Search Results

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

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

A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. < Back A02 Foundational Principle List of all principles A naturally prioritized need is an objective fact. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more something you require to fully function persists unsatisfied, the more your attention will be drawn toward its satisfaction. It matters less whether you believe you must prioritize it. The objective basis of your functioning subconsciously demands you focus on it over less pressing matters. Any subjective beliefs or feelings arrive after the objective fact of your life prioritizing it. The less you attend to your inflexibly prioritized needs, the less you can objectively function. Description Which do you think is more likely? All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by whoever provides the best argument. OR All political and adjudicated conflicts are best resolved by resolving each side’s priority of needs. Anankelogy Not only do your natural needs for water and for companionship exist as objective needs, you objectively need some things more than other things in order to fully function. You prioritize those things necessary for you to objectively function. Independent of your subjective experience, you require water one moment and to relieve yourself in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you try to choose not to drink water when thirsty. You objectively cannot function when ignoring your need to relieve yourself. Independent of your subjective experience, you require companionship in one moment and to be left alone in another moment. You objectively cannot function if you fail to deeply connect with someone who deeply cares about you. You objectively cannot function if you ignore doing more things for yourself for when no one is around. Your need to draw in water and expel waste water is cyclic. Your need to draw closer to others and then pull away sometimes is also cyclic. You can easily relate how your objective priorities can change with the seasons. You experience other priorities of needs that rarely change with the seasons. Your situation can prioritize one set of needs over another. You may find it difficult to relate to others with a sharply different priority of needs. Especially if falsely assuming they choose to need differently. When living in less densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize providing more for yourself without relying too much on public institutions. You gravitate toward conservative values. Conservatism gives outward expression for your inward priority of self-sufficiency that you did not choose. You objectively require less government intrusion to fully function. When residing in more densely populated areas, you objectively prioritize utilizing public institutions more and more. You gravitate toward liberal or even progressive values. Liberalism or progressivism gives you outward expression of your inward priority for social support that you did not choose. You objectively require more government involvement to fully function. Anankelogy instills the discipline that objective priorities shape our political and judicial preferences more than strong arguments. We’re naturally attracted to political or judicial arguments that most align with our objective priorities. We don’t choose our needs; our needs choose us . We best choose to respect each other’s objective priorities of needs. Need-response Need-response challenges the popular yet failing assumption that our political and judicial conflicts are best settle by might. The prevailing argument favoring one side easily ignores the objective priority of needs of the other side. And that sets up the context for the next politicized or adjudicated confrontation. Reactive Problem Current standards assume we resolve conflicts with the best argument. This conveniently ignores how the side with the most resources tends to sound more persuasive, often getting their way. Moreover, the squashed needs of the losing side easily comes back to haunt the coerced settlement . Denouncing violence without addressing the unmet needs fueling that violence tends to fuel more violence. Outwardly, it may appear a politicized or adjudicated issue was settled. Then we wonder why the losing side cannot remain content with the results of our democratic process. Objective needs and objective priorities do not submit to majority vote. Expecting our institutions to change the inflexible reality of each other’s priorities now collapses public trust in those institutions. They can never deliver what many expect if clinging to this notion that the priorities of others can be changed to fit our own priorities. That’s simple a recipe for more violence, visible or invisible. Responsive Solution Need-response raises the bar by first identifying the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities on each side of a conflict. While combative politics and the adversarial judicial process takes the easier win-lose path, need-response can create better outcomes with its win-win approach. Instead of coercing the public to accept one priority of impersonal laws over another to ease pain, need-response helps each side to remove cause for pain by resolving needs each priority of needs more fully. Instead of coercing the plaintiff and defendant to accept one side’s priority over the other, need-response guides each side to melt the conflict and heal any damage with the higher power of love . Need-response brings all sides together to illuminate their inflexible priority of needs. Then incentivizes all sides to find the best way to resolve the inflexible needs by adjusting their flexible side of how they address each other’s needs. Distinguishing between inflexible needs or inflexible priorities and any flexible response to them can be critical to resolving politicized and adjudicated conflicts. The fact our political and judicial institutions overlook this critical distinguish is a key reason why they are failing. The further these institutions pull us away from loving one another, the less reason to trust them to produce good outcomes. Instead of privileging animosity and hate, let’s get back to loving one another. Instead of spurring antagonism and even hate by trying to manipulate others to serve your own priority at the expense of their inflexible priority, need-response dares you to honor their inflexible priority as you would have them honor your inflexible priority. Such love sets our higher moral standard and we must not back down, lest our objective levels of functioning is allowed to decay further. Need-response brings the discipline to honestly engage each other. To identify the inflexible needs on all sides. To stop provoking either side’s animosity toward the other, but instead nurture greater respect for each other’s less visible affected needs and priorities. That’s how targeted institutions can earn the empirically based legitimacy to impact our lives. Any person or institution resisting this higher standard of love risks being marked as pariah. Once marked, they can be held personally and professionally responsible for our rising rates of anxiety, depression, addictions, and suicides. Not to cast them aside but to enforce the tough love that we mean business when avowing to fully resolve needs. Love permits us to do no less. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: How can need-response effectively transform politics and the courts? People are too self-centered for this high-minded approach. How is this love different from romantic love and other kinds of love? How can I distinguish between what’s inflexible and what’s flexible in my own priorities? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

