Search Results

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

The less a law fits its purpose to serve needs, the more we risk slipping into 'toxic legalism' Click to view image source at Pixabay “Take responsibility. Be rational. Keep it simple. Relieve your pain. Take a stand.” What’s wrong with these? Everything! These snippets all point to the problem of “toxic legalism”. Toxic legalism is when you put flexible laws ahead of the inflexible needs, which such laws exist to serve. This occurs in at least five dimensions, covered below. Which do you believe as more accurate? No one is literally above the law. OR No one's impactful actions are beyond the reach of agreed upon responses to our needs, but the needs themselves sit above laws as they occur before any law was ever codified. Anankelogy establishes a natural need as an objective fact. The less your needs resolve, the less you can objectively function. And the more predictably you will suffer pain. Objective needs are inflexible needs; they cannot be readily changed to fit the demands of laws. By contrast, anankelogy recognizes human laws as arbitrary legal fictions. The more we obey laws more than respond to needs out of love, the more our wellness suffers. Arbitrary laws are flexible laws; they can be readily changed to fit our inflexible needs. There are at least five ways the original purpose of laws can slip into toxic legalism. Slipping from personal accountability to hyper-individualism Slipping from rational authority to hyperrationality Slipping from vagueness to overgeneralizing Slipping from impartiality to alienating avoidance Slipping from punitive enforcement to hostile adversarialism Toxic legalism can be defined as prioritizing subservience to laws or to social norms over serving the needs for which they exist. Anankelogy recognizes each of these elements as a level of functioning, or of your level of wellness. MORAL DEFUNCTIONS MORAL REFUNCTIONS hyper-individualism psychosocial holism hyperrationality vulnerable honesty overgeneralizing relevant nuance discomfort avoidance discomfort embrace hostile adversarialism supportive mutuality The law exists to impersonally convey each other’s needs. Taken to extremes, it devolves into something ignoring our needs, or worst. Too much law sinks into what anankelogy recognizes as toxic legalism. Each toxic element starts out innocent enough, trying to address some need. Then slips into problems when misapplied. Instead of helping our needs, it dangerously undermines our needs. Anankelogy considers such hindrances to our needs as defunctions. Which gets corrected by what anankelogy calls refunctions. Need-response exists as a new profession to help us restore our functioning. Need-response gets us back to resolving needs to improve each other’s wellness. Laws do not resolve needs; properly motivated people do. In short, toxic legalism presents these five dangers. Need-response counters each one in ways no one else even tries. 1. Slipping from personal accountability to hyper-individualism This starts with something good. The law emphasizes personal responsibility to act appropriately. Authority compels your responsibility toward the rights of others. Too personalized, and we slip into overlooking the external limits constraining compliance. That easily morphs into toxic legalism. Taken to extremes, this actually undermines our personal and shared responsibilities. Toxic legalism tends to overemphasize personal responsibility at the neglect of other’s responsibility toward you. This tends to leave your needs unaddressed. You might solely blame yourself for the resulting pain, which risks trapping you in more pain. This affects your psychosocial orientation (PO). Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to address their self-needs and their social needs. The more your self-needs resolve relative to your social needs, or the more your social needs resolve more than your self-needs, the more you experience a disturbing tension. You outwardly express this tension in your political views. Nature compels you to integrate your inward self-needs with your outward social needs. You find wellness with psychosocial holism—resolving your self-needs (like personal autonomy and self-initiative) on par with your social needs (like acceptance from others and group supports). Unresolved needs can pull you into hyper-individualism. To understand how how so many of us can slip into hyper-individualism can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction. Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep From a norm of effectively holding individuals personally accountable for their impactful behavior to normalizing the blaming of individuals for some things beyond their personal control. Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain From a norm of blaming individuals for some things beyond their personal control to normalizing the exaggeration that you can be held responsible for an increasing load of items beyond your personal control (i.e., locus of control from internal to external). Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap From the norm of being held responsible for a growing list of items beyond your personal control (which others who can effectively maintain an internal locus of control and intrinsic motivation poorly assume others should be able to do likewise without knowing their specific situations) to normalizing the generaliza­tion that you are solely responsible for all of your actions regardless of the sociocultural limitations to effectively address your inflexible needs. Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction From a norm of generalizing of being solely responsible for everything that befalls you to normalizing the resulting as something you solely must cope with on your own. TLDR From a norm of holding individuals personally accountable for their behavior to normalizing being solely responsible for all that happens to you. Need-response can restore your wellness with psychosocial holism. Need-response balances internal and external factors affecting our needs. Sometimes you can resolve your needs with individual merit. Other needs run into systemic structural barriers. Anankelogy recognizes our problems occur on at least four levels. Personal problems. You can easily solve on your own. Interpersonal problems. You solve with cooperation with your peers. Power problems. You solve with cooperation with those in authority over you. Structural problems. Solving such problems calls for systemic changes. Anankelogy recognizes how each problems level differently affects our self-needs (like autonomy and personal freedom) and our social needs (like acceptance and group support). Easing our self-needs more than your social needs, or easing your social needs more than your self-needs, leaves you with uncomfortable tension. That tension is “psychosocial imbalance”. This informs our political views. How these sets of needs resolve relative to each other shapes your psychosocial orientation. You externally express this internal inflexible priority of needs with your flexible political views. The more you can resolve your self-needs and social needs on par with each other, the less politically passionate and more responsive to each other’s needs. Need-response cultivates each other’s psychosocial orientation from ignoble psychosocial imbalance to noble psychosocial balance by addressing and even resolving self-needs and social needs on par with each other. In short, we proactively transition from hyper-individualism to psychosocial holism. 2. Slipping from rational authority to hyperrationality This starts with something good. The law checks your irrational behaviors if reacting on your feelings. Rational-legal authority checks your impulses toward others. Too rational, and we slip into guarding our vulnerabilities even from ourselves. That easily sinks into toxic legalism. Taken to extremes, this actually undermines rationality. Toxic legalism bends toward rationalizing in ways that enable you to hide your vulnerable feelings. You expect your rational arguments to be socially safer than exposing your less defensible emotions. So you cover your emotions with slick sounding arguments. This points to your vulnerability orientation (VO). Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to interacting with others. You typically keep yourself defensively guarded from those you do not know, and likely do not know you. You are more inclined to drop your guard and be more vulnerably honest to those you feel you can trust. You mature better the more you can be vulnerably honest to all of those around you. Hyperrationality provokes defensiveness. Daring to drop your guard invites others to do likewise. Which opens the door to mutually understand each other on a deeper level. Unresolved needs can pull you into hyperrationality. To understand how so many of us can slip into hyperrationality or even pseudo-rationality can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction. Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep From a norm of checking our emotional overreactions, that can lead to inappropriate behaviors, to normalizing the disparaging of intense emotions as automatically dangerously irrational. Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain From a norm of disparaging intense emotions as dangerously irrational to normalizing the attitude that all intense emotions are dangerously irrational and must be rationally suppressed, increasingly leading to guarding own emotions from other’s reasoning. Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap From normalizing the attitude that all intense emotions are dangerously irrational and must be rationally suppressed to defensively hiding one’s own emotions behind “reasoned arguments” that easily blind us from our vulnerable needs. Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction From a norm of remaining ignorant of our own emotionally fueled needs with “reasoned arguments” to a norm of repressing emotions to the point of overlooking the underlying needs, which increases the likelihood of more intense emotions as those needs scream with emotional pain for prompt relief. TLDR From a norm of keeping our emotions in check to routinely denying our emotions to the point of neglecting the underlying needs, which ensures our “irrational emotions” shall persist. Need-response can restore your wellness with vulnerable honesty. Need-response incentivizes us to let go of our rational arguments long enough to drop our guard to expose our indefensible and inflexible needs. We nurture trustworthiness to courageously reveal our vulnerabilities. There is less reason to DEBATE when you can vulnerably RELATE. When we first address what both realize cannot be changed—our inflexible needs—we put ourselves in a better position to address areas that can be changed. We reward honestly admitting how our flexible response to our needs can unintentionally hinder others from resolving their own inflexible needs. Emphasis on rational arguments easily discourages humble admissions. We make it safe to expose our imperfections when shifting from rationality to safer vulnerability. We honor the knowledge of our internal needs over knowledge of merely external things. That stuff is important, but never as important as the needs requiring to be resolve so you can function well enough to contemplate on those external things. Hiding your vulnerabilities behind reasoned arguments often becomes counterproductive. The more you rely on rationalizations to avoid your vulnerabilities, the less likely you can fully resolve those affected needs. Especially if kept hidden from everyone. The less your needs resolve, the more intense the resulting emotions. Which you likely seek to cover with more motivated reasoning as you keep your guard raised to avoid feeling hurt. Need-response cultivates an environment to safely drop your guard to each other. To cultivate the vulnerability to be better known and appreciated by each other. Instead of constantly trying to prove something to others, you welcome knowing each other as you truly are. You can then recognize we each are doing the best we can with the challenges facing us. You help each other to make it easier to honestly face our own needs, and our imperfect responses to them. You appreciate rational arguments as a tool, and never as a panacea to guard your vulnerabilities. Need-response cultivates each other’s vulnerability orientation from ignoble self-protective rationalizing to noble self-disclosed needs that posits inflexible needs over flexible reasoning that often avoids the vulnerability of inexplicable and inflexible needs. In short, we proactively transition from hyperrationality to vulnerable honesty. “To understand people, I must try to hear what they are not saying, what they perhaps will never be able to say.” - John Powell, Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? 3. Slipping from vagueness to overgeneralizing This starts with something good. The law tends to be vague to apply to various situations. Laws remain flexible to apply to a wide array of situations. Too vague, and we slip into overgeneralizing that overlooks relevant specifics of our affected needs. That easily slides into toxic legalism. Taken to extremes, this actually undermines the intended flexibility of the law’s vagueness. Toxic legalism persuades you avoid any details that risk rejection. Coalitions stick around widely agreed upon generalizations. You also might prefer to avoid uncomfortable specifics. You perhaps generalize for relief from pain. This affects your relational orientation (RO). Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to relating to the world around them. You either generalize about those things that matter little to you or your needs. And you tend to seek specifics to address the details of your life. You enjoy more wellness the more you engage the relevant nuance affecting your life. And the more you engage such specifics in the lives of others, the trust you engender. Let every generalization serve as a temporary pit stop on your way to delving into it a little deeper. Unresolved needs can pull you into overgeneralizing. To understand how so many of us can slip into overgeneralizing can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction. Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep From a norm of leaving written rules vague enough to apply to various situations to a norm of overlooking relevant specifics not addressed by laws. Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain From a norm of overlooking relevant specifics to an emerging norm of evading specifics that may risk disagreement from others whose support is counted on. Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap From the norm of avoiding potentially controversial specifics to a norm of neglecting the reality of relevant specifics, trusting generalizations to offer reliable answers for all. Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction From a norm of sidestepping specifics to latch onto comforting generalizations to blindly trusting one’s generalizations to somehow effectively lead to satisfying results. TLDR From a norm of keeping rules vague for wide applicability to the norm of overgeneralizing to the point of neglecting relevant specifics, which keeps needs from being fully resolved. Need-response can restore your wellness with relevant nuance. Need-response encourages us to utilize our trusted generalizations as mere stepping stones. Behind everything we learn, we can always dig a little deeper. Anything we learn can serve as a bridge to explore the finer details affecting our many complicated needs. We graciously invite better awareness of our needs. No more hiding behind sweet sounding generalizations that offers more comfort than sustainable solutions. Too much hyperbole and exaggerations easily pull us away from resolving needs, which easily traps us in pain. First, we distinguish between needs we cannot change and our responses that can be changed. We cannot solve our problems by provoking other’s defenses when triggered to guard their inflexible needs with our rational sounding generalizations. We melt defensiveness when explore missed specifics behind their needs. Which models how they can be more specific about our exposed needs. We let go of generalizations that no longer serve. We replace oversimplifying rationalities with relevant nuance. We get down the nitty gritty of what each other specifically needs. And explore the details of how to address those needs with minimal negative impacts on others (i.e., externalities). Need-response cultivates each other’s relational orientation from ignoble exaggerations to nobly addressing specifics to address what often gets overlooked. In short, we proactively transition from overgeneralizing to relevant nuance. 4. Slipping from impartiality to alienating avoidance This starts with something good. The law tends to be impersonal to avoid favoritism. Laws are best kept impartial, to treat all equally. Too impersonal, and we slip in avoidance of the natural discomfort of our bodies warning us of real threats. That easily devolves into toxic legalism. Taken to extremes, this actually undermines impartiality. Toxic legalism has you avoiding discomfort and avoiding others, to the point of remaining painfully alienated. You slip into isolation to avoid having to deal with others. Until you find your seclusion painfully lonely. This impacts your easement orientation (EO). Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to discomfort. You either habitually avoid just about every level of pain. Or you routinely endure life’s natural discomforts. You only experience pain when your body reports some threat to remove. The more you embrace this discomfort, the more aware of those threats and what to do about them. Let such discomfort embrace serve you well. Unresolved needs can pull you into alienating avoidance. To understand how so many of us can slip into alienating avoidance can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction. Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep From a norm of striving for impartiality by keeping enforcement as impersonal as possible to a norm of keeping “professionally” yet coldly distant from those targeted for enforcement. Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain From a norm of keeping coldly distant from those targeted for enforcement to a norm of formalized estrangement toward those affected by enforced social norms. Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap From a norm of remaining alienated toward those affected by enforced norms to objectifying those targeted for enforcement while avoiding their actual experiences. Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction From a norm of objectifying those targeted for enforcement that avoids their actual experiences to normalizing the avoidance of uncomfortable awareness of negatively impacted painful needs. TLDR From a norm of trying to stay impartial to norm enforcers standardizing avoidance of the underlying needs, and of any pain resulting when those needs are kept from being fully resolved. Need-response can restore your wellness with discomfort embrace. Need-response seeks to inspire our neglected capacity for greater resilience and audacious engagement of each other. Instead of dodging what’s unpleasant about ourselves or each other, we stretch our resilience. Anankelogy recognizes how you only experience pain when your body warns you of a threat to be removed. Pain is not the problem as much as the threat your pain exists to report. Instead of settling for pain relief that never completely goes away (because the need persists to prompt more pain), need-response helps you remove pain by helping each other to remove threats. The more you address the needs you affect in others, the easier for others to address your needs that they affect. You cultivate an affinity for each other’s welfare. You nurture trustworthiness, to express and engage each other’s vulnerable needs. You ultimately replace alienating avoidance with mutual resilient engagement of each other’s affected needs. Need-response nurtures each other’s easement orientation from ignoble pain relief to noble pain removal by resolving the needs prompting pain. In short, we proactively transition from alienating discomfort avoidance to engaging discomfort embrace. 5. Slipping from punitive enforcement to adversarialism This starts with something good. The law opposes lawbreakers to ensure respect for others. Facing social sanctions for disrespecting others proves a powerful motivator. Too adversarial, and we slip in mutual hostilities and defensiveness that shuts down needful cooperation. That easily shrinks into toxic legalism and fuels problematic oppo culture. Taken to extremes, this actually undermines critical opposition to questionable actions or ideas. Toxic legalism normalizes premature opposition to others. Slight disagreements expand into mutual hostilities. Common ground gets overlooked to indulge in side-taking. You oppose another’s needs who oppose yours, locking you into mutual adversarialism. This shapes your conflict orientation (CO). Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to conflicts. You either get defensive and close down or remain open to learn what each other needs. You either let yourself get pulled into the darkness of mutual defensiveness, or hold out for the light of mutual understanding. You will reach more your life’s rich potential the more you favor mutuality over adversarialism. Fight to properly resolve needs, not fight each other. Challenge what others do, but never oppose the inflexible needs of others. Or they will oppose your needs which you can never change. Unresolved needs can pull you into hostile adversarialism. To understand how so many of us can slip into adversarialism can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction. Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep From a norm of incentivizing compliance to social standards to a norm of assuming violations of norms call for some kind of punishing coercion, even if some benign social faux pas. Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain From a norm of assuming violations of norms should prompt some kind of punishing coercion to a norm of assuming each of us are selfish actors kept in check only by external authorities. Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap From the norm of assuming each of us are selfish actors kept in check only by external authorities to a norm of pitting “selfish actors” against each other in some adjudication process by “impartial” authorities largely biased against the accused. Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction From a norm of pitting violators of social norms against each other in an adjudication process to a norm of institutionalized adversarialism that systemically discounts our potential for mutual understanding or cooperation, which regularly impedes opportunity to mutually support and resolve each other’s affected needs. TLDR From a norm of motivating compliance with threats of punishing rule violators to a norm of widespread adversarialism that leaves little if any room for mutual understanding or support, which effectively normalizes unresolved needs. This positions enforcement regimes as the only means to address the resulting problems of unresolved needs, which benefits from keeping needs from being fully resolved. Need-response can restore your wellness with supportive mutuality. Need-response incentivizes all sides to a conflict to engage each other’s affected needs with a simple format: A) Affirm each other’s objectively existing needs; B) Bring up how the other ostensibly affects own inflexible needs; and C) Continue to mutually understand and support each other’s good faith attempts to properly address those mutually conveyed needs. Instead of indulging in taking a side against each other’s outwardly stated stance on some issue, we invite them to express their inwardly inflexible needs. We distinguish between inflexible needs and our flexible responses to them. We mutually affirm each other’s indisputable needs before questioning impactful responses to them. We cultivate mutual understanding by graciously expressing how one’s own views and behaviors affect those needs. We only oppose those who refuse to engage each other’s inflexible needs in good faith, not those who cannot change what they inflexibly need to suit what we ourselves flexibly prefer. We shift from mutual defensiveness to mutual openness and understanding, and then from mutual hostilities to mutual support. We shift from indulgent side-taking, which favors relieving pain over resolving needs, to the discipline of knowing and respecting each other’s inflexible needs. Need-response cultivates each other’s conflict orientation from ignoble adversarialism to noble mutuality. In short, we proactively transition from antagonism and hate to mutuality and love. Law-based institutions compound toxic legalism Sociology has long recognized how every institution and authority tends to drift from its founding purpose to serve a public need to serving itself to ensure its own continuance. Beyond these five key elements, other factors emerge that pull authorities from serving the law's original purpose—to address our needs—to serving mostly themselves. Reification of "power". When we speak of those in power or having power, then believe they literally have actual power over us, we slip further into toxic legalism. They have significant social influence that we label as "power". Without the real power of nature compelling our needs, they have no social influence. Power isn't power unless it resolves needs. Otherwise, it is only coercive force that pulls into toxic legalism. Reification of "self-interest". Modern philosophy and economics emphasize how we function largely from pursuing our self-interests in a system largely complementing each other's self-interests. When watered down into a palatable "popgen version", many rationalize their selfishness and even their self-righteousness. These easily harden into hyper-individualism that politically excuses our lapse into toxic legalism. "No one above the law" myth. Teddy Roosevelt rightly asserted that no one's impactful actions sit outside the reach of the law. That doesn't mean the law itself is literally above your existence, or above your inflexible needs. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve. The inflexible needs evolved first; laws flexibly arrived later as social constructions. To forgo what you need to suit some demanding authority robs you of wellness, fueling another form of toxic legalism. More of these toxic elements exist that compromise our wellness in the name of the law. For now, consider how the five key elements emerge in the adversarial justice system. Hyper-individual: When confronted by law enforcement, externalities get patently ignored. Hyperrational: Authority patently ignores your vulnerably felt needs. Overgeneralizing: Adjudication easily neglects the many specifics involved in a situation. Avoidant: Adjudication offers relief for the winning side, not a path toward removing pain. Adversarialist: You are pitted against another, with little if any effort to identify or address the needs on all sides. Now consider the makeup of polarizing politics. Hyper-individual: Politics reduces you to an atomized rational decisionmaker, blaming you for poor ballot options. Hyperrational: You’re supposed to rationally find answers, rationalizing unresponsiveness. Overgeneralizing: Coalitions rely on avoiding specifics that could evoke disagreement. Avoidant: Politics tend to keep you alienated from each other, to avoid relating with each other on a more personal level. Adversarialist: You are pitted against another, with little if any effort to identify or address the needs on all sides. The more judicial and political authorities benefit from these toxic elements, the less they are aware of its cost to our wellness. Ironically, the more you submit to toxic legalism, the less well enough you will be to faithfully comply with every legal requirement. Authorities then position themselves as the solution, despite fueling the problem. Love over law Need-response calls out this conflict of interest as a form of empirical evil. It is measurable, independent of personal biases or religious beliefs. Need-response then offers to replace it with empirical uprightness. Need-response helps you to measurably improve wellness by directly addressing the needs that laws exist to serve. After all, you don't exist for human authority; such authority exists for you. Need-response counters all of these elements, with the refunctions listed above. And by prioritizing inflexible needs over flexible laws, with what it calls citationization or "law-fit". Which calls for citing the needs to be served by any cited social norm. Need-response raises the standard with universal principles, or “character refunctions” including love. Moreover, need-response raises the standard from the law’s harm reduction norm to loving one another—to properly honoring the needs of others as you would have them honor your own. Which can more easily result in more resolved needs, less pain to suffer, and greater overall wellness. What to do about toxic legalism? Toxic legalism is the problem. Law-Fit serves as the need-responsive answer. back-to-top

Since needs and affected functionality exist as objective fact, we can now quantify evil Anankelogy recognizes the objective fact of needs and level of functioning from how well such needs get resolved. As social science can separate these from subjective experience and from social and cultural norms, the very idea of evil can now be quantifiably measured. Anankelogy stipulates such quantifiable evil include two necessary components: Identifiable benefit(s) to the one committing the evil. Identifiable harm(s) to oneself or to others. Two more conditions may be necessary yet not sufficient: Diminished awareness that the benefits exacts harm. Viable alternative(s) to properly address the underlying needs. Identifiable benefits(s) Cui bono? Who benefits? What specific gain does the powerholder receive? Identifiable harm(s) Harm runs the span from infringing upon one's wellbeing's full potential to the death of that person. Anankelogy recognizes a spectrum of wellbeing, or levels of functioning. Harm occurs along a range from mild and reversible to severe and permanent damage. Quantifiable evil includes mild harm that pulls the impactee down into lower levels of functioning. That can be from peakfunction down to high level symfunction, or from mid or low level symfunction down into dysfunction. What specific harm do you suffer from a powerholder? Diminished awareness Whatever can clear cognitive dissonance, or allow one to rationalize to themselves this gaining from others loss. These also speak to the factors of toxic legalism. For example, overgeneralizing and avoidance diminish awareness of one's own impacts on others. Biased assumptions Powerholders can hold many inaccurate beliefs with little if any accountability, and then act upon them with damaging impacts upon the relatively powerless. Privileged avoidance of what feels uncomfortable to face, along with normalizing overgeneralizations as the best option, can make these assumptions appear attractive. These contribute to the diminshed awareness of quantifiable evil. Each of these task Gemini AI to critique the given assumption. Use any AI tool of your choice to unpack any assumption. authority comes exclusively from law conflicts are a zero-sum outcome in which only one side can win emotions bias our thinking (actually, desperate needs prioritize relief-seeking, conveyed in emotions, which then prioritizes our emotions and thinking) empathizing with both sides of a debate is bothsidesism or false moral equivalency in a conflict among others one should pick a side it is good to challenge others' beliefs to keep them honest law enforcement keeps the public safe mental health occurs primarily in one's mind and in one's chosen behaviors might makes right morality is relative, so individuals must decide what is right and wrong on their own people are generally stupid people are generally untrustworthy people are typically gullible and easily persuaded people choose their political values from rational choice reasoning people would lie, cheat and steal if it wasn't for law enforcement political platforms will provide satisfying results for my life the adversarial judicial system rarely convicts an innocent person we must focus on individual deviation from behavioral norms since these are enough to sustain wellness we must have law and order to keep our depraved natures in check we must maintain law and order for a functioning society wellness can be achieved by relieving pain without trying to understand what prompted the pain willpower should be enough to overcome my cravings you can change someone's political stance with the right persuasive argument Biased adversarial justice When prosecutors select jurors during voir dire, do they exploit the naivete of prospective jurors who may accept any of these assumptions biasing the power of the state against the relatively powerless innocent defendant? an innocent person would not confess to a crime that they did not do defendants in the criminal judicial process typically get a fair trial eyewitness identification provides reliable evidence of an identified person’s culpability felons who maintain their innocence are in denial and trying to avoid the punishment they are due forensic evidence like that shown in CSI shows provide compelling proof of a defendant’s guilt only someone who is guilty would take a plea bargain physical evidence provided by state crime labs provides impartial evidence of a defendant’s guilt police testifying at a trial against a criminal defendant provides a trustworthy testimonial the United States has one of the best judicial systems in the world wrongful convictions in the U.S. are rare Cognitive biases This list of cognitive biases is from Wikipedia. The entry organizes its list “based on the task-based classification proposed by Dimara et al. (2020).” It organizes the list around these helpful sub-categories. Association: a connection between different pieces of information Baseline: comparing something to a perceived standard or starting point Inertia: the reluctance to change something that is already in place Outcome: how well something aligns with an expected or hoped-for result Self-perspective: influenced by one's own personal point of view Estimation In estimation or judgement tasks, people are asked to assess the value of a quantity. Association Aesthetic–usability effect Attribute substitution Availability heuristic Conjunction fallacy Hot-cold empathy gap Tachypsychia Time-saving bias Travis syndrome Baseline Anchoring bias Base rate fallacy Dunning–Kruger effect Gambler's fallacy Hard–easy effect Hot-hand fallacy Insensitivity to sample size Interoceptive bias or hungry judge effect Conservatism or regressive bias Subadditivity effect Systematic bias Unit bias Weber–Fechner law Inertia Conservatism bias Outcome Exaggerated expectation Hedonic recall bias Illusion of validity Impact bias Outcome bias Planning fallacy Restraint bias Sexual overperception bias Self-perspective Curse of knowledge Extrinsic incentives bias False consensus effect Illusion of transparency Naïve cynicism Optimism bias Outgroup homogeneity bias Pessimism bias Spotlight effect Worse-than-average effect Association Ambiguity effect Authority bias Automation bias Default effect Dread aversion Framing effect Hyperbolic discounting Dynamic inconsistency Compassion fade Loss aversion Sunk cost fallacy Neglect of probability Non-adaptive choice switching Prevention bias Pseudocertainty effect Risk compensation or Peltzman effect Zero-risk bias Baseline Action bias Additive bias Decoy effect Ballot order effect Cheerleader effect Compromise effect Denomination effect Disposition effect Distinction bias Less-is-better effect Money illusion Phantom effect Normalcy bias Projection bias Scope neglect Inertia Doubling-back aversion Endowment effect Escalation of commitment Functional fixedness Mere exposure effect Plan continuation bias Semmelweis reflex Shared information bias Status quo bias Well-travelled road effect Outcome Present bias Reactance Reverse psychology Self-perspective Effort justification IKEA effect Law of the instrument Not invented here Reactive devaluation Social comparison bias Hypothesis assessment In hypothesis assessment, people determine whether a statement is true or false. Association Agent detection bias Availability cascade Availability heuristic Cognitive dissonance Common source bias Fluency heuristic Groupthink Groupshift Illusion of explanatory depth Illusory truth effect Probability matching Rhyme as reason effect McNamara fallacy Salience bias von Restorff effect Saying is believing effect Selection bias Subadditivity effect Truth bias Outcome Barnum effect Belief bias Berkson's paradox Clustering illusion Confirmation bias Congruence bias Extension neglect Gender bias Illusory correlation Information bias Observer-expectancy effect Subject-expectancy effect Overconfidence effect Pareidolia Subjective validation Confirmation bias Survivorship bias Unconscious bias Value selection bias Causal attribution In a causal attribution task, people are asked to explain the causes of behavior and events. Outcome Apophenia Assumed similarity bias Context neglect bias Domain neglect Embodiment bias Form function attribution bias G. I. Joe fallacy Group attribution error Hostile attribution bias Illusory correlation Illusion of control Intentionality bias Just-world fallacy Motonormativity Plant blindness Pro-innovation bias Proportionality bias Puritanical bias Surrogation System justification Teleological Bias Turkey illusion Self-perspective Actor-observer bias Fundamental attribution error Defensive attribution hypothesis Egocentric bias Experimenter's or expectation bias False uniqueness bias Fundamental attribution error Group attribution error (negativity effect) Ingroup bias Objectivity illusion, Bias blind spot Ostrich effect Outgroup favoritism Pygmalion effect Selective perception Self-serving bias Group-serving bias Ultimate attribution error Recall In a recall or memory task, people are asked to recall or recognize previous material. Association Boundary extension Childhood amnesia Consistency bias Contrast effect Cryptomnesia Cue-dependent forgetting context effect Google effect Duration neglect Fading affect bias False memory Humor effect Implicit association Lag effect Spacing effect Levels-of-processing effect Leveling and sharpening Memory inhibition Misinformation effect Continued influence effect Modality effect Repetition blindness Mood-congruent memory bias (state-dependent memory) Next-in-line effect Part-list cueing effect Peak–end rule Persistence The Perky effect Picture superiority effect Positivity effect (Socioemotional selectivity theory) Euphoric recall Processing difficulty effect Levels-of-processing effect Reminiscence bump Social cryptomnesia Source confusion Spacing effect Suffix effect (recency effect) serial position effect recency effect primacy effect Suggestibility Telescoping effect Testing effect Tip of the tongue phenomenon Verbatim effect Zeigarnik effect Baseline Bizarreness effect Frequency illusion List-length effect Negativity bias or Negativity effect Group attribution error Positivity effect Negativity effect Primacy effect serial position effect recency effect suffix effect Recency effect serial position effect suffix effect primacy effect Serial position effect von Restorff effect Inertia Attentional bias Continued influence effect Stereotype bias or stereotypical bias Outcome Choice-supportive bias Declinism Euphoric recall Hindsight bias Recency illusion frequency illusion recency bias cognitive bias memory bias Rosy retrospection Self-perspective Cross-race effect Gender differences in eyewitness memory Generation effect (Self-generation effect) Placement bias Illusory superiority Better-than-average effect Worse-than-average effect Self-relevance effect Opinion reporting In an opinion reporting task, people answer questions regarding their beliefs or opinions on political, moral, or social issues. Association Halo effect Moral credential effect Negativity bias Inertia Backfire effect End-of-history illusion Omission bias Outcome Bandwagon effect Courtesy bias Illusion of learning Moral luck Misinterpreted-effort hypothesis Social desirability bias Stereotyping Women are wonderful effect Self-perspective Anthropocentric thinking Anthropomorphism Ben Franklin effect Bias blind spot Illusion of asymmetric insight Illusory superiority Impostor Syndrome Naïve realism Third-person effect Trait ascription bias Zero-sum bias Propaganda techniques Identify if the powerholder uses any of these messaging techniques. And determine if the results effectively undermines your capacity to properly resolve needs. Ad hominem Ad nauseam Adding qualifiers Advertising Agenda setting Algorithmic bias Appeal to authority Appeal to fear Appeal to ignorance Appeal to pity Appeal to prejudice Appeal to tradition Assertion Bandwagon Beautiful people Big lie Black-and-white fallacy Cherry picking (also called card-stacking) Classical conditioning Cognitive dissonance Common folk Common man Cult of personality Demonizing the enemy Demoralization Dictat Disinformation Divide and rule Dog whistle Door-in-the-face technique Dysphemism Euphemism Euphoria Exaggeration False accusations False dichotomy False equivalence Fault as virtue Fear mongering Fear, uncertainty, and doubt Firehose of falsehood Flag-waving Flak Foot-in-the-door technique Framing (social sciences) Gaslighting Gish gallop Glittering generalities Guilt by association or reductio ad hitlerum Half-truth Honor by association Information overload Innuendo Intentional vagueness Labeling Latitudes of acceptance Limited hangout Loaded language Love bombing Lying and deception Managing the news Milieu control Minimisation Modeling Muddying the waters Name-calling Non sequitur Obfuscation, intentional vagueness, confusion Oversimplification Paltering Pensée unique Plain folks Poisoning the well Presupposition Projection Proof by anecdote Quote mining Quotes out of context Rationalization Red herring Repetition Scapegoating Semantic satiation Slippery slope Slogans Smears Stereotyping, name calling or labeling Straw man Testimonial Third party technique Thought-terminating cliché Transfer Unstated assumption Virtue words Whataboutism Sources: AI Gemini Institute of Propaganda Analysis: Types of Propaganda Techniques Propaganda Techniques Specific techniques Loaded language Identify if the powerholder uses any of these loaded terms. And determine if the results effectively undermine your capacity to properly resolve needs, trap you in pain, and hold down your wellbeing in ways that benefit them. Alpha male: reduces human social dynamics into rigid, competitive hierarchies Anchor baby: implies non-citizen parents use their children to secure legal status Antisemite; antisemitism: when abusing IHRA working definition, conflating any critique of Zionism or of the Israeli government with loathing of Jews as an ethnicity Bipolar: describing any unpredictable, moody, or irrational behavior Clueless: pejoratively implies someone is inherently incapable of grasping reality Colorblind: claiming to “not see race” to ignore systemic inequalities endured by People of Color Crazy: “Crazy” we say out of hand when too lazy to fully understand Crime: conflates violation of arbitrary statutes with objectively offensive behaviors; e.g., it is not a crime or illegal to overbill a patient into medical debt but it is illegal for the patient to refuse to pay Criminality: suggesting someone is inherently lawless, overlooking social dynamics undermining their behavior choices in the moment; see justice Crushed: ostensibly losing an argument; see destroyed Debate: what is actually an argument without any intent of learning the truth Democracy: despite the lack of actual “people power” Destroyed: ostensibly losing an argument; see crushed Dog whistle: when applied to any innuendo Dummy: derogatory insult to question one’s intelligence or common sense; see idiot Empower: assumes some have the power to give to others assumed powerless Exotic: casts what is not familiar to own culture as suspiciously strange Extremist: By who’s standard? William Lloyd Garrison was an extremist in his day for daring to oppose slavery. Far-left: subjectively applied by those on the right to almost anyone on the left they dislike Far-right: subjectively applied by those on the left to almost anyone on the right they dislike Freedom fighter: asymmetric warrior one likes; otherwise disparaged as a terrorist. Fresh: food