Search Results

First recognize every need as an objective fact The objective reality of need points to many overlooked strong correlations. . PART A: Predictable results of resolving needs PART B: Predictable consequences of unresolved needs Introduction Anankelogy first recognizes how needs occur as objective facts, independent from our subjective experiences. You require water whether feeling thirsty or not. You need social connection despite any thought or belief about it. Anankelogy defines need as essential to function. If you can function without it, then it is not literally a "need". For example, you never literally need a bottle of water. If you can access a resource in different ways, such as water from a drinking fountain, then anankelogy does not count that as "essential to function". To get more specific, anankelogy breaks down the experience of need in a four-part funnel. core need - optimal homeostatic balance, essential to functioning resource need - something necessary to restore homeostatic balance access need - how to get the necessary resource, or any substitutes psychosocial need - who is to access it, yourself or someone else Anankelogy differentiates between the inflexible core and flexible external aspects of our experience of needs. You have no choice about requiring something like water, solitude or social connection to restore equilibrium. You have choices how to address such needs. As objective fact, independent of awareness. The objective fact of needs Anankelogy invites us to discover the many significant correlations with our objective needs. Proper use of social science can test the veracity of these theorized relations. The findings can give credibility to our efforts to resolve more needs, which then removes more pain and restores more wellness. Anankelogy isolates these objective dimensions of needs And anankelogy can help us scientifically predict the result of unmet needs. If put under the microscope of social science research, you may find high correlations between the objective fact of needs and predictable outcomes of how such needs get addressed and experienced. With near-100% correlations, I can confidently guarantee… the less your needs resolve, the less fully you can function; the less you resolve your need or function, the more in pain you will be; and the more you relieve the pain of your unresolved needs without getting to its source, the more pain you ultimately experience as your body persists in warning you of the threat not yet fully removed. 1. Needs recur as an objective fact. Anankelogy fundamental principle 01. A need is an essential requirement to function, independent of subjective experience. Needs require resources to be accessed in order to restore functioning, independent of subjective experience. The bodily requirement for water, for example, sits outside any belief or feeling. Testable hypothesis: The more we must have something particular to stay alive or to function, and the less we can function without that particular something (or someone), the more that essential requirement exists outside of subjective experience. How this can be tested has yet to be designed. One way is to operationalize the observable distinction between the "what" of a need's objective occurrence and "how" that need gets subjectively experienced. 2. Function fluctuates as an objective fact. Anankelogy fundamental principle 03. When a need is not resolved, capacity to function gets reduced independent of subjective experience. For example, if the need to handle a threat is not resolved, one's function goes down regardless of feelings, beliefs or behavior. Fear predictably rises, outside of subjective experience. Testable hypothesis: The less we can function when a particular need is not met, and the better we can function when that need is met, the more removed that function (or wellness) exists from subjective experience. How this can be tested has yet to designed. 3. Emotions occur as objective events. Anankelogy fundamental principle 04. The content of emotions is generally subjective, like how to deal with one's fear. But the conveyance of fear as a warning when faced with something one cannot handle occurs independent of subjective experience. Sure, the details of that fear are subjective, such as the belief that the threat can't be handled or the belief it must be handled alone. But the occurrence of fear to warn of a possible threat always emerges outside of subjectivity. Testable hypothesis: The more we identify the same emotion to a particular need, the more removed that emotion from subjective experience. Here are five survey questions to test if emotions predictably occur as objective events. We could add more items, perhaps a total of ten. Respondent instruction: Identify the emotion that best characterizes your response. Q1: When stumbling upon a skunk and it starts to lift up its tail, I feel ___. curious bewildered afraid amused Q2: When running late to an appointment because traffic is unusually thick, along with new road construction, I feel ____. exasperated frustrated annoyed disappointed Q3: When learning my neighbor lied to me about why my trash cans came up missing, I feel ____. betrayed angry irritated exploited Q4: When losing a loved one to a sudden death, I feel ____. sad depressed grief lonely Q5: When caught lying to my friend about something I was too embarrassed to admit, I felt ____. exposed vulnerable irritated guilty Operationalized hypothesis: The more agreement among respondents (i.e., inter-rater reliability) identifying the most likely feeling, the more likely the identified emotion occurs independent of subjective experience and outside of personal biases. Emotions can then be characterized as occurring as objective fact. Null operationalized hypothesis: The less agreement among respondents, with diverse labeling of a corresponding emotion, the more likely the identified emotion points to subjective experience and personal biases. Emotions then cannot be characterized as occurring as objective fact. Democratizing science Anankelogy democratizes social science with what it calls relational knowing. Abbreviated RK, it empowers you to relate more accurately with your experienced needs. As you observe two things change in apparent association with each other, you frame your own testable hypotheses. You naturally entertain the notion of one "variable" causing the other. But scientific