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

< Back Michigan 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

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

There is no good nor bad except for need. < Back C01 General Principle List of all principles There is no good nor bad except for need. Image: Pixabay – 12019 (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you fully satisfy what you need, the more you label this as good. The less you resolve a need to the point you’re left in some degree of discomfort, the more you characterize this as bad. Anything you ascribe as good points back to what helps you function. Anything you ascribe as bad painfully detracts from your ability to function. Judgments of good or bad apply only to what we do about our needs, never the objective fact of the needs themselves. If no bearing on your needs, then no moralizing. Description Which do you think is more likely? Any judgment of good or bad is always subjective and arbitrary. OR Good and bad can be linked to the objective facts or our needs. Anankelogy While morality has its arbitrary side, anankelogy recognizes it also includes an objective dimension . For example, while you choose how to react to feeling threatened in a conflict, your life objectively requires to remove any actual threat to your ability to fully function. You do not choose to have your defenses painfully provoked, only how you interpret and act upon your triggered defensiveness. Anankelogy distinguishes between the objective fact of unchosen needs and our subjective chosen responses to such needs. It calls this moral distinction . While we can disagree about how to morally respond to our needs, there is no point in disagreeing with the objective phenomena of the needs themselves. If I tell you that I am thirsty, or must find my own purpose to excel at my job, it remains pointless for you or anyone to disagree. These needs exist amorally. The morality judging things as good or made serves as code for need, in more ways than one. First, in the obvious sense that morality outlines a code of conduct to guide our need-impacting behaviors. Second, in the less obvious sense that moralitysymbolically represents what you and I require to function, personally and interpersonally. And more specifically to what we choose to act toward each other’s unchosen needs. Labeling something as good categorizes it as beneficial to our needs, and to our capacity to function. Good friends provide for our objective need for social support, for companionship. A good road provides for our need to get us to our destination. A good private space provides for our need for solitude. Apart from such needs, there is little to categorize as good or bad. Yes, we often regard something as “good” or “bad” in a purely aesthetic sense. “Good food” may taste great but not necessarily good for you. Our aesthetics serves our need for appreciation, for beauty and potentially for meaningfulness. The more something appeals to us, and we view it as good, the more it satisfies some emotional need. What satisfies one need may be less satisfactory to another. Bad food may be stale, for example, but still sufficiently nutritious. Anytime we label something as bad , we are categorizing it as objectionable to our needs and to our capacity to function. A bad friend is one who betrays you. A road full of potholes that could damage your car you naturally regard as bad. A private space easily invaded is not so good, or maybe even bad for your need for solitude. After all, you didn’t choose to have these needs . If every core need exists as an objective fact , then anankelogy suggests there is an objective side to morality . The less you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively declines. Bad. The less you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively declines. The more you can resolve your objective needs, the more your capacity to function objectively improves. Need-response Need-response clears up a lot of moral relativism. Morality is relative to the absolute of unchosen needs . You can adjust what you do about your needs, and others can change what they do or don’t do in response to your apparent needs. But no one can relativize the natural needs themselves. When anyone compromises your need for self-efficacy , for example, your wellness suffers independent of your subjective awareness of the experience. The less you can freely do for yourself, the less you can fully function. Your body then warns you of this diminished level of functioning in the form of emotional pain. Your pain subjectively follows the objective drop in your ability to fully function. Existentialism reminds us that we have far more choices than often assumed. But apply this only to our chosen responses to our unchosen needs . Once the objective fact of a need occurs, it is then too late to circumscribe it with moral options. Reactive Problem The more we assume