Search Results

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

Your safest generalization is to love. < Back H01 Love Principle List of all principles Your safest generalization is to love. Image: Pixabay - Mylene2401 (click on meme to see source image) Summary Our understanding of anything naturally begins with a generalized overview. Then we drill down to specifics the more relevant to our needs. Or we latch onto comforting generalizations to ease the pain of our unmet needs. We then trust unsafe generalizations, which dodges the specifics essential to resolve our needs and remove our pain. Love liberates us. Love upholds your innate value to fully resolve your needs. Love inspires us to honor the needs of others as our own. Love remains your go-to generalization to thrive. Description Which do you think is more likely? The higher standard to love one another is merely an aspirational ideal that no one actually meets. OR Loving others simply requires the bold step to honor another’s needs on par or more than our own. Anankelogy Here is where we explore this principle in relation to academic anankelogy. For now, this serves as placeholder text. When I find the time, I will post the full deal here. Need-response Need-response positions itself as the only profession to prioritize platonic love over laws, over medical or cognitive processes, or over anything unable to promise measurably improved wellness outcomes . With the safe generalization of love, we can peel back the popular myth of popgen self-interest. You can replace its inclination toward rationalized selfishness with mutual regard for each other’s affected needs. You can replace its inclination toward rationalized self-righteousness with humbling get to know how each other impacts one another’s inflexible needs . Legalism spurs you to generalize. It prompts you to cling to your assumptions as defensible facts. Which easily pulls you down into painful falsehoods. And trap you in dark caverns of myopia. Love inspires you to be specific. It encourages you to use your initial generalizations as stepping stones to relevant nuance. To step beyond fleeting concerns to see the big picture and embrace the deeper value of us all. Anankelogy recognizes a range from a healthy kind of generalizing to a deeply problematic kind. provisional generalizing – when you recognize your generalities include unidentified specifics, ready to replace them with applicable specifics. popular generalizing (popgen) – when you accept popular generalities as fact, ignoring any disconfirming specifics and rationalizing exceptions to what’s apparently widely supported. relief-generalizing (relief-gen) – when your trusted generalities crystallize into hardened beliefs you rely upon to relieve you of the pain of your unmet needs, trapping you in pain. oversimplification – when you extremely exaggerate, often to the point of believing as indisputable fact the oppositive of what is accurately true. The more you anchor your trusted generalities to the steadfast generalization that all lives possess innate value, the easier it can be to transition from questionable generalities to relevant specifics to more fully resolve needs. Reactive Problem The less your needs resolve, the more drawn to relying on questionable generalizing to cope. Your ability function starts going down. You go from what anankelogy calls “peakfunction” to “symfunction” that compromises your wellness. The less you can function (i.e., the less well you are), the more you opt for alternative that partially eases your needs. Whenever what you specifically need cannot be accessed, you settle for the next best thing. You then slide into what anankelogy identifies as “symfunction capture ” in three gradual steps. Symfunction creep : you go from fully resolving all needs to partially easing some needs. Symfunction strain : you go from partially easing some needs to partially easing most needs. Symfunction trap : you go from partially easing most needs to fully resolving only a few needs. This slippery slope helps to explain how many of us suffer dysfunction . The less your needs can resolve, the more they alert you with emotional and physical pain to compel your attention. We often cope by trusting comforting generalities. When we can full function because our needs resolve more fully, we can recognize most generalities include unseen specifics affecting our lives. As we lose our capacity to function fully because of fewer resolved needs and mounting pain, we start accepting watered down versions as fact. These things must be true, we tell ourselves, so I can avoid further suffering. But the more we cling to our generalizations and miss relevant specifics to resolve our needs, the further we stay in pain of our unresolved needs. It becomes harder to recognize and affirm the innate value of all life when losing confidence in our own value if tied to our ability to function. Responsive Solution Affirming the innate value of another has a way of pulling you out of your shell. When consumed with agony from feeling overwhelmed by your own unmet needs, try doing what you can for what someone else may need. No matter how small. You may find the results refreshingly liberating. You may not have the specifics necessary to make any significant impact. But starting with the generalization that they are worthy of your attention and care brings out the best of humanity. Their appreciation can do wonders for taking a weight off your shoulders. Need-response instills this discipline to first generalize the worthiness of others before trying to call attention to your own. You address others using a format of positive-negative-positive. Positive: You a ffirm the inflexible needs of the other. Negative: You b ring up how their actions affect your needs. Positive: You c lose by pledging to continue this good faith mutual approach. You generalize in both senses of the word. You keep it on the simple side. Skip any complexities. If relevant, save those for later. You apply to another what you apply to all. You apply it to yourself. You show you’re fair. You let the power of love open doors and solve more problems. To resolve more needs. To remove more pain. To restore more wellness. Let love serve as your safest generality. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Not everyone is receptive to my bold offers of kindness, and some mysteriously react in anger. I find it very increasingly difficult to love those who seem unable to honestly love themselves. Life is complicated, so I have to start with my trusted generalizations just to get by. Who’s to say what is a relevant detail and what’s just to distract from what truly matters? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