discipline encourages you not to rush to that conclusion. Know the four types of associations The discipline of social science reminds us to put the descriptive over the normative. We delay the gratification of acting upon our initial assumptions. We carefully describe all that can be observed, to ensure the greatest accuracy. We look at four different ways the association could be correlated. more-more: more of this, then more of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) "The more generous with your time, the more others test your patience." more-less: more of this, then less of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) "The more defensive you get, the less others open up to you." less-more: less of this, then more of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) "The less you eat well, the more easily you get sick." less-less: less of this, then less of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) "The less honest you are, the less others will trust what you say." Consider these knowable correlations in the testable hypotheses below. Each can be tested with the tools of social science, such as surveys, interviews, experiments, and the like. While suggesting a relationship between the two identified variables we observe changing at about the same time, we recognize how correlation is not necessarily causation. Even a spurious relationship can illuminate further inquiry. Embracing ambiguity Consider these five degrees of certainty using 'relational knowing'. Appears or seems - worthy of further investigation, exploration, but low to no certainty until tested Presents - can identify a way to test and measure this apparent association. Demonstrates - preliminary measures suggest a significant correlation. Demonstrates as indicated by - reliable measure points to a significant correlation. Demonstrates as verified by - reliable measure independently used that results in about the same findings. Any suggestion of absolute certainty ought to ring alarm bells. The more we feel certain about something, the less we seek to know further about that item or topic. Our dynamic understanding then risks crystallizing into beliefs that often cannot hold sufficiently true over time in newer situations. The less we feel certain...the more we seek...topic. Defining need Definition of need: something necessary to function. Or more simply a necessity to function. That "something" could be variable and therefore dependent on perception and culture. The raw necessity to function occurs prior to, and independent from, any perception or any human culture. Function occurs independent of subjective experience. If you do not receive sufficient nutrients, for example, your ability to function will objectively decline. I present these testable correlations in two complementary veins. PART A: Predictable results of resolving needs PART B: Predictable consequences of unresolved needs Social science accountability These assertions could be verified or invalidated using social science research tools. Keep in mind that science seeks to invalidate plausible but unsupportable assumptions more than it seeks to prove anything. I anticipate strong correlations in each of these. But such anticipation increases the risk of confirmation bias. Appropriate application of science mitigates this risk, such as using the null hypothesis to try to invalidate an untested theory and using double-blind experiments where neither the tester nor the tested know the anticipated results. With all research involving human subjects vetted through an IRB. Format Each entry below follows a simple pattern. The testable need-based hypothesis (sub header). Summary introduction to this testable hypothesis. Testable assumptions. Reasonable connection. Theorized hypothesis. Null hypothesis. Implication. Hypothesis in reverse. Quick caveat: I admit my grasp of statistics and academic research has grown a little rusty in the decade since completing two graduate degrees. I welcome critique to improve my suggested use of such research to invalidate or validate these wisdom-inspired correlations. PART A: Predictable results of resolving needs Anankelogy suggests a high correlation can be found in these associations. The more a need resolves, the less pain there can be to suffer. The sooner you remove a threat to functioning, the quicker your pain fades. The more your needs fully resolve, the better you can function. The more your needs fully resolve, the more you can reach your full potential. The more your needs fully resolve, the less drawn to unhealthy habits. The more you refill what your life requires, the less you crave unhealthy substitutes. The more you can fully resolve their needs, the easier to sustain peakfunction. The more you replenish what your life requires, the better you can function. The more fully replenishing what’s required, the easier to overcome addiction. Part B looks at each of these in reverse, at correlations of needs not resolving, A1. The more a need resolves, the less pain there can be to suffer. click to download After working a couple hours straight under a tight deadline and drinking coffee, you desperately need a restroom break. As soon as you go, you feel immediate relief. That applies to any other physical or emotional need you experience. As soon as your friend positively replies to your request for their help, your anxiety subsides. When you still cannot get everything accomplished as you had hoped, some anxiety persists. Your emotions faithfully report the level of your objective needs. Testable assumptions: This hypothesis rides on these guiding anankelogical assumptions. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, occurring independent of awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs, and that there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Apart from the body compelled to warn of a perceived threat, it is impossible to experience any pain. No perceived (or vicariously felt) threat means no felt pain. Reasonable connection: Because every need exists as an objective fact for objective functioning, and pain only exists to report a threat to functioning (i.e., unresolved need), there should be a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The more a need resolves, the more the accompanying discomfort fades. The less a need resolves, the more intense the accompanying pain. Null hypothesis: The more a need resolves, there will be no significant decrease in the intensity of its pain. The less a need resolves, there will be no significant increase in the intensity of the pain. Operationalized: The more your air conditioner cools you down to an optimal body temperature on a hot day, the more your uncomfortable sweating goes away. The less your body can return to your optimal temperature, the more uncomfortably you sweat. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, all services and institutions addressing needs of a populace could better relate to their pain. They can anticipate higher levels of reported pain likely points to lower rates of resolved needs. This also suggests that offering or providing long-term pain relief risks perpetuating pain. The body must continue warning of a threat to functioning until that perceived threat gets fully unremoved. B1 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A2. The sooner you remove a threat to functioning, the quicker your pain fades. When you arrive at the public restroom, you find you must wait in line for an available stall. Your body faithfully reports your need to go, however uncomfortable that message. But as soon as you finish what you came there for, that discomfort rapidly goes away. Your body loses reason to report such a threat to functioning once your bladder gets emptied. Testable assumptions: This hypothesis rides on these guiding anankelogical assumptions. The more one resolves a painful need, the less cause for the body to signal a threat. The sooner the removal of a reported threat, the sooner the body ends its painful warnings, allowing the accompanying pain to fade. Reasonable connection: Because every perceived threat that materializes negatively impacts functioning, and every removed threat removes cause to warn with pain, one can predict that removing a threat also removes the warning message of pain. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The more one respects pain to report threats, the more endurance to the sharp pain of reported threats. The more they endure such sharp pain of reported threats, the more effectively they can remove such threats. The sooner they remove these threats, the quicker their pain gets removed. The more pain removed, the more they can respect their pain and appreciate it to report threats, cycling back to the first relation. Anankelogy adds two types of testable correlations: reflexive and cyclic. To complement standard social science correlations, anankelogy introduces two unique types of testable associations. Its nature-based paradigm anticipates not only linear links, but reflexive and cyclic relations. Reflexive correlations. An empirically observable association between two or more variables that seem to change each other. While correlation is not necessarily causation, social science research typically anticipates one variable (the dependent variable) to change as an apparent consequence of another preceding variable (the independent variable). Anankelogy recognizes the possibility of variables reflexively impacting each other. This can point to a cyclic correlation between a string of variables. Cyclic correlations. The nature-based paradigm of academic anankelogy anticipates a string of dependent variables looping together. As variable A changes along with B, B changes with C. Then as C changes along with D, those changes in D link to changes in A. Each independent variable gets identified as a dependent variable to its preceding variable, in that part of the ongoing cycle. This suggested correlation can illustrate such cyclic correlations using the 4-part cycle of discomfort avoidance. (Start in the eastern quadrant.). 4-part cycle of discomfort avoidance Respect pain. The more you respect pain to report threats, the more you can endure the sharp pain of reported threats. Endure pain. The more you can endure the sharp pain of reported threats, the more you can effectively remove such threats. Remove threats. The more you remove these threats, the more of your pain gets removed. Remove pain. The more of your pain removed, the more you can respect your pain to report threats. Null hypothesis: The sooner one removes a pain-reported threat, there is no significant change in the timing of that pain’s decrease or removal. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, clients and patients complaining of physical or emotional pain could be better understood as perceiving a threat to be removed. Instead of focusing on relieving their symptoms or pain, more attention could be given to the threats prompting the pain. The pain serves to warn against the threat constraining their lives. Anankelogy recognizes how pain is not the problem as much as the threat any pain solely exists to report. Instead of always trying to ease each incident of physical or emotional pain, we may be better served by removing the actual threats prompting such pain. Anankelogy suggests each of us has one can be called an “easement orientation”. We either embrace the discomfort of realizing there’s a threat to be removed or we avoid the discomfort and likely overlook a threat that persists to prompt more warnings with pain. We either present a resolve-over-relieve or a relieve-over-resolve easement orientation. The more overcome with pain, the more likely oriented to relieve the distress. Lessen your pain’s intensity by engaging the message of your pain. Unless overwhelmed by pain from too many unmet needs, your pain can fade before fully resolving the need. Instead of reacting to your pain by trying to avoid it, go toward your pain and make it serve you by taking these mindful steps. Acknowledge your pain. Recognize it is only there to warn you of some apparent threat to remove. Feel your pain lose its agonizing edge once you face it down. Identify what that threat may be doing to limit your wellbeing. Feel your pain start to fade as soon as you get its message about what you need in that moment. Do anything to try to remove that threat, or distance yourself from such a threat, and start restoring your functioning. As you perceive the threat going away, your pain loses its intensity. Partially remove a portion of that threat, or significantly distance yourself from the threat, so you can get back to fuller functioning. Your pain then loses cause to exist. Mostly remove the threat or remove yourself from that threat, to restore most of your lost functioning. You