Search Results

A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. < Back E03 Conflict Principle List of all principles A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. Image: Pixabay – klickblick (click on meme to see source image) Summary The quicker you assert your stance against another, or argue against an opposing position, the more likely you overlooked some vital details supporting the other side. The rush to debate often betrays avoidance of uncomfortable details. The more you can keep a disagreement at a controlled rational level, the less you risk exposing any embarrassing details you cannot defend or emotions you cannot control. Description Which do you think is more likely? Anyone disagreeing with you probably has no reasonable contribution to the argument. OR Disagreements usually mask what we’ve yet to feel courageous enough to vulnerably share. Anankelogy You hear someone boldly make a claim contrary to what you know must be true. If you don’t challenge it, you risk letting them act upon their false information. You could suffer as a result. So what do you do? You quickly announce, “I disagree!” You challenge their beliefs. You want them to bring receipts. You confront their skewed views. You prepare your proofs. You rush to dispute, to debate, to emphasize your differences. Honestly, how well does such an approach work? It’s easy to convince ourselves we’re acting on facts when actually we’re driven by our biases. We interpret available date in our advantage. We measure what is true by what we feel will ease our needs. We believe what we need to believe . If only focused on easing my discomfort, I don’t need to know what is really bothering you. If I feel I must avoid discomfort , then I must avoid the specifics that drive our differences. Ironically, this easily keeps me trapped in pain . Need-response Need-response prioritizes specifics over generalizations. Sure, generalizing has its place. But we tend to overuse that tool. Need-response helps to reacquaint us to our overlooked specifics. It’s easy to fool ourselves that we’re being rational when we’re actually being rash. It’s easy to be tricked by our confirmation bias , as we seek only the information confirming our beliefs. Even when those beliefs trap us in pain. Reactive Problem Problems abound when rushing into debate. Take the hot button issue of abortion for example. Rushing to debate skips what may matter most. The prolife side misses vital details strengthening the prochoice stance. The prochoice side overlooks particulars cementing the prolife stance. The prolife activist arguing for the new mother to keep her baby fails to appreciate a mother’s unspoken trauma of losing autonomy over her own body from years of endured sexual abuse. The prochoice activist arguing to let any woman terminate her pregnancy fails to appreciate the consequences to those who rushed into this enormous decision and continue to suffer deep, deep regret. You can apply this to any politicized or adjudicated contested issue. When each side jumps to assert their differences, they leave little to any room to appreciate the nuance driving their differences. Opposition often gets stuck on overgeneralized assumptions. The most relevant specifics too easily get ignored. Problems persist, perpetuating the pain that’s supposed to be eased by the debate. Responsive Solution Need-response addresses one of the key motivations for missing relevant specifics: discomfort avoidance . The more you can embrace life’s natural discomforts, including the sharp pain involved in resolving some needs, the more prepared you are to relate to relevant specifics on all sides. Need-response offers a free program for stretching your comfort zone. You learn you can tolerate much more physical and emotional discomfort than you likely assume. You learn to embrace discomfort to resolve more needs to remove cause for pain. Next, need-response offers an inexpensive program for turning conflict into opportunities for deeper connection. You learn how to not get so easily defensiveness during a conflict. You learn to consider the inflexible needs so you can defuse the tension. The first program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your easement orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from prioritizing relief-over-resolution or prioritizing resolution-over-relief . You learn to endure the discomfort of any unpleasant details. The second program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your conflict orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from staying guarded to staying open during conflicts. You learn to relate to the specifics fueling conflicts before they’re even revealed. 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: What if the other side tries to manipulate me with fake details? What if there’s no time to explore details? Too much detail could distract from solving the conflict. What about those who disagree simply to disagree and enjoy the fight? 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 Alaska 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

< Back Indiana 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