10 < Back to list A. Character refunction 10 A justice Justice is defined here as resolving needs on par with others resolving their needs. This includes being free from others trying to ease their need at your expense. Or others being free from you easing your needs at their expense. 10 .1 A Need experience Justice only exists to serve needs. The idea of justice as each getting what is deserved, good or bad, easily overlooks the evolution of need . Anankelogic justice occurs when needs fully resolve to enable each to reach their peakfunctional potential. Anything less is at best a mere form of justice. At the root of all violence and at the root of all injustice are unresolved needs. Apart from needs to be resolved fairly, there is no such thing as justice. In contrast to the defunction of justifism , anankelogic justice raises the standard to resolving all needs affected by a challenged interaction. It is not enough to ease the pain of suffered violence, or for the state to strengthen its stance as a paternalistic arbiter of enforcing “law and order .” While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve. Following nature’s impartiality, anankelogic justice addresses any violent interaction provoking justice needs. Resolving underserved social-needs provoked by systemic forms of violence sits equally important as resolving underserved self-needs provoked by interpersonal acts of violence. Personal, interactional and societal functioning depends on equally resolving all affected needs. 10 .2 A Defunctionalizing Info This subsection applies 'relational knowing' statements to illuminate how this defunction relationally lowers your ability to fully function. It is typically framed with more/more or more/less or less/more or less/less associations that can be empirically tested. 10 .3 A Refunctionalizing Info This subsection applies 'relational knowing' statements to illuminate how this defunction could be turned around to raise your ability to function. It also uses more/more or more/less or less/more or less/less associations that can be empirically tested. 10 .4 A Example(s) This subsection offers some examples of this defunction you may observe affecting your life. Usually more than one example is provided. If reading this, there are no examples yet to this defunction. 10 .5 A Associated defunctions This subsection points to similar or applicable defunctions. If reading this, there are no defunctions specifically associated with this defunction. 10 .6 A Relevant refunctions This subsection points to relevant or complementary refunctions. If reading this, there are no relevant defunctions to correlate with this defunction. 10 .7 A Applicable principles This subsection points to those anankelogical principles that aptly apply to this defunction. If reading this, there are no anankelogical principles related specifically to this defunction. 10 .8 A Referenced blog posts This subsection points to those blog entries that relate to, or cite, this particular defunction. If reading this, there are no blog entries yet related specifically to this defunction. Date created: 8/29/23 Type: Date revised: A. Character refunction The more you pursue what is fair for all, the more your needs resolve. There is more to justice than grieving a loss due to violence. Step beyond mere relief to address your needs with others on par with them addressing their needs with you. Hold others accountable who try to ease their needs or wants at your unwelcome expense. While life isn't fair, interactions in relationships are either fair with balanced results or that relationship does not work. Instead of reacting with revenge, embarrass them by responding to their needs better than they respond to yours. Hold both sides to the same standard of conduct for any relation. See how substantive justice resolves more needs. Previous Next Discuss at our Engagement forum

The Unexonerated: innocence profile < Back Terrell Jackson CA Terrell Jackson Estimated innocence score: 83 % Likely innocent when compared to cases already exonerated untested exculpatory DNA evidence lost by investigators Highlights of this wrongful conviction - hung jury at first trial - no criminal past - clear Brady violation - noble cause corrupted investigators Key contributing factors to this wrongful conviction not a factor - minor factor - major factor - central factor 1. Witness misidentification? 2. False confession? 3. Official misconduct? 4. Junk science? 5. Jail informant? 6. Inadequate defense? major factor major factor major factor major factor major factor major factor Other contributing factors How many other of 58 factors? 9 EIF version: E1.1 Click here to view more information at a separate website Click here for documentation to verify this innocence claim Wrongly convicted in CA of: manslaughter Wrongly convicted on September 24, 2001 Sentence: 10–25 years Custody status: prison Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Terrell's compelling innocence Here is where the claimant admits the weak spots in their case. This is the "flip side" to their narrative. They put it out there to show they have nothing to hide. They proactively cultivate trust by being transparent. Nobody's perfect Synopsis This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will have a couple of sentences here that summarizes this compelling case of innocence. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. Summary Accuser's needs Other's needs See claimant's full Estimated Innocence Report Post-Conviction Journey Appeal results Every exonerated person had their case first reviewed by the judicial appeals process. Every time, the panel of judges overlooked the injustice of that miscarriage justice. The appellate process focuses on procedural standards. Is it possible to faithfully follow every procedural norm and still find an innocent person guilty? Yet, this happens much more frequently than many would like to admit. Most innocence projects remain under-resourced. Only a handful of lawyers, and often only law students or paralegals, invest hours going through case documents. They don't always find something that can be reversed in court. They tend to seek something they can trust will have a greater chance of being granted a hearing in court. And has a greater chance for success of a conviction reversal. They could risk their funding streams if championing cases with a harder, or little, chance to prevail in court. So they tend to serve those "low hanging fruit" cases of greater promise for overturning a wrongful conviction. Where does this leave the countless souls who are innocent in prison and beyond, who cannot get an innocence litigator to go to bat for them? That's what this Public Exoneration option is for. Innocence Movement Results Add your name to the petition to support exonerating Terrell Innocence support petition What do you think about this claim of innocence? First, select the innocence claimant "With what I know of the case, I think the claimant is...