Power Problems Power problems occur when impactors impede impactees trying to properly resolve needs . power problems & power-impacted needs properly resolving needs Power problem ID: A05 Universal Cultural Incompetence Insensitive to valuable differences cultural incompetence cultural competency < previous next > Cultural Incompetence Neglecting the impactee’s culturally different values or perspectives, where the impactor potentially pressures the impactee to fit into their cookie cutter cultural norms. The impactee may rightly fear some form of retribution for not fitting into the impactor’s cultural expectation. Or feel their full value remains overlooked and their contributions routinely neglected. cultural competency The further along the cultural competence continuum , the more trustworthy the impactor to those vulnerable impactees who valuably exist and properly act outside of mainstream cultural norms. Whether a healthcare provider or a different impactor, the impactor's responsiveness to impactee cultural differences fall along a recognized continuum: Stage 1. Cultural Destructiveness Stage 2. Cultural Incapacity Stage 3. Cultural Blindness Stage 4. Cultural Precompetence Stage 5. Cultural Competence and Proficiency Need-response can guide the targeted impactor to improve their cultural competency by walking them through the need-response process with an impactee. The impactor learns to appreciate the impactee's hidden value and how to properly address anything that is not appropriate simply because it is culturally different. The impactee can then contribute more of their full value when free to be their authentic selves. And their differentness can invite the impactor to inquire if the impactee sees something that the impactor cannot through the lens of their own familiarity bias. The impactor then earns legitimacy to reliably impact impactees who are culturally different from oneself. And gain competitive legitimacy when tapping into impactees' unique perspectives. Cultural Incompetence Corrupting Influence Cognitive Contraction Coercive Compliance Coerced Poor Options Dependence

Needs resolve and evolve. < Back B10 Basic Principle List of all principles Needs resolve and evolve. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you satisfy a recurring need, like drinking water to quench a thirst, the more your repeated action predictably leaves you satisfied. The more you pacify your recurring needs with some alternative, like indulging in junk food for each meal, the less your hunger subsides. The more you habitually rely on alternatives, the more your life contracts to accommodate such limits. Description Which do you think is more likely? The way you experience a need in childhood is pretty much the same as you experience it now. OR The way you experience a need can change drastically as the means to resolve it changes. Anankelogy Every natural need compels you to do something to ensure you can continue to function. Your needs either resolve or you cannot function as well. The lower your capacity to function, the more pain as your body warns of the threat. You either fully resolve a need or partially resolve a need or merely ease the pain of a need or suffer the mounting pain of a need. The more you can fully resolve your needs, the closer you can reach peakfunction . The more you partially ease your needs, the more you linger in symfunction . The more you cope with pain of unresolved needs, the deeper you’re stifled in dysfunction . The more you suffer too many unresolved needs, the further you slip into misfunction . Some of your needs can fully resolve. The more you can access nutritious food and clean water, the healthier you can be. Some of your needs only partially resolve. The more you must settle for shallow friends, the more you feel tolerably isolated. Some of your needs can only be placated by pain coping mechanisms. The more repeated trauma weighs you down, the less you can function. Sometimes you cannot do anything about a painful need. The longer you must suffer a critical need, the closer you fall into danger of long-term damage or death. The more you adjust how you address such needs, the more your experience of such needs can change. They typically evolve to adjust to your real-life situations. And to accommodate your real-life limitations. Consider how technology changes the way you experience your needs. Your recent ancestors had to wash all of their clothes by hand, and make time to prepare and cook food over a hot stove. They performed many difficult chores for each other. They also tended to enjoy greater family cohesion than you likely do now. Consider how a life full of comfort is a life not fully lived . Need-response Anankelogy cites the pattern of rising and falling ideologies that shape how we resolve many of our needs. Dynamic phase . We discover a fresh way to address old problems. We resolve our needs in a dynamic new way. New ideas are welcomed. Dogmatic phase . We settle on this new normal. We routinize this recently revised approach. We start to resist new ideas a threat to our new establishment. Disillusion phase . We grow increasingly discontent with its shortcomings. We see it doesn’t fit some of our needs. We start seeking alternatives. Distinction phase . We give up on most if not all of it. We either go back to previous ways or look for something new. Some of us even denounce the “new way”. New ideas often get watered down to appeal to as many as possible. Contentious specifics get dropped to favor generalizations we all or most can agree upon. But overgeneralized answers overlook many specific situations, leaving many needs underserved. Discontent of the old plants seeds of something new, something else to later provoke our disgust. Our needs evolve