Search Results

Glossary M metapain (n. ) The body warning of the threat of too much pain in order to continue functioning. misfunction (n. ) Lowest level of a person's or entity's ability to function focused on surviving while their most basic needs continue unresolved. Sits below dysfunction in function array. moral conflation (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The defunction of failing to distinguish between unchosen needs and chosen responses . E.g., The rhetorical demand "I need a bottle of water" conflates the unchosen need for water with the chosen response to get that water in a bottle, which could be accessed in other ways. While expecting another to choose to get that water in some way fair to others, expecting another to not require water naturally provokes conflicts unnecessarily. Likewise, conflating another's unchosen need for security with their defensive chosen responses to feel more secure easily invites an avoidable conflict. See adversarialism , conflict porn and indulgent side-taking . Countered by the refunction of moral distinction that affirms unchosen needs before questioning chosen responses to such needs. moral distinction (n. ) - REFUNCTION The refunction of distinguishing between unchosen needs and chosen responses by first affirming inflexible unchosen needs before addressing flexible chosen responses to them. Answers the defunction of moral conflation . moral inversion (n. ) - DEFUNCTION - wellness resistance Reversing or displacing the good of resolving inflexible needs with the bad of not resolving such needs. And regarding the bad of not resolving inflexible needs as good. Anankelogy recognizes that every need exists as an objective fact , and every unmet need objectively diminishes one’s capacity to fully function, or to be fully well. This instills into morality an objective dimension , independent of personal beliefs or values. How we respond to needs can be relative to our beliefs and values. But the needs themselves emerge as objective facts separate from our personal agency. They objectively exist to serve our objective functioning. Which allows them to be measurable with the tools of social science. Efforts to only relieve the pain of an unmet need tends to ignore the objective fact of that need, which signals more pain to be relieved. For example, avoiding your anxiety by not facing a threat you feel that you cannot quite handle easily leaves you with more anxiety. Regarding such avoidance as good can hint at regarding a courageously bold act as foolish and therefore bad. Likewise, efforts to satiate cravings of a neglected need also overlooks the objective fact of that need, which typically results in more obsessive desires to be indulged. For example, indulging your desire for friendship by relying solely on social media “friends” can easily leave you feeling empty and craving for deeper connection. Regarding low-investment friendships as good may consider more meaningful friendships as too demanding and therefore bad. Both of these easily prompt a vicious cycle that risks pulling away from the “good” of resolving needs. Both tend to normalize the “bad” of lowered levels of functioning. These also risk sliding into the “bad” of normalizing the conditions of unmet needs. The "good" of resolving needs can appear too unfamiliar to risk trying. Some of this points to coerced dependence upon poor options (or CoPOD ). Or the results of symfunction capture that manipultes one to acquiesce to less-than-optimal choices. Increased pain occurs besides the best efforts to curb it. The good role of pain to alert one of threats to be removed become regarded as “bad” and avoided at all costs. Less healthy actions to ease such pain or satiate cravings with substitutes become regarded as “good”. The more one leans into easing their discomfort without resolving the underlying need, or settles for indulging their desires with unhelpful substitutes, the less they can function. Their diminished wellness can blind them from this reversing of priorities. Motivated reasoning supports their defensive self-righteousness. They may become unduly hostile to any critique of their moral reversal. The less their needs resolve, the more they tend to become self-absorbed in their consequential pain or obsessive desires. The more consumed by this mounting emotional discomfort, the less they can focus on other matters. They become less aware of their harmful impacts on others. They may dismiss any good faith empathy as depraved bothsidesism , to defensively protect their painful norms of alienation. Or regard mutually destructive adversarialism and avoidance as good if only to denounce efforts toward mutual understanding as morally weak. They tend to protect the familiarity of what helps them cope with their painful situation. Mounting pain of their unmet needs strains how much more discomfort they can readily handle. In short, they invert morality. What is good for resolving needs—like fully processing pain—becomes identified as bad . What is bad for resolving needs—like repeatedly ignoring the threats warned by pain or repeatedly indulging in substitutes that do little if anything to replenish what’s spent—becomes identified as good . This inversion can be isolated as observable phenomena with the social science tools of anankelogy. movement wellness campaign (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] The third type of wellness campaign builds on the momentum of a successful project type of campaign, where at least one impactor demonstrates transformative leadership to inspire transforming social norms to solve structural problems . The other two types are case and project campaigns. mutual defensiveness (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The defunction of prioritizing discomfort avoidance and normative alienation over vulnerably engaging the affected needs during a conflict with others. mutual regard (n. ) - REFUNCTION The need-responsive refunction of attending to the needs on all sides of a conflict. In contrast to feel-reactive defunction s like indulgent side-taking , mutual defensiveness and conflict porn . 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 6. Balancing masculine riskiness with feminine caution Do you prioritize one gender side over another? Or do you integrate both? 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 8:58:14 PM UTC Previous Next

