Search Results

Glossary L law-fit (n. & v. ) - REFUNCTION The less formal name for the refunction of citationization . leadback (n. ) Insufficient responsiveness to another’s vulnerable need due to other’s insufficient responses to own vulnerable needs (i.e., wellness is psychosocial). See coerced poor options dependence (AKA CoPOD ). leadback denial (n. ) Insisting consequential decisions from limited options result mainly or only from personal irresponsibility, and not from externalities. leadback exaggeration (n. ) Insisting consequential decisions from limited options result mainly or only from externalities, devoid of personal agency or responsibility. legalism (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The shorter name for the defunction of civic legalism (i.e., nomoscentricity ). Corrected by the refunction of law-fit (AKA citationization ). 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

A natural need is an objective fact. < Back A01 Foundational Principle List of all principles A natural need is an objective fact. Image: Pixabay – Valiphotos (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you drill down to the beginning of an experienced need, the more you find what exists prior to any human intervention. You don’t merely believe you must have water or that you need a friend, you experience these needs as essential to your capacity to function. Your ability to function after quenching a thirst or leaning on a friend exist independent of subjective feelings, as objective facts. The less your natural needs resolve, the less you can objectively function. Description Which do you think is more likely? Needs are too subjective for any scientific inquiry. OR An aspect of needs exists outside of subjective experience, allowing for scientific inquiry. Anankelogy Anankelogy isolates that part of your needs which occurs outside of any subjective experience of them. You feel thirsty when your body requires more water, but that requirement for water occurs as an objective fact. You only subjectively feel thirsty after the objective fact of your body requiring more water. Likewise, you feel lonely when requiring help from others to do things you objectively cannot do for yourself. If you cannot get anyone to help you climb out of hole, your ability to continue functioning as before objectively diminishes. Needs come first . Emotions follow to convey such needs . Once the need fully resolves, there’s no longer any cause for such emotion . Every experienced need first emerges as an objective fact about your ability to function. Your body then reports such needs in your subjective experience of emotions. Your emotions suggest what you can quickly do to ease that need, if necessary. Often with little if any regard for the needs of others. Anankelogy distinguishes between core needs for functioning and what we do about such needs that we conventionally also label as needs. I may say I need a glass of water, but more accurately I need water that I prefer to be provided in a glass. Since I can get that water from a bottle or direct from a water fountain, anankelogy identifies these as preferences and not literally as needs. If there is any flexibility, you can "prefer" one thing over another and still objectively function. Your need for water is inflexible . How to get that water is flexible. So anankelogy speaks of “inflexible needs ” to point to these core needs . Anankelogy appreciates resources to resolve your core needs exist less flexibly that how we access such resources. And who should access, you or somebody else , exists far more flexibly. This helpful distinction allows the academic discipline of anankelogy to better understand our needs. We can now delay gratification. We can postpone the urge to ease our discomforting needs so we can better understand the full gamut of our experience of needs. Need-response We can now describe what is happening with a set of needs without rushing to insist what should be done about such needs. Need-response applies this discipline when challenging the privileged norm of relieving pain of unmet needs by enduring the discomfort it takes to resolve needs. Once resolved, the body no longer has cause to use pain to warn of a threat to functioning that no longer exists. Reactive Problem As long as we assume all needs stem from subjective experience, we tend to link each need to our choices. If only we made better rational choices, we wouldn’t be in so much pain. Or do goes our assumptions. While volition plays a role, you never choose to be thirsty. You never choose to be hungry. Or to be lonely. Each of these starts not with some subjective experience from our choices, but from an objective change in your ability to function regardless of your choices. Your choices can influence when you feel thirsty. But you will eventually require water to restore your body’s fluid equilibrium. You cannot choose to simply ignore your body’s demand for water and still be able to objectively function. Responsive Solution The more we suspend our reliance upon impersonal rules and rational choices, the more we can get back to addressing our many overlooked needs. Instead of stumbling into disappointment after disappointment, we can do much more to dynamically engage each other’s specific needs. Need-response counters normalized alienation of impersonal rules with mutual respect for one another’s engaged needs. Need-response provides tools lacking in all of the other professions for fully resolving our needs. In the process, need-response holds the powerful accountable to the results of their influence upon our vulnerable needs. The more you allow need-response to fully resolve our needs, the more we can all function individually and collectively. The more needs we resolve, the more problems clear up . The more we resolve our needs, the more of our potential we can reach. The more we respect each other’s needs, the more we can spread around much needed 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: Certainly there are aspects of needs beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Could this apply to philosophy and other areas currently regarded as mostly subjective? How could need-response answer the decline in trust in our institutions? I can see room for abuse by bad faith actors insisting their subjectivity has some objective core. 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 Y no entries yet for Y 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

