Search Results

< Back Hawai'i 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

A life full of pain is a life filled with too many unmet needs. < Back D10 Pain Principle List of all principles A life full of pain is a life filled with too many unmet needs. Image: Pixabay – FelixMittermeier (click on meme to see source image) Summary The fewer of your needs fully resolve, the more increasingly overwhelmed you find yourself with mounting levels of pain. Even if you can resolve most of your needs and must settle for less in a number of key needs, your full potential gets denied. Anankelogy refers to this as ‘symfunctionality’. It’s where you cope with your dull pain by becoming impersonally dependent on each other. Description Which do you think is more likely? You are personally responsible for all the pain you suffer. OR Some of your pain stems from situations beyond your personal control. Anankelogy We easily blame ourselves for all the pain we suffer. After all, any emotional pain I experience occurs within me and not outside of me. So I dare not attribute it to others. Not so fast. While it’s true we alone experience our pain, many limits to functioning reported by pain occurs outside of us. Some of that beyond anyone’s individual control. If I am only taking responsibility for my own emotional pain and never addressing its external contributors, I will easily get stuck suffering more pain. Need-response Only need-response as a professional service identifies and addresses all impediments to resolving your needs. Only unresolved needs result in pain. Only by addressing your unmet needs can you remove cause for pain. Obeying every law is supposed to keep you out of trouble. But the impersonal nature of law cannot promise you a trouble-free life. Just ask the wrongly convicted innocent. I’m one. Reactive Problem When our institutions prioritize pain-relief over resolving needs, it sits complicit in our many maladies. If you support pain-relief over avenues for resolving needs, you sit complicit in the resulting problems. Whenever I am doing anything that detracts from fully resolving needs, I sit complicit with the negative consequences. Need-response casts a wide net of accountability. It holds the more powerful to a higher standard of accountability. It must. Left to their own devices, they would have us settle for merely easing our needs. Then manipulates the scenery in ways that easily trap us into cycle of pain. Which perniciously ensures their lock on dysfunctional power. The less our institutions provide for the needs they exist to serve, and all means to hold them to account fail, need-response with its power of tough love may present as the last viable option. Anyone in a position of power—of significant social influence over others—either supports resolving needs or does not. There is little if any neutral ground. Any position of significant social influence (i.e., “power”) carries far more weight and responsibility than we generally accord. Not only on a personal level for such experts, but also on an institutional or professional level. To whom much is given, much is required . If checked and they agree their institutions get in the way of resolving our needs, while continuing to serve such institutions, they present as professionally but not personally complicit. But if they defend their institutions that prevent you or I from resolving our needs, they are personally complicit. The more complicit in these destructive results, the less legitimate they are. The more they cling behind their destructive norms, the more we shall levy a more loving response from them, as a condition to maintain minimal legitimacy. Otherwise we must attribute to their action or inactions our increasing levels of anxiety, depression, addictions, suicide ideation, and deaths of despair. We shall demonstrate an empirical link that could potentially crush their careers. It doesn’t have to be this way. They can learn to be more need-responsive. They could exhibit love. Responsive Solution Our leaders generally do not know what they do not know. There are far too many of us for them to personally know us. Impersonal laws keep them in the dark of their actual impacts in our lives. Need-response offers our leaders a path toward greater legitimacy, toward improving their brand of leadership by demonstrating better results. We incentivize them to respect our affected needs as we initiate greater respect for their vulnerable needs. We replace overgeneralizing with more specifics. We replace impersonal interactions with engaging understanding. We replace mutual hostilities with mutual support. Together, we shift from avoiding discomfort, with our hyperrational thinking, to relating deeper with each other, to relate better to each other’s painful needs. Together, we shift from limiting categories like “progressive” and “far right” or “defendant” and “accuser” to address the needs on all sides. Together, we shift from divisive norms, provoking anger and hate, to mutually supporting the resolution of each other’s needs, spreading more understanding and 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: How can I tell the difference between pain I caused in myself and pain from powerful others? Won’t I suffer some kind of backlash if I attribute more of my emotional pain to others? Is it even possible to resolve all of my needs and remove all this cause for pain? I find myself vacillating between blaming myself totally and blaming others totally for my 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