This is for any wrongly convicted innocent underserved by the adversarial judicial system. When the adversarial system cannot admit or correct its own repeated errors, we present a mutalizing alternative to serve overlooked needs for which the law exists to serve. About Introducing Anankelogy the book: You NEED This Anankelogy Principles Glossary Need-response Need help? Need-responders I-need messenger NR podcast NR Community Engagement Book Online Groups Development Responsive Innocence Wrongly convicted and disillusioned with the legalistic innocence movement ? Succeed where the law fails Let us take your compelling estimated innocence to the pioneering new level of public exoneration . fresh approach - download If you already downloaded and filled out the Estimated Innocence Form Try a fresh approach First name Last name Email Message (optional) I accept terms & conditions I want to learn how to use this tool. Download free interactive tool Download "responsive innocence" interactive tool Innocence projects take cases slipping through the cracks of the appellate process. But who takes cases slipping through the cracks in the innocence movement stuck on adversarial law? Need-response does. First, we demonstrate the viability of your innocence claim, for yourself or for your wrongly convicted loved one. This form automatically compares your claim with those already exonerated. Then calculates the degree which your claim merits attention by those who can support you. Phase Two of Exoneration Services The Estimated Innocence Form supports a legal claim of actual innocence . You can use it to help innocence litigants quickly spot where in your case to get you or your loved one back into court. But what if that proves insufficient? What recourse do you have if the adversarial system keeps refusing to hear your case? What if you need more than this... Estimated Innocence Form for innocence litigators For the neglected innocent Innocence litigators and activists know they face an uphill battle when working within the adversarial system. They recognize the chances remain slip to clear all wrongly convicted innocents. Do we enable the unresponsive adversarial system when not challenging it with a more responsive alternative? from here or from Value Relating , this next interactive form provides you an alternative to the unresponsive adversarial judicial process. You learn how to challenge the built-in limits of their legalistic adversarial approach with a more engaging mutuality approach toward full exoneration. From challenge to opportunity Despite my own compelling innocence claim, I've been repeatedly underserved by the adversarial judicial process. Instead of giving up in utter disappointment or disillusionment, I'm offering the failing judicial system a more responsive way. I'm showing them how need-response can reduce violence and crime by resolving more needs. Their antagonistic approach can accomplish only so much. When the adversarial judicial process fails to recognize and correct its many mistakes, it's time to consider a less antagonistic alternative. It's time to consider a viable alternative. It's time to replace their unresponsive adversarial approach with a much more responsive mutuality approach. Need-response challenges the unresponsiveness of the adversarial process with a more responsive mutual process. Instead of opposing each other for only one side to win, need-response counters with a win-win option to respect the affected needs on all sides of a conflict. Who would oppose that? Responsive Exoneration 1st tab - p01 Responsive Exoneration 1st tab - p02 Your current options Responsive Exoneration 1st tab - p14 Impactors list (4 of 4) Responsive Exoneration 1st tab - p01 1/14 From unresponsive to responsive wellness initiative If your EIR shows you have a strong or even a good claim for actual innocence, and the adversarial judicial process persists in denying your case, a wellness campaign can introduce all those involved to our more responsive alternative. A wellness campaign addresses the many underserved needs overlooked by the adversarial judicial process. A wellness campaign shifts focus from what serves the winner in a court battle to what resolves the unchosen needs on all sides of a conflict. In five phases, the campaign attracts support for your innocence by challenging the limits of the adversarial approach. It negates reluctance to address needs by addressing each other's affected needs. Be skeptical before you try This alternative works best for those giving up hope on the adversarial judicial process. This new approach may not work for you if there's still hope for a favorable adjudicated outcome. Before you try this alternative approach... Follow one in progress This alternative continues to evolve. It's founder is currently applying it to their own case. You can see for yourself how it works for them. Follow Steph's wellness campaign EIF aim 01 EIF aim 02 EIF aim 12 EIF aim 01 1/12 Help make some history Your input could help to improve this. Let's learn together how to incentivize these powerholders to improve their responsiveness to these opportunities. Let's support their career to create just outcomes by exonerating those the adversarial system fails. One responsive innocent at a time. Any injustice in the name of justice is no justice at all . Currently requires MS Excel or reader to utilize. After you download the spreadsheet, it will open in PROTECTED VIEW. Click on Enable Editing to start using it. The form will not work until you do. Ready to try a new way? Download "responsive innocence" interactive tool By using this tool, you agree with our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . If these terms and this policy do not fit your need, you are not to use this tool. We welcome you to contact us to suggest how we can fit these to your particular needs.