Pain is perhaps nature’s least appreciated gift. < Back D03 Pain Principle List of all principles Pain is perhaps nature’s least appreciated gift. Image: Pixabay - Yeskay1211 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more open you keep yourself to enduring evoked discomfort, the more you can resolve the underlying needs. The more you embrace the natural warning signs of threats to be removed, and you promptly remove them, the quicker you can move beyond the pain and remove its source. The more fully you can function. The better you can function because of pain, the more you can value it. Description Which do you think is more likely? Only a masochist or deranged person would ever appreciate feeling their pain. OR The more you appreciate the role of pain then the less of pain you must endure. Anankelogy Have you ever thanked your pain for alerting you to trouble? “Thank you, anxiety, for warning me that I may not be fully ready to handle this.” With this positive attitude, I am more likely to face a little more of it so I can build the courage to face even more—instead of reacting by retreating from what I fear. With my open appreciation for my anxiety, I make my fears serve me instead of me serving my fears . How do think your life would be if you had no warning system alarming you to respond to each threat? Wouldn’t you react more to trouble, as it springs up all of a sudden? The more I repress or suppress my uncomfortable feelings, the more threatening troubles spring up on me. “I tried to warn you,” my unpleasant feelings would say. Instead of avoiding my painful feelings, I could orient myself to more fully feel and process the pain. I could appreciate what it’s trying to warn me about. Then act upon that helpful information. Anankelogy explains how we each orient ourselves to the pain we face. The more we appreciate that pain exists to serve us, the more we can orient ourselves to make that pain serve us. And not let it compel us to serve it. That’s the problem with modern messages about the easy life. Buy this item and you will supposedly be happy. Take more of those and you will finally make it in life. Present just the right image and all will be okay. Such popular generalizations suck us into a life of more pain. There must be a better way. And there is! Need-response Perhaps it would be easier to appreciate your pain if there wasn’t so much of it. Need-response aims to both improve your natural tolerance for enduring pain and to remove cause for pain, especially the kind resulting from powerful others. Reactive Problem Despite the promise of modern conveniences to make life easier, we find ourselves struggling with a mounting load of emotional pain. Then we too easily blame ourselves, which takes our eyes off the real problem: social structures that coerce us to prioritize pain relief over need resolution. Here’s the thing. The more we avoid natural pain by taking comfort in material things, the less our needs resolve. The less those needs resolve, the more they grab our attention with increasing pain. Perhaps only a dull pain at first, but enough to hold you back from your life’s full potential. Anankelogy calls this “symfunctional strain ”. Symfunction refers to a less than optimal level of life. Instead of living up to our full potential, we get by with impersonal support from others. We put up with growing dependence on other who don’t know us. We rely on impersonal laws to make sure our basic needs get respected. Or higher needs typically go unheeded. Over time, we reach less and less of our full potential. This strain on our ability to fully function gradually builds. At first, it’s typically tolerable. Then it creates a growing level of manageable pain. Well, manageable for now. Eventually, symfunctional strain can become more painful than the originally avoided pain. Responsive Solution Need-response gets to the sources of your pain. There is no such thing as pain apart from unheeded warnings about apparent threats . The more we address those threats, the less cause for pain. Need-response identifies four levels of human problems provoking our pain. Think of any problem as a situation of persistently unresolved needs. The more you can resolve such needs, the more your pain slips away. 1. A personal problem : any problem you can resolve fully on your own. E.g., you could create more value on your job simply by being more engaged with your coworkers. You can remove any cause for pain on your own. 2. An interpersonal problem : any problem that can be resolved with someone of equal social power. E.g., you have a dispute with a coworker that you could settle with mutual cooperation. You can remove cause for pain by addressing those needs together. 3. A power problem : a problem resolved only by someone of higher social power. E.g., you settle for less-than-optimal work conditions to avoid losing your primary means to pay your bills. You can remove cause for pain by incentivizing those in power to respond better to your affected needs. 4. A structural problem : a problem resolved by transforming cultural norms like laws. E.g., your employer reports there is little if anything they can do about your situation as they are bound by law. You can remove cause for pain by supporting leaders to change problematic norms so they can better serve your needs and the needs of others similarly situated. Need-response addresses all four sources of your pain. It can help us all to stop habitually avoiding our body’s warning system of possible threats. It can help us all to relate better to those likely threats. It can help us all to stop causing so much pain in others. Need-response can help reorient you to embrace your naturally occurring pain while severely reducing others types of pain. It can help you to appreciate your own naturally occurring pain as nature’s lease appreciated gift. The more you appreciate this natural gift, the less of it you will face in life. 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: I can’t imagine myself appreciating any of the pain I am suffering now. It would help to hear from others how they appreciate their pain. How does appreciating my pain result in less of it? If I had to appreciate my fear, I could perhaps be grateful that it _________. 