Needs get queued and then evoked. < Back B11 Basic Principle List of all principles Needs get queued and then evoked. Image: Pixabay – jplenio (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you lack what your life requires, the more those things rise in importance. Whatever your life requires the most right now rushes front and center in your emotional needs. The next item your life requires sits next in line. And so forth. As soon as your life signals it must get something now to ease its most pressing need, that need gets evoked as the most vital thing to consider. Description Which do you think is more likely? You can cognitively control how you experience your needs with enough will power. OR Your needs tend to take over your cognitive processes to serve a list of urgent needs. Anankelogy Anankelogy recognizes how you experience many needs all the time. Most needs promptly resolve and pass from your awareness. Other needs fail to resolve then remain in your periphery for some time. You may need water to drink, safety from some threat, to rest your weary feet, and to find a friend to listen to you all at the same time. Your life automatically puts the most urgent need at the top of the list of items calling for your attention. Your weary feet can wait for rest if you must first get out of harm’s way from some threat. You can find a friend to share your concerns after you’ve quenched your thirst. Or perhaps you must first unload your cares before giving another thought about your encroaching dehydration. You could be in a situation that puts your need for rest ahead of your need for safety if that risk remains remote. But when that threat suddenly confronts you, it can be easy to forget how tired your feet feels when you must quickly get up and run away. Anankelogy recognizes you prioritize needs as they occur. Depending on how much your need resolves, you experience what anankelogy calls focal ranges . At-rest . Fully resolving your need allows you to shift all of your focus elsewhere. You feel at peace, relative to this need. Aware . Partially resolving a need keeps a little of your focus on your mildly reduced functioning. You feel a modest level of unfulfilled desire or modest level of persisting discomfort. Alert . Barely resolving the need keeps most of your focus on your severely lowered functioning. You feel a distracting craving or a disruptive level of pain. Alarm . Not being able to resolve the need at all keeps your fully focused on your compromised functioning. You obsess on what you must but can’t have. You’re consumed by the agony. Life is good right now when few of your needs demand your primary attention right now. You feel thirsty, but gulping down some water instantly quenches your thirst. You require some solitude, and finding solace immediately frees up your attention. Life is not so good when a list of unmet needs piles up. Whichever your body deems as most important for your functioning will naturally top the list. Your attention to freely breathe, for example, is far more important than finding some privacy. Sometimes you have a need that adequately resolves, but then demands more attention to keep you functioning. For example, your need for help from others for the things you cannot provide for yourself can be sufficiently met until you slip into a crisis. You then instantly shift from being aware of your need for others to full alert that you must quickly get help. Most needs get evoked like this from some changing situation. Other needs simply get triggered as a rhythm in life. For example, feeling hungry at a meal time. Your habits can preclude a need being evoked, such as surrounding yourself with friends keeps you from ever feeling lonely. Need-response Think of what your life requires right now. You may feel a little thirsty but know that can wait. You wish your friend would call you, and feel you’ve waited long enough. You just remembered a bill you had to pay by the end of the day, and that need just took center stage. Your life functions on a long list of physical and nonphysical stuff your life requires. Life is good when you can promptly resolve each one. But who could be so fortunate? Your life and my life tends to bog down on those items we can never quite fully satisfy. The less we can respond to a need, the more we end up reacting the resulting pain. Reactive Problem The less we can resolve a need, from problems beyond our control , the more our queued-up needs remain on the list. The pain builds up, as our body warns of the threat to our ability to fully function. We feel ourselves pulled more and more to react to the situation, for prompt relief. Anankelogy recognizes this is not simply a cognitive experience. Limits to resolving needs often occur as “social facts ” you can do little about. You must do something about the mounting pain, and no mere mental exercise can make it better. Resolving queued and evoked needs involves a social context. Our conventional thinking tends to expect more from individuals than what is honestly possible. Responsive Solution Anankelogy illuminates how we orient ourselves to our recurring needs. The more elusive the means to resolve a need, the more we tend to adjust to the limitation. Anankelogy cites at least three such orientations that speak to our queued and evoked needs. Relational orientation (RO) – general-over-specific or specific-over-general . We either rely on generalizations that overlook relevant specifics of our needs but offers some relief, or we routinely get to the relevant specifics for resolving our needs. Queued and evoke needs resolve better when oriented toward specifics over generalizations. Easement orientation (EO) – relieve-over-resolve or resolve-over-relieve . We either seek relief from our painful needs or regularly prefer to resolve such needs to remove their cause for pain. Queued and evoke needs resolve better when oriented toward resolving needs over relieving their pain. Conflict orientation (CO) – guarded-over-open or open-over-guarded . We either stay defensive and guarded during a conflict, to avoid further hurt, or we habitually remain open to engage the unchosen needs on all sides of a conflict. Queued and evoke needs resolve better when staying open and engaging amidst conflicts. Anankelogy recognizes a psychosocial orientation where you either prioritize self-needs over social needs or you prioritize social needs over self-needs. But unlike these other orientations, one side of this orientation does not more effectively resolve needs than the other. Instead of being vertical in quality like the other types, this “lateral” type of orientation recognizes the objective fact of prioritized needs . Your queued self-needs and social needs intersect with these vertical types of orientation. The more specifics you address, endure the discomfort, and remain open despite conflict, the more your self-needs and social needs can fully resolve. Because of limitations, often beyond your control, you either resolve your queued self-needs more than your queued social needs or you resolve your queued social needs more than your queued self-needs. This shapes your political outlook . Resolving your public-facing self-needs more than your public-facing social needs predisposes you toward liberal or progressive stances. For example, your need for self-acceptance tends to be resolved more than your need for inclusion in society. Resolving your public-facing social needs more than your public-facing self-needs predisposes you toward conservative or right-wing stances. For example, your need for family cohesion tends to be resolved more than your need for encouraged self-initiative. Responsive depolarization seeks to address and resolve self-needs on par with social needs to take some of the sting out of such imbalance. So each time a self-need or social need clamors for your attention, you can more freely and fully resolve them, remove the discomfort, and reach more of your life’s full potential. 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: Needs typically fail to fully resolve because of being personally irresponsible. I believe the richer you are, the easier to freely and fully resolve each need. Perhaps mental illness stems from too many unresolved needs in one’s queued list. I imagine you can endure a list of unmet low priority needs without much risk to functionality. 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