label without date or time of preparation; see organic Fundy: pejorative for fundamentalists Gaslighting: buzzword to dismiss alternate perspectives Gender confused: suggests the observer understands more about the trans experience than trans people themselves Guilty: when subjectively asserted contrary to exculpatory evidence Hamas: as a slur meaning terrorist. Hero: subjective marker overlooking evidence to the contrary Homeless: dehumanizing those without their own shelter, with assumptions of addiction and criminality Idiot: derogatory insult to question one’s intelligence or common sense; see dummy, moron, or stupid Illegal alien: undocumented immigrant, applied to inhabitants residing in an area prior to laws qualifying who is a citizen Influencer: by what measure? monetizing an audience? coercing the vulnerable to sacrifice their dignity? persuading the naïve to oppose their own self-interests? Insane: stripped from its original clinical meaning, it can mean whatever the speaker seeks to negatively or even positively convey Islamist: weaponized in Western and Middle Eastern discourse to conflate mainstream political activism with violent extremism Jerk: insult to reprimand others in a way that seeks to spark social condemnation Jew hater: when applied to critics of the Israeli government or critics of Zionist actions; see antisemite Justice: emphasizing personal responsibility while ignoring social injustices undermining capacity to remain prosocial; see criminality Karen: privileged white women who appear insensitive to others Lefty: to delegitimize liberal or progressive ideas by casting them as too radical for the majority of the population Legal: when illicit activity gets protected under color of law Liar: dismissing honest expression as unreliable without critical thinking Libtard: pejorative from some conservatives dismissive of progressives Loser: smearing someone or a group as worthy of social rejection Mentally ill: reduces one’s clinically identifiable struggles to a medical diagnosis and its social stigma that assumes personal fault and neglects social context Moron: derogatory insult to question one’s intelligence or common sense; see dummy, idiot or stupid No offense, but: to evade inevitable critique when overgeneralizing a sensitive matter OCD: misapplying Obsessive-Compulsive-Disorder to any habit Organic: food label or other desirable items without processing information; see fresh Panic attack: describing casual nervousness in ways that trivialize those suffering clinically defined panic attacks Palestinian: as a euphemism for Muslim terrorist Patriot: ideologically claiming the moral high ground of love of country while overlooking less attractive elements of parochial nationalism Queer: demeaning LGBTQ+ people as abnormal, unnatural, or deviant Race: ethnic differences when defined in biased terms favoring the majority white population Radical left: weaponized label to characterize progressives as too similar to communists Right-winger: weaponized label to characterize conservatives as authoritarian, as fascist, or too extreme Safe space: when exaggerated into guarded settings that can stifle academic freedom and free speech Sick: usage has morphed into various meanings for different contexts, from admiration to disgust Smart Alec or smarty pants: dismissing an intelligent person as a know-it-all not to be taking seriously Snowflake: denigrating others as `prone to melt under pressure, suggesting they are oversensitive, easily offended, and perhaps too entitled Stupid: when applied to those overwhelmed with pain and consequently cannot think clearly Terrorism: when applied to asymmetric warfare tactics that do not deliberately target noncombatants yet some get injured in the crossfire Thug: applied mainly to Black men as something of an alternative to the N-word Tone-deaf: regard one as insensitive to the needs of others, while risking adding stigma to the hearing impaired Traumatized: when really meaning stressed, trivializing those suffering PTSD Urban: coded racial euphemism for city dwellers of mostly Black and Brown backgrounds emphasizing poverty, crime, and systemic disadvantage Victim: imposes the stigma of helplessness that others must empower; contrast with survivor Voiceless: paternalistically giving voice to an ostensibly silenced population in ways that easily deny their agency Whistleblower: used derogatively as if disloyal, a “rat”, or a disruptive troublemaker seeking attention, instead of courageously speaking truth to power Woke: originally meant being aware of social injustices Zionist: as an antisemitic dog whistle, conflating left-wing peace activism for Jewish self-determination to right-wing expansionist nationalism that risks negating self-determination of non-Jews There are many more, including glittering generalities. See propaganda techniques above. Sources: Loaded Language in Media Guide Gemini AI prompt: how the term tone [TERM] used as a loaded term Defense mechanisms Powerholders, along with those the powerholder impacts, can diminish awareness of unpleasant experiences with what Sigmund Freud identified as defense mechanisms. This material comes from 20 Defense Mechanisms We Use to Protect Ourselves along with some edits from other sources which are linked. Does the powerholder manifest any of these defense mechanisms? Does any side use any of these defense mechanisms? Acting out: Coping with stress by engaging in actions rather than acknowledging and bearing certain feelings. For example, instead of telling someone that you are angry with them, you might yell at them or throw something against the wall. Aim inhibition: Accepting a modified form of their original goal. An example of this would be becoming a high school basketball coach rather than a professional athlete. Altruism: Satisfying internal needs through helping others. For example, someone recovering from substance use might volunteer to help others in recovery as a way to deal with drug cravings. Avoidance: Refusing to deal with or encounter unpleasant objects or situations. For example, rather than discuss a problem with someone, you might simply start avoiding them altogether so you don't have to deal with the issue. Compensation: Overachieving in one area to compensate for failures in another. For example, someone who feels insecure academically might compensate by excelling in athletics. Denial: probably one of the best-known defense mechanisms, is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred or is currently occurring. It functions to protect the ego from things with which the person cannot cope and is often used to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (e.g., "They're in denial"). Displacement: Have you ever had a really bad day at work, then gone home and taken out your frustration on family and friends? If you answered yes, you have experienced the ego defense mechanism of displacement. Displacement involves taking out our frustrations, feelings, and impulses on people or objects that are less threatening. Displaced aggression is a common example of this defense mechanism. Rather than express your anger in ways that could lead to negative consequences (like arguing with your boss), you instead express your anger toward a person or object that poses no threat (such as your spouse, children, or pets). NOTE: Powerholders are at high risk of displacing their angst onto vulnerable underlings. Dissociation: Becoming separated or removed from your experience. When dealing with something stressful, for example, you might mentally and emotionally disengage yourself from the situation. Fantasy: Avoiding reality by retreating to a safe place within your mind. When something in your life is causing anxiety, you might retreat to your inner world, where the cause of the stress cannot harm you. Humor: Pointing out the funny or ironic aspects of a situation. An example of this might be cracking a joke in a stressful or traumatic situation. Intellectualization: Reduces anxiety by viewing events in a cold, clinical way. This defense mechanism allows us to avoid thinking about the stressful, emotional aspect of the situation and instead focus only on the intellectual component. For example, a person who has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness might focus on learning everything about the disease in order to avoid distress and remain distant from the reality of the situation and their feelings about it. Passive-aggression: Indirectly expressing anger. Instead of telling someone that you are upset, for example, you might give them the silent treatment. Projection: A defense mechanism that involves attributing your own unacceptable qualities or feelings to others. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that they do not like you. Projection allows the expression of desire or impulse in a way the ego cannot recognize, thereby reducing anxiety. Rationalization: A defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway. A student might rationalize a poor exam score by blaming the instructor rather than admitting their own lack of preparation. Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, but it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. Reaction formation: Reduces anxiety by taking up the opposite feeling, impulse, or behavior. An example of reaction formation would be treating someone you strongly dislike in an excessively friendly manner in order to hide your true feelings. Why do people behave this way? According to Freud, they use reaction formation as a defense mechanism to hide their true feelings by behaving in the exact opposite way. Regression: When confronted with stressful events, people sometimes abandon coping strategies and revert to earlier behavioral patterns. Anna Freud called this defense mechanism regression and suggested that people act out behaviors from the stage of psychosexual development in which they are fixated. For example, an individual fixated at an earlier developmental stage might cry or sulk upon hearing unpleasant news. Repression: Acts to keep information out of conscious awareness. However, these memories don't just disappear; they continue to influence our behavior. For example, a person who has repressed memories of abuse suffered as a child may later have difficulty forming relationships. Suppression: Sometimes you might repress information consciously by forcing it out of your awareness. This is known as suppression. In most cases, however, this removal of anxiety-provoking memories from awareness is believed to occur unconsciously. Sublimation: A defense mechanism that allows us to act out unacceptable impulses by transforming them into more acceptable forms. For example, a person experiencing extreme anger might take up kickboxing to vent their frustration. Freud believed that sublimation is a sign of maturity and allows people to function normally in socially acceptable ways. Undoing: Trying to make up for what you feel are inappropriate thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. For example, if you hurt someone's feelings, you might offer to do something nice for them to assuage your anxiety or guilt. There can be more, but these serve as a solid start. Learn more from the article in Wikipedia and from googling list of ego defense mechanisms. Click here for 31 Psychological Defense Mechanisms Explained. Logical fallacies Does the powerholder manifest any of these logical fallacies? Does any side use any of these logical fallacies? 1. The A Priori Argument 2. Ableism 3. Actions have Consequences 4. The Ad Hominem Argument 5. The Affective Fallacy 6. Alphabet Soup 7. Alternative Truth 8. The Appeal to Closure 9. The Appeal to Heaven 10. The Appeal to Nature 11. The Appeal to Pity 12. The Appeal to Tradition 13. Appeasement 14. The Argument from Consequences 15. The Argument from Ignorance 16. The Argument from Incredulity 17. The Argument from Inertia 18. The Argument from Motives 19. Argumentum ad Baculum 20. Argumentum ad Mysteriam 21. Argumentum ex Silentio 22. Availability Bias 23. The Bandwagon Fallacy 24. The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy 25. The Big "But" Fallacy 26. The Big Lie Technique 27. Blind Loyalty 28. Blood is Thicker than Water 29. Brainwashing 30. Bribery 31. Calling "Cards" 32. Circular Reasoning 33. The Complex Question 34. Confirmation Bias 35. Cost Bias 36. Default Bias 37. Defensiveness 38. Deliberate Ignorance 39. Diminished Responsibility 40. Disciplinary Blinders 41. Dog-Whistle Politics 42. The "Draw Your Own Conclusion" Fallacy 43. The Dunning-Kruger Effect 44. "E" for Effort. 45. Either/Or Reasoning 46. Equivocation 47. The Eschatological Fallacy 48. Esoteric Knowledge 49. Essentializing 50. The Etymological Fallacy 51. The Excluded Middle 52. The "F-Bomb" 53. The False Analogy 54. Finish the Job 55. The Free Speech Fallacy 56. The Fundamental Attribution Error 57. Gaslighting 58. Guilt by Association 59. The Half Truth 60. Hero-Busting 61. Heroes All 62. Hoyle's Fallacy 63. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand 64. The Identity Fallacy 65. Infotainment 66. The Job's Comforter Fallacy 67. Just Do it 68. Just Plain Folks 69. The Law of Unintended Consequences 70. Lying with Statistics 71. Magical Thinking 72. Mala Fides 73. Measurability 74. Mind-reading 75. Moral Licensing 76. Moral Superiority 77. Mortification 78. Moving the Goalposts 79. MYOB 80. Name-Calling 81. The Narrative Fallacy 82. The NIMBY Fallacy 83. No Discussion 84. Non-recognition 85. The Non Sequitur 86. Nothing New Under the Sun 87. Olfactory Rhetoric 88. Oops! 89. Othering 90. Overexplanation 91. Overgeneralization 92. The Paralysis of Analysis 93. The Passive Voice Fallacy 94. Paternalism 95. Personalizaion 96. The Plain Truth Fallacy 97. Plausible Deniability 98. Playing on Emotion 99. Political Correctness 100. The Pollyanna Principle 101. The Positive Thinking Fallacy 102. The Post Hoc Argument 103. The Pout 104. The Procrustean 105. Prosopology 106. The Red Herring 107. Reductio ad Hitlerum 108. Reductionism 109. Reifying 110. The Romantic Rebel 111. The "Save the Children" Fallacy 112. Scapegoating 113. Scare Tactics 114. "Scoring" 115. The Scripted Message 116. Sending the Wrong Message 117. Shifting the Burden of Proof 118. The Shopping Hungry Fallacy 119. The Silent Majority Fallacy 120. The Simpleton's Fallacy 121. The Slippery Slope 122. The Snow Job 123. The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy 124. The Standard Version Fallacy 125. Star Power 126. The Straw Man 127. The Taboo 128. They're All Crooks 129. The "Third Person Effect" 130. The "Thousand Flowers" Fallacy 131. Throwing Good Money After Bad 132. TINA 133. Tone Policing 134. Transfer 135. Trust your Gut 136. Tu Quoque 137. Two-sides Fallacy 138. Two Truths 139. Venting 140. Venue 141. We Have to Do Something: 142. Where there’s Smoke, there’s Fire 143. The Wisdom of the Crowd 144. The Worst-Case Fallacy 145. The Worst Negates the Bad 146. Zero Tolerance Sources: Master List of Logical Fallacies List of fallacies Viable alternative(s) What viable alternatives does the powerholder appear to neglect? Need-response offers some better solutions. Mutuality process Properly resolving needs Law-fit Exaction invoice Earned legitimacy

Let’s take a microscopic look at how you can slip from being totally well to suddenly suffering the pain of some overwhelming ailment. Not so much in physical or exclusively biological terms, but more in terms of your emotional wellbeing. Let’s see how “symfunction capture” can help explain that easily overlooked zone between wellness and sickness. Symfunction capture occurs in three phases: 1) symfunction creep, 2) symfunction strain, then 3) symfunction trap. Which do you think is more likely? It’s common to be totally well one moment and then totally sick the next. OR There is a little talked about transitional zone between wellness and sickness. Symfunction refers to your less-than-optimal level of functioning. Symfunction refers to that zone you experience between being totally well and being totally sick. Symfunction refers to that level of operating in life that sits between peakfunctionality and dysfunctionality. If you ever reach peakfunction, your every need enjoys full satisfaction. You can do amazing things while peakfunctional. But if any need lingers unresolved, you slip from peakfunction to that zone where you must rely on others to still function adequately—symfunction. Anankelogy recognizes how you can enjoy peakfunctionality one moment and then slip into symfunctionality. Anankelogy further recognizes how this slippage serves as a common gateway into painful dysfunction—of prioritizing relieving the pain of your unmet needs. Anankelogy refers to this phenomenon as “symfunctional capture”. Anankelogy further identifies three phases for this experience: You start safe enough with “symfunction creep” You often feel a mounting level of “symfunction strain” You then slip dangerously into the “symfunction trap” Symfunction capture can pull you into dysfunction 1. You start safe enough with “symfunction creep” When your every need fully resolves, you can reach peakfunction and freely focus on just about anything. You can do some amazing stuff. This moment features a total absence of any disrupting pain. As soon as one of your needs does not fully resolve, your body now has cause to warn you with a little pain. A slight headache. A subtle doubt. A lingering sense of trouble. Your body uncomfortably and almost imperceptibly alerts you to this creeping imperfection. Instead of optimal functioning, you function at an adequate level with impersonal help from others. Anankelogy calls this symfunction. Symfunction creep refers to that early emotional stress you naturally experience from one or more needs not fully resolving. They resolve adequately enough for you to sufficiently function. But creeping normality sets in as your body insists with largely indiscernible warnings of a slight yet tolerable threat to your ability to fully function. You kind of notice some slight uneasiness, for example, after seeing a stranger scowl in your direction. You can function well enough but sense a fleeting possibility of a remote threat. You might be confronted by this person you’ve never met, or not. As the stranger looks elsewhere and moves on, that sensation quickly fades. When all your needs fully resolve again, you can function fully. You feel no pain. Sometimes your needs linger a while before accessing the resources to restore inner balance. But once restored, you’re back to peakfunction. After all, sometimes can only access a resource through others you do not personally know, and this can prevent you from remaining peakfunctional. If you had to deal with a stranger in a distant land completely on your own, you would likely remain vigilant. But at home, you likely depend on familiar social norms to ensure this stranger doesn’t bother you. Instead of operating at your optimal potential, you find you can function only at a level those social norms permit. This typically tends to be a little less than full functioning. After all, the more focused to what could go wrong when encountering this unknown person, the less attentive on getting things right for your peakfunctional potential. Impersonal norms typically help you. Authority to enforce them ensures the peace. But an externally incentivized peace cannot effectively address each other’s specific needs. Social norms and power dynamics shaping symfunction risk pulling you down into symfunction strain. 