Glossary W wellness campaign (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] A specialized service offered by need-response that focuses on resolving the client's identified wellness need(s) while respecting the identified needs of others. Instead of trying to relieve pain, a wellness campaign aims to resolve needs to remove cause for pain, and reach more potential. Unlike private healthcare of psychotherapy, the client makes public their wellness goal and invites others to support it. Instead of seeking to change the individual to adjust to life as it is, a wellness campaign seeks to change relationship dynamics to be more responsive to each other's needs. This includes incentivizing the socially powerful to demonstrably be more responsive to the vulnerable needs of those they impact. Unlike legal approaches by attorneys and political activists, the intent is not to win at another's expense but to raise everyone's functioning level. Instead of conformity to interpreted laws, a wellness campaign incentivizes all involved to go beyond minimal legal requirements to resolve the needs laws exist to serve. This includes incentivizing authority figures to rely less on impersonal laws and more on earning legitimacy by enabling us all to resolve our needs. A wellness campaign goes through four to five phases, each meant to address one of the four levels of human problems . The campaign typically concludes at the end of the final phase with the client reaching their wellness goal. Some campaigns can transition into other campaign types. Three types of wellness campaigns currently exist; 1) case campaign to address the client's wellness need; 2) project campaign to address wellness needs of those similarly situated; and 3) movement campaign as a coalition of project campaigns. wellness offender (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] Anyone interfering or resisting the resolution of identified needs after provided ample opportunity to report any impact on their own needs. See resolution path . See anti-wellness . wellness paradox (n. ) REFUNCTION. The apparent contradiction that improved functioning requires something profoundly wise that at first seems unwise, or at least challenges conventional norms and widely adopted beliefs. Examples: Personal responsibility depends upon social responsibility from others; social responsibility depends upon the personal responsibility of us all. The best rational understanding integrates the emotional prioritization of needs defying rationality. “If facts don’t care about feelings, then our need-prioritizing feelings don’t care about our rational facts.” Effective generalizing starts on the foundation of relevant specifics. Pain can only be fully removed by first embracing it and letting it report the threat to be removed. Merely relieving pain typically invites more pain. The best way to oppose another’s actions is to first accept their inflexible needs prompting such questionable actions. Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral development , and the results of prioritizing postconventional morality of properly resolving each other’s inflexible needs over conventional morality of external ethics. This can counter wisdom resistant conventionality below. wellness resistant conventionality (n. ) DEFUNCTION. The limitation imposed on full functioning of human life by remaining attached to widely accepted views that are easier to understand and mutually supported. Often reinforced by social norms that prioritizes symfunctionality over peakfunctional potential. Examples: Everyone must take personal responsibility for their choices and actions (without attention to the real limitations of options for those choices) and stop blaming the “system” for their personal problems (which can prompt false guilt, anxiety and depression from not being able to overcome external limitations). We are rational thinkers who must assert reason over our emotions (which generalizes all emotionsas irrational instead of intensified when needs go unmet) and seek to control nature with our minds by reducing our choices to cognitive processes in which we have control (which knowingly ignores all that exists outside of human control). You must not overthink matters too much and accept explanations that can ease our dissonance without too much trouble (which tends to solidify into overgeneralizations that overlook relevant specifics shaping our lives). Pain is bad and best avoided (which typically leaves in place the threat such pain reports, ensuring less functionality and more pain as your body insists you remove that threat) and everyone ‘s right to privacy is more important than communal values (which pulls us all into isolation and disabling alienation). We must oppose those who are wrong because those who don’t take a stand on political issues will fall for anything (which neglects the distinction between inflexible needs and flexible responses to those needs, then perpetuates conflict as each side must dig in their heals to guard the inflexible needs and inflexible priorities they cannot change). Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral development , and recognize the impact from a culture of prioritizing conventional morality anchored in external ethics over postconventional morality committed to properly resolving each other’s inflexible needs. This exists contrary to wisdom paradox above. 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

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