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

< Back Wrongful Conviction 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 Alaska 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

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

Glossary E earned legitimacy (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] - REFUNCTION The refunction of establishing trusted responsiveness to vulnerable needs of those relatively less socially powerful, based empirically on measurable impacts on the needs of those under a powerholder's influence. E.g., positive or negative changes in health outcomes like chronic anxiety, major depression, and addictions. Posited as a higher form of legitimacy than widely accepted "ascribed legitimacy ", which is prone to manipulation and privileged unresponsiveness . Applies a response reputation or "response rating" to those in positions of of power. easement orientation (n. ) - EO (abbr. ) One's relatively fixed or routine way to experience discomfort, which all stem from unresolved needs; either prioritizing relief-over-resolve or prioritizing resolve-over-relief . The Anankelogy Foundatdion addresses the challenge of improving one's EO with the NR101 Personal Need-Responder program. Other relevant terms: discomfort avoidance , discomfort embrace ; feel-reactive , need-responsive , passive-aggressive pain relief , reactive pain relief . engage (v. ) - REFUNCTION To openly explore each other's affected needs to resolve a conflict, as opposed to debating or disputing or arguing; to show intent for mutual regard making room for social love over norms privileging avoidance and opposition that tend to perpetuate pain and problems. Contrasts with the defunction of mutual defensiveness . engaging mutuality (n. ) - REFUNCTION Responding personally to what others may need in ways that encourage reciprocal respect for one’s own needs. Counters avoidant adversarialism . See responsivism . engaging query (n. ) A formatted invitation to consider thinking beyond an accepted assumption about something to reflect on a more specific and relevant perspective that could empirically result in resolving more needs. Invites a transition from being feel-reactive to being more need-responsive . Format: Opens with a question to compare two or more perspectives. E.g., "Which do you think is more likely?" or "Which would you prefer?" Then offers a widely accepted assumption, typically a more feel-reactive belief. "Or" to set up the illuminating comparison. Finally, a more specific and relevant perspective is offered to challenge the earlier assumption(s), as a more need-responsive belief. See examples in the openers to most blog entries here. evil (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Benefiting from diminishing the functioning of others or of oneself, overlooking less harmful or unharmful alternatives, and often correlating with a lack of sufficient awareness of the painful results. In other words, causing pathology + benefiting from it. Elements of anankelogically defined evil (the “D” element not essential but common): A ctions resulting in damage to others (or to oneself). B enefiting from the results of such harmful actions. C hoosing harmful options over benign alternatives. D esensitized to causing harm in others. See improperly resolving need s . evoked need (n. ) A requirement previously dormant now necessary to function. exposed need (n. ) Any core need or resource need or access need or psychosocial need easily impacted by any privileged social norm or structural problem . Compare with vulnerable need that is easily impacted by anyone in a privileged position of social influential "power" or by a power 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