2. You often feel a mounting level of “symfunction strain” Symfunctional strain refers to the ongoing emotional stress you naturally experience from each need not fully resolved. Emotions only exist to convey your pressing needs. As more of your needs partially resolve, you’re spared the disturbing pain of not getting resolved at all. Each imperfectly resolved need prompts your body to warn you of its particular threat. Each need only partially resolved denies your ability to function fully. Unlike symfunction creep where you frequently return to full functioning, symfunction strain reminds you that you remain constantly at a diminished level of functioning. If enjoying a quick meal of processed foods leaves you nutritionally deficient, your body warns you that your hunger has not been fully satisfied. If sharing your emotional troubles with a trusted friend who then dismisses your complaint, your body warns you that your need for social support remains unfulfilled. If your job provides a steady income but less meaning to create appreciated value for others, your body warns there is still room for improvement to address your need earn a living creating something meaningful. Typically, you feel each warning of a partially eased need as a dull and manageable pain. If experiencing just a handful of such needs that remain partially resolved, you likely do not even notice this strain. You can bear the trouble. With most other needs fully resolved, you can still function quite well with little if any distraction. You can focus sufficiently despite that emerging reminder to satisfy that hunger. Or that slightly disturbing cue to find someone who cares about your complaint. Or that gnawing but easily ignored feeling that you are not really being valued at work for all you’re worth. These mostly resolved needs let you focus on the positives and disregard such miniscule negatives. Getting comfortable with this new normal can set you up for even worse things down the road. A few persistently partially resolved needs can blow up easily into many persistently unresolved needs. You’re then staring down into the abyss of a symfunctional trap. 3. You then slip dangerously into the “symfunction trap” Often, however, a few partially resolved needs swells into a molehill of unresolved needs. Your ratio of fully-to-partially resolved needs can slip down into most of your needs only partially resolved. Your body will not let you forget. With fewer of your needs fully resolved, your body painfully warns how your ability to function has become increasingly compromised. These can build up into a mountain of warnings constantly reminding you of growing threats to your ability to function. Any dull pain you felt at the beginning doesn’t feel so dull anymore. In fact, they can now overwhelm your attention. Your growing hunger pangs refuse to be ignored. Your increasing sense of being misunderstood crowds your attention. Your alarming dissatisfaction with your lousy job consumes your focus. These less resolved needs increasingly distract you, as they scream for your attention. They warn how your ability to function is becoming intolerably decreased. Your once-trivial problems now appear much more alarmingly urgent. You feel increasingly trapped to prioritize these alarming needs. While not completely nourished, you lack sufficient energy to always prepare a healthy meal. While wondering if you’ll find anyone who’ll care, you adjust your expectations to avoid painful disappointment. While feeling stuck in your dead-end job, you doubt if you can find any job that’s better. Symfunction trap describes this disturbing experience. You feel increasingly trapped into this mediocre level of functioning. You find it increasingly more difficult to fully resolve your needs, and increasingly absorbed by the rising levels of pain. You likely resign to your fate of not fully resolving many if not most of your needs. You increasingly drink more for pleasure than merely to quench your thirst. Sugary drinks dominate your day. Or you gulp down something for the caffeine buzz. Or you sip on alcohol to take the edge off your troubling circumstances. You slip dangerously close into destructive habits, easily shared in your social circles. You can at least get by in this modern world of technological conveniences. You can function adequately enough with the predictability provided by enforced laws. You can feel confident that you’re not alone in this situation. Indeed, more and more of us accept such mounting emotional distress as the new normal. We hardly notice as this three-phase process of symfunction capture serves as a gateway into dysfunction. Symfunction capture can pull you into dysfunction You rarely choose to go from optimal functioning to self-sabotage. You tend to get pulled into symfunction when the resources to fully resolve your needs remain inaccessible. A lack of reliable access to primary resources like clean water for your thirst, or trustworthy friends for companionship, or meaningful employment for your purpose in life, points less to personal problems and more to interpersonal, power and structural problems. Unfortunately, many social norms yank you into the abyss of dysfunction. Anankelogy identifies three levels of resources for responding or reacting to your painful needs. Only steady access to primary resources can enable you to stay peakfunctional. Primary resource: Something that fully resolves your need, like water for thirst or a trustworthy companion for deeper social connection. Alternate resource: Something that partially eases your need, like coffee for thirst or casual friends for meaningful social connection. Substitute resource: Something that primarily relieves the pain of your unmet need, like alcohol or social media "friends" for social connection. Anankelogy recognizes the problem of more easily accessing alternate or substitute resources. The more easily you find many Facebook friends than cultivate personal friendships, for example, the easier you slide into symfunction and onto dysfunction. Anankelogy has a label for this widespread yet overlooked problem: coerced poor options dependence (or CoPOD). If you cannot readily access highly nutritious food as easily as processed or junk food, you can become easily attached to these less-than-optimal options. If coerced into accepting a court decision as the best yet only available option, you understandably rely on it almost every time you think of suing someone. If you never know a life of steadily accessible primary resources to fully resolve all of your needs, you understandably acclimate to whatever best helps you get by. Despite every good faith effort to make the noblest decisions, this pervasive problem of CoPOD can pull you through symfunction capture and then on down the rabbit hole of painful dysfunction. Dysfunction means you must now prioritize relieving the incredible load of pain you cannot shake off because of problems beyond your control. In our highly individualistic culture, at least in Western societies, you may accept blame for making too many poor personal choices. What if slipping into an addiction is not completely your fault? Need-response dares us to look a little deeper into these complexities of our many problems. Instead of oversimplifying addictions as resulting from poor moral choices, need-response enables you to be more honest by recognizing different levels of human problems. A wellness campaign takes you through all four types of human problems. This need-response service could be the only professional option to help you break free from symfunction capture. One way to know is to explore this option for yourself. And it’s free to start. It's also free to check if a wellness campaign is right for you. Your responsiveness to "symfunction capture" Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Check out what a wellness campaign can do for you. Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact with others and to create your own forum comments. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this functionality category. Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love. Check out recent posts of interest to you. Add a rating to let others know how much of a good read this was for you. Write a comment to give others an independent perspective on this content. Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts. Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love. back-to-top

Problems persist when expecting reality to fit into our convenient binary categories. Take the sick-well binary. Or the right-wrong binary. Or the politically left-right binary. Until we honestly acknowledge the continuum that naturally exists beyond these oversimplifying categories, we will continue to suffer pain, trouble and problems. Anankelogy provides you the nuance overlooked by our many failing institutions. STOCK IMAGE: We've relied on the medical "sick-well" model for so long that we often overlook the stuff in between. Which do you think is more likely? You are either well or sick with little room in between. OR Wellness is a matter of degree between full wellness and full illness. Functionality array overview Peakfunctionality - prioritizing resolving needs Symfunctionality - prioritizing easing needs Dysfunctionality - prioritizing relieving pain Misfunctionality - prioritizing survival Functionality array nuance Peakfunction spectrum Symfunction spectrum Dysfunction spectrum Misfunction spectrum Moving from one functional level to another Functionality array overview Every need you experience only exists so you can function in life. Apart from functioning, there are no needs. The less your needs resolve, the less you can function and the more pain you will suffer. The more your needs resolve, the better you can function and reach more of your potential. Your nuanced needs could care less about those convenient categories and labels heavily trusted by medical professionals. Psychiatry traditionally relied on the medical model. It categorizes you as either sick or not sick. Its disease model threshold between sickness and wellness gets easily muddied. Letting these conventional categories reify, into something we take literally, can ironically contribute to our sickness. If what we need to effectively address dysfunctions like addiction remains overlooked by our conventional categories, then let's replace our black-and-white thinking with something that better appreciates the gradient nature of reality. Anankelogy recognizes a range between full wellness and a lack of wellness. It sees wellness as a level of your ability to function. The more you can function, the more well you are. The less you can function, then the less well you are. Or the sicker you become. Anankelogy identifies four key levels of your ability to function. This illuminates the overlap between full wellness and slipping into a lack of wellness. With this functionality array, anankelogy recognizes four dominant levels of your ability to function in life. Each presents a distinctly different priority. Peakfunctionality - prioritizing the full resolution of needs to fully function. Symfunctionality - prioritizing easing needs with help from others. Dysfunctionality - prioritizing relieving pain from unresolved needs. Misfunctionality - prioritizing survival while overwhelmed with pain. 1. Peakfunctionality You prioritize resolving needs. Your needs fully resolve so you can fully function. You embrace the sharp pain of each alerted need, then that pain fades promptly as such needs fully resolve. This touches on peak experiences and a flow state, and speaks to concepts like wu wei and samādhi. You function at your best, or even better as you stretch your expanding capacities. You reach more and more of your full potential. You thrive. You function in life by sustaining equilibrium. Any causes of pain or desire get promptly answered. Any threats are promptly removed. Depletions get promptly replenished. You can freely focus. All your present needs fully resolve. No pain or desire persists long to distract you. Your mind sits at-rest. You react where appropriate, to promptly resolve needs in routine incidents. You respond properly in novel situations unfamiliar to you, to reflect and learn how best to respect all needs. You quickly recognize what you need to resolve each need. You do not get stuck on oversimplified options. You intuitively resolve needs with the right resources and move on. You function at your peak capacity. For example: Your physical wellbeing. You maintain good eating and exercise habits. You eat to live instead of living to eat. You keep fit. You take good care of your body. You promptly address any ailments. You guard your health from intolerable risks. Your social wellbeing. You feel deeply connected to at least one other person, who knows almost all of your secrets and still loves you. You enjoy knowing that you provide deep meaning for them. You can trust them to support you through any crisis. Your vocational wellbeing. You love what you do and get paid well to do it. Your career provides rich meaning to your purposeful existence. Instead of exhausting you, your work energizes you. You look forward to serving others through your vocation. 2. Symfunctionality You prioritize easing needs. Your needs partially resolve so you can adequately function. You endure the dull pain of your partially resolved needs, which alert you of this ongoing threat to your ability to fully function. This touches on group conformity, herd behavior, and herd mentality. You function at the level your group enables you to function. Your life settles close to equilibrium. Your daily causes of pain or desire are eventually answered. Any threats get slowly removed. Depletions are gradually replenished. You can adequately focus. Some or all your needs do not completely resolve. A minimal level of pain or desire may distract you, but not much. Your mind remains aware. You react to situations the way you learned from others. You respond as others model a response. You usually take your cues from what is socially acceptable. You rely on others to help ease your needs. You risk getting drawn into over­simplified options. At times, you settle for less-than-ideal resources to address your needs. You make it work. You function at a practical level in accordance with others. For example: Your physical wellbeing. You eat what you find reliably accessible. You exercise when you can. You gain some weight and work it off. You easily find whatever weight you lose. You rely increasingly on meds. You’re generally doing okay. Your social wellbeing. You get along with others quite well. You trust your friends accept most things about you. Some secrets you hold as unsafe to share. You rely more on social norms than personal encounters to inform how to respect others. Your vocational wellbeing. You are generally successful on your job. You do what’s expected most of the time. You get along with your coworkers. Your boss can always count on you. You may not love your job but you do value the steady income. 3. Dysfunctionality You prioritize relieving pain. Your needs hardly resolve so you can barely function. You repeatedly suffer the pain of your unresolved needs, since your emotions persist in warning you of threats to your ability to fully or even adequately function. This fits closely to the sociological construct of dysfunction. You cannot fully function if too many of your essential needs remain unresolved. Your life falls into a rut of constant disequilibrium. Threats overwhelm you. Cravings consume you. Pain builds up to intolerable levels. You increasingly feel emotionally paralyzed. You cannot freely focus. Too many disruptions. Too many of your needs remain unresolved. Mounting pain distracts you. You obsess how to escape all this pain. Your mind remains vigilantly alert. You easily overreact. You find it practically impossible to reflectively respond where appropriate. Not while you remain buried in so much pain. You constantly seek what can relieve your pain. Concrete black-and-white thinking becomes your norm. You easily get stuck on oversimplified options. You likely accept any alternative resource, to ease your pain. You function at a significantly diminished level. For example: Your physical wellbeing. You tend to overeat and indulge in a lot of junk food. You likely drink a lot of alcohol. You’ve got more important concerns than whether you’re in shape or not. You look forward to getting high to cope with life’s pain. Your social wellbeing. You get easily angry at others. You seek out friends and family who tolerate your emotional ups and downs. You gravitate toward those also in much pain and like getting high all the time. You generally take more than you give. Your vocational wellbeing. You struggle to find and hold down a job. You hustle to get what you can. Maybe you sell drugs or something you know desired by the kind of company you seek. You’re classified as disabled, and rely on public assistance. 4. Misfunctionality You prioritize survival. Your needs rarely resolve enough for you to function at all. Your emotions warn you that your basic needs remain so unresolved as to severely threaten even your minimal capacity to function in life. This equates closely to pathology, but without the reductive medical model that presumes your problems are primarily internal. Basically, you enter a threshold where you, or part of you, cannot function at all. Your life falls out of balance, where you risk being stuck imbalanced. You may even grow numb to much of your pain. Short of resolving some needs, you cannot escape the overwhelming pain. You reduce it the best you can. You can barely focus. You obsess in survival mode. You feel at risk of permanent and severe damage, even death. Your mind goes into high alarm. You react instantly when triggered. You must. Survival leaves you little if any room for any reflective responses. You must wait for others to respect your intense needs before you can give any sustainable thought to theirs. You feel helpless, and you likely are. Urgency overwhelms you. Any saving option will do. Perhaps even violence. Anything to get you out of this hellhole. If you haven’t already given up hope. You barely can function at all. For example: Your physical wellbeing. You slip into poor eating and drinking habits. You eat and drink mostly to cope with your overwhelming pain. You have no room to even think about your physical health. Especially if you think about ending your life. Your social wellbeing. You likely don’t have any meaningful friends. The closest thing to a reliable friend is a professional counselor. If emotionally volatile, you probably lost connection with most or all of your family and friends. Your vocational wellbeing. You most likely have no job, no career, no vision for your immediate future. Your only job is how you will be able to manage day by day, or hour by hour, or minute by minute. Your number one job is to somehow survive. Functional array nuance We can take this gradient perspective a step further. Each level can be subdivided into its highest, middle and lowest version of itself. Peakfunction spectrum Prioritizing the resolution of needs can mean your own or out of love the prioritizing of other's needs to be resolved. Apex peakfunctionality The top functionality level possible, when promptly resolving needs to optimize life in ways that also maximize other’s ability to resolve their needs, enabling them to also live optimally. Enabling others to more fully function tends to bring returns to your ability to more fully function. Let’s call this love. Mid peakfunctionality A high functionality level when promptly resolving needs to optimize own life in ways that potentially has a positive impact upon the needs of others. Assisting others to function can cultivate some returns to your ability to function. Least peakfunctionality A high functionality level when promptly resolving needs to optimize own life in ways not negatively impacting the needs of others. If slipping into isolation, and rarely contributing to another's ability to function, you risk sliding into the impersonal dependency of symfunctionality. Symfunction spectrum Prioritizing to ease needs with others can have different results. The highest result could fall under "wellness" but not so much the lowest symfunctionality level. Threshold symfunctionality The top functionality level when actions done humanly together contribute to easing human needs without hindering other human needs. For example, driving on the right side of the road in the U.S. Mid symfunctionality A pragmatic functionality level when arbitrary actions done humanly together contribute to easing human needs with some hindrance to other human needs. For example, a terse manager ordering staff to serve a customer.​ Worst symfunctionality A minimal functionality level where arbitrary actions done humanly together contribute to easing human needs mostly by stalling resolution of such needs. For example, structural problems. This can become a gateway to dysfunctionality. Applied anankelogy breaks these down into three stages of "symfunction capture". Symfunction creep: when you drift into only partially resolving your needs. Symfunction strain: when you feel a mounting strain of needs not fully resolved. Symfunction trap: when getting stuck in the mediocrity of partially eased needs. Dysfunction spectrum Prioritizing pain relief could have little to no impact on others nearby, or could have major impacts on others. Threshold dysfunctionality A moderately painfilled functionality level when you start prioritizing relief of unresolved needs in ways that actually limit resolution of such needs. For example, a steady junk food diet. Mid dysfunctionality A significantly painfilled functionality level when you prioritize relieving your pain from unresolved needs with minimal or no negative impact on the needs of others. For example, binge eating junk food. Worst dysfunctionality A severely painfilled functionality level when you prioritize pain relief over resolving anyone’s needs, resulting in significant negative impacts on the needs of others. For example, alcoholism. Misfunction spectrum Prioritizing survival may come with minimal impacts on others, or risk hurting others in some significantly damaging ways. Threshold misfunctionality When unresolved needs result in temporary damage of oneself, with likely negative impacts on others. For example, trauma. Mid misfunctionality When unresolved needs result in long-term or perma­nent damage, lowering ability to function. For example, CPTSD. Worst misfunctionality When unresolved needs result in imminent or imme­diate death, termination of all functioning. For example, suicide ideation. Moving from one functional level to another Sometimes you grow sicker. Other times you get better. Sometimes you cry in pain. Other times you grin with joy. Sometimes you can hardly get out of bed. Other times you find your second wind to perform some amazing feats. Anankelogy provides a window for you to better understand these functional changes you're experiencing. Just when you learned some new terminology, get ready for some more. Anankelogy offers a fresh new understanding largely by labeling what often gets overlooked. Defunctioning is what anankelogy labels when slipping down to a lower functioning level. Refunctioning is what anankelogy labels when rising up to a higher functioning level. Dynamism is the primary word for refunctioning upward, to restore yourself to wellness. Defunctioning depends on which level you slide down to: drift, deviate, or depart. This chart can help explain it best. Dynamism to sustain fuller functioning A cognitive lens for prioritizing the resolution of needs for optimal functioning. This utilizes testable hypotheses of relational knowing. Dynamism seeks better questions to test to replace outmoded assumptions. It embraces ambiguity, welcomes juxtapositions, sees life rich with meaningful paradoxes, remains suspicious of certainty, integrates relevant nuances, embraces life's natural discomforts while experiencing needs, and keeps open a path to fully resolve needs. Dynamism is a key ‘how’ for refunctioning. Peakfunctionality You function at your peak potential, as your fully resolved needs sit at-rest. When peakfunctional, you prioritize resolving needs. Drift from peakfunctionality into symfunctionality A cognitive bias of prioritizing the easing of unresolved needs. The more you compromise for the group, moving toward symfunctional cooperation, the more your unresolved needs compel you to see primarily or only what your unmet needs require you to see. Drift is the initial threshold of defunc­tioning. Symfunctionality You function suitably with others, as your partially resolved needs remain aware. When symfunctional, you prioritize easing needs. Deviation from symfunctionality into dysfunctionality A cognitive distortion for prioritizing relief from grinding pain. The longer your unresolved needs keep you locked in pain, the more you must see what can promise you relief from your mounting pain—even if not quite accurate. Deviation is a more significant form of defunctioning. Dysfunctionality You function painfully, as your chronically unresolved needs shout in alert. When dysfunctional, you prioritize relieving pain. ​Departure from dysfunctionality into misfunctionality A cognitive delusion for prioritizing survival amidst severe damage. The further you sink into survival mode, the more your mind invents possibilities for you to escape painful damage, and to somehow avoid the likelihood of your imminent demise. Departure is the most severe form of defunctioning. Misfunctionality You barely function, as your persistently unmet needs scream continually at alarm. When misfunctional, you prioritize survival. This chart lays out functionality in largely academic anankelogy terms. Later posts aim to illustrate, in more accessible anankelogy language, how you could stray from optimal peakfunctionality into symfunction and onto dysfunction and ultimately misfunction. And the risk stems less from you making poor personal choices, and more from the creeping normality of our many societal imperfections. Your responsiveness to these levels of your functionality Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content. Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact with others and to create your own forum comments. Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this anankelogy category. Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love. Check out recent posts of interest to you. Add a rating below to let others know how much of a good read this was for you. Write a comment below to give others an independent perspective on this content. Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts. Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love. back-to-top