We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. < Back E01 Conflict Principle List of all principles We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. Image: Pixabay – PublicDomainPictures (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you rely on generalizations to address your problems, the more you risk overlooking the specifics essential to fully resolving such needs. Problems typically arise from overgeneralizing. We often generalize to avoid pain or to avoid losing a fragile coalition of support. The more we try to fix our problems while ignore the details of specific needs, the more our problems persist. Description Which do you think would be more effective? Relieving pain of stubborn problems by relying on agreed upon comforting generalizations. OR Solving stubborn problems by addressing the overlooked specific needs behind them. Anankelogy This one was inspired in part by an apocryphal quote of Einstein. This one adds the oft-overlooked contrast between distracting generalizations and engaging specifics. This applies to both senses of the word generalization. Wide application and avoiding specifics. 1) You generalize by applying it across the board. For example, the risk of causing a car accident while texting and driving is something that can be generalized to all drivers. 2) You also generalize by avoiding disagreeable specifics. For example, you hold together a fragile coalition by not addressing any specifics that could drive a wedge between some factions. If I generalize that everyone should read my book , I am both applying this generalization to all without exception, and avoiding specific good reasons many have to not read my book. In either sense, the risk of error steeply rises. Politics runs thick with errors because of its reliance on such sweeping generalizations. Popular politics tends to force all into a policy that may not fit their needs and avoid addressing those specific needs. Yet, we cling to many stifling generalizations. Such as generalizing that we must oppose one another’s beliefs with debates to reach better solutions, instead of keeping it safe to address each other’s specific vulnerable needs. And many of us cling to generalizing that it is better to avoid all pain instead of embracing the naturally sharp pain of resolving our more painful needs, which guarantees the problem will not be solved and the pain of unmet needs repeatedly recurs. Generalizing for relief to avoid uncomfortable reality generally produces crappy results. Enduring the natural discomforts of engaging vulnerable specifics does far more to address the underlying needs fueling our problems. Once we solve those specific needs, the general problems tend to take care of themselves. Need-response Many social norms overgeneralize, exposing your specific needs to neglect. Whether written or unwritten, many social norms overlook your particular experiences. Which ignores your specific needs. Passive compliance usually leaves your needs unresolved, and keeping you in continual pain. For example, an overgeneralizing version of the principle “no one is above the law” can impose authority over your specific needs. The power of nature will not allow you to bend your inflexible needs to fit some flexible law or social norm. The more you mindlessly obey, the more pain you likely suffer. While no one is above the law, no law sits above your natural needs which nature created prior to any human law. You don’t require anyone’s permission to breathe , but overgeneralizing authority can coerce you to suppress your specific needs. Pain naturally results, which tends to keep you attached to comforting generalizations in this vicious cycle. A problem cannot be solved until each underlying need gets resolved. Anankelogy appreciates a problem as a situation of unresolved needs. A solution addresses a way to resolve each affected need creating the problem. Placating the pain of unmet needs does little to solve problems. Reactive Problem The more problems emerge to overwhelm us, the more likely we opt for widely accepted generalizationsfor some relief. We could do more to solve our personal problems. And be more effective and disciplined to solve interpersonal problems. But we’re generally powerless to power problems and structural problems. We must then rely on institutions offering comforting generalizations that divide us. Politics easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s specific needs. The adversarial judicial process easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s affected justice needs. Their comforting generalizations is about all we have. Until now. Responsive Solution Need-response upends these destructive norms of generalizing for relief. Need-response inspires stretches your tolerance for discomfort of boldly facing your unmet needs. Need-response equips you with the greater ability to face and embrace the shaper pain of resolving your specific needs. The less your needs fully resolve from trusting generalizations, the less you can function and the more pain you suffer. Your body must repeatedly warn you of this threat to your ability to function. You gradually become accustomed to the dull pain of unmet needs and rely more on generalizations offering some relief. Consequently, you tend to drift from engaging reality—and feel trapped in perpetuating pain. The more your needs fully resolve from engaging specifics, the more you can function and not suffer so much pain. Your body has no cause to warn you with pain if there is no threat to your ability to function in this area. You gain the insight of what fully resolves the need, with many helpful specifics. Consequently, you find yourself drawn closer to reality—and less reliant on these stifling generalizations. A wellness campaign specifically addresses the four anankelogically recognized types of problems . Personal problems. Interpersonal problems. Power problems. Structural problems. With a wellness campaign , you can solve your specific problems without adding to the generalizationsthat helped to create your problems in the first place. And all involved can see the wisdom in letting go of their reliance on such generalizations. They too can resolve more of their needs, remove cause for their pain, and reach more of their potential for love and in life. 