* First name* Last name* Email* Submit Your first name Your last name Email Based on what I know, I think the claimant is... Submit Thank you for your support. If we get enough supporters, we may launch our own Public Exoneration campaign. Learn more below. tally count Latest tally of feedback to this innocence claim. Clearly guilty 0 Likely guilty 0 Likely innocent 0 Clearly innocent 0 Appellate Process Presents mission creep of prioritizing its institutional needs over the needs of the public. Innocence Project Replicates this mission creep when working exclusively within the adversarial legal process. Public Exoneration Corrects this mission creep by prioritizing needs over institutionalized adversarial legalism. After the adversarial options repeatedly fail, the new professional service of need-response counters with a mutual process that responsibly addresses each other's needs. When hate keeps failing to produce desired outcomes, it's time to try the power of love . Learn more "I am exploring the option to build up a campaign that takes my pursuit for overdue exoneration to the court of public opinion." of Terrell Jackson Follow my Public Exoneration campaign. Consider becoming an active supporter for as little as $4.99 per week. Invest in restoring claimant’s freedom. Invest in yourself. Proxy for innocence claimant: Joanna Carson Public Exoneration progress: 0 How you can help us free Terrell The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. Overview PDI step 1 PDI step 2 PDI step 3 PDI step 1 Demonstrate your innocence Sets a foundation to display your innocence Introduction Preview the 12 questions Solve personal problems Download & complete worksheet Learn More... PDI step 2 Declare your innocence Publicly establishes your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload finished worksheet We distribute it to key recipients Learn More... PDI step 3 Follow up Expand awareness of your innocence Engaging responsive authorities Incentivizing authorities' responses More responsive or reactive Your final answers to the 12 questions Learn More... Overview Is this for you? Prove your innocence without lawyers Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Follow up Learn More... Quickly show how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person by how you’re among the few who took your case to trial. Despite being found guilty, show how you consistently maintained innocence. In the face of certain parole denial, you faithfully stood your ground. This service works primarily for those who have already done their time. But now cannot get a meaningful job or find stable housing. All because of an undeserved felony record. For only a $49.48 one-time fee, establish your innocence with your own record of proven integrity. Let us inform the DA of your demonstrable innocence. We presort your claim of viable innocence for them. No lawyers involved. We incentivize the DA and others to recognize your demonstrated innocence. If they dare refuse, we are ready to appeal to the higher court of public opinion. Failure is not an option. Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link How you can help us free Terrell The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. FIT BASE phase TEAM phase GROW phase GOAL phase BASE phase Set a firm foundation Sets a foundation to display your innocence Leverage your innocence Gain need-responsive skills Solve personal problems Invite peer supporters Learn More... Review your Estimated Innocence Report with your need-responder. Develop strategies to optimize its strengths and address any weaknesses. Together, you craft your dynamic “exoneration plan”. Learn to proactively endure discomforts, to resolve conflicts with authorities, to relate more integrally with reality, and more. Sharpen these skills to later incentivize unresponsive authorities. Get any personal problems out of the way. Improve yourself where you can. Remove any doubt that you are innocent of the conviction. Set the tone for your immanent exoneration. Invite friends and family who believe in your innocence. Learn to show them how they can back your efforts. And how they can attract more backers to support your case of compelling innocence. TEAM phase Build your support team Publicly establishes your innocence Onboard peer supporters to your team Practice your new skills Solve interpersonal problems Invite professional sponsors Learn More... Incentivize your followers to upgrade as supporters and contributors. Show them how they can personally benefit by becoming more centrally involved. Or at least by participating. Guide your contributors to develop the same need-responsive skills you recently sharpened. Invite your supporters to watch, to encourage them to develop these skills on their own. With these new skills, work on any interpersonal problems. Practice solving problems. Demonstrate your capacity to endure discomforts. Publicly validate your innocence. Introduce innocence lawyers and other innocence activists to this alternative to adversarial legalism. Invite then to sponsor your campaign to boost their legitimacy. Incentivize their involvement. GROW phase Engage innocence lawyers Expand awareness of your innocence Leverage your growing support Onboard professional sponsors Learn to solve power problems Practice speaking truth to power Learn More... Let your growing support network publicize your innocence, your testament to human endurance, your readiness to face conflict with respect for each other’s affected needs, and more. Demonstrate these skills to supportive professionals. Incentivize them to improve their responsiveness to neglected needs with such skills. Vouch for their improved responsiveness. Assess the responsiveness of professionals to your compelling case of innocence. Demonstrate how mutual regard for each other’s needs create s better results than legalistic adversarialism. Invite the most supportive professionals to practice these skills with you. Learn to speak the truth of your innocence in ways that authorities will openly listen. GOAL phase Engage the prosecutor Incentivize authorities to exonerate you Hold court of informed public opinion Replace cold adversarialism with love Effectively address structural problems Declare your avowed liberty Learn More... Give the courts every reason to process your innocence claim. Let them compete with the court of public opinion, as your team connects with media outlets to publicize your case. Upend the norms of the adversarial judicial process by demonstrating this more loving approach to solving conflicts. Let your loving character boldly exemplify your innocence. Unpack the imposing social norms that hinder just outcomes. Invite prosecutors, judges and policymakers to shift incentives. Publicly reward just outcomes over conviction rates. Declare your widely supported innocence before a candid world. Let your support network contest the legitimacy of any official resistance to exonerate you. Reward all who do the right thing. FIT Check if it’s a good fit This is a preliminary phase to prepare the way Self -assessment Invite supporters Get prepared Meet your service provider Learn More... Start by checking if this unique service is a good fit for you. Can the innocence claimant lead this effort themselves? Or should they delegate the leading role to another? Spread the costs early by inviting friends and family to back your wellness campaign. For free for them to merely follow. Or $4.99 per week for them to participate. Or $14.99 each week to get hem centrally involved. Get oriented to