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 naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. < Back A02 Foundational Principle List of all principles A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more something you require to fully function persists unsatisfied, the more your attention will be drawn toward its satisfaction. It matters less whether you believe you must prioritize it. The objective basis of your functioning subconsciously demands you focus on it over less pressing matters. Any subjective beliefs or feelings arrive after the objective fact of your life prioritizing it. The less you attend to your inflexibly prioritized needs, the less you can objectively function. Description Which do you think is more likely? All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by whoever provides the best argument. OR All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by resolving each side’s priority of needs. Anankelogy Not only do your natural needs for water and for companionship exist as objective needs, you objectively need some things more than other things in order to fully function. You prioritize those things necessary for you to objectively function. Independent of your subjective experience, you require water one moment and to relieve yourself in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you try to choose not to drink water when thirsty. You objectively cannot function when ignoring your need to relieve yourself. Independent of your subjective experience, you require companionship in one moment and to be left alone in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you fail to deeply connect with someone who deeply cares about you. You objectively cannot function if you ignore doing more things for yourself for when no one is around. Your need to draw in water and expel waste water is cyclic. Your need to draw closer to others and then pull away sometimes is also cyclic. You can easily relate how your objective priorities can change with the seasons. You experience other priorities of needs that rarely change with the seasons. Your situation can prioritize one set of needs over another. You may find it difficult to relate to others with a sharply different priority of needs. Especially if falsely assuming they choose to need differently. When living in less densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize providing more for yourself without relying too much on public institutions. You gravitate toward conservative values. Conservatism gives outward expression for your inward priority of self-sufficiency that you did not choose. You objectively require less government intrusion to fully function. When residing in more densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize utilizing public institutions more and more. You gravitate toward liberal or even progressive values. Liberalism or progressivism gives you outward expression of your inward priority for social support that you did not choose. You objectively require more government involvement to fully function. Anankelogy instills the discipline that objective priorities shape our political and judicial preferences more than strong arguments. We’re naturally attracted to political or judicial arguments that most align with our objective priorities. We don’t choose our needs; our needs choose us . We best choose to respect each other’s objective priorities of needs. Need-response Need-response challenges the popular yet failing assumption that our political and judicial conflicts are best settle by might. The prevailing argument favoring one side easily ignores the objective priority of needs of the other side. And that sets up the context for the next politicized or adjudicated confrontation. Reactive Problem Current standards assume we resolve conflicts with the best argument. This conveniently ignores how the side with the most resources tends to sound more persuasive, often getting their way. Moreover, the squashed needs of the losing side easily comes back to haunt the coerced settlement . Denouncing violence without addressing the unmet needs fueling that violence tends to fuel more violence. Outwardly, it may appear a politicized or adjudicated issue was settled. Then we wonder why the losing side cannot remain content with the results of our democratic process. Objective needs and objective priorities do not submit to majority vote. Expecting our institutions to change the inflexible reality of each other’s priorities now collapses public trust in those institutions. They can never deliver what many expect if clinging to this notion that the priorities of others can be changed to fit our own priorities. That’s simple a recipe for more violence, visible or invisible. Responsive Solution Need-response raises the bar by first identifying the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities on each side of a conflict. While combative politics and the adversarial judicial process takes the easier win-lose path, need-response can create better outcomes with its win-win approach. Instead of coercing the public to accept one priority of impersonal laws over another to ease pain, need-response helps each side to remove cause for pain by resolving needs each priority of needs more fully. Instead of coercing the plaintiff and defendant to accept one side’s priority over the other, need-response guides each side to melt the conflict and heal any damage with the higher power of love . Need-response brings all sides together to illuminate their inflexible priority of needs. Then incentivizes all sides to find the best way to resolve the inflexible needs by adjusting their flexible side of how they address each other’s needs. Distinguishing between inflexible needs or inflexible priorities and any flexible response to them can be critical to resolving politicized and adjudicated conflicts. The fact our political and judicial institutions overlook this critical distinguish is a key reason why they are failing. The further these institutions pull us away from loving one another, the less reason to trust them to produce good outcomes. Instead of privileging animosity and hate, let’s get back to loving one another. Instead of spurring