like their survival is threatened when it actually is not. How does need-response specifically provide these responses to a conflict I am in? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Glossary T < back to glossary menu toxic adversarialism (n. ) Opposing others to try to subdue them or coerce them into submitting to one's own preferences, typically without distinguishing between their flexible beliefs or actions and their inflexible needs . Serves as a feature in reactive culture . Exists as negative form of adversarialism . See conflict porn , indulgent side-taking . and oppo culture . toxic adversarialist (n. ) One who routinely opposes others to try to subdue them or coerce them into submitting to one's own preferences, typically without distinguishing between their flexible beliefs or actions and their inflexible needs . toxic legalism (n. ) Acquiescence to established norms, especially to written laws, to the point of compromising wellness. Reliance upon impersonal social norms for conveying public-facing needs (i.e., exposed needs) without knowing how effective needs can consequently resolve. This includes law enforcement that aims for social order with little to no regard for how harsh enforcement actually undermines social order, by compromising wellness. Toxic legalism includes at least five key elements . Hyper-individualism . Laws tend to hold personal behaviors in check. Which becomes toxic when expecting individuals to adjust to imperfect social environments, and enables problematic social systems to impose and even harm individuals. Hyperrationality . Laws get based upon rational-legal authority, to keep emotional urges in check with reasoned rules. Which turns toxic when spurring emotional dishonesty, such as suppressing emotionally charged needs in the name of staying rational. Overgeneralizing . Laws must be general enough to apply to various situations. Which becomes toxic when neglecting necessary specifics to resolve needs for which laws exist to serve. Avoidance . Laws are kept impersonal to avoid personal favoritism of their creation and enforcement. Which turns toxic when enforcement objectifies individuals as likely violators and deserving of public punishment without getting to know their actual needs propelling their behaviors. Adversarialism . Laws presume violators are at odds with law abiders. Which becomes toxic when potential to reedress each side's inflexible needs gets squandered, as parties are pitted against each other instead of seeking to mutually understand and honor each other's vulnerable needs. Such toxic legalism tends to produce dysfunctional outcomes. The adversarial judicial system offers pain relief to the winning side in a court battle, as the contentious poltical system primarily offers pain relief to the winners of a ballot contest. This contrasts wtih critical legalism , which mostly produce symfunctional and rarely peakfunctional outcomes. Only need-response prioritizes the proper resolution of needs of all sides in a conflict, to accountably ensure all sides can restore their functional wellbeing and remove cause for their pain—to mutually result in peakfunction . transconventionality (n. ) Prioritizing the proper resolution of inflexible needs for which social norms ostensibly exist to serve, over passive or mindless compliance to such familiar norms without regard for the impacts. Norms are transcended to directly resolve needs properly, to connect directly with people actually need. Which can result in peakfunction outcomes, in sustained wellness. This exists in contrast to cisconventionality , which prioritizes unquestioned compliance to favored social norms. Insead of settling for symfunction or tolerating dysfunction outcomes common with cisconventionality , transconventionality prioritizes peakfunctional outcomes. Transconventionality exists akin to Kohlberg's postconventional level of moral development. As cisconventionality exists closer to Kohlberg's conventional and perhaps even preconventional levels of moral development. transspirit (n. ) Someone who experiences themself as compelled to transcend divisive social norms that compromise potential for peakfunction, for wellness, to connect more deeply with life's full potential. This effectively compels them to not passively comply with divisive social norms, even at the risk of social rejection and ostracization. Transspiritual (adj. ); transspirituality (n. ). transspirituality (n. ) Benefocent compulsion to transcend constraining conventional norms to connect with life's full potential, by moving beyond limits to properly resolve needs . Typically includes a benefocent compulsion to prioritize love (defined as honoring the inflexible needs of others as one's own) over toxic legalism , imposing social norms, constraining laws, and illegitimate authorities. This may include transcending limiting gender norms , presenting as a kind of transgenderism, but this is not always the case. (adj. ) transspiritual . See transconventional and tansspirit above. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Glossary S < back to glossary menu self-need (n. ) A necessity for functioning on one’s own without any intrusion from others, specifically for things one can provide solely for oneself. Covers the internal side of one’s psychosocial wellbeing. Contrasts with and complements social needs . autonomy authenticity independence initiative internalized incentive personal freedom personal security privacy resilience self-acceptance self-determination self-efficacy self-expression self-purpose self-responsibility self-secure self-sufficiency self-worth, uniqueness sick society (n. ) Collective unwellness of a society. Beyond individuals recognized as being ill, the moniker recognizes who groups, communities and society as a whole can be ill, unable to function fully. Much as individuals get sick when their needs go unmet, groups get sick when their shared needs go unmet. Much as the individual cannot fully function while sick, the group cannot fully function while sick. See societal sickness below. social contract standard (n. ) [Not a neologism, but a new standard introduced] Basis for accepting government's role in one's life with its costs and benefits, in contrast to a social environment without government costs or benefits. Need-response introduces a new standard to address the disappointment in the status quo "consent of the governed" social contract standard. Ascribed legitimacy of manipulated consent of governed (MCOG) Earned legitimacy of measurably improved wellness outcomes (MIWO) Need-response tests whether individual poor wellness outcomes can be correlated with ascribed legitimacy that can negatively impact those governed. social love (n. ) - REFUNCTION The act of prioritizing a desirable response to another's need as being as important or more important than one's own need(s), at least in the moment, to set the inspiring standard for others to prioritize a desirable response to one's own needs. Need-response posits this as a vital adjunct to a conflict orientation of staying open and learning amidst conflict, to dissolve the constricting tension of staying closed and defensive amidst conflict. social need (n. ) A necessity for functioning with coordination or with the help from others, specifically for things one cannot provide solely for oneself. Covers the external side of one’s psychosocial wellbeing. Contrasts with and complements self-needs . affection affirmation appreciation being understood belonging cohesion companionship cooperation dependability equal treatment friendship inclusion intimacy predictability support synergy trust societal sickness (n. ) DEFUNCTION Collectively impaired capacity to adequately function as a group, manifested in individuals within that group suffering many of the same maladies: anxiety, depression, substance use, isolation and loneliness, collapsing social cohesion, interpersonal neglect, violent outbursts, suicide ideation and more. The group cannot fully function because too many of its members cannot adequately function, especially when such decreased levels of functioning become normalized. See symfunction capture and coerced poor options depencence (CoPOD). Also consider how pathological pragmatism and drift impacts collective wellbeing. A key culprit is the volume of power differentials. A power differential occurs when one side of the relationship has more influence or control on shaping outcomes than the other. Wellness can decline on a grand scale when too many power differentials impede the proper resolution of needs , often normalized by social custom, privileged by law or under color of law. For example, Unscrupulous police officers routinely overeact, sometimes from racial or ethnic bias, then target vulnerable populations for frequent arrests and detainment. Insensitive attorneys exploit the naivete of their clients to provide minimal service under color of law. Callous teachers coerce their students to accept their teaching methods without question, negating the student's nuanced needs. Need-response addresses the role of power differentials to such compromised wellbeing, with focus on how toxic legalism normalizes the destructive influence of power relations along five key factors. Psychosocial vacillation: Focusing on unmet self-needs like autonomy and privacy shifts to focusing on unmet needs like social connection and affirmation from others . Which fuels political extremes. Hyperrationality social norms: Trying to subdue emotional energy with cold facts and reasoning, instead of fully processing what such emotions convey about unmet needs . It can feel easier to control thoughts than to control emotions, as if emotions needed to be controlled. Generalization norms: Keeping matters simple for widespread consumption risks overlooking vital details shaping poor wellness outcomes. Like overgeneralizing bad personal choices to the neglect of good options from which to reliably choose. Avoidance culture : The set of social norms for evading uncomfortable matter, which tends to normalize alienation. This includes avoiding the notion that society can be sick as a whole and not merely individuals. Oppo culture : The set of social norms for opposing one another and provoking mutual defensiveness, which fuels faulty overgeneralizations about each other while missing essential detials necessary to resolve conflict. Consider the