how this service operates. Connect with others exploring this alternative. Learn how this process takes a pioneering approach toward exoneration. Meet the professional need-responder. First through texting. Then in person online. No financial commitment for the first thirty days. I want to support Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Exonerating Terrell If the public exoneration campaign has already begun, check here at your level of support. Please note that until you join their campaign, none of these will be accessible. Followers, Supporters & Contributors Follow developments of their exoneration campaign. Progress Updates Supporters & Contributors Join the forum actively supporting their exoneration campaign. Exoneration Forum Contributors only Oversee activities contributing to their ultimate exoneration. Executive Committee sample testimonials Tanya Simpson , Claimant's cousin I was skeptical at first. I mean, how can something outside the official process help my cousin? Then I was pleasantly surprised by the amazing results. Jonathan Glenn , Claimant's coworker I always knew that Claimant was fully innocent of all charges. Now I'm glad to be a part of process that can finally help liberate my friend. Daniel Walker , Claimant's father These have been some painful years waiting for the legal process to correct this mess. Thankfully, this alternative is finally helping to bring my child home. < Back Next >

Your feelings serve you, or you serve them. < Back C02 General Principle List of all principles Your feelings serve you, or you serve them. Image: Pixabay - Tama66 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you ignore what your feelings tell you about your needs, the more you become compelled to relieve those persisting feelings. You either consciously address your needs as reported, or you unconsciously react to these feelings in typically unhealthy ways. You either fully resolve your needs to dissolve their underlying feelings, or those pressing feelings persist to manipulate you. Description Which do you think is more likely? You can control your feelings with rational thinking, willpower and mental discipline. OR The better you process your feelings into full awareness, the less you feel you must control them. Anankelogy Your emotions personally convey your needs . The more one of your budding emotions sufficiently and promptly resolves your need without your full awareness, the less you feel that emotion. You instinctively duck when sensing an object hurling toward you, for example, prior to feeling threatened. To be specific, emotions and feelings are not the same thing. Psychology and anankelogy define a feeling as your awareness of an emotion. You can subconsciously experience a need-promoting emotion without consciously feeling it. The opposite extreme often occurs. We often feel an emotion without following through to address and resolve the attending need. Instead of removing the unpleasant threat, we often try to remove the unpleasant feeling. When perceiving a threat—real or imagined, underappreciated or exaggerated—your emotions warn you with a painful emotion. The more you feel powerless to remove the threat, the more you’re inclined to try to avoid the painful warning. But the warning typically persists, soon prompting more pain you prefer to avoid . The more you ignore the reported threat, the less you can function. Which your body warns with increasing pain. You must function. You’re built to continue functioning as long as possible and as much as possible. Your emotions serve your unchosen need to persist in functioning, as well as possible. You either process the unpleasant emotion to identify and satisfy the indicated need, or your body takes over and forces you to act in some way in response to this ignored need. You either let your feelings serve your need for awareness, or you find yourself serving your feelings with some kind of compulsion. Need-response Need-response counters the imbalance sparked by our hyperrationality norms . The more we latch onto comforting beliefs that we can muster up the willpower or reason our way out of a bind, the more we end up serving our feelings instead of letting our feelings serve us. Need-response redirects us from such failed ideas into improving our responsiveness to our “irrational” feelings and their underlying needs. The more we address the needs our emotions convey, the less we get pulled into compulsive behaviors. Responsivism —the belief and practice of responding to emotion-conveyed needs instead of habitually avoiding or opposing our feelings—enables us to resolve more needs. Which can remove cause for pain. And improve wellness. Reactive Problem It’s bad enough when we suppress our feelings on a personal level. But we now normalize our avoidance of uncomfortable feelings with cultural norms. We resort to evasive arguments. We debate more than listen. We oppose more than understand. To avoid the unpleasant discipline of engaging the impactful needs of others, we oppose their needs. We normalize self-righteous denial while dismissing empathy as too much like false equivalency. We pit ourselves against each other in what can be called avoidant adversarialism . Read any news report about recent world events, and you often find a pattern of indulgent side-taking . These incentivize you to serve your fears instead of letting your fears serve you. These goad you to compulsively take a side on some issue instead of supporting the collective wellness or resolving each other’s unchosen needs or unchosen priority . Opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it . Opposing the reality of their needs simply opposes reality. Opposing reality almost always spells trouble. The more you oppose reality, the more reality opposes you. Responsive Solution Responsivism incentivizes us to respond to the needs our emotions and feelings exist to report. And to proactively address the needs of others that our laws exist to serve. Instead of settling for alienation and divisiveness, we then connect more deeply with each other. Together, we transform our alienating norms with engaging mutual respect. A robust wellness campaign cultivates a safe environment to face each other’s feelings, no matter how initially unpleasant. We learn from each other to embrace the overlooked gift of our unpleasant feelings . Need-response offers a free program for stretching your capacity to endure your less pleasant feelings. You replace any habit to avoid feelings like disappointment or anxiety or embarrassment with improved capacity to recognize the need such feelings exist to report. Either on your own or developed along with others. Together, we can learn to distinguish between the unchosen needs that no one can change and the chosen responses that we can, with some discipline, effectively adjust. We can learn to affirm each other’s inflexible needs to earn the trust to address flexible responses, laws and norms. We can learn how to habitually get our feelings to serve our needs instead of feeling like we need to habitually serve our feelings. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Sometimes my feeling hurts way too much to face. Rational thinking still has its place, right? Letting feelings serve you doesn’t mean acting on every feeling. I rarely can tell when I’m suppressing a feeling, it’s such a habit for me now. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