others can change what they need to suit our own expectations, especially if coercing them to suppress their needs to honor ours, the more their capacity to function will objectively decrease. Anankelogy recognizes this conflating of unchosen needs with chosen responses as moral conflation . The less they can fully function, the less they can capably honor our needs. The more one pressures another to respect one’s own needs, in the name of what one deems as “good”, the less capable the other can respect that need. This easily leads to anger, to a risk of emotional abuse, and sometimes results in violence. The more you rationalize your need to defend yourself at any cost, for example, the more you easily overlook the other side’s inflexible need to defend themselves. This applies also to wars between nations or between different ethnic peoples. The selfish standard applied gets easily replied in return, easily inciting cycles of violence that blinds each side to the other side’s inflexible needs . When failing to first affirm another’s unchosen needs when confronting their actions affecting your own needs, you risk provoking their pain. They naturally dig in their heels when you trigger their defenses over something then cannot possibly change. Just as you naturally get defensive when confronted by another. Anankelogy recognizes this rush to label something good or bad as a component in need-response conflation or moral conflation . That’s when you assume unchosen needs and chosen responses are the same thing. The more you provoke mutual defensiveness with such self-serving moral stances, the more you easily provoke pain that all would prefer to avoid . Once you go down that pain-normalizing path, you tend to moralize pain as bad . Your “good” sinks to the level of avoiding pain more than resolving the needs causing your pain . Your “bad” sinks to the level of suffering the pain your own behavior provokes. You sink to the level of discomfort avoidance that traps you in painfully diminished levels of functioning . Responsive Solution Need-response carefully distinguishes between your unchosen needs and anyone’s chosen responses to them. This can help you deescalate many conflicts. The more you affirm another’s unchosen needs before you bring up their chosen behaviors, the less you get yourself in trouble. Need-response offers a simple communication format for this. You may recognize it as the “praise sandwich ” that sandwiches the “bad news” of how they negatively affect your needs between two pieces of “good news”. Consider this example: Good news : “I affirm your need for self-determination, and prefer to avoid doing anything that could restrict your right to choose your own destiny to reach your life’s full potential.” Bad news : “However, I must point out how your recent actions can threaten my security. I don’t see how you can reach your full potential while limiting mine.” Good news : “I will assume you mean no harm. I trust you intend to do your best, and together we can find ways to mutually respect each other’s affected needs. Thank you.” This praise sandwich approach points to the anankelogy principle that wellness is psychosocial . Modern frameworks tend to reduce wellness to its internal biological and cognitive elements . This needlessly stigmatizes those requiring support after suffering damage from socioenvironmental threats to their wellbeing. Research now exposes the oft-overlooked harm of our norms of hyper-individualism . Watered down philosophies of existentialism allow the powerful to blame the relatively powerless for the threats and suffered harms these powerful folks repeatedly cause. While you individually experience the bad of such threats and harms, it is not entirely good to expect you to do all the therapeutic changes. Especially if those bad socio-environmental threats keep damaging your wellbeing. Need-response exist to address such external contributors to your wellbeing. Instead of relying on alienating norms that pits us against each other, or assumes powerholders are inherently bad , need-response addresses the unchosen needs on all sides. Need-response provides you the tools of responsivism , to cut through alienating norms to incentivize others to support your wellness needs. You can then challenge the “bad” of unresolved needs with the increasing “good” of resolving more needs, reducing and even removing the cause of pain, and restoring more wellness. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Can a need be “bad” because it only occurred from a bad behavior? Good tasting food can be bad for you, so maybe it’s how we used those labels. Good and bad remains distinct from right and wrong, so how does that apply to all this? My good could be your bad, and that relative side of morality is not covered here. Relieving pain feels good, but you’re saying that this is not actually all that good? 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