The standard applied sets the standard replied. < Back E09 Conflict Principle List of all principles The standard applied sets the standard replied. Image: Pixabay – Hans (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you assert a certain level of moral or ethical behavior, the more likely such a level gets mirrored back to you. The more you sink to the lower standard of objectifying your foes, the more inclined they are to objectify you. The more you assert the higher standard of mutually respecting each other’s needs, the more your foes may be inclined and perhaps inspired to do the same. Description Which would you prefer? Others held to whatever standard the powerful think is appropriate. OR Others held to the same high moral standard as you. Anankelogy Anankelogy ties the equal status of one another’s needs with our measurable responsiveness to them. Not that this serves an excuse to react on par with those reacting to you. But nixes any argument you should treat them better than they’ve treated you. Let love and not compul This principle stretches back to ancient times. You can find in the sacred teachings of religions as diverse as Daoism , Sikhism , Islam and Christianity. In Matthew 7:1, Jesus is recorded as warning his audience to not judge lest they be judged. Verse 2 continues (NIV ): “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Anankelogy dares apply this standard to those in positions of power. I can see this equalizing standard mirrored in Islam. Consider a translation of the Sahih al-Bukhari hadith [6103 ]: “If a brother accuses a brother of being an unbeliever, one of them is right.” Imagine if we applied that standard to prosecutors: If a prosecutor falsely accuses the innocent, that prosecutor is guilty as an offender. Now consider this equalizing standard proactively. If I assess how responsive others—especially powerholders—are to my exposed needs, then I invite them to assess how responsive I am to their exposed needs. The measure I would have them use to constructively assess me would be the same measure I use to constructively assess them. Perhaps discern or evaluate or assess serve as better terms than judging . Not deciding who’s better or worse, but to report the impact of their actions on our needs. And to welcome them to report the impact of our actions upon their needs. Need-response We deceive ourselves if we believe we can treat others in ways they can never treat us. If my group is mightier than your group with a greater arsenal of weapons, my self-righteous and arrogant use of them to force my way inevitably provokes some backlash. But does might make right? Or does my outward show of strength betray my lack of internal strength ? Trying to impose a different standard undermines the higher standard of resolving needs with love . An unequal standard may seem powerful, but actually betrays weakness. Power isn’t really power unless it resolves needs . True power resolves need, removes cause for pain and violence, and restores everyone’s potential to optimally function. Reactive Problem The more we expect each other to act on rational choices, the more we set ourselves up for repeated disappointment. Anyone can find some “rational” reason to apply a self-serving standard. For example, the Gazans should simply accept the loss of their sacred homelands so that Israelis can claim it as their sole sacred homeland. Or the Israelis should simply accept Hamas targeting civilians as one of their only asymmetrical warfare ploys while ignoring Jewish trauma from centuries of pogroms. Most rationally deduced reasons betray some rationalizations that bias one’s own needs against the inflexible needs of others . Seeking to indulge one’s own needs at the expense of others assures a continual conflict. If you want to take back by force what you’re convinced rightly belongs to you, then you can expect others to take from you by force what they see as rightly theirs. The standard you apply they apply in return. The rational you use gets soon used on you. Responsive Solution Need-response applies this mutual standard with mutual regard . You respect their needs as a condition to rightly expect them to respect your needs. You don’t do to them the things you don’t want done to you. You empathize with them as you would want them to empathize with you. And so forth. Need-response holds each other accountable to this standard of mutuality. The more defensive you get toward others, the more you can expect them getting defensive toward you. The more you open up and learn what you can do for them, the more inclined they are to learn what they can do for you. Need-response gives teeth to this standard with its Impact Parity Model (IPM ). Powerholders of every kind can expect to be treated in the similar manner they treat or mistreat the less powerful. Need-response introduces incentives to powerholders to listen to those they impact . Need-response replaces mutual defensiveness with cultivated trust and trustworthiness. Need-response replaces mutual hostilities with incentivized cooperation. Need-response replaces mutual alienation with deep connections. Since the standard applied can prompt the standard replied , let’s apply a standard that models the support you seek from others. Give what you want to get and then bountifully receive more of what you’ve given away. Set the higher standard 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: If powerholders impose such a low standard, how can I model a morally higher standard? This seems almost impossible to practice in real life. The problem is that some actually expect me to abuse them as they abuse me. The standard applied is sometimes low, so I endeavor to reply with a higher moral standard. 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 Innocence Project at UVA School of Law 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