when there are sufficient resources accessible. To ensure such access, ideas often pop up as a “critical version” that remains aware of its limitations. For example, capitalism promises to incentivize production, but cannot promise its produced resources to everyone. Socialism promises to give access where needed, but cannot promise a robust supply. The earlier carefully thought-out version tends to morph into later popularly generalized version, or ‘popgen’ for short. We find it easier to react to the pain instead of responding to our needs to remove cause for pain. We generalize for relief, trapping ourselves in pain. Our experience of needs then evolves. Sometimes we develop improved ways to resolve them. Too often, we regress into reacting to the pain of our unresolved needs. We change in less healthy ways as our capacity to function declines. Then prioritize relief, sinking into dysfunction. Reactive Problem We “solved” many of our old problems with too much generalizing. We threw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. In the process, we frequently created new problems. No, we don’t resolve our needs in the same way anymore. Sadly, we partially resolve far more of our needs than fully resolve them. Perhaps that is how it’s always been. We often trade one problem for another, stretching our capacities to comprehend and solve them. Modernity merely changes what kind of problems we suffer. The rise of science dispelled the prevalence of superstition. Then the decline of religion came with the loss of our monocultural community. The rise of technology allows us to be more productive than ever. And to remain more disconnected than ever. Anankelogy has a word for our routine of staying disconnected from each other: normative alienation . We now rely on impersonal rules and public policies to attend to our needs in ways they never can. Laws themselves can never address our specific needs . You have to go against the grain of law to fully resolve your needs . Responsive Solution Responsivism replaces normative alienation with dynamic engaging to resolve more needs. And replaces avoidant adversarialism with engaging mutuality . to resolve more needs. The more needs we resolve, the more problems we solve . Political activism may inspire desirable policy changes, but usually falls tragically short of addressing the needs on all sides. Policy changes that serves the needs of some at the cost of respecting the needs of others naturally sets up the next political conflict. Responsivism replaces this objectification of each other with a more mutually engaging climate. You recognize the needs of others are as important as your own needs . You encourage more love and less outrage or hate. You recognize what you reactively resist you ultimately reinforce , as opposition to their unchosen need provokes their defenses . Just as their blind opposition provokes your defensiveness. Responsivism replaces this futile exercise with mutual respect for each other’s unchosen needs. Responsivism encourages us to resolve needs fully and promptly without hindering others from fully and promptly resolving their needs. We turn from provoking conflicts to encouraging better understanding of each other’s needs. Along the way, we learn to love a lot more. 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: Certainly some needs, like breathing oxygen, never changes. I doubt if there ever was a time when someone could fully resolve all of their needs. I can imagine a scenario of regressive changes redirected by improved opportunities. It seems we can manage alright with less needs resolving as long as we can avoid the pain. Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back Center on Wrongful Convictions 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

Reacting to your pain tends to leave you in more pain. < Back D05 Pain Principle List of all principles Reacting to your pain tends to leave you in more pain. Image: Pixabay – jplenio (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you try to avoid your pain, the more you end up ignoring the threats causing such pain. The more ignored, the more such threats persist to cause you more pain. The quicker you get to the source of your pain and remove the underlying threat causing you intense discomfort, the less pain you ultimately must suffer. There is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Description Which do you think is more likely? The more you can get rid of your pain with meds or others means, the better your life will be. OR Unless you get to the source of your pain and remove the underlying threats, you will always suffer some form of pain. Anankelogy Since there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs , reacting to the pain instead of responding to the underlying need tends to leave you in pain. The more you react to your pain, the more you tend to ignore the message of threat fueling that pain. Every painful emotion poses some threat for you to process. Reacting to the pain of such threats more than responding to the threats themselves promises to leave you in more of such painful emotions you perhaps would prefer to avoid. 1. Anger : Outside of some need to reject some apparent threat, you feel no anger. Suppressing your anger easily leaves in place what you perceive as unacceptable. 2. Fear : Outside of some need to handle something menacing, you feel no fear. Repressing your fear tends to allow what you cannot seem to handle to menace you even more. 3. Depression : Outside of some need to redirect your energies, you feel no depression. Ignoring the root of your depression can leave you with even less energy or focus. 4. Grief : Outside of some need to adjust your life to a deep loss, you feel no grief. Failing to make the meaningful adjustment can prolong your painful grief. 