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

Glossary D defunction (n. ) Anything that diminishes one's ability to function fully, compromising their wellness. Opposite to a refunction . disciplined discourse (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] - REFUNCTION A refunction of accountably communicating all the relevant needs in a conflict or situation, by thoroughly challenging any distractions like loaded language , cognitive biases and distortions , formal and informal fallacies , disclosure avoidance, and mischaracterizations, and any applicable defunctions and refunctions . Participants are tasked to "flag" suspected distractions and invite agreement to pause the discussion to remove any identified distractions. drift (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The gradual and often imperceptible change from fully resolving natural needs to only easing such needs. Consequently, optimal functioning shifts to suboptimal functioning, from peakfunction to symfunction . This tends to occur when the means to fully resolve needs persistently declines. See symfunction capture . The shift from symfunction into dysfunction is identified more specifically as deviation . The shift from dysfunction into misfunction is identified as departure . But the simpler language of accessible anankelogy may use “drift” to cover all these shifts into lowered levels of functioning. dynamic relating (n. ) - REFUNCTION Actively relating to the needs and experiences of others instead of relying on assumptions, expectations or impersonal rules. Counters normative alienation . dysfunction (n. ) Level of a person's or entity's ability to function focused on relieving pain from many unresolved needs. Sits above misfunction and below symfunction . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

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

Rights and responsibilities depend on each other. < Back E07 Conflict Principle List of all principles Rights and responsibilities depend on each other. Image: Pixabay - Norm_Bosworth (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you honor your responsibility to respect the needs of others, the more they can honor your right for them to respect your needs. The less you honor their needs, the less they can honor yours. A responsibility speaks to your respect for others. A right speaks to their respect toward you. Wellness is psychosocial. And the standard applied sets the standard replied. Description Which do you think is more likely? You are fully responsible for every facet of your decisions in life. OR Your responsibility can stretch no further than your response-ability. Anankelogy Anankelogy alerts you to a tempting pull to vacillate between extremes. The less your needs resolve, the more prone to seek relief by trying something opposite of what seems to be wrong. You generalize for relief the more you’re in pain from unmet pressing needs. If you feel you’ve indulged too much on your self-needs (e.g., personal freedom, autonomy, privacy), you may react by indulging more of your social needs (e.g., family ties, social acceptance, group cohesion). If you don’t balance the two, you switch one problem for another. The more your indulged self-needs provoke the scorn of others, the more your regret alerts you to the rights of others. You may then feel some guilt for your lapse in responsibility. A right speaks to your responsiveness to their needs. For example, they have a right not to be violated by you. A responsibility speaks to your responsiveness to your own needs. You have a responsibility to attend to your own needs in a way that doesn’t violate others. Need-response Law-based institutions of politics, law enforcement and the judiciary typically fail to appreciate this tension between your rights and your responsibilities. They readily overgeneralize rights over responsibilities in some instances while overgeneralizing responsibilities over rights in other situations. Those institutions take a win-lose approach to offer relief from the pain of your unmet needs. Need-response applies a much higher standard. We take a win-win approach that seeks to resolve each other’s affected needs. The more needs we resolve, the more we remove cause for pain. Need-response drills down to the specific self-needs and social-needs affected in a conflict. Need-response understands how easy we can be pulled into vacillating extremes that traps us in pain. And denies us our full potential. Reactive Problem Law-based institutions benefit when our needs do not fully resolve. Take politics for example. The politician gains by overgeneralizing rights and responsibilities. They stay in power the more we have to rely on these institutions to sort out the painful consequences of our underserved needs. Not that they try to keep us down. It’s a built-in feature of the adversarial law process and not a bug. It buys into the rationalism myth that reduces you and I into rational actors making choices based on rationally created laws. That completely overlooks how our experience of needs drives our behavior much more than law or rational thinking. And that fuels many politicized issues. For example, intersectionality as an academic theory gets castigated when it devolves into what many smear as “oppression Olympics ”. It’s one thing to appreciate complicated forms of historical disadvantage. It’s quite another to be told you must cater to those in the group who’ve claimed they’ve suffered the most marginalization. Intersectionality identifies the unique experience of those with overlapping categories of social disadvantage or advantage. The transwoman of color, for example, encounter forms of discrimination distinct from the forms of discrimination against ciswomen, and against white transwoman. She may not want to be singled out as the one who should speak first. She may not seek to replace one hierarchy (last to be let in) with another (first to speak about painfully experienced forms of oppression). Nor does she want to publicly oppose these allies when allies are few. This critical version of intersectionality, developed by feminist academic Kimberlé Crenshaw , often gets watered down into a “layperson” popgen version . Especially by those most traumatized by such historical discrimination. Trauma survivors gravitate toward relief-generalizing that insists others do whatever would reduce their pain, or reduce risk for further pain. Too often, this excludes removing cause for pain by addressing the needs on all sides. Consequently, each side asserts their rights with less emphasis on their responsibilities. Each side selfishly claims they are right and the other side is completely wrong. Neither side will honestly and humbly engage the exposed needs of