vulnerability avoidance vulnerability avoidance < Back 4 vulnerability avoidance Vulnerability avoidance is the persistent evasion of dropping your guard with others close to you, typically out of fear or rejection and often a consequence of normative alienation , nomoscentricity , pistiscentricity and other defunctions . Need experience Defunctionalizing Refunctionalizing Examples Relational knowing Sign up or sign in to view the full entry Complementary refunctions 6/16/23 Previous Next

Natural needs never clash with each other. < Back C05 General Principle List of all principles Natural needs never clash with each other. Image: Pixabay - Darkmoon_Art (click on meme to see source image) Summary Every core need exists independently of any other core need. For example, your need for friendship in one moment does not oppose your need for solitude in a different moment. Your inner core needs do not contradict the inner core needs of others. Their need for you to support them, for example, exists apart from your need to be left alone. Each core need for functioning occurs without regard or influence on other core needs. Only the chosen responses to such needs can come into conflict with each other. The unchosen needs themselves always remain distinct. Description Which do you think is more likely? Some needs cannot be legitimate since they cannot be resolved with what’s available. OR The necessity to function always occurs without regard for what it requires to function. Anankelogy No unchosen need clashes with another unchosen need . Every natural need exists within the functioning individual. It is impossible for the inner reality of any need to compete against the inner reality of a different need. In the pain of the moment from an unresolved need, we can judge too quickly that some need cannot be addressed because of another need requiring the same limited resource. But this shifts from natural needs to a chosen response to such needs. In the language of anankelogy, core needs do not clash, while resource needs might clash, and access needs for that resource clash all the time. But the inner homeostatic imbalance experienced as a core need always occurs without regard to any outward resource. Sure, the right resource can resolve the need so you no longer feel it. But the inner reality of that need does not wait on what resource you use to pacify it. Anankelogy recognizes how every inward requirement to function exists independent of every other inward requirement to function. Need-response Need-response meticulously distinguishes between unchosen needs and chosen responses to those needs. The more you expect others to adjust something they cannot change, the further you drag yourself needlessly into a conflict. No unchosen need clashes with other unchosen needs . Keep proper focus of any dispute or disagreement exclusively on chosen responses to such needs. Or risk provoking more problems and pain. Reactive Problem Need-response identifies the widespread problem of what it calls need-response conflation . That’s when we fail to distinguish between inflexible natural needs or unchosen needs and flexible or chosen responses to them. Most conflicts and most wars between groups or nations involve this problem of need-response conflation . You can see this in commentary about the Hamas-Israeli conflict . Emotionally charged pundits claim it is a false moral equivalency to compare the deaths of Israeli citizens by Hamas attackers with the deaths of Palestinian civilians from the IDF ’s reaction. We can question the actions of either side. But cannot legitimately questions the inner needs that prompted such behavior. Many influential people show themselves complicit in overlooking this vital difference between reacting to unresolved needs and the objective fact of the needs themselves that cannot be easily changed. Too many misapply the critique of “bothsidesism ” or false balance by conflating unchosen needs with chosen responses . That easily leads to double standards, hypocrisy and selfish rationalizing. You can spot this problem of conflation when indulgent side-takin g replaces any empathy for each other’s unchosen needs . Responsive Solution Anankelogy cuts through the myopic arguments on either side, about human shields or colonizing occupiers , to first affirm the unchosen needs on all sides. Anankelogy affirms all life as morally equal in value. Any civilian death on one side is equally abhorrent as any civilian death on the other side . Indeed, anankelogy asserts that any loss of life in a violent conflict is objectively equivalent. Individuals of either side experience the same inflexible needs . Both Israelis and Palestinians do not choose to require freedom from harm to fully function. Both Hamas-represented Palestinians and Likud -represented Israelis naturally need security and self-determination . Each side can choose how to respond to those needs. But no one can choose to have or not have the needs themselves. Have you ever tried to stop needing any security? Or tried to no longer require the freedom to determine your own destiny? As you would have others affirm your unchosen needs in a conflict, need-response encourages you affirm the unchosen needs of those you oppose. Opposing what another inflexibly needs does not extinguish a moral conflict, but risks enflaming it . You don’t choose your needs; your needs choose you . Need-response applies the familiar business communication format of the “praise sandwich ” to ensure this distinction is made in a conflict. Positive news : Affirm any identifiable unchosen needs. “I recognize how you must follow the rules to avoid rejection from your boss.” Negative news : Bring up how their chosen responses affect your unchosen needs. “I need you to see how your apparent misapplication of the rules could cost me my job.” Positive news : Continue building rapport for mutual understanding. “The more you respect my need for job security, the easier it can be for me to preserve your acceptance by your boss.” When faithfully applied, you can recast almost any conflict from an obstacle into an ownable challenge. And turn almost any conflict from such a challenge into a growth opportunity. The more you affirm the unchosen needs of others, the more inclined they will be to affirm yours. You should then be able to observe a decline in animosities, and a flowering of more peace and love . Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: Is seems possible and sometimes likely to confuse a chosen response with its unchosen need. How can we get elites and influential powerholders to appreciates this difference? I’m sure there’s a lot more that sparks conflicts that this need-response conflation. It seems my actions could change an unchosen needs, adding an element of choice. 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