5. Jealousy : Outside of some need to enjoy what others enjoy, you feel no jealousy. Missing this opportunity to realize your impactful expectations can trap you in more jealousy. You can find a list of twenty such emotional pain conditions in the NR101 program . This program aims to help you to better respond to the needs behind each painful emotion. Too many of us find ourselves trapped in our emotional pain. The more you can resolve your need to remove the associated threat, the more your painful emotions naturally clear up. You can remove a lot of cause for pain by simply relating to the need that pain seeks to convey. Yes, some pain may persist in some situations. Especially those situations beyond your control. That’s where need-response steps in. It seeks to root out causes of pain at multiple human levels . Need-response One of the most overlooked ways to reduce pain is to stop causing others to feel pain. As Brené Brown put in The Call to Courage , “It’s easier to cause pain than to feel pain.” Popular norms model this approach of shifting your pain onto others. Our legal professions of politics and the courts encourages us to push our hurt onto others, instead of reaching our higher potential to endure discomfort to resolve all the underlying needs. Even counseling falls short by encouraging the individual to change to fit into an unhealthy society. Need-response upends this intolerable norm for making others feel our own hurt. Instead of spreading pain or hate, it brings out more of our potential for peace and love. Reactive Problem Institutions of law (judiciary and politics especially) tends to react to pain. Instead of identifying and resolving each need prompting the pain, you get categorized as opposing the other side ostensibly causing you emotional pain. Both a court battle and election battle offer pain-relief to the winning side. The losing side gets to keep their pain. Neither side fully removes their pain, since legal processes rarely address all of the needs involved in such conflicts. These legal institutions serve as poor models for how to address our emotional pain. You could even say the provide a disastrous guide for how to resolve needs, reduce pain, and raise our potential. Counseling can only take us so far at the individual level. We need something like need-response to unpack and remove all that emotional pain. Responsive Solution Need-response starts with the affected needs. You may find it much easier to respond to the need when stepping outside of the reactive norms avoiding your pain. Need-response raises the standard unfortunately built into the design of our legal systems. There is no greater human authority than resolved needs . The more need-response enables you to resolve your needs along with the needs of others involved in a conflict, the less pain each side must suffer. Instead of avoiding discomfort , you collectively remove the cause of discomfort with the power of love. The NR201 program digs deeper into this underutilized love-centered approach. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: How can I be sure I am responding to the need and not merely reacting to the pain. If you only knew how much pain I suffer, you would realize why I must react to it like I do. I once responded to the other’s need, instead of reacting to my pain, and had mixed results. What if I stop reacting to the pain but others in the conflict take advantage of me? Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below. Engage this principle in our forum Engagement guide Any visitor to the Engagement forum can view all posts. So do keep that in mind when posting. Sign up or sign in to comment on these posts and to create your own posts. Using this platform assumes you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . Remember to keep the following in mind: Quote the principle you are responding to, and its identifier letter & number. Let’s be specific. Demonstrate need-responsiveness in your interactions here. Let’s respect each other. Engage supportive feedback from others on this platform. Let’s grow together. Together, let’s improve our need-responsiveness . Together, let’s spread some love . See other principles in this category - Foundational - Basic - General - Pain - Conflict - Authority - Law - Love - Previous Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Next

< Back Innocence OC 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 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 Glossary V < back to glossary menu vulnerable need (n. ) Any core need or resource need or access need or psychosocial need easily impacted by anyone in a privileged position of social influential "power" or by a power problem. Compare with exposed need that is easily impacted by a privileged social norm or by a structural problem . Accessible anankelogy may use these terms interchangeably. 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