the other. If your rights are more important than your responsibilities, you willingly wait for the other to act in your favor. Meanwhile, the academic discipline of descriptive over normative tends to invert into normative over descriptive . Discipline goes out the window on both sides. Little to no empathy is afforded to these traumatized survivors of overlapping discrimination. And little to no empathy is granted to those losing their autonomy when socially pressured to placate the most marginalized in the room. Responsive Solution Need-response identifies the root to this rights-responsibilities tension in your “psychosocial orientation ”. We each routinely resolve more self-needs than social needs, or more social-needs than self-needs. We either enjoy more autonomy and personal space than social acceptance and group inclusion. Or we enjoy more social acceptance and close family ties than autonomy and privacy. You express the priorities of your inward psychosocial orientation through your outward political orientation . You experience an inflexible priority of needs at odds with those of a contrary orientation. The more your self-needs resolve more than your social-needs, the more you gravitate toward liberal or progressive views. You accept how you are uniquely different and seek policies to compel others to accept your social rights for greater inclusion. The more your social-needs resolve more than your self-needs, the more you gravitate toward conservative views. You enjoy close social ties with others and seek policies to guard your personal rights. The less your self-needs or your social needs resolve, the more pain you suffer. Your body continues to warn you with such pain that it cannot fully function until those needs are met. You either resolve those pain-reported needs to remove cause for pain, or you seek relief from pain that usually leaves those needs unresolved to give you more pain. Integrating your responsiveness to the inflexible needs of others (i.e., their rights) with your responsiveness to your own inflexible needs (i.e., your response-ability), enables you to cultivate psychosocial balance . You take the lead to resolve needs to remove cause for pain. Instead of waiting in vain for others to respect your rights, need-response provides you the tool of social love to first honor the rights of others even if they’ve yet to fully honor yours. You remove your exposure to the fickleness of others’ responsiveness so you can more freely balance your rights and responsibilities. The more you can honor the rights of others, the easier to sustain your own responsibilities. The more you keep up with your responsibilities, the easier to sustain honoring the rights of others. When kept out of the clutches of selfish politicking, both work hand in hand. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: I find it impossible to honor the rights of others who completely violate my rights. Can we make a distinction between legitimate responsibilities and fake ones? How can I be more understanding of the other political side when they won’t even listen to me? There’s more to unpack in this issue around intersectionality and identity politics. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

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

The Unexonerated: innocence profile < Back Peter Simpson NY Peter Simpson Estimated innocence score: 75 % Likely innocent when compared to cases already exonerated witness lied to protect the actual perpetrator Highlights of this wrongful conviction - burn patterns were junk science - witness testimony debunked by evidence - key witness lied to police - investigators ignored true motive Key contributing factors to this wrongful conviction not a factor - minor factor - major factor - central factor 1. Witness misidentification? 2. False confession? 3. Official misconduct? 4. Junk science? 5. Jail informant? 6. Inadequate defense? not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor not a factor Other contributing factors How many other of 58 factors? 6 EIF version: E1.1 Click here to view more information at a separate website Click here for documentation to verify this innocence claim Wrongly convicted in NY of: arson Wrongly convicted on March 3, 2006 Sentence: 15–30 years Custody status: transitional housing Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Peter's compelling innocence Here is where the claimant admits the weak spots in their case. This is the "flip side" to their narrative. They put it out there to show they have nothing to hide. They proactively cultivate trust by being transparent. Nobody's perfect Synopsis This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will have a couple of sentences here that summarizes this compelling case of innocence. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. This serves as a placeholder profile. An actual profile will present here in about 2000 characters the story how this wrongful conviction happened. It vies context this compelling case of overlooked innocence. And can suggest what is wrong with our current adversarial legal process to repeatedly neglect this miscarriage of justice. Summary Accuser's needs Other's needs See claimant's full Estimated Innocence Report Post-Conviction Journey Appeal results Every exonerated person had their case first reviewed by the judicial appeals process. Every time, the panel of judges overlooked the injustice of that miscarriage justice. The appellate process focuses on procedural standards. Is it possible to faithfully follow every procedural norm and still find an innocent person guilty? Yet, this happens much more frequently than many would like to admit. Most innocence projects remain under-resourced. Only a handful of lawyers, and often only law students or paralegals, invest hours going through case documents. They don't always find something that can be reversed in court. They tend to seek something they can trust will have a greater chance of being granted a hearing in court. And has a greater chance for success of a conviction reversal. They could risk their funding streams if championing cases with a harder, or little, chance to prevail in court. So they tend to serve those "low hanging fruit" cases of greater promise for overturning a wrongful conviction. Where does this leave the countless souls who are innocent in prison and beyond, who cannot get an innocence litigator to go to bat for them? That's what this Public Exoneration option is for. Innocence Movement Results Add your name to the petition to support exonerating Peter Innocence support petition What do you think about this claim of innocence? First, select the innocence claimant "With what I know of the case, I think the claimant is...