wellness implications of each. The more we normalize hyper-individualism or hyper-collectivism , the less we can interpersonally function. Normalized hyper-individualism ensures we blame the vulnerable individual more than critiquing the socioenvironmental conditions, like power differentials, in shaping poor wellness outcomes. The more we normalize hyperrationality , the more we normalize suppressing emotions that signal threats we then ignore. Emotions honestly convey needs in ways rational thinking cannot. The more we normalize overgeneralizing , the more we oversimplify then avoid what specifically shapes our poor wellness outcomes. Avoiding details about social limitations can overgeneralize into hyper-individualism . Avoiding details about personal agency can overgeneralize into hyper-collectivism . The more we normalize avoidance , the more we alienate each other and slip into our silos. Lonliness then abounds, as hyper-individualism slowly robs us of life's full potential. The more we normalize adversarialism , the more we get defensive toward each other. We then expend more energy and resources defending our limited point of view than understanding one another. Which wastes our precious potential to collectively grow together in love . societal wellness (n. ) Collectively enhanced capacity to sufficiently function as a group, manifested in individuals within that social group being able to properly resolve their needs , at least on most occasions; with few if any incidents of anxiety, depression, substance use, collapsing social cohesion, interpersonal neglect, violent outbursts, suicide ideation and more. Need-response counters the damaging influence of power differentials with "impact parity" to incentivize all involved to respect each other's needs. This includes countering toxic legalism factors. Shift from psychosocial imbalance to psychosocial balance Shift from hyperrationality to emotional authenticity Shift from overgeneralizing to relevant nuance Shift from avoidance to engagement Shift from adversarialism to mutuality Revise social contract standard to measurably improved wellness outcomes (MIWO). strategic pain relief (n. ) - REFUNCTION A refunction of momentarily easing the intense discomfort of unresolved need with the intent to get back to facing the pain in order to resolve the need, with the long-term anticipation to remove the cause of that pain. Exists in contrast to the widespread norms of passive-aggressive pain relief and reactive pain relief . See easement orientation . See discomfort avoidance and discomfort embrace . strong power (n. ) The type of social influnce that leads to resolved needs, improving wellbeing and removing pain. Contrasts with weak power , of social influence resulting in unresolved needs, poor outcomes and pain. See power types . structural exaction (n. ) DEFUNCTION Person or people in power coercing concessions, on behalf of the institution they serve, from those with relatively less power, whether knowingly or unknowingly. See exaction invoice . See structural problem need below. structural problem need (n. ) A need that cannot be resolved on one's own because it requires the responsiveness of social structures, like established norms, in order to enable its full resolution. This may require transforming not only laws but also upending the faulty views crystallizing such policies. Or it could simply require greater cooperation amidst a diffusion of accountability . See structural problem and power problem need . supportive bias (n. ) - REFUNCTION The refunction of prioritizing resolution of unchosen needs , to remove cause for cognitive distortions and improve the level of functioning. This can lower the risk of confirmation bias and other problematic biases. Anankelogy defines bias as prioritizing to ease need. The more resolved the needs of the observer of phenomena, the less of a pull to cherry-pick what their unresolved needs would urge them to prioritize. The more your bias prioritizes the full resolution of needs, the more you will prioritize seeking the full breadth and depth of reality. symfunction (n. ) A less-than-optimal level of functioning that prioritizes easing needs to adequate levels, or resolving needs only partially, largely with impersonal support from others. Sits lower than peakfunction but higher than dysfunction . symfunction capture (n. ) - DEFUNCTION A 3-step process of slipping from optimal functioning (peakfunction ) towards diminished functioning (dysfunction ). 