Take the easy course, then life gets hard. Take the hard course, then life gets easy. < Back D08 Pain Principle List of all principles Take the easy course, then life gets hard. Take the hard course, then life gets easy. Image: Pixabay - Sonyuser (click on meme to see source image) Summary The more you indulge yourself to avoid the discomforts of fully resolving your needs, the more your unresolved needs result in lingering pain. The more you face upfront the intense discomforts necessary to fully resolve your needs, the more you will enjoy some long-term fruits and suffer less lingering pain. Your life typically reveals a pattern of favoring one or the other. Description Which do you think is more likely? You pick the low hanging fruit of an easier path in life because of your moral failings. OR You would pursue the challenging path of resolving needs no matter how difficult at first, if this option was more open to you. Anankelogy Anankelogy introduces you to various need-experience orientations . These are relatively fixed ways you experience your familiar needs. This principle speaks to your “easement orientation ”. You’re either oriented to resolve your needs over relieving their pain. You take the hard course first. Or you’re oriented to relieve your pain over resolving the needs causing your pain. You take the easy path first. The less you can fully resolve your needs, the less you can function. Every unresolved need emotionally warns you of its threat to your ability to function. The less you can function over time, the more your pain builds up. The longer you must adjust to this mounting pain, the more you get used to coping with this manageable level of discomfort. If you cannot consistently access what would restore you to full functioning, but must settle on some alternative or substitute to get you by, you naturally become oriented to seek relief over resolving your pounding needs. In other words, it is not always simple to merely choose the challenging path upfront, to decide to endure the difficulties inherent when fully resolving your needs. Your life situation shapes your orientation to your needs. Options to live optimally may remain beyond your reach. Need-response exists to give you optimal choices. So you can accept, with little risk of falling flat, the difficult path upfront to fully resolve needs. Need-response Here is where we apply this principle to improve our need-responding skills. We contrast popular norms creating a feel-reactive problem with our preferable need-responsive solution . Reactive Problem Game theory and rational choice theory provide a helpful framework for understanding the specific choices we make in life. But this approach can offer only part of the picture. Need-response recognizes the role of needs as they actually occur, with empirical evidence. No matter how much you aspire to take the high road of nobly suffering to resolve needs, you likely find yourself having to settle for less. You needless feel guilty if you repeatedly take the law road of self-indulgence to cope somehow with your load of pain of unresolved needs. Responsive Solution Western culture biases us to primarily think of our individual choices. This lens can blind us from how our choices are limited by our social environments. Those able to access more resources to more fully resolve their needs often assume others enjoy about the same level of access. Need-response incentivizes those with greater access to resources to improve accessibility to others less fortunate. Instead of relying on political generalizations or impersonal policies to spread wealth, need-response personally connects the advantaged with the relatively less advantaged. Need-response offers the potential for all to take the challenging path to more fully resolve needs. And offers opportunity for the more advantaged to take the challenging path to support the full resolution of needs of others with a mutually beneficial conciliatory process. Because outrage is never as potent as the powerful incentive of love to mutually resolve each other’s affected needs. Responding to your needs How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these: I’ve tried to take this nobler path of accepting difficulties upfront, but find myself repeatedly pulled back to ease my unrelenting pain. I’ve tried this approach of taking the hard road first, but I can’t say it helped me much. I once took the more challenging route of hitting a problem head on and it turned out great. I already orient my life to take the challenging road first, and let me tell you how it really is. 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