antagonism and even hate by trying to manipulate others to serve your own priority at the expense of their inflexible priority, need-response dares you to honor their inflexible priority as you would have them honor your inflexible priority. Such love sets our higher moral standard and we must not back down, lest our objective levels of functioning is allowed to decay further. Need-response brings the discipline to honestly engage each other. To identify the inflexible needs on all sides. To stop provoking either side’s animosity toward the other, but instead nurture greater respect for each other’s less visible affected needs and priorities. That’s how targeted institutions can earn the empirically based legitimacy to impact our lives. Any person or institution resisting this higher standard of love risks being marked as pariah. Once marked, they can be held personally and professionally responsible for our rising rates of anxiety, depression, addictions, and suicides. Not to cast them aside but to enforce the tough love that we mean business when avowing to fully resolve needs. Love permits us to do no less. 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: How can need-response effectively transform politics and the courts? People are too self-centered for this high-minded approach. How is this love different from romantic love and other kinds of love? How can I distinguish between what’s inflexible and what’s flexible in my own priorities? 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 Tennessee 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

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law. < Back G06 Law Principle List of all principles Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law. Image: Pixabay - Leolo212 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more both sides to a policy debate resort to generalizing, the less both sides address what either side specifically needs. Messy political processes often produce compromise that disappoint both sides. Adversarial justice does little to address the specific needs fueling adjudicated conflicts. Neither adjudicated or political side can fully resolve their affected needs. Or remove their pain. Or fully function. The results often help the norm enforcers more than those these norms exist to serve. You can be legally right, and still be empirically wrong. Which legally privileges damaging wellness outcomes. Description Which do you think is more likely? You must take a firm stance on every issue so that others don’t take advantage of you. OR Only by affirming the inflexible needs on every side of an issue can we find sustainable solutions. Anankelogy Defensive posturing easily ignites a defensive posture in return. Reacting to injustice with a counter injustice is no justice at all. Hurting those who hurt you ultimately hurts us all. The measure applied sets the standard replied . Opposing each another's inflexible needs never solves a moral conflict . Such mutual opposition typically perpetuates the conflict, as both sides must dig in their heals to guard their accosted wellbeing . Compromise on one or both sides may provide a temporary peace, only to explode later as those ignored painful needs refuse to be ignored. Laws by themselves do not solve conflicts; people do by how they responsibly address each other’s affected needs. Not by how they oppose each other. That almost always leads to ruin, often privileged by law, yet easily blamed on the other side. The adversarial structure of our law-based institutions pulls us toward mutual annihilation. The typical winner in a court or ballot contest gains relief, but no disciplined path toward sustainably resolving their needs. The ignored inflexible needs of the losing side persist to spur more conflict. These adversarial institutions convincingly present themselves as the only available solution to this conundrum. Consequently, we are persuaded to rely more on laws and authorities to provide fleeting relief from these perpetuated conflicts. We overlook how these institutions benefit from keeping us embattled against each other. Adversarialism incentivizes these institutions to trap us into mutual conflict. To pit us against each other. To divide us. To claim only one side can be right, while the other wrong—overlooking disconfirming nuance. And obscuring the amorality of our inflexible needs . We need an alternative to this battle fatigue. We need something that more effectively addresses our affected needs. We need a visionary new profession that incentivizes greater responsibility to our many neglected inflexible needs . Need-response Need-response is that new profession. Instead of serving laws, it serves your needs for which laws exist. Authority proves less necessary where needs can freely resolve . Instead of pitting us against each other as legalism does, need-response incentivizes each side to engage and honor the inflexible needs of the others. It cultivates our potential to be more loving to each other. Instead of spurring destructive selfishness as legalism does, need-response draws all sides out of their shells to engage and honor each other’s needs. It’s set to redirect self-interest into shared interests. Instead of hiding behind rational arguments as legalism does, need-response cultivates a shared environment of mutual engagement , where each can safely drop their guard and vulnerably know each other and themselves. Reactive Problem Law-based adversarial systems easily pull us into opposing each other’s inflexible needs . This spurs what anankelogy identifies as oppo culture , which normalizes opposing each other in ways that squander our potential to be more loving to each other. Opposing another’s errors is one thing, but opposing their inflexible needs is a greater error. Since every need exists as an objective fact , it is objectively wrong to oppose such needs. Legalism