now only feel mild discomfort, reminding you how that threat is not yet totally gone but is mostly out of the way. Fully remove the threat, or fully remove yourself from that threat, to restore full functioning in that area. Your pain fully dissipates and then gives way to feeling relief. Moving promptly through these steps greatly reduces the risks of slipping into unhealthy habits. Failing to identify and remove threats significantly increases the risk of addiction, as coping mechanisms for dealing with the objectively occurring pain of objectively unmet needs. Short-term relief may be necessary. But the pain will return, often in a different form, if you continue to neglect the threat. As soon as possible, identify the threat and take steps to remove that threat, or remove yourself from it. But remain attentive to the underlying threat. Or that pain will find another way to compel your attention, and possibly pull you into some debilitating addiction. Let your pain serve you instead of you serving it. B2 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A3. The more your needs fully resolve, the better you can function. One day you're fine. You wake up the next day feeling like warmed over death. You feel too sick to go work. Did you cross over some invisible line overnight? Wasn't there some phase between being well and waking up unwell? Anankelogy suggests there indeed is such a phase. Between the wellness of "peakfunction" and the unwellness of "dysfunction" lies a phase called "symfunction". But then what exactly is function? Anankelogy defines function as the level of ability to continue existing and doing things as naturally possible. Anankelogy identifies four distinct levels of such functioning: peakfunction - prioritize resolving all needs fully; completely well symfunction - prioritize easing needs pragmatically with others; mostly well dysfunction - prioritize relieving pain of unresolved needs; increasingly unwell misfunction - prioritize surviving under threat of demise; totally unwell Testable assumptions. According to anankelogy, a need is a requirement of something or someone in order to function. Consider this: Every instance of not accessing what's required to function always diminishes the capacity to function. The more one replenishes what's been depleted, and removes threatening excess, the more their functioning returns to a more optimal level. Apart from this necessity to function, we have no needs. Reasonable connection: What academic anankelogy defines as function generally equates with accessible anankelogy's concept of wellness. A colloquial way to phrase this hypothesis could be: The more your needs fully resolve, the more well you will be. Inversely, the less your needs resolve, the closer your slide toward being unwell. Theorized hypothesis: The fewer needs demanding attention, the more one can fully function. The more needs demanding attention, the less one can fully resolve. Null hypothesis: The fewer needs demanding attention shows no significant change in one's ability to function. IMPLICATION: If a service provider, like a doctor or counselor, only helps you ease your pain, they risk limiting your full potential. The more professionals help you identify and address such needs, to ultimately resolve them, the greater the chances to reach more of your life's potential. Need-response sets itself apart from standard pain-relieving options by focusing on the needs causing such pain. B3 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A4. The more your needs fully resolve, the more you can reach your full potential. Everything feels fine for you this day. Nothing hurts. Your mind entertains some ways to stretch your horizon. Testable assumptions. When all of your needs fully resolve, you enjoy the capacity to more freely pursue more of your life's potential. As soon as you experience a need demanding your attention, you cannot focus as much on pursuing your life's full potential. When suffering the emotional strain of too many unmet needs insisting on your attention, you rarely can afford to pursue your life's potential. Reasonable connection: If you must attend to basic needs, then you likely cannot afford as much attention to addressing the higher growth needs like interpersonal intimacy, mutual trust, developing competencies, nurturing economic stability and the like. Theorized hypothesis: The more your needs resolve, the better you can function. The better you can function, the more your attention tends to get pulled toward reaching more of your life's potential. The less your needs resolve, the less you can fully function. And the more your focus shifts away from pursuing your full potential and toward doing something about the mounting emotional strain warning you of these unmet needs. Null hypothesis: The more your needs resolve, there is no significant difference in your capacity to function, nor in your ability to pursue your life's full potential. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, more attention can be given to ensuring needs properly resolve, instead of increasing access to resources or relying on reasoning, or any of the other less effective modes for pursuing one's potential. B4 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A5. The more your needs fully resolve, the less drawn to unhealthy habits. When your needs properly resolve, you suffer less emotional pain. Since you suffer less pain, you typically do not seek as many comforting distractions. For example, when your need for social connection gets routinely satisfied by the quality time you spend with your closest friends, you feel little to no reason to seek validating "likes" on social media. Anankelogy recognizes three levels of resource needs for redressing your emotionally felt needs. Primary resource: What our body has evolved to utilize to restore optimal balance. E.g., water for thirst, interpersonal connection for loneliness, empathy for resolving conflicts. Primary resources fully resolving needs correlates with peakfunction. Alternate resource: What can allow a need to at least partially resolve. E.g., sweetened juice, casual friends, sympathy or pity toward those opposing you. Alternate resources partially easing needs correlates with symfunction. Substitute resource: What can only provide relief from the pain of the unresolved need. E.g., alcohol, social media “friends”, apathy or antipathy toward hostile