A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. < Back E03 Conflict Principle List of all principles A rush to debate usually skips the details that really matter in life. Image: Pixabay – klickblick (click on meme to see source image) Summary The quicker you assert your stance against another, or argue against an opposing position, the more likely you overlooked some vital details supporting the other side. The rush to debate often betrays avoidance of uncomfortable details. The more you can keep a disagreement at a controlled rational level, the less you risk exposing any embarrassing details you cannot defend or emotions you cannot control. Description Which do you think is more likely? Anyone disagreeing with you probably has no reasonable contribution to the argument. OR Disagreements usually mask what we’ve yet to feel courageous enough to vulnerably share. Anankelogy You hear someone boldly make a claim contrary to what you know must be true. If you don’t challenge it, you risk letting them act upon their false information. You could suffer as a result. So what do you do? You quickly announce, “I disagree!” You challenge their beliefs. You want them to bring receipts. You confront their skewed views. You prepare your proofs. You rush to dispute, to debate, to emphasize your differences. Honestly, how well does such an approach work? It’s easy to convince ourselves we’re acting on facts when actually we’re driven by our biases. We interpret available date in our advantage. We measure what is true by what we feel will ease our needs. We believe what we need to believe . If only focused on easing my discomfort, I don’t need to know what is really bothering you. If I feel I must avoid discomfort , then I must avoid the specifics that drive our differences. Ironically, this easily keeps me trapped in pain . Need-response Need-response prioritizes specifics over generalizations. Sure, generalizing has its place. But we tend to overuse that tool. Need-response helps to reacquaint us to our overlooked specifics. It’s easy to fool ourselves that we’re being rational when we’re actually being rash. It’s easy to be tricked by our confirmation bias , as we seek only the information confirming our beliefs. Even when those beliefs trap us in pain. Reactive Problem Problems abound when rushing into debate. Take the hot button issue of abortion for example. Rushing to debate skips what may matter most. The prolife side misses vital details strengthening the prochoice stance. The prochoice side overlooks particulars cementing the prolife stance. The prolife activist arguing for the new mother to keep her baby fails to appreciate a mother’s unspoken trauma of losing autonomy over her own body from years of endured sexual abuse. The prochoice activist arguing to let any woman terminate her pregnancy fails to appreciate the consequences to those who rushed into this enormous decision and continue to suffer deep, deep regret. You can apply this to any politicized or adjudicated contested issue. When each side jumps to assert their differences, they leave little to any room to appreciate the nuance driving their differences. Opposition often gets stuck on overgeneralized assumptions. The most relevant specifics too easily get ignored. Problems persist, perpetuating the pain that’s supposed to be eased by the debate. Responsive Solution Need-response addresses one of the key motivations for missing relevant specifics: discomfort avoidance . The more you can embrace life’s natural discomforts, including the sharp pain involved in resolving some needs, the more prepared you are to relate to relevant specifics on all sides. Need-response offers a free program for stretching your comfort zone. You learn you can tolerate much more physical and emotional discomfort than you likely assume. You learn to embrace discomfort to resolve more needs to remove cause for pain. Next, need-response offers an inexpensive program for turning conflict into opportunities for deeper connection. You learn how to not get so easily defensiveness during a conflict. You learn to consider the inflexible needs so you can defuse the tension. The first program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your easement orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from prioritizing relief-over-resolution or prioritizing resolution-over-relief . You learn to endure the discomfort of any unpleasant details. The second program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your conflict orientation . The program helps you to shift your orientation from staying guarded to staying open during conflicts. You learn to relate to the specifics fueling conflicts before they’re even revealed. 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 the other side tries to manipulate me with fake details? What if there’s no time to explore details? Too much detail could distract from solving the conflict. What about those who disagree simply to disagree and enjoy the fight? 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