privileges you to rely on generalizations. You then overlook the specifics essential to resolve needs. What seems right can actually be wrong, protected by law. Legalism privileges you to avoid the natural discomforts of resolving needs. It offers pain relief, which guarantees more pain as the unaddressed needs trigger more pain. What you trust to relieve your pain seems totally right, but is actually wrong while protected by law. Legalism privileges you to oppose each other’s inflexible needs . This surely triggers their defensiveness, which then provokes yours. You insist you’re right to protect yourself as is your legal right, but you ultimately suffer in ways protected by law. The further both sides overgeneralize to avoid uncomfortable specifics of each other’s needs, each tends to believe their pain-easing norms represents the defensible truth. Both sides are wrong when insisting they are right. Both sides can end up believing and pursuing the opposite of what is true and have it backed up law. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah identifies this “moral inversion” (Is. 5:20 NIV): “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” If you take a political stance so extreme that you oppose another’s inflexible need as your “right”, then you are wrong. If you seek to win an adjudicated conflict by opposing another side’s inflexible need as your legal right, you are wrong. When both sides oppose the other’s inflexible need under color of law , both sides are wrong. But politics and the judiciary encourage you to be wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but they sure can be privileged by some law. And more laws get created to keep both trapped in such conflicts, to keep them relying on legalism to cope with the grinding pain that it helps create. Tragically, the more we get sucked into this morass, the less likely we can see it for what is honestly is: a self-destructive form of legalism. If this is all we know, and depend upon it for protection, we easily latch onto it even as it costs us from reaching our higher potential. Responsive Solution Need-response counters such toxic legalism by emphasizing inflexible needs over flexible laws. It tries to this in at least three ways. Degeneralize , to get to relevant specifics to resolve inflexible needs . Does a legalist approach overgeneralize? Or get to relevant specifics of the affected needs? Dealienate , to engage each other’s identified inflexible needs . Does an applied legalist approach evade discomfort? Or willingly engage others no matter how unpleasantly challenging? Depolarize , to mutually understand and support resolving each other’s inflexible needs . Does the tried legalist approach instantly take sides? Or affirm inflexible needs before questioning how they’re addressed? Need-response asserts the higher authority of properly resolving needs in love . We can improve our wellness the more honor the needs of others as our own, to incentivize more resolved needs. Laws exist to serve our inflexible needs, not legalist institutions . Need-response holds itself accountable to improving measurable wellness outcomes . All legalist systems lack such accountability. Psychotherapy tends to perform better, but in the name of personal agency it routinely overlooks external contributors to poor wellness outcomes. If impeding our attempts to properly resolve needs under privilege of law, we hold such legal authorities and psychotherapeutic authorities to the same level of accountability. Or we must insist they step aside—or coordinate their efforts with ours—to resolve needs to improve wellness outcomes, for which laws exist to serve. Wellness outcomes from resolving needs matters more than laws. Toxic legalism is empirically wrong . Two or more legally privileged wrongs will never make things right. What can make things right is a more loving approach that results in more fully resolving needs, resulting in greater levels of measurable wellness. 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: Who or what keeps these need-responders accountable to prioritizing inflexible needs ? Conflicts tend to emphasize some needs while ignoring others, with or without laws. I cannot envision a society where the rule of law is not paramount. Not all legalism is toxic, right? There must be some good to emphasizing the role of law. 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

Glossary F feel-reactive (adj. ) - opposite of need-responsive . Putting more of an emphasis on trying to ease the discomfort of needs evoked by a situation than identifying or addressing such needs. Applies an undisciplined approach: more normative than descriptive . Insists on responding immediately to ease feelings instead of carefully describing all that is honestly there that could impact the needs prompting those feelings. Exists as the oppositive of need-responsive . friction (n. ) Anything going against the full resolution of any need. Also referred to as resolution resistance . E.g., limited to drinking impure water; finding no one to offer encouragement while facing a personal struggle; dismissiveness of felons complaining of contributing external factors to their poor choices; politicians offering policy options that ignore the needs of many in their constituency; and war that invokes violence to serve the preferences of the winning side against the losing side. 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 Boston College Innocence Program 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 Puerto Rico 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