All natural needs sit equal before nature. < Back C06 General Principle List of all principles All natural needs sit equal before nature. Image: Pixabay – jameswheeler (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more someone needs some core need to function, like maintaining their optimal body temperature, the more someone else needs something just as important in order to function. The more the spider requires food from the captured fly, the more the captured fly must try to break free from the web. No one’s natural core needs matters more than the natura core needs of others. Description Which makes more sense to you? The natural needs of some matter more than the needs of others. OR Natural needs exist as objective facts equally among everybody. Anankelogy My need to stop the bleeding from a laceration I just suffered is no more important than my neighbor’s need to quench their thirst. Both natural needs must be resolved in order to function. Lack of water objectively reduces function on par with a wound objectively reducing function. Granted, stopping the bleeding feels far more urgent than a need to gulp down a glass of water. But urgency only suggests the need must be met promptly. It doesn’t mean it’s more important than a less urgent need. Individual functionality is not so easily zero sum. For example, the fly caught in the spider’s web needs to break free from that web on par with the spider’s need for nutrition from that captured fly. Survival seems more urgent than merely a meal. But flies remain far more numerous than spiders. While zero sum in appearance, functionality at the level of the species is not so zero sum. In the larger scheme of nature, the spider’s need to survive by eating the captured fly sits equal with the fly’s need to survive by breaking free from the spider’s web. Each other’s needs resolve and evolve to eventually balance out equally. The more we ignore this principle, the easier we fall into trouble. We fight each other to try to force others to need differently. But reality never yields to our feel-reactive preferences. The more we recognize the equal stature of one another’s natural needs, the more we can all reach more of life’s missed potential. Need-response Judging from appearances, the more you experience your needs subjectively, the more you should be able to change how you experience them. With anankelogy distinguishing between the objective functionality of needs and the later subjective reporting of such diminished functionality, need-response adds a level of discipline missing in all other disciplines. Reactive Problem If public policy shaped by our politics and the judiciary assumes some natural needs exist more important than other natural needs , we quickly get ourselves into trouble. The objective need to function exists and persists on all sides to any conflict. Sure, we can favor one side over another in some kind of legal or political settlement. But to expect the losing side to not suffer pain or any consequential problems is simply wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law . Neglecting this innate equality of natural needs sparks all kinds of problems. Unfortunately, most institutions fail to enable us to resolve our different priority of needs . Responsive Solution Need-response provides a process to address each other’s different priority of needs. Need-response distinguishes between the needs themselves and what we can do about them. Need-response applies the higher moral standard of mutual regard and social love . mutual regard – considering the natural needs of others as equally important as your own, because they objectively are. social love – putting another’s need ahead of your own for a moment, to inspire them to put your need ahead of theirs. We must not confuse or conflate our objective difference in priorities with arbitrary favoritism of some folk’s needs over others. Your natural priority of needs exists as an objective fact for your functioning on par with my priority of needs, even if those priorities contradict. If I naturally require less government involvement in my rural community life, my unchosen priority exists on par with the suburbanite requiring more government supports. If I naturally require more government supports, my unchosen priority exists on par with those requiring less government involvement. The more we stop fighting with the power of nature to restore each to full functioning, the less we slip into trouble. The more we support each other to resolve needs, with minimal to no impediment to resolving our own needs, the better we all can be. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: How can my need to stop a war from killing all my friends be equal to the other side’s needs? What’s the best way to distinguish between urgency and a natural priority of a need? What can I do about authorities imposing their needs ahead of my own? Is there anything I can do to resolve my needs if others keep prioritizing theirs at my expense? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