1) symfunction creep ; 2) symfunction strain ; 3) symfunction trap . Fills gap between fully well and fully sick. symfunction creep (n. ) - DEFUNThe first in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 2nd is symfunction strain . The 3rd is symfunction trap . symfunction strain (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The second in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 1st is symfunction creep . The 3rd is symfunction trap . symfunction trap (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The last in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 1st is symfunction creep . The 2nd is symfunction strain . systemic exaction (n. ) - DEFUNCTION When power structures or powerful individuals, often unconsciously, coerce the vulnerable or relatively powerless to involuntarily give up something of value. The more this costs the vulnerable the means to resolve their needs, resulting in lowered functionality and increased pain, the more this solidifies into a normalized and often socially invisible problem. Which costs power structures and powerful individuals legitimacy. Need-response created the exaction invoice to address this problem in power differentials , to incentivize the powerful to recognize and properly resolve affected needs in order to earn legitimacy , and to incentivize the powerless to replace defensive-provoking reactions with responsive alternatives . See also coerced poor options dependence (CoPOD), symfunction capture and weak power . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

< Back Last Resort Exoneration Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

Power Problems Power problems occur when impactors impede impactees trying to properly resolve needs . power problems & power-impacted needs properly resolving needs Power problem ID: A05 Universal Cultural Incompetence Insensitive to valuable differences cultural incompetence cultural competency < previous next > Cultural Incompetence Neglecting the impactee’s culturally different values or perspectives, where the impactor potentially pressures the impactee to fit into their cookie cutter cultural norms. The impactee may rightly fear some form of retribution for not fitting into the impactor’s cultural expectation. Or feel their full value remains overlooked and their contributions routinely neglected. cultural competency The further along the cultural competence continuum , the more trustworthy the impactor to those vulnerable impactees who valuably exist and properly act outside of mainstream cultural norms. Whether a healthcare provider or a different impactor, the impactor's responsiveness to impactee cultural differences fall along a recognized continuum: Stage 1. Cultural Destructiveness Stage 2. Cultural Incapacity Stage 3. Cultural Blindness Stage 4. Cultural Precompetence Stage 5. Cultural Competence and Proficiency Need-response can guide the targeted impactor to improve their cultural competency by walking them through the need-response process with an impactee. The impactor learns to appreciate the impactee's hidden value and how to properly address anything that is not appropriate simply because it is culturally different. The impactee can then contribute more of their full value when free to be their authentic selves. And their differentness can invite the impactor to inquire if the impactee sees something that the impactor cannot through the lens of their own familiarity bias. The impactor then earns legitimacy to reliably impact impactees who are culturally different from oneself. And gain competitive legitimacy when tapping into impactees' unique perspectives. Cultural Incompetence Corrupting Influence Cognitive Contraction Coercive Compliance Coerced Poor Options Dependence

Needs resolve and evolve. < Back B10 Basic Principle List of all principles Needs resolve and evolve. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary 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. Description Which do you think is more likely? The way you experience a need in childhood is pretty much the same as you experience it now. OR The way you experience a need can change drastically as the means to resolve it changes. Anankelogy Every natural need compels you to do something to ensure you can continue to function. Your needs either resolve or you cannot function as well. The lower your capacity to function, the more pain as your body warns of the threat. You either fully resolve a need or partially resolve a need or merely ease the pain of a need or suffer the mounting pain of a need. The more you can fully resolve your needs, the closer you can reach peakfunction . The more you partially ease your needs, the more you linger in symfunction . The more you cope with pain of unresolved needs, the deeper you’re stifled in dysfunction . The more you suffer too many unresolved needs, the further you slip into misfunction . Some of your needs can fully resolve. The more you can access nutritious food and clean water, the healthier you can be. Some of your needs only partially resolve. The more you must settle for shallow friends, the more you feel tolerably isolated. Some of your needs can only be placated by pain coping mechanisms. The more repeated trauma weighs you down, the less you can function. Sometimes you cannot do anything about a painful need. The longer you must suffer a critical need, the closer you fall into danger of long-term damage or death. The more you adjust how you address such needs, the more your experience of such needs can change. They typically evolve to adjust to your real-life situations. And to accommodate your real-life limitations. Consider how technology changes the way you experience your needs. Your recent ancestors had to wash all of their clothes by hand, and make time to prepare and cook food over a hot stove. They performed many difficult chores for each other. They also tended to enjoy greater