What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce. < Back E10 Conflict Principle List of all principles What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce. Image: Pixabay – Quangpraha (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you oppose others to the point of resisting their inflexible needs, the more you provoke their defenses. They dig in their heels, just as you naturally would if they opposed your inflexible needs. Sticking with rational arguments that lets you avoid vulnerably engaging messy needs not easily changed. The more you react to what they cannot change, the more they push back with what you oppose. You insist they’re making the wrong rational choice, as you ignore their prioritizing needs. Even if winning the argument, you end up getting more of what you claim to resist. Description Which do you think is more likely? You must fight what you know is right by championing your side against another’s. OR You will come closer to resolving conflicts the better you respect all the affected needs. Anankelogy The better you can you distinguish between each other’s inflexible needs and each other’s responses to them, the closer you can resolve conflicts. Those who conflate inflexible needs with flexible responses tend to perpetuate conflicts, needlessly. While you can possibly change how you want others to respond to your needs, your natural reflex is to challenge any who dare to oppose the inflexible needs themselves. For example, those who fight for “free speech” carte blanche, by opposing wholesale any “censorship” from those genuinely traumatized from carefree public rhetoric, risk provoking the very restrictions they ostensibly oppose. The more the other’s inflexible need to avoid damaging retraumatization gets limited by unlimited speech, the more the resisted need to fully function—free of limiting trauma—prompts them to push back against generalizations about free speech. Their tendency to impose too many limits of public expression can be challenged without overgeneralizing that all limits to public rhetoric is bad for free speech. Likewise, those who fight for “respectful speech” carte blanche, by opposing wholesale the “privileged insensitive speech” of others who genuinely need to publicly express themselves, risk provoking the very traumatizing public rhetoric they ostensibly oppose. The more the other’s inflexible need to freely express themselves publicly gets limited by restrictions on public speech, the more the resisted need to fully function—by publicly expressing themselves—prompts them to push back against ideological generalizations that constrict free speech. Their tendency to unleash too many constraints can be challenged without overgeneralizing that all free speech risks a threat of retraumatization. You can apply this to any issue, especially politicized issue. Each side digs in their heels when opposition triggers their inflexible needs. This generalized defense typically includes remaining guarded on how they flexibly address the inflexible need. And herein lies the problem, ignored by surface level debating. After all, opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it . The more each side stays glued to their overgeneralized opposition, the more they reinforce conditions to produce more of what they claim to oppose. Some may prefer the fight over a reachable solution. Some may enjoy such “conflict porn ” and their “outrage porn ” for the feeling they are at least doing something about the pain of the conflict. Reinforcing what you oppose lets you cling to what you already know you can handle. The familiar pain of staying stuck in conflict may be preferable to the pain of uncomfortably engaging each other on a more vulnerable level. Instead of risking the pain of the unknown, of possible rejection, you may prefer—at least subconsciously—to internally reinforce what you externally resist. That way, you end up getting more of what you’re comfortable opposing. You already know how to handle that more than how to handle the unknown of gaining what you claim to seek. Meanwhile, your attention stays on the actual consequences. What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce. The problems then persist down a different course. As the other side asserts their inflexible needs or inflexible priority of needs , you likely characterize their pushback as something they could easily choose not to do. The more you provoke their defenses into creating more of what you outwardly oppose, the more you slide into oppo culture of remaining ignorantly perpetuating problems through mishandled conflicts. Need-response You typically face conflict in either a feel-reactive or need-responsive way. feel-reactive : seeking to minimize discomfort while seeking to indulge own desires, with little if any regard for the needs prompting such discomfort and desire. need-responsive : prioritizing resolution of needs that prompt discomfort and desires, in a way that respects the needs of others. You’re either feel-reactive or need-responsive when confronted by a conflict. You either react to what you see opposing you by remaining guarded, or you respond by staying open to learning about each other’s affected needs. This presents your conflict orientation . Reactive Problem Let’s get to the problem that this principle is set to address. . For now, this serves as placeholder text. When I find the time, I will post the full deal here.The more you react to your feelings, the more you serve your feelings instead of letting your feelings serve you . Instead of responding to the needs conveyed by your feelings, you react to those feelings in ways that prompts more of what you hoped to avoid. Reacting to your pain tends to leave you in more pain . Perhaps this is your norm. You know how to handle what you find most familiar. You simply keep doing what you’ve been doing, even if resulting in more problems and pain. Instead of a personal moral failing, this typically occurs in situations when repeatedly coerced into choosing a les favorable option . Eating table scraps may feel better than getting nothing at all. You might prefer getting some reaction from those you oppose than getting no response at all. Responsive Solution To avoid needlessly provoking other’s defensiveness, use a “praise sandwich ”. It’s a communication format to convey your opposition to other’s negative impact on your inflexible needs . You sandwich a piece of unpleasant news between two positive items. P-N-P. Negate the toxicity of oppo culture by first affirming the other’s side’s