foes. Substitute resources relieving pain correlates with dysfunction. Testable assumptions. Without the emotional strain warning you of unmet needs, you unlikely seek ways to distract yourself. While your daily routine results in properly resolving needs, you leave little to no room to slip into unhealthy habits. As you establish a routine that results in healthy living, you experience no incentive to indulge in unhealthy habits. Reasonable connection: As your needs remain mostly resolved, you can sustain the inertia to maintain healthy habits. Your raised capacity, and absence of emotional strain, can incentivize you to steer clear of poor habits. As you enjoy eating a healthy diet, for example, you feel less tempted to indulge in junk food on a regular basis. Theorized hypothesis: The quicker your needs fully resolve, the quicker your emotional strain warning you of the evoked need starts to fade. The sooner your identify the need, the less emotional strain you will suffer. The quicker you attend to the need, the less drawn to ways to distract you from the mounting discomfort from the painful need. Null hypothesis: The quicker your needs fully resolve, there will be no significant difference in the level of emotional discomfort you will experience. IMPLICATION: The sooner you can fully resolve a need, the less of a chance for emotional strain to build. Without mounting emotional strain from unmet needs, there is less of a chance to slip into unhealthy habits to cope with such pain. Anankelogy recognizes how there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Once a need gets fully resolved, your body has no reason to signal any emotional discomfort about that need. You then experience pleasure or relief. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats your pain exists to report. When feeling pain, thank your body for warning you of an apparent threat to remove. In other words, instead of habitually shrinking from that discomfort, move toward it to identify and address the need. Flee from pain and it will chase you; chase pain and it will flee from you. Then feel that pain go away. Flee from pain and it will chase you; chase pain and it will flee from you. B5 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A6. The more you refill what your life requires, the less you crave unhealthy substitutes. Let this build upon the previous hypothesis. Slipping into unhealthy habits begins with feeling satisfied with pain-relieving substitutes. The more you can reliably access primary resources to properly resolve your needs, which your life requires, the less likely you habitually indulge in unhealthy substitutes. You eat a healthy meal, so your hunger goes away. Or you grab a quick snack, but the hunger won't go away. You cope by eating more junk food, which leaves you craving for more. Then you find you lack the energy to prepare a healthy meal. You spend quality time with a friend who truly listens to you, so your loneliness fades. Or you call a friend, but they don't have the time to give to you. So you browse social media, hoping for 'likes' to your posts to give you that feeling you're being acknowledged. No amount of such shallow affirmations will actually satisfy you. Testable assumptions. The more responsive to your inflexible needs, by promptly replenishing what your life requires and promptly removing any threats, the less you seek to "replenish" with substitute resources. Desiring what is unhealthy almost always begins when not being able to access what is healthier. When alternate or substitute resources are more readily available than much-needed primary resources, we tend to be like electricity and take the shortest path. We grow dependent upon what is most readily available, whether that satisfies our needs (primary resources) or reliably eases our needs (alternate resources) or satisfies our desperation to get rid of the persisting pain of unmet needs (substitute resources). Reasonable connection: You can maintain a healthy habit only as long as primary resources remain available to you. Once you must adjust to lesser resources and then find them consistently accessible, your risk goes up to becoming emotionally attached to such lesser resources. As your life accommodates such compromised wellbeing, you become attached to the familiarity of lesser resources. You then rarely if ever seek primary resources anymore, and may lack the energy to do so. Theorized hypothesis: The quicker you replenish whatever your your life requires, which typically refills what has become depleted, the more likely you maintain a good habit of continually accessing such primary resources. The more you faithfully resolve your needs with healthy options, the less likely you crave any unhealthy options. Null hypothesis: The quicker you replenish whatever your your life requires, there will be no significant incentive to maintain healthy habits. Slipping into unhealthy habits could routinely occur regardless of promptly resolving needs. IMPLICATION: Social norms anticipate the predictable availability of resources. Wherever primary resources remain consistently accessible, social norms may cast lesser resources as taboo, or even forbidden. For example, Islamic and other cultures forbid alcohol because of its known damaging effects on personal and social wellbeing. The robust accessibility of healthier options like water, tea and juice make it easier to curtail access to alcohol. Wherever primary resources remain persistently inaccessible, social norms may normalize lesser resources as acceptable, and even preferable. For example, the adversarial judicial system and politics normalizes the lesser resource of dealing with conflicts with antipathy between both parties, leaving little if any room to encourage empathy for each other's affected needs. If no institution exists to resolve all needs of all involved in a conflict, we will understandably crave the less healthy substitute of offering pain relief to the winning side in a court or ballot contest. Yes, it is still better than violently attacking one another. In any distorted economy where a few can horde access to the best resources, and social systems can manufacture scarcity despite an abundance of primary resources, the number of people who slide into craving less healthy option will naturally rise. Anankelogy identifies the problem of excessive resourcing, where access to primary resources gets horded or