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 I have not access to the specifics, and must rely on available generalizations? Is there any generalization I can act upon without neglecting specifics? What’s the worse that could happen if I keep acting on generalizations I’ve always trusted? Who’s to say if a specific is actually specific or just another specific-sounding generalization? 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

Violence is weakness turned outward. Resilience is strength turned inward. < Back E05 Conflict Principle List of all principles Violence is weakness turned outward. Resilience is strength turned inward. Image: Pixabay – Dimhou (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you react towards threats from others, the more you expose your inability to effectively express, address and resolve each other’s affected needs. You could appear weak. The more you stand humbly firm while threatened, and give yourself a chance to understand and relate to their inflexible needs, without reacting in self-protection, the more you give opportunity to resolve each other’s needs. Description Which best describes your response to conflict? I must never appear weak to those who challenge me. OR I must remain firm yet humble when someone challenges me. Anankelogy Anankelogy helps us understand a key motivation for violence. When you experience a need, you quickly evaluate its urgency. If you must satisfy a need now in order to survive, or to avoid harm, your options include brute force. Even when you feel this option, ready to apply force against another, we usually reflect for a moment and discount it as inappropriate. But in those moments when you must defend yourself from a violent threat, you may be glad that option sits ready and able. You also have the option to absorb an insult, to laugh off a stinging offense, and to ignore a painful slight. Where physical force gives you outward strength, reasoned options give you internal strength. The less pain you provoke, the less pain you attract. Anankelogy appreciates how unprocessed pain spurs most acts of violence. Reacting in violence, even nonphysical violence like verbal and emotional abuse, tends to result in more pain. If not checked, a vicious cycle unfolds trying to ease the pain it repeatedly creates. Need-response Sometimes brute force is necessary, even at the risk of hurting another. But we best exhaust every less violent option first. As the pilot episode of Kung Fu aptly put it: “Avoid [contention], rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced.” A key problem with violence is how it easily creates more problems than it solves . Once you bite into that low hanging feel-reaction fruit, it can be extremely difficult to get back to more effective need-responsive options. Reactive Problem Once you hurt another with some kind of force, they instantly distrust you. They’re less likely to tell you what they actually need of you. You may appear like you don’t care anyways. Inappropriate use of force can create emotional wounds that hurt much longer than physical wounds. Physical wounds tend heal more quickly. Festering emotional wounds damage relationships, sometimes beyond repair. The more you react with violence, or even the threat of violence, the less you are trusted. The more you emotionally wound others, the more others pull away. Responsive Solution If struck with force, you typically have the option to not strike back. Consider the example of Jesus who was struck repeatedly on his way to the cross. Never once striking back. Consider historical examples. Ghandi inspired thousands of Indians to oust the occupying British with an effective nonviolence approach. Consider Dr. King and the effective nonviolence of the civil rights movement. Sure, those civil rights activists endured harsh training. They were subjected to all kinds of abuse by their fellow trainers, to prepare them for the real abuse they faced when confronting white supremacy. You and I under those circumstance may be less tolerant. Need-response offers a free program that can stretch your tolerance for life’s many forms of pain. You learn you can endure far more than you thought you could. You develop your stamina to take undeserved punishment. You grow your resilience to face almost anything. 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: In the heat of the moment, it’s not always easy to be resilient. I can see myself sliding to the opposite extreme of being stepped all over. How does this apply to geopolitics? Could this apply to diplomacy to stop wars? How does this apply to the state privileged violence of the criminal justice system? 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 Cooley Law School Innocence Project not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back Witness to 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

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 Exoneration 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

Glossary Q queued need (n. ) A prefocal need waiting in line with other prefocal needs, prior to compelling your full attention to act upon as a focal need . 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