family cohesion than you likely do now. Consider how a life full of comfort is a life not fully lived . Need-response Anankelogy cites the pattern of rising and falling ideologies that shape how we resolve many of our needs. Dynamic phase . We discover a fresh way to address old problems. We resolve our needs in a dynamic new way. New ideas are welcomed. Dogmatic phase . We settle on this new normal. We routinize this recently revised approach. We start to resist new ideas a threat to our new establishment. Disillusion phase . We grow increasingly discontent with its shortcomings. We see it doesn’t fit some of our needs. We start seeking alternatives. Distinction phase . We give up on most if not all of it. We either go back to previous ways or look for something new. Some of us even denounce the “new way”. New ideas often get watered down to appeal to as many as possible. Contentious specifics get dropped to favor generalizations we all or most can agree upon. But overgeneralized answers overlook many specific situations, leaving many needs underserved. Discontent of the old plants seeds of something new, something else to later provoke our disgust. Our needs evolve when there are sufficient resources accessible. To ensure such access, ideas often pop up as a “critical version” that remains aware of its limitations. For example, capitalism promises to incentivize production, but cannot promise its produced resources to everyone. Socialism promises to give access where needed, but cannot promise a robust supply. The earlier carefully thought-out version tends to morph into later popularly generalized version, or ‘popgen’ for short. We find it easier to react to the pain instead of responding to our needs to remove cause for pain. We generalize for relief, trapping ourselves in pain. Our experience of needs then evolves. Sometimes we develop improved ways to resolve them. Too often, we regress into reacting to the pain of our unresolved needs. We change in less healthy ways as our capacity to function declines. Then prioritize relief, sinking into dysfunction. Reactive Problem We “solved” many of our old problems with too much generalizing. We threw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. In the process, we frequently created new problems. No, we don’t resolve our needs in the same way anymore. Sadly, we partially resolve far more of our needs than fully resolve them. Perhaps that is how it’s always been. We often trade one problem for another, stretching our capacities to comprehend and solve them. Modernity merely changes what kind of problems we suffer. The rise of science dispelled the prevalence of superstition. Then the decline of religion came with the loss of our monocultural community. The rise of technology allows us to be more productive than ever. And to remain more disconnected than ever. Anankelogy has a word for our routine of staying disconnected from each other: normative alienation . We now rely on impersonal rules and public policies to attend to our needs in ways they never can. Laws themselves can never address our specific needs . You have to go against the grain of law to fully resolve your needs . Responsive Solution Responsivism replaces normative alienation with dynamic engaging to resolve more needs. And replaces avoidant adversarialism with engaging mutuality . to resolve more needs. The more needs we resolve, the more problems we solve . Political activism may inspire desirable policy changes, but usually falls tragically short of addressing the needs on all sides. Policy changes that serves the needs of some at the cost of respecting the needs of others naturally sets up the next political conflict. Responsivism replaces this objectification of each other with a more mutually engaging climate. You recognize the needs of others are as important as your own needs . You encourage more love and less outrage or hate. You recognize what you reactively resist you ultimately reinforce , as opposition to their unchosen need provokes their defenses . Just as their blind opposition provokes your defensiveness. Responsivism replaces this futile exercise with mutual respect for each other’s unchosen needs. Responsivism encourages us to resolve needs fully and promptly without hindering others from fully and promptly resolving their needs. We turn from provoking conflicts to encouraging better understanding of each other’s needs. Along the way, we learn to love a lot more. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Certainly some needs, like breathing oxygen, never changes. I doubt if there ever was a time when someone could fully resolve all of their needs. I can imagine a scenario of regressive changes redirected by improved opportunities. It seems we can manage alright with less needs resolving as long as we can avoid the pain. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back Exoneration Justice Clinic not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back Wrongful Conviction Clinic not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back Making an Exoneree not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back Wrongful Conviction Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next