Glossary J judicialism (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Reliance upon the impersonal, avoidant adversarial process to address justice needs with emphasis on assuring a fair adjudication process, but with little to no accountability to actual outcomes upon the justice needs of the vulnerable. Exists as a structural problem level of defunction . See civic legalism . 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 Rocky Mountain 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 Midwest 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 The Marshall 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

You don’t need anyone’s permission to breathe. < Back F01 Authority Principle List of all principles You don’t need anyone’s permission to breathe. Image: Pixabay - Tama66 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more authority extends to every detail in our lives, the more it risks slipping into overreach. No human has any legitimate authority over your naturally existing needs. No authority can declare you must now float in midair at odds with gravity. No authority can change your need for water or your need for acceptance or for security. No one can change what you naturally require, not even yourself. Description Which do you think is more likely? Enjoying modern conveniences may require us to give up a few freedoms. OR The more we rely on authorities for what we once provided for ourselves, the more coercive authorities can get. Anankelogy The less we can provide for ourselves, the more vulnerable to the whims of those we must relyupon. I cannot dig my own well for water, for example, so I must take the word of those who tell me this city water is okay to drink. What if it isn’t ? Even if I could dig my own well, I do not have the time. Even if I could test my own faucet water, I am content deferring to local authorities who persuade me to trust its quality. Our lives run deep with countless instances of having to defer to authorities. What if local authorities advise me to boil my water ? Annoyingly inconvenient, but fine. What if local authorities drastically raise my water bill ? Deeply frustrating, but I’ve got to have water. What if local authorities shut of my city water supply due to nonpayment by my landlord? Now I’m utterly disgusted! Each encroachment on my access to water acclimates me to tolerate what I would have objected before. Each government intrusion into my personal affairs—like warrantless surveillance of my private conversations overseas—conditions me to put up with a few more invasions of my privacy. Each minor infringement upon my right to access quality healthcare coerces me to settle for whatever crumbs the authorities permit. Our vulnerable dependencies tend to incentivize authorities to gradually impose upon our unchosen needs . You can choose how to respond to authorities. But you cannot choose to no longer require self-efficacy . Or cease your necessity for equal treatment . Or stop your need for the dependability of others. Each time you cannot resolve such needs, you naturally suffer emotional pain. Authorities often coerce us into accepting their pain relief options as the only available option. Adversarial justice and polarizing politics induce us to settle for the winning side in a court or ballot battle. They rarely inspire us to identify and resolve all painful needs. This easily pulls us into relying upon them to ease the mounting pain they help to perpetuate. We increasingly submit to their influence. At least we don’t seek their permission to breathe, yet. Need-response Populism is in part a reaction to failing elite-led institutions. Their authority counts on the populous accepting their expertise. The less responsive to our inflexible needs , the less trust we have in their institutions. The more their impositions go against our needs, the more we understandably resist. But the more our lives depend upon their institutions, the more some of cast a blind eye to their shortcomings. We can explain away their imperfections. We could rationalize how no institution ever fully lived up to its founding purpose. We may even accept their narrative that any failings are mostly our personal fault. These authoritative powerholders rely on untested assumptions about how to impact our lives. But they do not know what they do not know. These elite influencers could use impact data that we ourselves provide to them, as condition to earning the legitimacy to impact on our lives. Reactive Problem Anankelogy distinguishes between “ascribed legitimacy” and “earned legitimacy” of authorities. Ascribed legitimacy : Arbitrary acceptance of authority prone to manipulation and coerced low responsiveness to the needs of those under that authority. Earned legitimacy : Cultivated acceptance of authority by incentivizing authority figures with impact data that evidentially demonstrates they have enabled the full resolution of subordinate needs. Contemporary norms rely heavily on ascribed legitimacy. But as the rule based international order breaks down , tolerance for mere ascribed legitimacy collapses. U.S. hypocrisy , especially in its relation with the Israeli far-right government , exposes the compounding incompetencies of authorities too removed from everyday lives to aptly empathize with those they negatively impact. Instead of actively respecting each other’s needs, uniformed authorities react to conflicts with an indulgent call to arms. On the world stage of geopolitics, this arguably bloats the military industrial complex . Weapons manufacturers benefit from forever wars , and not so much from peacetime. Uninformed authorities coerce us with fearmongering and self-serving pleas for tax revenue to “protect” national security , often without tested evidence . And always without addressing the underserved needs igniting the conflict. Big money incentives legacy media to play along. Too many of us fall in line. Metaphorically, we settle for asking their permission to breathe. In short, current authorities lack the kind of discipline that anankelogy can offer to improve their legitimacy. Responsive Solution For starters, asserting the objective fact of inflexibly unchosen needs can become a gamechanger. No longer can authorities blindly expect you to simply go along with their chosen policies. They must now recognize everyone’s impacted unchosen needs and unchosen priority . They will now be confronted with the indisputable reality that whatever they reactively resist they reflexively reinforce . Second, join us in raising the bar with mutual regard . Reject the false promises of avoidant adversarialism . Replace it with the higher standard of engaging mutuality . Join us in mutually nurturing our capacity to be more loving toward each other. Together, we cease conflating our unchosen needs with our chosen responses to them. Such moral conflation denies them earned legitimacy . To earn legitimacy, authorities must engage the unchosen needs and priorities on all sides of any conflict. This effectively brings them out of the debilitating traps of avoidant adversarialism . We level the playing field by encouraging powerful authorities to be recognized as mere fallible humans. We affirm their unchosen needs and priorities to model how they are to affirm ours. We raise the standard to social love . We affirm the legitimacy of their influence in our lives the more they demonstrably appreciate our vulnerable needs . When we say “you shall love ” we mean it. If we prove ourselves more affirming of each other’s needs, then we may assert greater legitimacy than them. Engage! Breathe freely. You don’t require anyone’s permission to breathe. Or to resolve any of your needs. And nobody needs your permission to resolve theirs. No one can bend the facts of anyone’s inflexible needs . Affirm the unchosen needs of others as you would have them affirm your unchosen needs . Hold the powerful accountable to this higher standard by lovingly refusing their coerciveness . Put love first. And if any authority refuses this higher standard, let them seek our permission for them to breathe. 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 will authorities react to my insistence to first affirm my unchosen need? Have you shown this works without engineering a repressive backlash? You have no idea how much pressure I’m under by the local authorities where I live. By what authority do you say I don’t need any permission from anyone to breathe? 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

Laws impersonally convey needs. < Back G05 Law Principle List of all principles Laws impersonally convey needs. Image: Pixabay - LN_Photoart (click on meme to see source image) Summary The less we personally know about the needs of others, the more we rely on impersonal laws to guide our actions toward them. Where emotions personally convey our needs, established norms impersonally convey our needs. Laws are kept vague to apply in various situations, and impersonal to avoid favoritism. Consequently, laws cannot convey our needs as powerfully as our emotions. Description Which do you think is more likely? Trust social norms and enforcement by rational authorities to keep our emotions in check. OR Resolve our needs more fully to cultivate our emotions to act more properly apart from norms. Anankelogy While emotions personally convey needs , laws impersonally convey needs. While emotions alert you to needs from within, laws alert you to needs from without. While emotions draw attention to mostly your own affected needs, laws draw attention mostly to the needs of others. Apart from needs, there are no human laws. Your needs and my needs create purpose for laws. So let’s focus more on the needs our laws exist to serve. The more we rely on laws, the less we get to know each other’s particular needs. We may vainly expect laws to address everything others do that affect us. Then face repeated disappointment. Need-response aims to complement—or