Glossary S self-need (n. ) A necessity for functioning on one’s own without any intrusion from others, specifically for things one can provide solely for oneself. Covers the internal side of one’s psychosocial wellbeing. Contrasts with and complements social needs . autonomy authenticity independence initiative internalized incentive personal freedom personal security privacy resilience self-acceptance self-determination self-efficacy self-expression self-purpose self-responsibility self-secure self-sufficiency self-worth uniqueness social love (n. ) - REFUNCTION The act of prioritizing a desirable response to another's need as being as important or more important than one's own need(s), at least in the moment, to set the inspiring standard for others to prioritize a desirable response to one's own needs. Need-response posits this as a vital adjunct to a conflict orientation of staying open and learning amidst conflict, to dissolve the constricting tension of staying closed and defensive amidst conflict. social need (n. ) A necessity for functioning with coordination or with the help from others, specifically for things one cannot provide solely for oneself. Covers the external side of one’s psychosocial wellbeing. Contrasts with and complements self-needs . affection affirmation appreciation being understood belonging cohesion companionship cooperation dependability equal treatment friendship inclusion intimacy predictability support synergy trust strategic pain relief (n. ) - REFUNCTION A refunction of momentarily easing the intense discomfort of unresolved need with the intent to get back to facing the pain in order to resolve the need, with the long-term anticipation to remove the cause of that pain. Exists in contrast to the widespread norms of passive-aggressive pain relief and reactive pain relief . See easement orientation . See discomfort avoidance and discomfort embrace . supportive bias (n. ) - REFUNCTION The refunction of prioritizing resolution of unchosen needs , to remove cause for cognitive distortions and improve the level of functioning. This can lower the risk of confirmation bias and other problematic biases. Anankelogy defines bias as prioritizing to ease need. The more resolved the needs of the observer of phenomena, the less of a pull to cherry-pick what their unresolved needs would urge them to prioritize. The more your bias prioritizes the full resolution of needs, the more you will prioritize seeking the full breadth and depth of reality. symfunction (n. ) A less-than-optimal level of functioning that prioritizes easing needs to adequate levels, or resolving needs only partially, largely with impersonal support from others. Sits lower than peakfunction but higher than dysfunction . symfunction capture (n. ) - DEFUNCTION A 3-step process of slipping from optimal functioning (peakfunction ) towards diminished functioning (dysfunction ). 1) symfunction creep ; 2) symfunction strain ; 3) symfunction trap . Fills gap between fully well and fully sick. symfunction creep (n. ) - DEFUNThe first in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 2nd is symfunction strain . The 3rd is symfunction trap . symfunction strain (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The second in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 1st is symfunction creep . The 3rd is symfunction trap . symfunction trap (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The last in a 3-step process of symfunction capture . The 1st is symfunction creep . The 2nd is symfunction strain . 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 NC Center on Actual Innocence 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