There is less reason to debate when you can vulnerably relate. < Back E04 Conflict Principle List of all principles There is less reason to debate when you can vulnerably relate. Image: Pixabay - photo-graphe (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you assert that you disagree with another, the more you both tend to remain mutually defensive. The more mutually guarded, the less likely either will open up about the inflexible needs behind the flexibly expressed stances. The more you dig down to each other’s vulnerably experienced inflexible needs, the more you get to what drives your differences. And the less cause for you to debate. Description Which would you prefer? To win an argument even if that pushes some away. OR To be widely understood and more deeply connected. Anankelogy Anankelogy distinguishes between inflexible natural needs and flexible ways to address them . Whenever any debate slips into opposing some inflexible need , the other side must dig in their heels. Since the underlying need cannot go away, you easily get more of whatever you oppose . Emphasizing differences right out of the gate almost guarantees provoking mutual defensiveness. Our typical behavior when debating provokes each other to remain in their silos. Imposing the popular agree-disagree binary usually does more to keep the conflict going. When jumping on some point of disagreement, you can easily miss where both sides agree. You quickly find yourself sliding down the rabbit hole of trying to ease your discomfort at their expense—which is never sustainable. You can be provoked into disagreeing not because you wholly disagree, but more because you feel hurt and feel you must protect yourself from any further risk of harm. Your conflict orientation kicks in. Anankelogy helps you recognizes you have a predictable orientation to conflict. When confronted, you either remain closed and guarded or stay open to learning . You either stay defensive and hostile or engage the other’s needs to model how they can be engaging your affected needs. The more you remain closed and guarded, the less likely you will engage enough of reality to find a lasting solution. The more you stay open to learning, the more likely you draw enough information to reach a lasting solution. Need-response When someone attacks your stated views, consider the last time you said to yourself, “Yes, you’re right. Thank you for pointing out how wrong I am.” Probably never. If you’ve never changed your views in response to verbal assaults, do you ever expect others to change their views by verbally assaulting them? You’re likely more open to encountering more of reality when you are not under some kind of verbal assault. Rushing to prove you’re right and others wrong tends to point to your feel-reactive habits. Instead of resolving the affected needs, you settle for easing the pain by scoring argument points. Need-response offers a need-responsive alternative. You learn to engage the needs on all sides, even while this feels intensely awkward and uncomfortable. It’s the only way to resolve the conflict-affected needs with a lasting solution. Reactive Problem Most political debates sink into petty arguments. Each side repeatedly interrupts the other to score points with the audience. Each tries to appear more powerful. Each employs coercive techniques that tends to miss any reasoned solution. Are you more persuaded or more turned off by all the… interrupting, boasting, coercing, manipulating, biased interpretation, confirmation bias, and similar low brow tactics done in the name of debating? Instead of finding a solution both sides can agree upon, most political debates try to pull us into taking a side against the other side. Such indulgent side-taking rarely resolves our politicized needs. The more we resign to these lower standards, the more they pull us into debilitating defensiveness. The more we slip into debilitating defensiveness, the less we can resolve our conflict-affected needs. The less we can resolve those needs, the more pain we suffer. The more pain we suffer from unmet needs, the more drawn to easing that pain with debilitating defensiveness. It’s a vicious cycle. Our contrasting political beliefs stem from our mostly inflexible priority of needs . Politicians exploit us when keeping us locked into debilitating defensiveness. There must be a better way. Responsive Solution There is. Need-response offers to replace mutually defensive debating with mutual regard . You learn you can engage the affected needs on the other side in ways that incentivize them to engage your affected needs. You discover how to engage the needs on all sides of a dispute. You affirm the unchosen needs. Then you can challenge their chosen response to those needs. Finally, you leave the positive impression that you seek all sides to be able to resolve their inflexible needs . This is less about knowing what is outwardly true or right and more about discovering what is inwardly true for resolving needs by relating humbly with each other. Instead of coercing beliefs to form a policy favored by some, this is about engaging each other’s needs to form connections favored by all. Disagree? Then you missed the point. Relate honestly and humbly with the underlying needs on both sides of any issue and you find you don’t have to resort to the agree-disagree binary. The more you relate and engage the nuance affecting our needs, the less you feel you must debate. Debates usually lead to win-lose answers, setting up the next debate. But if you simply relate, we more readily reach results that create win-win solutions. Which lets us resolve more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of our potential. 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: What about the opposite extreme of moral relativism, bothsidesism, whataboutism? Is it possible for the other side to misinterpret this intent for mutual regard? What about arguments I’ve won in the past? Don’t they still count? What if the other side is clearly wrong? What if they try to argue in favor of Nazism? 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 Los Angeles 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