wasted. Which spills over into manufactured discontentment. Instead of supporting each other to access much-needed resources, we find ourselves in a consumerist society of cutthroat materialism fueling hyper-individualism and alienation. This cultural climate normalizes the excesses of capitalism norms. Consequently, an increasing number must resort to lesser resources and accommodate compromised wellbeing along with mounting pain. Even the materially wealthy become spiritually poor in the process, who never find meaningful contentment unless they find purpose in sharing their excess wealth. But that doesn't heal society's disconnected materialistic sickness. Current norms tend to perpetuate this imbalance, with a marketplace willingly serving up unhealthy substitute resources. "We're just providing what the market wants," serves up as a convenient yet clueless excuse, rationalizing away complicity in diminishing our personal and collective wellbeing. A society that ensures all can access what they require in life may seem too socialistic or communistic. Or perhaps cast as too Pollyanna, too unrealistic, too impractical. Meanwhile, the complicit pay the price with their taxes that goes to public services to bail out those trapped in craving unhealthy substitutes. B6 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A7. The more you can fully resolve your needs, the easier to sustain peakfunction. Resolving your needs enable you to sustain your capacity to function. As Abraham Maslow noted, resolving your basic needs (like security) sets a foundation for your to attend to your higher needs (like intimate connection with others). Indeed, as your more basic needs feel resolved, your higher growth needs awaken. But if you must suddenly defend yourself from a permeating threat, those growth needs typically get put on the back burner. Promptly removing that threat frees your focus to reach more of your life's potential. You can then sustain peakfunction capacity. With your needs consistently resolved so you can continually functioning optimally, you may reach a state of flow enabling you to reach more of your life's potential. Which enables you to remain more attentive to the presenting needs of others. Helping them resolve their needs serves your own higher need for meaningful purpose in life, as an aspect of peakfunction. Testable assumptions. Fully resolved needs serve as a prerequisite to fully function, to optimal wellness. Partially resolved needs leaves you functioning at a less than optimal level. Promptly and fully resolving needs as they occur provides you the inertia to pursue your optimal goals. Reasonable connection: You don't have to seek optimal wellbeing to experience this pull toward reaching your full potential. As your needs somehow get fully resolved, you naturally feel pulled to attend to higher needs tapping into your full potential. Theorized hypothesis: The longer you maintain wellbeing by promptly resolving every need that arises, the greater your capacity to reach and sustain peakfunction. Null hypothesis: Promptly resolving your needs has no significant impact on your ability to function. If at a higher level of functioning, there will be no significant change in your likelihood of reach or sustaining peakfunction. IMPLICATION: We may assume reaching our full potential demands developing a unique set of skills. Or having the luck or talent to go where few if any have gone before. Instead of emphasizing individual prowess, with out Wester bias, we could cultivate a sociocultural climate incentivizing the proper resolution of our needs, and then see our potential for human flourishing blossom. Much of what hinders our full potential is symfunctionality, fed by divisive social norms anchored in adversarialism and privileged alienation of toxic legalism. Anankelogy considers this rigid conformity to familiar social norms as cisconventionality. And recognizes how nature fills this void with a corrective transconventionality. Those spiritually compelled to transcend divisive social norms to connect deeply with life's full potential are recognized as transspirits. Where cisconventionality prioritizes compliance to social norms, to fit social expectations even if they lead us astray from life's full potential, transconventionality prioritizes the proper resolution of needs to reach life's full potential. "Ciscons" tolerate the gradual debasing of symfunctionality and dysfunctionality, like the boiling frog of creeping normalcy. Transspirits get compelled to directly resolve the needs which norms emerged to serve, but not to settle on partial resolution or on pain relief but to fully resolve needs to remove pain and reach more of life's full potential. Instead of appreciating such norm-challenging transspirits yearning peakfunction for us all, ciscons often cling to the familiarity of acclimated symfunction. And then deride transspirits, who could potentially liberate their full potential, as outlaws and outcasts. (I speak from experience.) For example, ciscons cling to the divisive norm of labeling asymmetric warfare participants as "terrorists" while conveniently ignoring how their own side has engaged in violent acts that can be characterized as terrorism, as targeting noncombatants. Yes, Palestinians who resisted Israeli settlers with deadly violence is disgusting. So is the deadly violence of the Sullivan campaign that killed hundreds of noncombatant Iroquois during the American Revolutionary War, with General Washington's blessing. The transspirit recognizes both sides as asserting their inflexible needs for security and self-determination. Many a ciscon falsely claim empathy for each side's needs as a kind of moral neutrality. They have bought into the zero-sum myth of excessive resourcing, that only one side gets to claim the land or whatever resource being fought over. Their symfunctionality tends to blind them (i.e., diminishes awareness) from the quantifiable evil this normalizes. Which suggests they think at a lower level of epistemic reliance of available facts. Divisive norms compromising full potential can be organized by culturally established gender traits. Blending these traits can liberate life's full potential. And that's exactly why some transspirits (like myself) experience a transgender dimension. Not as a gender identity, but compelled spiritually to integrate all complementary sides of humanity to reach our full