inflexible needs. P ositive opener. then you challenge their actions that undesirably impacts your inflexible needs. N egative middle. Finally, you pledge to mutually support the full resolution of each other’s affected needs. P ositive closing. To illustrate, consider these examples. The first from a progressive. The second from a libertarian. A progressive parent opposing a conservative’s stonewalling of gun safety measures: P : I respect your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm for your self-protection. N : I’m concerned about how easy it is for anyone to get a gun, including those young people who bring firearms into schools. P : Surely there must be a way to balance your rights with our need to keep our children safe at school. A conservative gun owner opposing onerous gun safety laws: P : I empathize with your anxiety about your child’s safety at school because of gun violence. N ; I get alarmed when the push to keep schools safe may cost me my own self-defense. P : Let’s find a way to keep all of kids safe from gun violence without punishing legit gun ownership. Notice how both stay clear of triggering the other side’s defensiveness. Instead of provoking more of that’s being opposed, both pave a way for a mutually beneficial dialogue to respond to each other’s inflexible priority, each other’s inflexible needs. This reconciling approach can preserve the rapport needed to resolve just about any conflict. Instead of provoking more of what you oppose, your “stay-open” conflict orientation lets you distinguish between the needs they cannot change and their responses to them that they could change. And you, in kind, can assert your inflexible needs while adjusting how you to respond to them. You put cooperation over rhetorical fighting. You work through the challenges to let each side come closer to resolving their inflexible needs. Need-response offers tools that can make it easier to turn each conflict into an opportunity to better appreciate each other’s needs. And improve your chances to produce much better outcomes than continually provoking more of the mess you say you oppose. Nobody opposes being better respected. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: What if it there is some overlap between an inflexible need and a normal response to it? If I want to reverse this habit, what would be my next step? What about those who seem to want the fight more than a peaceful resolution? Is it possible to slide into the opposite extreme of being too conciliatory then exploited? 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 beliefs include error. < Back B08 Basic Principle List of all principles All beliefs include error. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you generalize, the less likely the accuracy of those beliefs. If irrelevant to your life, then the result errors can pass unnoticed. As a factory worker, it matters little if I believe Abraham Lincoln was born in Illinois or Kentucky. If my livelihood depends on it, I better know he was born in Kentucky. There will always be facts beyond the reach of your conclusions. Humility helps you stay informed. Description Which do you think is more likely? Most of your beliefs are accurate and serve you well. OR Most of your beliefs are faulty and often serve you poorly. Anankelogy Anankelogy recognizes the limits of our ability to know what is exactly true or untrue, or what is partially true. Three broad principles cover the accuracy of what we assume to know as true. 1. All beliefs include some level of error . It is always impossible to know everything about any topic, so there are bound to be some inaccuracies in what you hold true or untrue about something. You cannot possibly be aware of new facts being created as you rely on previous facts to hold true. For example, you trust you will be prepared for an upcoming phone screening job interview but cannot know that the interviewer is about to reschedule the call. 2. Most of these errors are insignificant and harmless . While it’s impossible to know everything about something, you generally prioritize knowing the mostimportant stuff to relative accuracy. You’re free to be wrong about matters that don’t impact you or cause you to negatively impact others. For example, you believe your neighbor took a summer trip by jet plane for a vacation in Canada, but it matters little to your life that they actually drove there by car. 3. Some errors are very significant and lead us into trouble . It’s possible that some of your beliefs, when acted upon, can cause serious harm. Not only to yourself, but also to others. For example, if you incorrectly believe your spouse is cheating on you and you confront them with an angry tirade of accusations, you risk destroying your marriage over nothing. Misinterpreting their denials as a coverup drags you down further into destructive falsehoods. Too many of us are already there. Need-response Whatever you hold as true or not true works best when kept flexible with fresh inputs. You don’t know what you don’t know. And once you get defensive, vainly trying to avoid feeling hurt, you risk shutting out the very information your life requires to lift you out of all the pain. Powerholders tend to be limited by the fact that they don’t know what they don’t know. If they don’t know what they don’t know and overconfident they know enough, they are less inclined to seek this unknown. They risk remaining ignorant of vital information. What we believe about each other tends to be full of errors. Many of our assumptions can be distorted by exaggerations. Modern society tends to keep us alienated from each other. Rural folks hold may errant beliefs about urban folks as urban folks poorly understand rural folks. The less accurate the beliefs we act