* First name* Last name* Email* Submit Your first name Your last name Email Based on what I know, I think the claimant is... Submit Thank you for your support. If we get enough supporters, we may launch our own Public Exoneration campaign. Learn more below. tally count Latest tally of feedback to this innocence claim. Clearly guilty 0 Likely guilty 0 Likely innocent 0 Clearly innocent 0 Appellate Process Presents mission creep of prioritizing its institutional needs over the needs of the public. Innocence Project Replicates this mission creep when working exclusively within the adversarial legal process. Public Exoneration Corrects this mission creep by prioritizing needs over institutionalized adversarial legalism. After the adversarial options repeatedly fail, the new professional service of need-response counters with a mutual process that responsibly addresses each other's needs. When hate keeps failing to produce desired outcomes, it's time to try the power of love . Learn more "I am exploring the option to build up a campaign that takes my pursuit for overdue exoneration to the court of public opinion." of Peter Simpson I am considering a Public Exoneration campaign. Perhaps my proxy and I will follow another campaign and see how it works out for them. Proxy for innocence claimant: Melissa Simpson Public Exoneration progress: 0 How you can help us free Peter The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. Overview PDI step 1 PDI step 2 PDI step 3 PDI step 1 Demonstrate your innocence Sets a foundation to display your innocence Introduction Preview the 12 questions Solve personal problems Download & complete worksheet Learn More... PDI step 2 Declare your innocence Publicly establishes your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload finished worksheet We distribute it to key recipients Learn More... PDI step 3 Follow up Expand awareness of your innocence Engaging responsive authorities Incentivizing authorities' responses More responsive or reactive Your final answers to the 12 questions Learn More... Overview Is this for you? Prove your innocence without lawyers Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Follow up Learn More... Quickly show how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person by how you’re among the few who took your case to trial. Despite being found guilty, show how you consistently maintained innocence. In the face of certain parole denial, you faithfully stood your ground. This service works primarily for those who have already done their time. But now cannot get a meaningful job or find stable housing. All because of an undeserved felony record. For only a $49.48 one-time fee, establish your innocence with your own record of proven integrity. Let us inform the DA of your demonstrable innocence. We presort your claim of viable innocence for them. No lawyers involved. We incentivize the DA and others to recognize your demonstrated innocence. If they dare refuse, we are ready to appeal to the higher court of public opinion. Failure is not an option. Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link How you can help us free Peter The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating him. FIT BASE phase TEAM phase GROW phase GOAL phase BASE phase Set a firm foundation Sets a foundation to display your innocence Leverage your innocence Gain need-responsive skills Solve personal problems Invite peer supporters Learn More... Review your Estimated Innocence Report with your need-responder. Develop strategies to optimize its strengths and address any weaknesses. Together, you craft your dynamic “exoneration plan”. Learn to proactively endure discomforts, to resolve conflicts with authorities, to relate more integrally with reality, and more. Sharpen these skills to later incentivize unresponsive authorities. Get any personal problems out of the way. Improve yourself where you can. Remove any doubt that you are innocent of the conviction. Set the tone for your immanent exoneration. Invite friends and family who believe in your innocence. Learn to show them how they can back your efforts. And how they can attract more backers to support your case of compelling innocence. TEAM phase Build your support team Publicly establishes your innocence Onboard peer supporters to your team Practice your new skills Solve interpersonal problems Invite professional sponsors Learn More... Incentivize your followers to upgrade as supporters and contributors. Show them how they can personally benefit by becoming more centrally involved. Or at least by participating. Guide your contributors to develop the same need-responsive skills you recently sharpened. Invite your supporters to watch, to encourage them to develop these skills on their own. With these new skills, work on any interpersonal problems. Practice solving problems. Demonstrate your capacity to endure discomforts. Publicly validate your innocence. Introduce innocence lawyers and other innocence activists to this alternative to adversarial legalism. Invite then to sponsor your campaign to boost their legitimacy. Incentivize their involvement. GROW phase Engage innocence lawyers Expand awareness of your innocence Leverage your growing support Onboard professional sponsors Learn to solve power problems Practice speaking truth to power Learn More... Let your growing support network publicize your innocence, your testament to human endurance, your readiness to face conflict with respect for each other’s affected needs, and more. Demonstrate these skills to supportive professionals. Incentivize them to improve their responsiveness to neglected needs with such skills. Vouch for their improved responsiveness. Assess the responsiveness of professionals to your compelling case of innocence. Demonstrate how mutual regard for each other’s needs create s better results than legalistic adversarialism. Invite the most supportive professionals to practice these skills with you. Learn to speak the truth of your innocence in ways that authorities will openly listen. GOAL phase Engage the prosecutor Incentivize authorities to exonerate you Hold court of informed public opinion Replace cold adversarialism with love Effectively address structural problems Declare your avowed liberty Learn More... Give the courts every reason to process your innocence claim. Let them compete with the court of public opinion, as your team connects with media outlets to publicize your case. Upend the norms of the adversarial judicial process by demonstrating this more loving approach to solving conflicts. Let your loving character boldly exemplify your innocence. Unpack the imposing social norms that hinder just outcomes. Invite prosecutors, judges and policymakers to shift incentives. Publicly reward just outcomes over conviction rates. Declare your widely supported innocence before a candid world. Let your support network contest the legitimacy of any official resistance to exonerate you. Reward all who do the right thing. FIT Check if it’s a good fit This is a preliminary phase to prepare the way Self -assessment Invite supporters Get prepared Meet your service provider Learn More... Start by checking if this unique service is a good fit for you. Can the innocence claimant lead this effort themselves? Or should they delegate the leading role to another? Spread the costs early by inviting friends and family to back your wellness campaign. For free for them to merely follow. Or $4.99 per week for