Nature insists on filling a void. Including the many voids within ourselves. And those voids between others and oneself, prompting intimacy. Gender serves as a key dynamic nature uses to compel us toward balance. Author-created animated GIF: click on this GIF to see a still image of it below Which do you generally find most agreeable? Gender differences are all socially constructed. OR Gender differences are created by God. OR Gender organizes our outward and inward attention to attend to our needs. When I came out as trans in the early 1990s, there were still lively discussions about the cause or etiology of transgenderism. What would make someone born in one gender to seek to be the other gender? One idea arose suggesting this could be a gift. Instead of feeling ashamed for not fitting into gender norms, perhaps nature or even God compelled the trans person to move beyond stifling gender norms. That the trans phenomenon was nature's way of filling a void. That idea was swatted down. It seemed to assert trans people are special, when many on the right were complaining how LGBTQ+ people wanted special rights. Other trans folks keep this notion alive , but the dominant narrative emerged that the reason for feeling compelled to transcend one's birth ascribed gender was because of having a different gender identity. I went along with the ride, for survival. But it never fit me fully. You see, at the same time, I was also embracing my indigenous heritage and "Native American" spirituality. Interpreted words did not matter as much as the power of nature to resolve needs. Spirituality as a force of nature For a moment, I flirted with the idea of identifying myself as two-spirit . But that did not fit either. Instead, I now see myself as a " transspirit ": spiritually compelled to transcend stifling norms in order to connect more deeply with life's full potential . This covers not only gender norms but any socially constructed norm congealing into barriers to fully resolving needs. It could be characterized as interspiritual , transcending religious beliefs that compromise full spiritual connection. Yes, think of being trans as spiritual . Wherever social norms impede full spiritual growth, nature compels some to transcend those barriers. Gender perhaps is simply the most salient aspect of this phenomenon. Gender organizes aspects we regard as more masculine or more feminine. Gender differences begin around a seed of natural complementary distinctions. The less mature we become, those subtle differences can solidify into rigid barriers to mature spiritual growth. Gender balancing act Think of the trans experience as countering this imposing solidification of gender norms, and then returning us to reach more of our full potential. What starts with gender drives much deeper into the full spectrum of life. Let's look at a series of complementary gender traits and how they can slip into conflicting extremes. Then see how the trans thing spiritually compels balance to optimize both gender-associated traits. (Click the 'GO' after each listed pairing to dive deeper.) Balancing masculine rationality with feminine emotionality [ GO )] Balancing masculine objectivity with feminine subjectivity [ GO ) Balancing masculine protection with feminine nurturance [ GO ) Balancing masculine independence with feminine dependence [ GO ) Balancing masculine competition with feminine cooperation [ GO ) Balancing masculine riskiness with feminine caution [ GO ) Balancing masculine aggression with feminine passivity [ GO ) Balancing masculine control with feminine complaint [ GO ) Balancing masculine boldness with feminine shyness [ GO ) Balancing masculine decisiveness with feminine reflectiveness [ GO ) Balancing masculine annoyance with feminine anxiety [ GO ) Balancing masculine forcefulness with feminine gracefulness [ GO ) Let's dive into each of these. First, a word about this spiritual dimension. And how spirituaility serves our needs to fully function. Spiritually compelled balance involves gender-associated traits Almost every need involves an inward focus and an outward focus . Your need or water, for example, prompts you to find a source of water outside of yourself , to draw into yourself this natural resource to restore your body's fluid and temperature equilibrium. This lateral inward-outward dimension intersects with a vertical dimension. You're either need-responsive and find water to fully resolve your thirst, or you're feel-reactiv e when gulping down a sweet drink to placate but not fully satisfy your bodily need for water. Gender generally organizes these internal and external components of our experiences. Masculinity generally covers the external or outward emphasis. Femininity generally covers the internal or inward emphasis. And both applies to all. We all experience both sets of these gender-organized qualities. The more your outward and inward foci can blend, the generally more responsive you can be to the needs you encounter—both yours and other's. The more you can properly resolve needs , the more you draw closer to human flourishing. When focusing more on inward than outward, or more on outward than inward, you cannot adequately address your needs. The less your needs resolve, the less you can function and the more you suffer pain. You become prone to vacillate between extremes. You become more feel-reactive than need-responsive . You slip into disconnection. Into mounting pain. Into a debilitating void. Nature seeks to fill the resulting void. Nature propels you toward balance, whether you agree to go along for the right or resist such compulsive balancing with all your might. This compelled integration of these gender-ascribed internal and external directions can be understood as spiritual, as compelling a deeper connection with human potential. Spirituality as a force of nature Anankelogy defines "spiritual" as relating to almost all that exists outside of oneself as connected in some need-impacting way with almost all that exists within oneself . Various thinkers, theologians and faith leaders likely use a more expansive definition, or simpler one. But anankelogy must keep its use of spirituality to what can be empirically measured. While ostensibly subjective, this disciplined understanding of the objective fact of needs utilizes the tools of social science to isolate the more objective components of such phenomenon. For example, a scale to self-report one's degree of experiencing themselves connected "with the universe" could be correlated with their level of resolving such inflexible needs as: "having a sense of purpose in life", "finding meaning in suffering", and "actualizing love as encountering the needs of others as vital as one's own". Anankelogy recognizes nature as a powerful force compelling us to redress such needs. Once evoked , you tend to address your needs within a pattern of gender-ascribed traits. Of your outward and inward attention. These traits either complement or compete, depending how balanced or imbalanced you experience them. Gender holism as a balancing act Nature pulls us with the emotional power of desire and pain to reach more of our full potential for comprehensive wellness. Which anankelogy labels as peakfunctionality . Many inward psychological and outward sociological factors emerge during life to prevent us from sustaining a peakfunctional level. Between social barriers to essential resources and personal habits that neglect resources, we slip into what anankelogy calls symfunctionality . We slide into a lower level of wellness. Accompanied by mounting pain. Too many of us get trapped in what anankelogy calls symfunction capture , which tends to pull us into comforting generalizations. When entertained, these generalities pull us into contrasting extremes. Vacillating between opposing extremes To cope with the never-ending despair, we vacillate between extremes. We gravitate toward the myth that relief can be gained at the other side's expense. Which guarantees we remain imprisoned in pain. Balancing complementary sides Transspirituality melts those barriers to essential resources. With the power of love, which honors the needs of others as our own. Emotional desire to satisfy own wants evolves into desire to see what's best for each other. Where an excessive inward focus for self-interest compromised wellbeing, a complementary outward focus on what others need brings some needed balance. Same with any other gender ascribed trait slipping into clashing sides. Transspirituality insists a balance of both inward and outward foci. Slowly at first. Oscillating toward a balanced center Transspirituality compels balancing these complementary gender traits, to reach more of our potential wellness. An inward focus moves toward an outward focus, to experience more of the rich depths that life has to offer. Frustrations gives way to clarity. Despair melts into joy. Meaningless dissolves into purpose. As wellness improves, pain fades as the threats to wellness slip way. Wholeness can be glimpsed right around the corner. Encountering the holistic center Transspirituality compels wellness, by prioritizing properly resolving needs . Which includes balancing inward and outward foci on access essential resources to resolve needs. Such spiritual compulsion comes with a profound sense of oneness with the whole universe. Whatever I do to another, I intuitively recognize, I ultimately do to myself. The more I love them for who they authentically are, the more I love myself for who I authentically am. Resistance from the conventional minded For those trapped experiencing these gender traits as contradictory, and only encountered during moments of sex, this transcendence of gender norms feels strange. And viscerally unacceptable. Reactive norm enforcers target two kinds of people. Those who violate the law for selfish gain and those who transcend the law for universal gain. I am of the latter. (click the arrow at the left to find how.) I am spiritually compelled to properly resolve needs ahead of considerations of law. Needs exist as objective fact , inflexible to law. Laws exist largely as social facts, flexible to the reality of inflexible needs .   In 1993, while coming out as transgender to Janet, my trans sibling, a young lesbian took curious interest in Janet. If only she could be as boldly open as Janet.   When caught not being home on time by her apparently homophobic mother, this young lesbian fabricated a story of being abducted and assaulted. It would show she was not there on her own accord, although she was. I fully understand her urgency not to be outed as a lesbian to her homophobic parents. I can see how she twisted her parents' homophobia toward her favor. Her claim of being assaulted fed into popular transphobic tropes of the time, especially the one casting LGBTQ aduls as child recruiting predator s .   Learn more about transphobic tropes ... Transphobic tropes are recurring, harmful narratives in media and culture that vilify or mock transgender people. Common tropes include framing trans individuals as deceptive predators, focusing solely on tragic narratives, using cross-dressing for comedy, presenting transition as a joke, or portraying trans characters as mentally ill or violent . www.geekmelange.com  +4 Common Transphobic Tropes and Narratives: The Deceptive Subject:  Trans people are portrayed as engaging in "dishonesty" or fraud, usually involving a hidden, sexualized reveal meant to disgust or humiliate others. The Dangerous/Psycho Villain:  Popularized by movies like Silence of the Lambs  and Psycho , this trope links trans identity with extreme violence, insanity, and murderous intent, often confusing cross-dressing or, in these cases, misogynistic pathology with being transgender. The Tragic Victim/Tragic Existences:  Trans characters are frequently killed off, victims of violent crime, or depicted as having no option but a miserable life, reducing their existence to trauma. The "Tr*nny" or "Shocked Reaction" Trope:  Comedy or drama that uses the existence of a trans person as the punchline, or focuses on the violent, horrified, or vomit-inducing reaction of a cisgender person finding out someone is trans. "Born in the Wrong Body" Narrative:  A limiting trope that suggests all trans people hate their bodies and that transitioning is only about fixing a "broken" body rather than social, legal, or other personal aspects of identity. The "Predator in Restrooms" Fearmongering:  A political trope often referred to as the "trans agenda," which baselessly positions trans people as threats to children or women, particularly in bathrooms, say GLAAD reports. Mockery of Pronouns/Appearance:  Focusing entirely on whether a trans person "passes" or intentionally using incorrect pronouns and names (deadnaming). Trans People Are Mentally Ill:  Characterizing being transgender as merely a mental illness, delusion, or "trend," rather than a valid identity. "They are Indoctrinating Children":  Suggesting that trans visibility is a "coordinated effort" to harm children or influence them , according to GLAAD reports. www.geekmelange.com  +9 These tropes, as discussed by organizations like GLAAD and TransActual , serve to dehumanize, reinforce transphobia, and justify discrimination. GLAAD +2 Ractive norm enforcers then punished me under the guise that I violated the law for selfish sexual gain. This fed their confirmation bias , to not consider alternatives. If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich , and no corroborating evidence is necessary for convicting sexual misconduct , this was a slam dunk.   Any law official failing to identify and address the needs involved risks losing legitimacy. To these defenders of conventionality, life is full of zero-sum games. In any conflict, one must take a side . You're either a winner or a loser to the latest battle. They will more likely seek to relieve pain than remove cause for pain when they do not seek to resolve the underlying needs prompting the pain. Their limited perspective denies them the wisdom to appreciate these balancing dynamics between complementary gender traits. Transgender as compelled gender balance Think of the transgender phenomenon as nature filling the void that occurs when slipping into contradictory gender sides. Wherever the masculine trait is dominant, the feminine trait tends to get neglected. Wherever the feminine trait is dominant, the masculine trait tends to get neglected. Imbalance emerges and often gets normalized. We cannot reach our full human potential without integrating our masculine and feminine qualities. By letting one side dominate to the neglect of the other, we fit neatly into social norms as "men" and as "women" so we can adequately function with each other. Being cisgender is largely "symfunctional". REACT - masculine trait OR feminine trait as dominant - symfunctionality (Sf) The cisgender typically experience sexual attraction to someone of the opposite gender as the key path toward gender trait balance. They remain dependent on the other person to complement their own one-sided gender trait. This is the traditional gender norm . If failing to complement each other, they risk sliding into gendered extremes. Where the masculine trait allows no room for feminine potential, or where the feminine trait excludes space for masculine potential, wellbeing can collapse into dysfunction . OVERREACT - masculine trait OR feminine trait as exclusive - dysfunctionality (Df) As this symfunction  or dysfunction of conflicting gendered sides gets culturally normalized, wellbeing typically declines . Such cisgender may cling to the cultural familiarity of clashing gender sides, further trapping them in dysfunction. Ironically for the transphobic, less is somehow more. To be absent of the opposite gender trait means they can be more of a normal person. This tends to correlate with increased sexual energy to compel them toward gender balance. Which some project onto the trans person they do not adequately understand. RESPOND - masculine trait & feminine trait integrated together - peakfunctionality (Pf) Nature compels the transperson to transcend such arbitrary barriers to full potential, by internally integrating these complementary gender traits. They can independently reach more of their full potential without waiting for another person to "complete" them. Embracing both gender sides can become an exhilarating experience of profound oneness. Such a trans person may be initially compelled by sexual energy, much as the cisgender. But after taking responsibility for this initial sexual pull toward intrinsic gender fullness, they promptly experience a deep sense of peace. Of oneness. Of deep connection. The more the trans person integrates their gender sides into a holistic oneness, the role of sexual energy to compel this union naturally subsides. Cisgender observing this from the familiarity of their own gender disunity may project their own sexualized experience, and misinterpret the trans experience is some kind of sexual expression. Trans are not motivated by sexual desire to "crossdress" as commonly assumed by many cisgender. Rather, the trans person yearns for this peace which they find when integrating both gender traits, toward human peakfunction potential. To resolve more needs to reach greater wellbeing and remove more pain. Let's apply this to a dozen gender pairings. 1. Balancing masculine rationality with feminine emotionality Do you see yourself championing rationality to keep your emotional impulses at bay? Or do you experience yourself as emotionally intelligent, who's wisely in touch with your own feelings? REACT - Sf: rational OR emotional Outward looking rationality sits in tension with inward looking emotionality . Some situations call for more of one than the other. In novel situations, you best stop and reflect before you act. In familiar situations, you can reliably trust your gut feelings. OVERREACT - Df: unemotional OR irrational Whether through lazy thinking, slipping into poor habits, or cut off from what you need, we sometimes overcompensate. We react to cold unemotionality with irrational outbursts. Then squash such irrationality with blunt suppression of our emotions. We go to extreme of either repressing our emotions or acting on our emotions irrationally . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: reasonable & intuitive The more these complementary traits split into contrasting sides, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being reasonable and being intuitive toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being reasonable and not let go of being intuitive . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 2. Balancing masculine objectivity with feminine subjectivity Do you strive to remain or at least appear objective in your pronouncements? Or do you embrace the subjective realm of your personal experiences? REACT - Sf: objective OR subjective Outward looking objectivity sits in tension with inward looking subjectivity . Some situations call for more of one than the other. In novel situations, you best stop and reflect before you act. In familiar situations, you can reliably trust your gut feelings. OVERREACT - Df: intellectualized OR emotionalized When slipping down the rabbit hole of coping behaviors, we sometimes overcompensate. We react to stilted intellectualizing  with emotionally  rich answers. Then rationalize our emotional outbursts with biased arguments. We go to the extreme of either intellectualizing our emotions or emotionalizing our reactions . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: reasoned & sensitive The more these complementary traits split into contrasting sides, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being reasoned  and being sensitive  toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness. Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being objective and not let go of being subjective . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 3. Balancing masculine protection with feminine nurturance Do you seek to fulfill the role of protector of your loved ones? Or do you fit more into a role of being their nurturer ? REACT - Sf: protecting OR nurturing Taking a protective approach may contradict with taking a nurturing approach. Sometimes you must first protect your loved ones from threats. Other times you best nurture your loved ones, so they can develop the capacity to protect themselves. OVERREACT - Df: domineering OR smothering When slipping away from optimal performance, we tend to overcompensate. Our attempt to protect others morphs into dominating over them. Or our attempt to nurture others morphs into smothering them as we invade their personal spaces. We go to the extreme of either dominating over overs  or smothering others . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: safeguarding & cultivating The more these complementary traits split into competing sides, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends safeguarding and cultivating toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being protective and not let go of being nurturing . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 4. Balancing masculine independence with feminine dependence Do you strive for self-sufficiency to maintain your autonomous independence in life? Or do you cultivate meaningful dependence that can enrich your closest social connections in life? REACT - Sf: independent OR dependent On the surface, seeking independence seems at odds with encouraging dependence . Some occasions require you to do things completely on your own. Other times you must count on others for their help or cooperation. OVERREACT - Df: detached OR attached When sliding away from proper responses, we tend to overcompensate. Independence becomes detachment, as we avoid getting too close to others. Or dependence becomes attachment as we cling to closely to others. We go to the extreme of either alienating detachment or infringing attachment . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: trustworthy & trusting The more these corresponding traits diverge into clashing sides, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being trustworthy and being trusting toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being independent and not let go of being dependent . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 5. Balancing masculine competition with feminine cooperation Do you try to compete with others to prove your mettle? Or do you try to negotiate for cooperation among conflicting sides? REACT - Sf: competitive OR cooperative Adopting a competitive outlook ostensibly leaves little room for a cooperative approach. If you must win at all costs, then of course you will try to compete the best you can. If the only way to gain what you need is through others getting their share, then cooperation proves a better course. OVERREACT - Df: cutthroat OR placating When sliding down the path of convenient normality, we may overcompensate. Being competitive becomes a cutthroat attempt to win at any cost. Or being cooperative sinks into placating others without addressing actual concerns. We go to the extreme of either cutthroat competition  or placating negotiation . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: initiative & mutual benefit The more these compatible traits compete with each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being initiative and mutual benefit toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being competitive and not let go of being cooperative . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 6. Balancing masculine riskiness with feminine caution Do you take risks to try to get ahead? Or do you remain cautious to avoid costly mistakes? REACT - Sf: risky OR cautious Taking bold risks pits itself as opposite to playing it safe by remaining cautious . Sometimes you can see you have a good chance to overcome any possible threats. Other times you realize you best proceed cautiously. OVERREACT - Df: reckless OR avoidant When gravitating toward what seems easiest to reach, we tend to overcompensate. Taking informed risks slips into less informed reckless behavior. Or proceeding with caution slips into not proceeding at and then getting stalled in avoidant behavior. We go to extreme of either reckless risk taking or avoidant behaviors . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: courageous & deliberate The more these interrelated traits start to oppose each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being courageous and being deliberate toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being risky and not let go of being cautious . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 7. Balancing masculine aggression with feminine passivity Do you tend to get aggressive when confronted? Or are you prone to remain passive to avoid becoming a target? REACT - Sf: aggressive OR passive Getting aggressive amidst conflicts contrasts with being passive to minimize reactions. if faced with a threat requiring prompt resolution, you may opt for a forceful approach. But if you can slow down and consider the impact of your likely actions, you may prefer a more passive approach. OVERREACT - Df: violent prone OR victim prone When options seem limited, and often are, we tend to overcompensate. Starting out by being aggressive can slip into violent outbursts, targeting others with one's own violence. Starting out by being passive may slip into becoming victim prone, as a target for another's violence. We go to extreme of either being violent prone  or victim prone . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: assertive & durable The more these complementary traits seem oppositional to each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being assertive and being durable toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being aggressive and not let go of being passive . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 8. Balancing masculine control with feminine complaint Do you try to control a troubling situation? Or do you complain about a troubling situation to compel others to act as expected? REACT - Sf: controlling OR complaining Trying to control an unpleasant situation sits at odds with complaining about an unpleasant situation. If you can, you take control of a bad situation. If not, you express your complaint to summon support to address the bad situation. OVERREACT - Df: dictating OR nagging When falling into to the trap of what seems easiest, we may overcompensate. Trying to control a situation slips into trying to control others' behavior, to dictate their actions. Or complaining about a situation slips into coercing others' behavior, to incessantly nag them. We go to extreme of either dictating over overs  or nagging others . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: incentivizing & negotiating The more these interdependent traits impose on each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends incentivizing and negotiating toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being in some control and not let go of being able to complain . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 9. Balancing masculine boldness with feminine shyness Do you assert yourself with boldness in novel situations? Or are you more inclined to stay in the shadows and feel shy in less familiar situations. REACT - Sf: bold OR shy You typically are bold or shy in social situations. When you can be confident, you step forward boldly. When not so confident, you approach shyly. OVERREACT - Df: rude OR inhibited When options seem limited, we may go to extremes. Being acceptably bold turns into being unacceptably rude. Or being socially shy turns into being socially inhibited. We go to extreme of either rudeness  or inhibition . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: audacious & thoughtful The more these compatible traits start to oppose each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being audacious and being thoughtful toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being firm and bold and not let go of being vulnerably shy . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 10. Balancing masculine decisiveness with feminine reflectiveness Are you more decisive when having to promptly choose between different options? Or are you more likely to pause and reflect so you can reliably choose the best option? REACT - Sf: decisive OR reflective You can be decisive and charge ahead or be reflective and improve your chances for a successful outcome. Sometimes you have the facts to make a bold choice. Sometimes you must caution your choice by first collecting vital pieces of information. OVERREACT - Df: rash OR procrastinating When options contract and become less available, we tend to overreact and go to opposing extremes. Being decisive becomes being rash. Being reflective slips into procrastination. We go to extreme of either being rash or procrastinating . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: proactive & attentive The more these contrasting traits contradict each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being proactive and being attentive toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being decisive and not let go of being reflective . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 11. Balancing masculine annoyance with feminine anxiety Do you get easily annoyed by others acting offensively? Or are you more likely to feel anxious about others acting offensively? REACT - Sf: annoyed OR anxious You get annoyed when expecting others to fix the problem but get anxious when expecting yourself to fix the problem. When you have every good reason to demand others to change something, you gravitate toward annoyance. When others have good reason to demand you make the necessary change, you gravitate toward anxiety. OVERREACT - Df: irresponsible OR over-responsible When we cannot access optimal primary resources to resolve our needs, we likely go to readily available extremes. Getting annoyed slides into irresponsible behavior, as we quickly blame others and deny our own agency in our problems. Or getting anxious slides into over-responsible behavior, as we get boxed in by assuming we have more agency over our problems than we honestly have. We go to extreme of either being irresponsible or over-responsible . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: watchful & careful The more these competing traits get pitted against each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being watchful and being careful toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good in some moments to be anxious while not letting go of moments of being annoyed . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. 12. Balancing masculine forcefulness with feminine gracefulness Are you primarily forceful when needing to get something important done on time? Or are you more graceful to be sure what must be done works best with all involved? REACT - Sf: forceful OR graceful You can be forceful when something must be done, or you can be graceful to make room for what is also best for others. If you must act now and can ask questions later, you can be more forceful to fix a problem. If you sense that it is better for you to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission or to push ahead, you tend to be more graceful. OVERREACT - Df: disorderly OR aimless When actual choices dry up, we're prone to go the extremes of more readily available opposing options. When being forceful fails to work, we become disorderly as we overreact to situations getting out of control. Or when being graceful no longer works, we become aimless as we overreact to situations beyond our control. We go to extreme of either being disorderly or aimless . And then miss our life's full potential. RESPOND - Pf: strong & agile The more these balancing traits clash with each other, with mounting tension, the more nature steps in somewhere to fill the void. Transspirituality blends being strong and being agile toward greater wholeness and sustainable wellness.  Click here to dive deeper into this pairing It's good to hold onto being strategically forceful and not let go of being aptly graceful . For the one who integrates both can resolve far more needs, remove more pain, and reach more of life's potential. Gender Holism Recap Gender occurs along a continuum from biologically grounded distinctions to socially constructed gender norms . The more humanity drifts from its potential to blend complementary gender sides, which manifests in divisive social norms, the more nature fills the void. Most will experience this when sexually incentivized to connect with others who can likely complement their own gender side. A few will experience this when spiritually compelled to transcend divisive gendered extremes, toward embracing gender holism. click image to return to the top Most of us initially feel compelled to balance these complementary qualities through a force of nature called sexuality. We find ourselves attracted to those who present some desirable qualities seemingly lacking in ourselves. We connect with them on an intimate level. Their intimate affection permits us to draw out more and more of these hidden qualities within ourselves. We get to know ourselves more fully. We slip less into extremes. We encounter a love that brings us more in touch with our full human potential. Others of us experience a more profound realm of nature compelling such balance. How do I know any of this? Asexual While most organize their lives as either dominantly masculine or dominantly feminine, I as a transspirit am spiritually compelled to continually integrate my masculine and feminine sides into a holistic balance. This blossoms independent of sexual motivation. As such, I do not feel any sexual attraction to a complementary other. Most of us first feel some sexual attraction to someone we find attractive. I never did. I had to first cultivate a deep emotional connection before feeling any arousal toward her. I had to first trust she intimately knew me first. Most people are allosexual , otherwise known as zedsexual . By contrast, I am demisexual . Allosexual attraction (norm) Demisexual attraction (strange) physical attraction -> emotional attraction emotional attraction -> physical attraction Physical intimacy leads to emotional intimacy Emotional intimacy leads to physical intimacy I recognize my unique sexuality, of requiring deep connection prior to desiring any physical intimacy, flows from my gender-transcendent spirituality. I also recognize how this leaves me vulnerable to allosexuals who project their sexual angst onto me. I am not alone. Like the Apostle Paul, I do not burn with any romantic desire toward another. While younger, I was demisexual . I had to first establish an emotional bond grounded in a mutual spiritual connection. That occurred only once, with my then-wife. I have since become fully asexual, with no desire for any sexual partner whatsoever. The deep connection I once enjoyed with my wife was violently disrupted after being falsely accused of transphobic tropes, and then wrongly convicted of a crime that never occurred. Gender norm defenders easily projected their sexual anxieties onto my sexual innocence. Defending divisive norms Overreaction The immaturity of divisive norm defenders manifest in criminal investigations, and subsequent convictions, based in confirmation bias that ignores all evidence of innocence. Worse, it punishes the very one with the spiritually compelled wisdom to resolve needs, remove pain, and restore greater wellbeing on a personal and collective level. Divisive norm defenders intentionally protect what they find familiar, even if that includes normalization of what's unwise and unhealthy for us all. Consequently, they typically knee-jerk oppose the mature direction of transspirituality. They tend to prefer the pain they feel over the discomfort of facing the unknown path to greater yet demanding wellness. Shooting the prophetic messenger Rejected Their fear of the unknown outcasts me. The wisdom I offer that transcends toxic legalism is widely dismissed and patently ignored . Problems needlessly persist. In fact, most reactions to problems reinforce problems . That too gets easily ignored when guarding what's more familiar. Legalists rely on divisive norms expressed in many gender trait extremes. Clashing gender sides tends to be more familiar than gender holism independent of sexual norms. Likewise, settling for pain relief from our unresolved needs tends to be guarded as more familiar and trustworthy than removing such pain by resolving the underlying needs. In short, legalism compromises our full human potential. Solzhenitsyn said as much back in 1978. Transspirituality compels a return to our untapped full potential. By replacing cold laws with the incentives of love, of honoring the needs of others as our own. Perhaps my existence as a need-resolving transspirit gets picked up as a competitive threat to pain-relieving legalists . Perhaps that helps explain why norm defenders, who are now accustomed to compromised wellbeing with pain coping mechanisms, perceive me as a threat. All my life, I have been scapegoated, dismissed, and routinely avoided. My liberating wisdom ignored, regarded as too unfamiliar to take seriously. Others shame me for their own pain, as they somehow blame my invisible fullness for their painful lack of fullness. Rejecting the healer they neeed . Conformity is overrated where love is underperformed . As more of us slip into symfunction that hinders our full potential, a life aspring to full peakfunction potential can seem unacceptably strange. The more emotionally attached to what they find reliably familiar, the less tolerant they tend to be toward those instinctively challenge those norms. They prefer to feel the familiar emotional pain from their dysfunction or symfunction than the less familiar discomfort of disciplined growth. From that perspective, a gifted healer like me must be outcasted. They perceive my gender-transcendence as being less of a person. They view someone like me who exhibits both feminine and masculine qualities as somehow being less. They do not recognize how such gender holism can enable humanity to reach more of its untapped potential. To them, I must be some kind of sexual degenerate. They cannot see beyond their own myopic perspective. They cannot get to the root of their pain, which is unresolved needs . Reacting to their pain with more conformity tends to leave them in more familiar pain. They overlook the benefits of owning both feminine and masculine qualities, independent of sexual encounters. They may even misinterpret me as conventionally transgender, which I am not. I never claimed to have a feminine identify, but a misunderstood spiritual identity. Much of the transgender narrative never accurately fit my gender-transcendent experience. In fact, I no longer think of myself as conventionally transgender. Think of me as "post-transgender" not me, just illustrating a point Post-trans: Trans but not conventionally transgender I am transgender, but not transgender in the conventional sense. I do not identify as having a gender identify different from ascribed at my birth. Rather, I am more like the " two-spirits " of indigenous cultures. Not because I am Oneida by birth. But raised by my Oneida mother who grounded me in appreciating the centrality of nature in life. Indigenous spirituality grounds me to the necessity of balance, including gender balance. Such balance is vital to resolve more needs, to raise more wellbeing and remove more pain. I do not balance gender traits to express a gender identity. Rather, I naturally integrate these complementary sides to reach more of life's full potential. Not merely for me, but for us all. Balance for us all That is why I can unpack politics to spot its roots in a different priority of needs . And recognize the limits in the adversarial approach to seeking justice. Those legalistic approaches fail to effectively address our inflexible needs . We cannot properly resolve needs by pitting us against each other in either a court battle or a ballot contest. Integrating our gender traits enables us to resolve more needs, to reach more of our life's full potential. Which includes our potential to love each other more, to honor each other's needs as we would have the other honor our own. Toward need-resolving holism. Need-resolving holism Gender holism equips me to integrate the four levels of human functionality with left-right political spectrum. Another way to view this integrates the vertical spectrum of nuanced specifics (top) to overgeneralizing exaggerations (bottom). I could go on and cover these in details, but instead I will wrap this up. This is already a lot to take in. If you absorb anything from this article, consider this takeaway. Takeaway (TLDR) Nature compels those like me to transcend contrasting norms that no longer serve, to connect deeply with the untapped human potential in us all. This can seem strange and even unacceptable to many. Especially for those who lack vision to see beyond their legalistic framework. We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them . Including all those overgeneralizing divisive gender norms. We can solve our problems by resolving needs with love , by honoring the needs of others as our own. That's exactly what need-response is for. back-to-top