upon, the less we can resolve our needs, And then we find ourselves in more pain. To avoid further pain, we avoid each other further. The many public problems facing us tend to point to this shift from harmless errors to harmful errors in our beliefs about each other. Alienation appears to be slowly killing us. Reactive Problem More and more of our beliefs slip into harming others and ourselves because of the widely overlooked problem of avoidant adversarialism . That’s where we indulgently take sides to evade possible pain instead of taking a stand to resolve the unchosen needs on all sides that could remove cause for pain. We magnify our problems and pain the more we oppose each other . We get mutually defensive and rationalize this as debating . A rush to debate usually skips the details in life that really matter . We squabble over less relevant matters. To vainly avoid pain, we lock ourselves in more pain. The more we get mutually defensive, the more we tightly cling to faulty assumptions about each other. Here are two examples of such harmful beliefs damaging many lives: 1) the overlooked prevalence of wrongly convicting the innocent and 2) the overlooked differences in organic priority of needs behind our political differences . 1. Wrongly convicted innocent . The adversarial judicial system incentivizes confirmation bias and tunnel vision among law enforcement. Which leads to misidentifying the innocent as the culprit, and to relying on junk science that rationalizes the belief that the innocent person did the crime, among other harmful errors. These are often dismissed by appellate panels as “harmless errors” that get caught by innocence projects exposing the innocent on death row. The adversarialism baked into the system increases the risk of slipping into many overlooked harmful beliefs. 2. Provoked political polarization . The adversarial political system pits one group’s unchosen priority of needs against another group’s unchosen priority of needs . Conventional thinking assumes each side must debate each other to get respect for their needs. You are expected to agree or disagree with each other, without first affirming the unchosen needs. That needlessly keeps us apart. Instead of getting to know the specific needs of others, we generalize that they could somehow change their needs to fit our own preferences. But that never works. There are many more public problems magnified by our errant beliefs. There are many things we get wrong the more we are avoidant and adversarial to the point of rejecting reality. The more you reject reality, the more reality rejects you . The less you integrate reality into your life, the less you can resolve needs. And the more trapped in pain you become . Responsive Solution Need-response cautions against relying too much on conventional modes for correcting beliefs. Expecting impersonal education or coercive laws to produce more accurate understandings easily sets us up for disappointment. Instead, need-response gets to the core of most faulty beliefs, and this is unresolved needs that distort our thinking. The more we continually engage reality to resolve each other’s needs, the more our beliefs naturally sharpen. Responsivism methodically replaces a defunction that provokes faulty beliefs with a refunction that improves the accuracy of our beliefs. For example, arrogance is recognized for how it can easily trap you into clinging to false assumptions. Humility opens you to discovering new information and engaging relevant yet overlooked facts. The defunction of discomfort avoidance gets you to defend your beliefs from criticism, locking you into painful fictions. Discomfort embrace lets you remain open to correction to sharpen your beliefs. Need-response identifies these defunctions and corrective refunctions in the such problems as the wrongly convicted innocent and political polarization. Responsive exoneration and responsive depolarization can improve the accuracy of our beliefs simply by instilling more love in our lives for each other. 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: Reasoning should improve our beliefs if it doesn’t slip into rationalizations. How can we know when a harmless belief slips into the danger zone of becoming harmful? Can a belief be harmful to one person or group and harmless to another? Whose to say which beliefs are full of inaccuracies when we all have our biases? 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

Terms of Use Published: June 30, 2023 These Terms of Use (“Terms”) apply when you use a website, mobile application, or other online service (collectively, the “Services”) that links or refers to the Terms. These terms are a legal contract between you and Value Relating LLC (“we” or “us”) so it is important that you review them carefully before using the Services. Your use of the Services indicates that you agree to follow and be bound by the Terms, which include the use of HIPPA-compliant communication platforms. If you do not agree to the Terms, do not access or use the Services. THESE TERMS CONTAIN DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES (SECTION 11) AND DISCLAIMERS OF LIABILITY (SECTION 12). General We may change the Terms or modify any features of the Services at any time at our sole discretion. The most current version of the Terms can be viewed by clicking on the “Terms of Use” link at the bottom of the home page. If you continue to use the Services after changes are posted you will be deemed to have accepted the change. Complementary Responsive Terms These Terms guide our interactions as defined by what is permitted and not permitted by laws. Beyond the harm-reduction minimal standard of these Terms, use of the Services provides complementary Responsive Terms to invoke the anankelogical