compete if necessary—our overburdened legal institutions. The judiciary and politics were never created to address all of our needs. Religion and community traditionally covered what the law could not. Modernity upends the central role of religion in many societies. And replaced our sense of local community with normalized alienation. Need-response presents the potential to fill that gap. Need-response Need-response aims to complement legal institutions, like the judiciary and political institutions. We introduce them to the grounding principle of inflexible needs . In other words, that every need exists as an objective fact . We define “need” narrowly with social science rigor. Anankelogically defines need as anything essential for functioning . You require water to exist, so you need water. You don’t require the bottle to hold that water, as you can get it other ways, so this anankelogically not a need, but merely a preference. Essentially, a “need” is movement to enable functioning . We draft and enforce laws to motivate cooperation for enabling each other’s functioning. Laws tend to serve as external motivators, in contrast to love as the most powerful internal motivator. And that can create a problem. Reactive Problem The more dependent on laws to convey our needs, the greater the disappointment. Especially when counting on the popular adversarial approach enflaming many of our conflicts. We impersonally expect others to take full responsibility for their actions, ignoring the context of their limited options. We impersonally insist others suppress the emotional intensity of their unmet needs, vainly expecting rationality to hide such uncomfortable realities. We impersonally demand others accept our self-affirming generalities, neglecting the nuance shaping each other’s specific needs. We impersonally avoid the unpleasant realities of how we affect their inflexible needs, overlooking how unmet needs traps us in pain we keep hoping in vain to avoid. We impersonally oppose others in the name of taking a firm stance, unwittingly provoking each other’s defensiveness when compelled to dig in our heels to guard our inflexible needs. Our adversarial legal institutions of the judiciary and politics fail to recognize these patterns. While their legalists mean well, they often reinforce conflicts with their adversarial approach. Need-response offers a compelling alternative that can actually lead to more peace and security, by addressing each other’s underlying needs. Responsive Solution With its more disciplined approach to address inflexible needs fueling conflicts, need-response raises itself to a higher moral standard than mere law enforcement. To incentivize responsiveness to each other’s inflexible affected needs, need-response introduces response enforcement . As currently envisioned, response enforcement progresses in seven stages. Revisit best practices. We look at ethical standards, industry best practices, licensing boards and such. In contrast to the legalist approach, we cultivate a nonadversarial process. Exhaust established accountabilities. We also invite any internal accountabilities to responding to affected needs. If unresponsiveness to inflexible needs, we move beyond legalist options. Introduce "law-fit". We tie any cited norm or law to the needs it’s meant to serve. We melt the alienation of impersonal laws. Coordinate civil disobedience . If still unresponsive to inflexible needs, we attract widening support to defy illicit norms. We challenge impersonal laws to resolve needs as much as need-response can. Escrow tax liabilities . We put our money where our mouth is. We deposit our tax liabilities into an independent account, automatically released to public coffers when they accountably respond to the public needs they exist to serve. Launch a scorn campaign . We hold all authorities personally and professionally accountable to wellness outcomes. We shun the resistant. We may ostracize the stubborn. And potentially mortify (or count as dead to us) the most violent of illicit authorities. Go full on response enforcement . We must resolve inflexible needs by any proper means necessary. We hold all, including ourselves, to empirically measurable wellness outcomes. If legalists resist such accountability, they lose legitimacy to affect us at all. As Jefferson wrote in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Instead of abolishing any current government or shifting to a new form of governance, need-response positions itself as a competive alternative to legalism. It can either complement or compete with law enforcement. We cannot sit idle as toxic legalism destroys humanity. Need-response has yet to test these options. But something like it is desperately needed to fill the gaps exposed by our failing impersonal law-based institutions. Because your inflexible personal needs matter much more than flexible impersonal laws. 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: We still need laws to preserve law and order, don’t we? Who keeps need-response professionals accountable to affected needs? How can a nonadversarial alternative be more effective than adversarial justice? I can a competitive alternative helping but suspect the powers that be would shut it down. 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 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