potential. As a demonstration of epistemic maturity at the postconventional level. Which includes honoring the inflexible needs of others as one's own, as an act of social love. B7 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. Good science offers satisfying answers. Great science produces better questions to ask and test, to continually dive deeper into the realms of meaningful reality. A8. The more you replenish what your life requires, the better you can function. All desires begin as an emotional signal to replenish something depleted that is essential to function. For example, thirst for water after your body's water level has fallen beneath its optimal level. Or desiring friendship to satisfy the need for social connection after feeling some loneliness. Once adequately replenished, your body signals your satisfaction with a feeling of pleasure. Your thirst feels quenched. Feelings of loneliness shift to feeling affirmed. These satisfied desires enable you resume optimal functioning. Resolving needs improves wellness. That assumes you replenish what's depleted with a primary resource. Water for thirst. Trustworthy friends for loneliness. When resorting to alternate or substitute resources, such as alcohol to alleviate thirst or social media "friends" to pacify loneliness, you cannot resume optimal functioning. When not resuming optimal functioning, your body continues to signal with emotions to attend to such needs. Anankelogy recognizes how emotions personally convey needs. Anankelogy also recognizes how your emotions prioritize your self-continuance. When suffering needs not fully resolved, your emotions "biases" your compromised wellness, your constrained ability to function. In short, your biases prioritize your needs. You can hardly concentrate on other matters while your capacity to focus or stay well remains constrained. Once your needs fully resolve, your capacity opens up to your life's potential for profound growth. You can think more clearly, empathize more easily with others, and see beyond your previously self-absorbed myopia when struggling with unmet needs. You can then focus more freely, without your scope narrowed by biases. Basically, resolved needs improve your understanding. The more your needs resolve, the easier to sustain your wellbeing. The quicker you replenish with primary resources anything depleted, the better you can focus on matters outside of yourself. You can care more for others, be more empathetic to their pain, and do more for what others need. You can more freely honor the needs of others as your own, to inspire others to honor your needs as their own. Love unleashes our lives' potential. Testable assumptions. All natural needs sit equal before nature. Nobody's needs matter more than anybody's else's needs. No one can function optimally at the expense of others. Natural needs never clash with each other. Your need for solitude, for example, never competes with another's need for your friendship. The problem of excessive resourcing, of demanding access to resources beyond what is proper for living a contented and meaningful life, can trick us into believing myths of scarcity. Needs could never evolve if actually clashing with other needs. Reasonable connection: While emotions personally convey needs, laws impersonally convey needs. But social norms can never fully or accurately convey your needs to others who may affect them. Translating your emotions into loving ways to invite other's empathy and care can go a long way to sustain your wellbeing. Theorized hypothesis: The more you properly resolve your needs, by replenishing what's depleted with primary resources and removing threats, both while imposing as little if anything upon others, the more your capacity to function optimally will remain sustained. Null hypothesis: The more you properly replenish primary resources when they become depleted, or remove threats, no significant change will occur to your capacity to function. IMPLICATION: Illicit desires emerge only when we cannot properly replenish resources when they get depleted. Illicit sexual desires, for example, emerge as a consequence of not being able to properly satisfy the benign desire for meaningful intimacy. All desires start as benign or even benevolent longing for something to restore wellbeing, as life has evolved for such needs to be fully and properly satisfied. When situations compel us to settle for alternate or substitute resources, our emotions persist to warn us of not meeting our full wellness. Biases then creep in, to prioritize our attention to address whatever may be lacking. And often with little regard for what others need, to prioritize our own self-continuance. The tendency toward cognitive bias correlates with unresolved needs. Your body easily overrides your best attempt to remain rational or impartial when it compels you to give your full focus to redress unresolved needs. Bias prioritizes addressing unresolved needs. Apart from unresolved needs, or the habits developed from experiencing them, you experience little to no cognitive bias. The scientist struggling with bias should self-reflect on their pressing needs in the moment. The scientist whose needs promptly resolve fully tends to be freer to focus on their work. Since their body is not compelling them to prioritize attention to a necessity to sustain functioning, their thinking can remain open to processing more data. Including disconfirming evidence challenging their pliable assumptions. When weighed down by unresolved needs, they tend to cling to assumptions that can offer some semblance of relief. Even if only because of their familiarity, at a time their mind gets contracted to focus on what can be trusted to provide relief. When needs fully resolve, the mind can then turn more of its attention to untapped possibilities. Ideas can flow freely, independent from what one's life requires. Theories can then reflect more of reality outside of oneself. Boundless epiphanies may emerge, as one discovery sheds light on another. Good science offers satisfying answers. Great science produces better questions to ask and test, to continually dive deeper into the realms of meaningful reality. Science is well served by the scientists whose needs promptly and properly resolve, to sustain their optimal functioning. Which then helps us all to function better. B8 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. A9. The more