principle of prioritizing the resolving of needs for which legal standards exist to serve. When not in conflict with Value Relating, Responsive Terms prevail as our mutually agreed conciliatory options for addressing our mutually impacted needs. When Value Relating concedes we are in legal conflict with you, Value Relating reserves the right to assert these Terms of Use over such Responsive terms. Compliance With Applicable Laws As a condition of your access to and use of the Services, you agree that you will not use the Services for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these Terms and that you will comply with all applicable laws and any conditions or restrictions imposed by these terms. The Services are offered for your personal and non-commercial use only, and you are prohibited from using, and are expressly not granted the right to use, the Services for any other purpose. Privacy By using the Services, you indicate that you understand the information collection, use, and disclosure practices described in the Privacy Policy. Charges for Services We may charge for access to portions of the Services or to the Services as a whole, and we reserve the right at any time to change the amount we charge for such access or subscriptions that include authorization to access the Services. In such event, we will notify you in advance, and give you an opportunity to subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Service(s). More information about any such subscriptions can be found on the appropriate locations of the Services. You shall pay all applicable taxes relating to use of the services, and recognize that any fees to third parties that may be required for you to receive the service (such as mobile data plans and text-message charges) are not included in the cost of the services. Third-Party Content and Links to Third-Party Websites The Services may contain third-party owned content and links to other websites (“Linked Sites”). Value Relating does not endorse, sponsor, recommend, or otherwise accept responsibility for any Linked Sites. In addition, Linked Sites are not under the control of Value Relating, and Value Relating is not responsible for the content or privacy practices of the Linked Sites. Disclaimer of Warranties THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS.” WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. THERE MAY BE DELAYS, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, AND INACCURACIES IN THE NEWS, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES. Value Relating DISCLAIMS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW ANY AND ALL SUCH REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. IF YOU RELY ON THE SERVICES AND ANY MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES, YOU DO SO SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, VALUE RELATING DISCLAIMS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW ANY AND ALL (A) WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, (B) WARRANTIES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF ANY THIRD-PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, (C) WARRANTIES RELATING TO THE TRANSMISSION OR DELIVERY OF THE SERVICE, (D) WARRANTIES RELATING TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, CORRECTNESS, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE ON THE SERVICES OR OTHERWISE BY VALUE RELATING, INCLUDING ANY ADVICE, OPINION, STATEMENT, OR OTHER MATERIAL OR DATABASE DISPLAYED, UPLOADED OR DISTRIBUTED IN THE SERVICES OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES, AND WARRANTIES OTHERWISE RELATING TO PERFORMANCE, NONPERFORMANCE, OR OTHER ACTS OR OMISSIONS BY VALUE RELATING OR ANY THIRD PARTY. FURTHER, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT THE SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS OR REQUIREMENTS OR THE NEEDS OR REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OTHER PERSON. VALUE RELATING MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (A) THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THROUGH THE SERVICES WILL BE FREE FROM ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DEFECT, OR DELAY IN OPERATION, OR FROM TECHNICAL INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, (B) THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME OR LOCATION (C) THAT DEFECTS OR ERRORS IN THE SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED, OR (D) THAT THE CONTENT ON THE SERVICES ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. ANY INFORMATION ON THE SERVICES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE, AND VALUE RELATING DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SERVICES. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE SERVICES. Limitation of Liability IN NO EVENT WILL VALUE RELATING OR ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY PARTY INVOLVED IN CREATING, PRODUCING, OR DELIVERING THE SERVICES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS, USE, MISUSE, OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICES OR ANY LINKED SITES, OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, TRANSMISSION, COMPUTER VIRUS, OR LINE OR SYSTEM FAILURE. THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY WHETHER THE ALLEGED LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR ANY OTHER BASIS, EVEN IF VALUE RELATING HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. BECAUSE SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, VALUE RELATING’S LIABILITY IN SUCH JURISDICTIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. Indemnification You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Value Relating and its parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and their owners, directors, officers, managers, employees, shareholders, agents, and licensors, from and against all losses, expenses, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from any violation of the Terms, including the Discussion and Submission Guidelines, or the failure to fulfill any obligations relating to your account incurred by you or any other person using your account. We reserve the right to take over the exclusive defense of any claim for which we are entitled to indemnification under this Section. In such event, you shall provide us with such cooperation as is reasonably requested by us. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the United States and Michigan. By using the Services, you waive any claims that may arise under the laws of other states, countries, territories or jurisdictions. Termination Value Relating may terminate this agreement for any reason at any time. Value Relating reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to and use of the Service, with or without prior notice. Otherwise applicable sections of the Terms shall survive termination. In addition to any termination rights, we reserve the right to enforce and prosecute any violations of these Terms. Miscellaneous Supplemental Terms. In connection with your use of the Services, you may be asked to consent to policies or terms and conditions in addition to these Terms. Please read these supplemental policies and terms carefully before making any use of such portions of the Services. Any supplemental terms will not vary or replace these Terms regarding any use of the Services, unless otherwise expressly stated. No Waiver. The failure of Value Relating to enforce any provisions of the Terms or to respond to a breach by you or other parties shall not in any way waive its rights to enforce subsequently any terms or conditions of the Terms or to act with respect with similar breaches. No Partnership . You agree that no joint venture, partnership, employment, or agency relationship exists between you and Value Relating as a result of these Terms or your access to and use of the Services. Entire Agreement. Unless otherwise specified herein, the Terms constitute the entire agreement between you and Value Relating and govern your use of the Services. If any portion of the Terms is held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as nearly as possible, the original intention of the parties, and the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect.

Placeholder Image mass avoidance mass avoidance < Back 2 mass avoidance Mass avoidance is the widespread norm of not personally engaging with others or in something that seems uncomfortable or threatening. Need experience Where vulnerability avoidance occurs on a personal level, mass avoidance occurs on a collective level. If few of us can feel safely vulnerable to be totally honest with others, or with ourselves, more of us will assume avoidance is common. Other reasons emerge to avoid the avoidable. Avoiding all that seems or is unpleasant crystallizes into a shared norm. We admit our fears to no one. We keep our guard up all the time. We provoke each other’s defensiveness, blaming each other. Fewer of our needs ever fully resolve. We suffer more and more. We function less and less. Defunctionalizing Refunctionalizing Examples The widespread evasion of our natural tendency to first estimate the trustworthiness of others by their most visible features, lest we get publicly labeled as a bigot. Relational knowing The fewer others are dropping their guard to expose their full authenticity, the less likely you will risk dropping your guard to expose your authentic self to raw rejection. The more others avoid, the more you avoid. The more we all avoid, and socially punish those who expose their authentic full being, the more normatively we all avoid matters we would otherwise face more courageously. Sign up or sign in to view the full entry Complementary refunctions Impact engagement 6/16/23 Previous Next

< Back LAS Wrongful Conviction Unit 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 3. Balancing masculine protection with feminine nurturance Do you seek to fulfill the role of protector of your loved ones? Or do you fit more into a role of being their nurturer? Masculine focused If you're more rational than emotional, your needs best met with a more emotional emphasis naturally seeks some balance. One way nature prompts you to fill this void is through sexual energy, to compel you to pursue the complementary emotionality you currently lack. Whether stereotypically in a woman or perhaps in an emotionally attuned man. The less you integrate your rational qualities with emotional maturity, the more prone to swing between extremes of irrationality and unemotionality. For example, _________ The more you blend your rational qualities with emotional maturity, the more needs you can resolve and remove cause for pain. For example, becoming both reasonable and intuitive enables you to _________ Feminine focused If you're more emotional than rational, your needs best met with a more rational emphasis naturally seeks some balance. One way nature prompts you to fill this void is through sexual energy, to compel you to pursue the complementary rationality you currently lack. Whether stereotypically in a man or perhaps in a rationally minded woman. toward balance Cyclic balancing of these gender-associated traits Vacillating between opposing extremes Balancing complementary sides Oscillating toward a balanced center Encountering the holistic center Transspiritually compelled holism Conventional reaction to transspirituality The more attached to conventional norms, the more one tends to guard the comforting familiarity of pragmatism creep . text text Saturday, November 1, 2025 at 4:58:14 PM EDT Previous Next