them to participate. Or $14.99 each week to get hem centrally involved. Get oriented to how this service operates. Connect with others exploring this alternative. Learn how this process takes a pioneering approach toward exoneration. Meet the professional need-responder. First through texting. Then in person online. No financial commitment for the first thirty days. I want to support Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Exonerating Peter If the public exoneration campaign has already begun, check here at your level of support. Please note that until you join their campaign, none of these will be accessible. Followers, Supporters & Contributors Follow developments of their exoneration campaign. Progress Updates Supporters & Contributors Join the forum actively supporting their exoneration campaign. Exoneration Forum Contributors only Oversee activities contributing to their ultimate exoneration. Executive Committee sample testimonials Tanya Simpson , Claimant's cousin I was skeptical at first. I mean, how can something outside the official process help my cousin? Then I was pleasantly surprised by the amazing results. Jonathan Glenn , Claimant's coworker I always knew that Claimant was fully innocent of all charges. Now I'm glad to be a part of process that can finally help liberate my friend. Daniel Walker , Claimant's father These have been some painful years waiting for the legal process to correct this mess. Thankfully, this alternative is finally helping to bring my child home. < Back Next >

Opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it. < Back E02 Conflict Principle List of all principles Opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it. Image: Pixabay – jplenio (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more opposition goes against what the other side inflexibly needs, the more their defensiveness gets naturally provoked. Either side can possibly change what they do about their needs, but neither side can change the needs themselves. That’s impossible. Too often, their provoked defensiveness gets misinterpreted as willful stubbornness. If you cannot change your needs for them, why expect them to change theirs for you? Description Which do you think is more likely? You must take a firm stance against anyone you see as believing or acting wrong. OR The more fervently you oppose others, the more you reinforce their errant beliefs. Anankelogy Your prioritized natural needs exist as an objective fact , prior to your subjective experience of them. Others can have an objective priority of natural needs at odds with yours, even while they experience them subjectively. Neither side can easily change objective facts to fit their subjective experiences. The more you oppose what the other cannot readily change, the more they must dig in their heels. The more you provoke their defenses, and they provoke yours, the more all sides tend to get stuck in the dark of diminished awareness. You easily conflate what they do with what they naturally need. Anankelogy distinguishes between inflexible natural needs and what we flexibly can do about those needs. You can rightly question, challenge and perhaps oppose what others do about their needs. You have a need to report how their actions impact your needs. You fight in vain to resist the natural needs themselves. What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce . The more you push against what they cannot change, the more they naturally push back. They double down. They use your opposition to grow their coalition of support against you and your types. To guard their inflexible priority of needs, they vilify you. T he more you honestly relate to each other’s natural needs, the less you slide into stifling debate . Instead of triggering each other’s defensiveness, you will solve more problems by keeping it safer for each side to drop their guard and be more vulnerably honest. “You catch more flies honey than vinegar.” And who wants to honestly solve a problem while being viciously shot down? Need-response Need-response answers this oppo culture problem with mutual regard . You address the inflexible needs on all sides in a conflict. You learn to shift from popular yet failed selfish approaches to more effectively engage each other. Instead of shutting down awareness of how we came to our current needs, you shine a light on the best path to resolve each other’s affected needs. Rather than stay stuck in pain, you mutually support resolving needs to remove cause for pain. Reactive Problem Anankelogy and its application in need-response identifies this as a problem of what it calls the power delusion . That’s believing it is good to socially pressure others to agree with you. We recognize it as a delusion since all available evidence suggests such coercive behavior typically detracts from resolving needs, which then perpetuates our problems and pain. Many of us prematurely oppose others. Less because we’re truly right and more because we try to avoid the discomfort of exposing our vulnerable needs . Let’s be honest, we oppose those we want to push away. This delusion of coercion includes the problem of oppo culture . Short for "opposition culture", this refers to the set of written and unwritten norms privileging a more antagonistic stance against others with whom disagreed. This intent to quickly oppose others betrays the intent to avoid the discomfort of a disciplined path toward resolving needs . It’s easier to claim another is wrong than to invite them to acknowledge their weak points on par with you admitting you have weak points they could call out. Responsive Solution You’re introduced to the power of mutual regard in a wellness campaign . It works in concert with social love , to temporarily put the needs of others ahead of your own. Mutual respect resolves more needs than mutual defensiveness . Consider how this could dissolve the tensions in polarizing politics. A progressive argues for the reproductive right of the woman not ready to be a mother. A conservative tries to the voice for the voiceless unborn. Oppo culture tends to reinforce each side not being able to address their inflexible needs. Mutual regard opens a meaningful dialogue for each side to better understand and relate to the other. Social love dares to do something for another’s need selflessly. Neither side tries to change the other. They focus more on what can be changed: the way they relate to each other. A wellness campaign can show you how to coordinate your efforts to resolve more needs, remove more pain, and reach more potential. Instead of enflaming conflicts with selfish opposition, you learn to snuff out the fire of painful tensions with the power of love. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: But I can’t let others walk all over me, so sometimes I must take a stance. Right? What if the other side exploits me when I drop my guard? How does this apply to adversarial justice and to oppositional politics? Isn’t there any exception to this, when it’s better to take an immediate stance? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next