Use this spreadsheet tool to practice for an initial HR job interview. Work at your own pace. It provides twelve of the most common interview questions. The second page provides you with instructions for utilizing this interactive tool. Each question comes with insight into what the interviewer likely seeks with each question. Click the arrow at the left to see that item's insight and tip into that interview item. 1. Tell me about yourself. Key insight into this question Your self-introduction serves as an icebreaker. It's also a good opportunity to create a strong first impression that you really are the best fit for what they seek. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question The interviewer gets to see if your personality is a good fit for the role, for the team, and for the company. The interviewer typically determines in the first 90 seconds if you will be a good candidate to forward onto the next step in the process. 2. What is your greatest strength? Key insight into this question What soft skill implied in the job description can you demonsrate in an example? That just became your greatest strength to qualify for this job. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question Are they asking for only one or for several strengths? Typically just one. Look for a soft skill that exemplifies what the job description requires. Then give a brief example of you expressing that soft skill as applied to the job description qualification. 3. What is your greatest weakness? Key insight into this question This question is asking you to humbly be honest and admit to something you are still improving. Quickly state the shortcoming then focus more on your progress in this area. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question The interviewer assumes that we all have many imperfections, but choose the one that can demonstrate how you are actively improving yourself. This can demonstrate your problem-solving and other skills. Just be sure not to pick something critical to the job description. 4. What do you know about our company? Key insight into this question The less you know about their product and services, the less reason they have to hire you. Find out as much as you can beforehand. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question They will not be impressed if citing only the basic facts about them. Tell not only what you know but what you like about them. Do you use any of their offerings? Do you love what they are about? Let your passion for them shine through. 5. Where do you see yourself in 3 to 5 years? Key insight into this question This looks at how strong and clear is your vision for your career. The better your career vision, the more likely you will be a good fit for this team. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question Avoid overpromising them your commitment to a future no one can know. Of course, you don't want to say you expect to be working elsewhere in five years, or starting your own business, even if that is likely. Assure them they are central to your current career trajectory. 6. Tell me about your greatest career success. Key insight into this question Share something you have accomplished that the job description particularly seeks. Prioritize what is important to them over what you are most proud of achieving. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question What is something in the job description you have achieved? Share it as a short story. What was the workplace challenge you met? How did you succeed in resolving it? How does it make you a perfect candidate for this position? 7. Tell me about a mistake you made at work and what you learned. Key insight into this question When you learn from your mistakes, you become a better team member. Like a healed bone getting stronger than before, show your strengths through recovering from a mistake. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question The more you drop your guard and show you humanly make mistakes, you build more trust. The more valuable what you learn from the mistake, the better your fit for this new team. Remember to end your example on a positive note. 8. Tell me about a disagreement you had with a colleague and how you handled it. Key insight into this question This looks for your teamwork skills. Everyone has a different opinion sometime, so how do you contribute your unique perspective to the team? What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question This doesn't assume you argued with a coworker. Tell about how you get along with your teammates even when you have a different point of view. Hopefully you are not so "harmonious" that you never contribute your unique perspective. 9. How would your coworkers describe you? Key insight into this question This puts in the third person paraphrasing or quoting your teammates' views of you. It can sound less partial and not risk sounding like you're boasting. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question TIP: Ask your current coworkers for feedback to your current work, then use it to answer this question. They never have to know you are seeking another job. You will sound more certain when quoting their actual words than trying to paraphrase what you think they might say. 10. Why should we hire you? Key insight into this question If you are equally qualified as all the other candidates, what sets you apart as the best pick? What can you offer the others likely cannot? What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question Think about what you offer that other candidates can unlikely offer. What particular experience or qualifications others are not likely to have. Emphasize these qualities with your passion for the opportunity to join this team, this company. You're almost there! 11. Tell me something we should know about you that we didn't think to ask. Key insight into this question Before the interview ends, the interviewer wants you to suggest anything they may have overlooked. Here is your opportunity to shine. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question Standard HR questions could overlook something that makes you especially qualified for this job. HR recognizes it may miss this, so this is an open-ended question for you to share some unique story that can help them decide you are just right for the job. 12. Do you have any questions for me? Key insight into this question Good questions demonstrate how interested you are in the job. You never want to say you have no questions. Let the time run out on the questions you could ask. What the interviewer typically looks for in your answer to this question Prepare at least 3 to 4 questions to ask the interviewer to show your interest. If you only prepare one or two and they answer each in the course of the interview, you do not want to say you have no more questions. Go back to the top and select " Qs to ask interviewer " for some ideas. You then practice your answers in the provided space. Then rate the quality of your answer. First by relevance to the job description. Speak to their needs. Second by authenticity of your answer. Avoid embellishing. Third by how specific is your answer. Generalizations don't sell yourself. Select from the dropdown list to get feedback to the quality of your response. Best : Feedback to an excellent response to this question. Good : Feedback to an acceptable response to this question. Okay : Feedback to a minimal response to this question. Poor : Feedback to an unacceptable response to this question. See this unfold for question 4: Then it provides examples of different quality level response you select from a dropdown list. Best : What an excellent response would look like for that question. Good : What an acceptable response would look like for that question. Okay : What a minimal response would look like for that question. Poor : What an unacceptable response would look like for that question. See here all four example quality levels to a response to question 4: The tool also comes with many other useful tips. This tool features how to use the CAR method for answer behavioral interview questions. You likely are familiar with the STAR method: Situation, Task, Actions, Results. The CAR method keeps it simpler. Every story has a beginning ( C hallenge to set up the story), middle ( A ctions where you're the hero), and satisfying conclusion ( R esults you created). Your short stories can be more compelling when focusing on that middle part, instead of getting bogged down an unnecessary details in the beginning. See an example CAR story on page 6 for each of these 12 in-demand soft skills: leadership skills teamwork skills problem-solving skills customer service skills communication skills interpersonal skills emotional intelligence adaptability skills organizational skills creativity attention to detail work ethic I help my student-clients practice their CAR stories to demonstrate their potential value to the interviewer. The more you practice and finetune your CAR stories, the more you can emotionally impact the interviewer to trust you as the best candidate. You can practice with me in person if you have a Cambly account. I have served hundreds of interviewees on Cambly. Here are some of their testimonials, vouching for how this tool and its emphasis on using their CAR stories has helped them. Perhaps I can help you sell your qualifications to an employer of your choice. Download this tool and see for yourself how you can improve your job interviewing skills. When you cannot find someone to help you practice, this could be your next best thing. You can practice using one of many mock interview websites . You can also practice with me. Interview Prep 1: virtual consultation 20 mins. $25 Interview Prep 2: mock interview 45 mins. $37.50

Emotions objectively convey the objective fact of inflexible needs Objectively speaking Your emotions exist as objective facts. Each emotion conveys  the fact of your current wellbeing.   While the content of your emotions slips into subjectivity, your emotions never lie to you that something is not quite right. Emotions objectively report, however subjectively imprecise, the current status  of your inflexible needs .   Respond or react How you handle each evoked need runs the gamut from illicit to appropriate . If unable to promptly resolve the need, your pain naturally builds . And often tempts you to try to do something less appropriate to ease the mounting discomfort.   You may settle for a lower level of functioning, which feels better than none at all. As an objectively recurring phenomenon.   It takes a village You can properly resolve many of your needs on your own, but not all of them. Other needs you routinely face depend on others’ responsiveness. You can never resolve your need for friendship or for security from dangers, for example, completely on your own.   The less others appropriately respond to such needs, the less you can appropriately resolve them. And the more you slip into painful unwellness. Then it becomes increasingly difficult to respond properly to any of your publicly neglected needs.   Yeah, it hurts Whether you overreact or properly respond to your needs remains independent from the objective reality of your objectively existing needs. Apart from the current state of needs your emotions report, you feel no pain. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain tries to report . No need, then no pain. There is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs  like these.   Your pain warns you that your ability to fully function is under threat. Removing the threat removes the cause for pain, as you get back to full functioning, to full wellness.   If you settle for pain relief without removing the threat prompting such pain, you will always be in pain. Apart from your unresolved inflexible needs , you feel no pain. 20 emotions conveying your objective needs Apart from an inflexible need to connect more deeply with others , you feel no  alienation . Sometimes you need to connect more deeply with others  to fully function. If unable to connect more deeply with others , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling alienated  is subjective, such as how you might connect more deeply with others, the emotion factually reports your objective need to connect more deeply with others . Failing to resolve the need to connect more deeply with others  factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to connect more deeply with others  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for lingering alienation . Apart from an inflexible need to reject some apparent threat , you feel no anger . Sometimes you need to reject some apparent threat to fully function. If unable to remove the apparent threat , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling angry  is subjective, such as how you can remove the threat, the emotion factually reports your objective need to reject something you find unacceptable . Failing to resolve the need to remove what’s unacceptable  factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to reject what is truly unacceptable factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for alarming anger . Apart from an inflexible need to make sense of something , you feel no confusion . Sometimes you need to make sense of something not immediately clear , to fully function. If unable to make sense of something , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling confused  is subjective, such as how you can find clarity, the emotion factually reports your objective need to make sense of something and find clarity . Failing to resolve the need for clarity factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need for clarity  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for unsettling confusion . Apart from an inflexible need to redirect your energies , you feel no depression . Sometimes you need to redirect your energies  to fully function. If unable to redirect your energies to replenish your overextended self , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling depressed  is subjective, such as how you interpret that you cannot do much, the emotion factually reports your objective need to redirect your energies . Failing to resolve the need to redirect energy to refill your emptied tanks factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to redirect energies  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for crushing depression. Apart from an inflexible need to rely upon others , you feel no disappointment . Sometimes you need to rely upon others  to fully function. If unable to rely upon others , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling disappointed is subjective, such as holding unrealistic expectations of others, the emotion factually reports your objective need to rely upon others . Failing to resolve the need to rely dependably upon others factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to rely upon others  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for disconcerting disappointment. Apart from an inflexible need to remove something offensive , you feel no disgust . Sometimes you need to remove something offensive  to fully function. If unable to remove something offensive , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling disgusted  is subjective, such as what you regard as pure and impure, the emotion factually reports your objective need to remove something offensive . Failing to resolve the need to remove whatever is offensive factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to remove whatever is offensive  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for uncomfortable disgust. Apart from an inflexible need to cover something exposed , you feel no embarrassment . Sometimes you need to cover something exposed to function fully. If unable to cover something exposed , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling embarrassed is subjective, such as how you assume others must be shocked by what they find, the emotion factually reports your objective need to cover something vulnerably exposed . Failing to resolve the need to cover something that shouldn’t be exposed factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to cover whatever gets vulnerably exposed  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for disturbing embarrassment. Apart from an inflexible need to handle something menacing , you feel no fear . Sometimes you need to handle something menacing to function fully. If unable to find the courage to handle something menacing , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling afraid or  anxious  is subjective, such as how certain you feel that you must flee, the emotion factually reports your objective need to handle something menacing. Failing to resolve the need to face and handle something menacing factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to face and handle some threat  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for paralyzing fear. Apart from an inflexible need to have things go as planned , you feel no frustration . Sometimes you need to have things go as planned  to fully function. If unable to have things go as planned , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling frustrated  is subjective, such as how things may go more as planned than first perceived, the emotion factually reports your objective need to have things go as planned . Failing to resolve the need to have things go as planned factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to have things go on as planned  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for upsetting frustration . Apart from an inflexible need to adjust to a deep loss , you feel no grief . Sometimes you need to adjust to a deep loss  to fully function. If unable to adjust to a deep loss , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of grieving  is subjective, such as the depth of the loss to which you must somehow adjust, the emotion factually reports your objective need to adjust to a deep loss and find a new sense of meaning . Failing to resolve the need to adjust to the significant loss factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to adjust to a deep loss  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for troubling grief. Apart from an inflexible need to restore your respect for others , you feel no guilt . Sometimes you need to restore your respect for and from others , to fully function. If unable to restore your respect for others , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling guilty  is subjective, such as believing your actions were more offensive than they actually were, the emotion factually reports your objective need to restore your respect for others . Failing to resolve the need to restore your respect for others factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to atone for past offenses  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for further distressing guilt. Apart from an inflexible need to avoid any risk of harm , you feel no insecurity . Sometimes you need to avoid any risk of harm , to fully function. If unable to avoid any risk of harm , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling insecure  is subjective, such as regarding less familiar situations as inherently dangerous, the emotion factually reports your objective need to avoid any risk of harm . Failing to resolve the need to avoid harm factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to avoid any risk of harm  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for worrying insecurity. Apart from an inflexible need to enjoy what another enjoys , you feel no jealousy . Sometimes you need to enjoy what another enjoys , to fully function. If unable to enjoy what another enjoys , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling jealous  is subjective, such as perceiving another’s interest in your partner as flirtatious, the emotion factually reports your objective need to fairly   access what others enjoy . Failing to resolve the need to access what others access factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to enjoy equitably what others enjoy  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for painful jealously. Apart from an inflexible need to connect with someone , you feel no loneliness . Sometimes you need to connect with someone , to fully function. If unable to connect with someone , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling lonely is subjective, such as how you sense no one will want to take any interest in you, the emotion factually reports your objective need to connect with someone . Failing to resolve the need for deeper social connection factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need for meaningful social connection  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for isolating loneliness. Apart from an inflexible need to control your situation , you feel no powerlessness . Sometimes you need to control your situation , to fully function. If unable to control your situation , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling powerless  is subjective, such as downplaying how much impact you really have in the moment, the emotion factually reports your objective need to remain atop your situation . Failing to resolve the need to maintain control over your wellbeing factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to control whatever happens to you in some situation factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for naked powerlessness. Apart from an inflexible need to rethink your actions , you feel no regret . Sometimes you need to rethink your actions , to fully function. If unable to rethink your actions , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling regret  is subjective, such as how you read what could have been, the emotion factually reports your objective need to reconsider your actions . Failing to resolve the need to rethink your actions factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to rethink your impactful actions  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for costly insecurity. Apart from an inflexible need to promptly get something done , you feel no restlessness . Sometimes you need to promptly get something done , to fully function. If unable to promptly get something done , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling restless  is subjective, such as mischaracterizing how long something may actually take, the emotion factually reports your objective need to promptly get something done . Failing to resolve the need to get things done factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to get things done  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for unsettling restlessness. Apart from an inflexible need to deal with some loss , you feel no sadness . Sometimes you need to deal with some loss , to fully function. If unable to deal with some loss , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling sad  is subjective, such as assuming something is permanently lost only to find it later, the emotion factually reports your objective need to deal with some loss . Failing to resolve the need to deal with some loss factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to get through some casual loss  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for discomforting sadness. Apart from an inflexible need to guard your social image , you feel no shame . Sometimes you need to guard your social image , to fully function. If unable to guard your social image , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling shame  is subjective, such as misreading another’s body language as scorn, the emotion factually reports your objective need to guard how others perceive you . Failing to resolve the need to manage your public image factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to guard your social image  factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for worrying shame. Apart from an inflexible need to meet some high expectation , you feel no stress . Sometimes you need to meet some high expectation , to fully function. If unable to meet some high expectation , you cannot fully function as an objective fact. And your wellness suffers.   While the content of feeling stressed  is subjective, such as the high expectations you impose upon yourself, the emotion factually reports your objective need to meet some high expectations.  Failing to resolve the need to meet such expectations factually compromises your wellness.   Promptly resolving your need to reach some noble expectation factually restores your wellness. Which then removes any cause for mounting stress.

Your emotions powerfully convey your needs Episode 2 clip from the Need-Response podcast , with its text below Do you feel others trying to blame you for not fulfilling their needs? Do you feel overwhelmed by all that’s demanded from you now? Do you feel that you must fight to get others to bend their  needs to serve yours? Can anyone change what they need on demand?   Objective fact of your core needs 0:18 Every need exists as an objective fact . Which you subjectively experience only after the fact. Only then do your feelings suggest what you could do to restore your objective functioning. What you then do in response is separate from the objective need itself.   This is the foundational principle establishing the new social science of anankelogy —the study of need. The objective fact of needs allows us to predict many aspects of our needs, and put them under the magnifying glass.   You objectively need water. Your body requires the proper level of water for you to healthily function. The further outside that optimal level, the less you can predictably function. As an objective fact, independent of your awareness.   You objectively need others. Your life cannot continue for long if left completely isolated. The more isolated from those whom your life requires to optimally function, the less well you predictably become.   You objectively need times of solitude. You cannot function well if completely smothered by others imposing on your personal space. The less room to assert your own capabilities, the less you can optimally function. Predictably.   Need direction cycle 1:35 Consider how each of your needs prompt you to move from an uncomfortable red zone  into a green zone  of improved functioning. In a predictable cyclic pattern .     You experience pain  or discomfort whenever something objectively exceeds  an ideal threshold. Apart from perceiving such a threatening excess, you feel no pain.   By removing  whatever is in excess, you feel relief . You can then objectively function better.   When dropping too low, or what your life requires to function gets too depleted , you feel desire . Apart from such depletion, you feel no desires.   By adequately replenishing what your life requires to objectively function, you feel some pleasure . And back around again.   You recognize removing excess and replenishing  what’s depleted are both GOOD . These restore your functioning. Objectively.   You realize depletion and excess  are both BAD . These diminish your functioning. Objectively.   Relate to your discomforts 2:35 There is no such thing as pain or desire apart from unresolved needs .   Consider how this applies to your objective need for fluid balance. You feel discomfort when realizing your bladder is full.   You feel relief when relieving your bladder.   You feel thirsty when your body signals your fluid level has depleted below an optimal level.   You feel quenched after drinking enough water to restore that level.   Now apply this to an emotional need.   Sometimes you feel smothered in a crowd, and seek solitude.   You find relief when finding the free or personal space to be alone.   You suffer feelings of loneliness when completely isolated from others.   You enjoy closeness after befriending others who respond to you.   Sometimes a need only covers half of this cycle. Like when you hurt your hand. And find relief when your hand heals. There is no depletion in the sensation of touch.   Or when you desire self-expression and find pleasure when understood.   All of your needs spin through this cycle.   Painful reality of your unmet needs 3:41 Your every need exists as an objective fact . Every need of others also exists objectively. You can never change what they objectively require to function, so why try?   You cannot choose not to be thirsty, nor can they. Or to not be smothered. Or not to require support from caring others. You cannot refuse to require self-determination, nor can they. You cannot deny your innate necessity to remain secure, nor can they.   We can challenge what we do about such needs. And question how others address such needs, especially if negatively impacting our own. But it is utterly pointless to challenge the needs themselves. We cannot avoid the pain of suffered insecurity. Or evade the persisting desire of hindered self-determination. Not without addressing the objectively existing needs that prompts such pain or desire in us all.   Equal under the sun 4:34 No one’s needs are more important than the objectively existing needs in others. No one’s urgency to remove some painful threat or to fulfill some noble desire exists as more important than similar needs of others.   Anankelogy establishes how all core needs sit equal before nature , by demonstrating how resolving such needs empirically “improves” anyone’s capacity to function, to measurably improve their wellbeing. And how all unresolved needs “reduces” anyone’s capacity to function, in ways that measurably compromise their wellness. Equally applicable to everyone.   Need-response challenges the ethical quandary of obstructing other’s chance to resolve their inflexible needs . Especially those who then exploit any reduced wellness  to serve their own interests—even if such interests appear noble on the surface. Such as offering pain relief without addressing the inflexible need prompting that pain .    Short-term pain relief may be essential to restore focus. But perpetual pain relief risks trapping you in persisting pain by ignoring the inflexible needs such pain exists to report. Opposing others considered the source of your pain also can trap you in more pain, by provoking them into defensiveness to guard their inflexible needs.   A better way 5:54 Instead of opposing each other’s objectively occurring needs, we could first affirm them in each other. Everyone requires security and self-determination, for example, and opposition to such objectively occurring needs predictably provokes mutual defensiveness, predictably prompts pushback—sometimes with violent force—and predictably always fails. Inflexible needs always refuse to “flex”, or change, to suit anyone’s resistance to their objective reality.   Affirm the needs, and only then can we effectively question how that affects our own needs. It’s better to honor the needs of others as one’s own than to provoke mutual defensiveness that predictably prevents resolution of such needs. Then traps you in the pain of our unmet needs, which risks distorting your thinking.   Instead of wasting precious resources preventing each other from resolving their inflexible needs—because we don’t like how they do it—it’s better to support one another to resolve their inflexible needs. And to mutually negotiate how to resolve such needs with minimal negative impacts on one another. It’s best not to try to hold each other down, but to encourage each other to excel and thrive by fully resolving each other’s inflexible needs.   You know, there’s a word for this radically different approach: ‘ love ’ .

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

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

Need-Response: A revolutionary solution to anxiety and depression Video chapters Problem 00:07 Solution 01:04 Mission 01:30 Vision 02:01 Inspiration 02:45 Founder 03:17 Power dynamics 04:29 Pain of unmet needs 05:10 Better than psychotherapy 06:07 Better than law 07:30 Toxic legalism 08:46 Good faith responsiveness 09:58 Hero's journey 10:43 What are the costs? 11:23 Potential applications 12:34 Urgency 13:11 Wellness resistance 14:19 You’re invited 15:48 Steps you can take 16:23 1. The problem                                                        00:07 "Rates of anxiety and depression among U.S. adults, especially younger folks, continues to rise, the latest federal data shows. Nearly 1 in every 5, or 18.2% of adults, reported anxiety issues in 2022. That’s up from 15.6% in 2019.” – US News and World Repor t “The percentage of U.S. adults who report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime has reached 29.0%, nearly 10 percentage points higher than in 2015. The percentage of Americans who currently have or are being treated for depression has also increased, to 17.8%, up about seven points over the same period.” - Gallup “Depression remains prevalent despite many treatment options. A new study  suggests that this ‘ treatment prevalence paradox ’ is rooted in three key issues: misunderstandings about the nature of depression, overstated effectiveness of existing treatments, and poor accessibility to care.” – Mad in America 2. Solution                                                              01:04 Only need-response  can promise to identify and address the source of such rising rates of depression and anxiety: Unresolved needs beyond one’s control. Only need-response understands how you are naturally anxious and depressed when hindered from resolving your vulnerable needs. Only need-response  establishes your needs as objective facts , occurring independent of your emotional awareness. 3. Mission                                                                01:30 Need-response  aims to identify, address and resolve those needs underserved by all other available options. Need-response  equips you to address powerholders and social structures that hinder you from adequately resolving your powerful needs. Which can leave you anxious and depressed. Need-response incentivizes the powerful to improve your wellbeing. Their professional reputation improves when their guided responsive-ness to your power-affected needs results in measurably better outcomes. 4. Vision                                                                  02:01 With your input, the Anankelogy Foundation seeks to create a viable need-responsive service within a year. You’re invited to follow along by listening to a podcast by the same name. You could help us test this new service, if you’re an innovator who’s eager to create what you yourself urgently need. And if you’re willing to risk trying something untested. Together, we can test and refine it, to establish the marketability of this pioneering service within a year or two, refine it as we go along. To professionally serve clients who have nowhere else to turn. To ultimately improve the wellness outcomes of all involved in this service. No other available service accountably  improves your wellbeing. 5. Inspiration                                                           02:45 I was inspired to create need-response  to fill the gap left wide open by the law   and psychotherapy .  Neither can properly appreciate our political differences or faithfully serve our justice needs. Both try to relieve your pain without fully addressing the needs causing you emotional pain like anxiety and depression. The law can only do so much. Psychotherapy primarily looks inward. Politics remain a mess. Activism falls short. We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them . 6. Founder                                                              03:17 My name is Steph, a poster child with all that can go wrong with the law. I’m an asexual trans person who ended up on the lifetime sex offender registry for an assault that never occurred. The accuser could not risk being outed as a lesbian, so concocted a bizarre story of sexual abuse. This all exploded during the sex abuse panic of the 80s and 90s . And when many in the public were convinced that LGBTQ+ adults were child recruiting predators , and when no corroborating evidence   was necessary to convict by those who believed such things . I wish I could reach out to her and affirm her same-sex attraction. I wish I could let her know I understand her desperation to protect herself from being rejected by her family, and to forgive her for ruining my life. But the law hinders such reconciliation and resolution. The law can only do so much. Need-response  prioritizes resolving personal needs over serving impersonal laws. When misapplied, the law does not solve needs but easily provokes more problems. Need-response restores the power of love , of honoring the needs of others as our own . Where careless laws hurt, need-response heals. 7. Power dynamics                                                  04:29 Mostly, need-response  levels the playing field between the powerful and relatively powerless. Need-response  addresses power dynamics. Need-response  serves clients who feel powerless in the face of powerholders who negatively impact their lives. Need-response  identifies each client as the RI : “Reporting Impactee” who is impacted by the relationship more than impacting it. Need-response  identifies powerholders as the AI : “Ascribed Impactor” who impacts the relationship more than impacted by it. Need-response  levels the playing field. Both are treated as humans with inflexible needs . The   more each side can resolve their needs, the more everyone’s wellness improves. 8. Pain of unmet needs                                            05:10 Individuals and systems of power don’t resolve needs simply because they wield significant influence. Or because you rely on them to ease your pain. Despite their best intentions, those in positions of power can easily hurt you .  Only by resolving your needs does your pain go away . Neither the law nor psychotherapy effectively address these sources of your emotional pain of anxiety and depression. If only relieving your pain, they risk permitting your needs to painfully persist . There is no such thing as pain or desire apart from unresolved needs .   Pain is not the problem as much as the unmet needs your pain exists to report . Your objective needs subjectively express themselves in your emotions . Only need-response recognizes how you only experience pain  when your body warns you of some excess  to remove . And you only experience  desire  when your body propels you to replenish something depleted . Only need-response  offers to remove cause for your pain, like anxiety and depression. The cyclic pattern for your objective needs 9. Better than psychotherapy                                  06:07 Need-response  goes further than psychotherapy when unpacking emotions. After identifying each affected feeling, need-response links it to your affected needs. Then distinguishes between what you can do about it and what you can't do about it. Unlike psychotherapy's intent to help you feel better, need-response equips you to address those people and things limiting your ability to fully resolve such needs. What you can't personally do about your unmet needs then shifts into what others can do for you affected needs, and what you can do about theirs. Only need-response  recognizes how you only experience depression when your body warns you of a threat to your wellbeing. You only experience anxiety when your body warns you of a threat of something you sense you’re ill equipped to handle alone. Only need-response  recognizes how you only suffer addiction when unable to replenish what your body requires. So you crave whatever offers you some hope for relief from the natural pain of your unmet needs. Only need-response  investigates each source of your emotional pain. Only need-response equips you to speak truth to power  in a way that incentivizes them to listen to those impacted . need-response's 'impact parity model' Instead of trying to relieve your pain from unmet needs, as the legal process and psychotherapy do, need-response  works to remove cause for your pain . 10. Better than law                                                 07:30   Need-response  inspires you to go beyond legal requirements to proactively support resolving the needs of others, to incentivize them to support resolving your needs. The more each other’s needs resolve, the more you reduce or remove each other’s pain. The law cannot remove your pain. When coldly applied, it can unnecessarily add to your pain. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve . Laws follow needs. Need-response  cuts to the chase by identifying the needs any cited law is expected to serve. And then examines how those needs are actually impacted by those in charge. The more you put flexible laws ahead of your inflexible needs, the greater your risk for anxiety and depression. The more you can prioritize your inflexible needs over flexible laws, the lower your risk for anxiety or depression, or for addictions. I learned to put away my depression by removing threats to my purposeful living. My anxiety evaporated when learning how to handle traumatizing events like the wrongful conviction. I suffer no addictions as I promptly replenish the basics my body requires. All by keeping the role of norms and laws in their proper place. Need-response  seeks to do the same for you. 11. Toxic legalism                                                   08:46 Need-response  specializes in helping you identify a common yet overlooked source of your painful problems: toxic legalism . These are the five primary components of this destructive force. Toxic legalism  is where you put flexible social norms over your inflexible needs. It points to five factors trapping you in pain and despair. 1. Hyper-individuality . Where you blame yourself for things beyond your personal control. 2. Hyperrationality . Where you mask your vulnerabilities under the guard of reasonable sounding arguments. 3. Overgeneralizing . Where you cling to comforting generalities to the point you skip dealing with relevant specifics, which could liberate you from the pain you try to avoid. 4. Avoidance . Where you remain alienated from others in the vain pursuit of avoiding any further pain. Which actually traps you in more pain. And 5. Adversarialism . Where you quickly oppose others with an oppositional stance, instead of engaging them to cultivate mutual understanding and potential support. The legal process and psychotherapy are often guilty of these. Such toxic legalism  fuels your anxiety and depression, and can feed your addictions as you struggle to cope with the pain. 12. Good faith responsiveness                                 09:58 Need-response  counters all five of these toxic factors. It sharpens your ability to respond to the needs of others in good faith. Need-response  is nonadversarial . You exhaust all options of mutuality before taking any oppositional stance. Need-response  is engaging . You get to know each other’s affected needs, and explore what each can honestly do about them. Need-response  is nuanced . You delve into the specifics to resolve needs. Need-response  is boldly honest . You dig down deeper into how you actually experience your needs. Need-response  is holistic . You balance what you need with what other’s need. Need-response  takes you from the ordinary realm of toxic legalism  into this extraordinary realm of greater responsiveness to needs. 13. Hero’s journey                                                  10:43 You likely don’t even realize how you’re now trapped in the ordinary world , with your hand stuck in the monkey trap. Need-response  takes you on the hero’s journey from the ordinary world of quiet misery into the extraordinary world of liberation. The hero's journey in the need-response service You go through 16 distinct steps on this empowering adventure to greater wellness. We craft a story to inspire the public how to create meaningful change. You keep private what you must. After entering the extraordinary realm, we sharpen your skills to resolve needs. You return back to the ordinary world a new person, ready to resolve more needs, remove more pain, and improve wellness. 14. What are the costs?                                           11:23  Improving wellness is need-response ’s bottom line. Providers only get fully paid if your wellness measurably improves. If your baseline of anxiety and depression actually improves. Sessions occur online, one-on-one at first. The first session is free, as a trial period. the five phases of the wellness campaign, each addressing a different layer of a problem The process moves through four to five phases. You gain supporters as the process evolves. Unlike the solo effort of psychotherapy as a private health cost, you attract a team of supporters, who champion your cause to speak truth to power . Your supporters benefit from your gains. They share the costs of the service, as they invest in your wellness improvement journey. No insurance panels to impress. No retainer or expensive legal fees. Along the way, you help powerholders to be more responsive to the needs they impact. You help them become better leaders by holding them accountable to your impacted wellness outcomes. You potentially inspire some to mature as transformative leaders. You support them to alter the social structures to be more responsive to us all. That’s the untapped potential of replacing adversarialism norms with mutual regard for each other’s needs. 15. Potential applications                                        12:34 Consider what this visionary service can do for you. It could potentially solve the problem of political polarization . It could potentially solve the problem of wrongful convictions of the innocent . It could potentially solve the problem of source captured journalism. It could potentially solve the problem of student debt and predatory loans. It could potentially solve the problem of medical debt and unresponsive insurance. It could potentially solve many problems undermining our failing institutions. Or we can soldier on with our painful problems and rely more heavily on addictive pain coping methods . 16. Urgency                                                             13:11 Let me be blunt. Without need-response  or something like it, we’re all screwed. We must do better to respond to each other’s needs, before we slip further into the abyss of dismal despair. We need fewer imposing laws and more grace to fulfill the demands of our existent laws. We need less convincing and more understanding. We need less intellectualizing and more love. It doesn’t take a genius to spread warmth with a smile. Love is the answer, when defining love as honoring the needs of others as our healthier selves would have them honor our own needs . Need-response  rekindles our potential to be more loving to each other. Only the professional service of need-response champions these traits in our sacred texts. Only need-response  specifically addresses the source of many folk’s anxiety and depression, by confronting impersonal power structures. Only need-response  dares to bring elites down to our level, as fellow human beings, to show them how we can improve their effectiveness, and then charge them for the privilege. This merely skims the surface of what  need-response could potentially become. 17. Wellness resistance                                           14:19 Yes, need-response radically departs from some of our established norms. It could easily alarm detractors. Those most invested in the unhealthy status quo may resist, and push back. This vision easily provokes the defenses of those reliant on the familiar status quo. Those who benefit from keeping us pitted against each other, instead of working with each other, may pose a threat. And not even realize it. It sounds so strange, so unlikely to work, and easy to dismiss. Perhaps you prefer to play it safe. As a sacred misfit frequently targeted for not fitting into their imposing norms, like gender stereotypes, I am no stranger to violent pushback. As someone spiritually compelled to transcend divisive norms to resolve  needs, which is called a ‘ transspirit ’, I could not play it safe. I continue to endure blowback for being so radically different. Despite earning several college degrees, and having no other trouble with the law, I remain underemployed and poorly housed. Being wrongly listed as a sex offender left me recently homeless for a year. I will need to count upon others to help build this vision. I’m like Nikola Tesla digging ditches , because Mr. Edison couldn’t appreciate his brilliance. Thomas Edison was too invested in direct current to give Tesla’s visionary alternative a chance. But Westinghouse recognized and invested in Tesla’s vision for alternating current. We’re all better off for adopting Tesla’s vision. 18. You’re invited                                                   15:48 Who will recognize and invest in this alternative to legal services and psychotherapy? Who with the means can help establish this vision for cultivating a world with less anxiety and less depression? Are you a disillusioned lawyer?   Are you a disillusioned psychotherapist?   You could be among the most qualified to become its first service providers, called need-responders . Consider this new visionary service as a better way to serve your clients. Consider its potential for you to earn more income . Consider its potential to boost your professional prestige. 19. Steps you can take                                            16:23 Read the full prospectus  to learn more. Go to AnankelogyFoundation.org and engage others taking interest in this new service. Listen to the Need-Response podcast , starting Wednesday 30th of April 2025, and subscribe if you like what you hear. You can follow for free , getting free progress updates in your inbox. And you can invest as little as $5 each month  to help create this pioneering service. Let us co-create what the world needs now. If we don’t, who will? Let us spread the love we all crave. If we don’t, who will? What to learn more about need-response? Learn more about this new service of need-response by listening to the Need-Response podcast . Episodes each Wednesday, starting 30 April 2025. click this image to go to our podcast page