fully replenishing what’s required, the easier to overcome addiction. If you maintain a healthy diet and do not feel stressed out by life's demands, what are the real chances of you getting addicted to junk food? If you do find yourself indulging too much processed foods, then take proactive steps to prepare healthy meals as you get your life in order, can you see your risk of addiction to junk food significantly decline? Addiction typically emerges as a coping mechanism to deal with unbearable emotional pain. The numbing effect of alcohol, for example, helps distract us from emotional pain like overwhelming meaninglessness, perpetual loneliness, and devastating discouragement. When unable to replenish what your life requires to sustain your wellbeing, your may begin to desire alternative or substitute resources. You placate agonizing feelings of loneliness, for example, by seeking "likes" from social media "friends" who barely know you, if at all. If you never connect deeply with a trustworthy friend, you risk becoming emotionally attached to your shallow social media "friends". The ease and familiarity serves as low hanging fruit, as your diminishing capacity to function makes it harder to emotionally invest in true friends. For most of us, the pain we feel is preferable to the pain we fear. We know how to handle the low grade, albeit gradually climbing, level of familiar pain. It's generally easier to cope with the mild discomfort of being occasionally annoyed by a foe, for example, than risk triggering their painful rage if shouting some complaint. Creeping normalcy sets in. We acclimate slowly to increasing pain and decreasing capacity to function. As capacity shrinks, along with collapsing cognitive bandwidth, we become less equipped to handle the less familiar discomfort that often accompanies the resolution of stubborn needs. While addictions on the surface seem bad, they may actually be better than suffering overwhelming agony and allowing oneself to become functionally paralyzed. Removing that pain by resolving your needs with primary resources creates meaningful steps to liberate from any attachments to alternate or substitute resources. You can then focus better as your capacity improves, as your cognitive bandwidth allows more room for better planning and decision-making. Desiring what you actually require and can access replaces your Illicit desires. Testable assumptions. There is no such thing as pain nor desire apart from unresolved needs. Illicit desires typically emerge as a fallback to an apparent absence of primary resources. Satisfying your needs with what it actually requires tends to break any attachments to what only placates your feelings, which were signaled when those needs were unmet. Reasonable connection: Access to primary resources to fully resolve needs often depends upon the cooperation of others. Western culture risks overemphasizing what the individual should do to overcome addiction to substitute resources. This approach does not limit itself to what individuals can do but includes what others can do to affect addictive behavior. As anankelogy notes, wellness is psychosocial. Theorized hypothesis: The more you can fully resolve your needs with reliable access to primary resources, the lower your risk for becoming emotionally attached (i.e., addicted) to readily accessible alternate or substitute resources. Null hypothesis: The more you can fully resolve your needs with primary resources, there will be no significant difference in your risk to becoming addicted to alternate or substitute resources. IMPLICATION: Efforts to help individuals overcome their addictions could be greatly enhanced by identifying and addressing socioenvironmental barriers to primary resources. After exhausting attempts to change internally, persisting dysfunction indicates likely external factors to change. When seeming to blame society for their personal problem of addiction, the addict's frustration sheds light on the psychosocial reality of human wellness. Instead of reacting by countering with the hyper-individualism extreme of personal responsibility, we would do well to address both internal and external factors fueling dysfunction and addiction. We can start by recognizing the path from symfunction when settling on wellness-compromising alternate resources that slides into dysfunction when resorting to pain-relieving substitute resources. Symfunction comes with constant emotional reminders of unresolved needs, which takes up some of your cognitive bandwidth. The less your needs resolve, the less cognitive bandwidth to contemplate and reflect on other matters. Poor moral choices often begins with an inability to see or find primary resources necessary to fully resolve needs. Often beyond one's personal control. This leaves you susceptible to relying upon generalizations, even overgeneralizations, that overlook vital specifics for resolving needs and solving problems. Which feeds a vicious cycle, of avoiding more essential specifics. As emotional discomfort increases, avoidance typically sets in. You then cling more tightly to comforting generalizations. Which pulls you deeper into painful symfunction, and potentially into dysfunction. Following simple rules, like only try to change what you can change which is yourself, becomes attractive. It eases your pain, but unlikely removes all pain after neglecting its external contributors. Legalism then serves as another addiction. Sustainable liberation from addiction must integrate internal changes with proper external changes. Or we all risk slipping further into symfunction, then down into dysfunction. With the social science of anankelogy, we can find the discipline to meaningfully liberate far more from the blight of addictions. B9 expresses this hypothesis in reverse. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller PART B: Predictable consequences of unresolved needs Anankelogy suggests a high correlation can be found in these associations. The less resolved a need, the more intense the accompanying pain. The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more the pain intensifies. The less a need resolves, the less you can function. The less your needs resolve, the less you can reach your full potential. The more in pain from unresolved needs, the more drawn to pain coping behaviors. The less you refill what your life requires, the more you crave unhealthy substitutes. The less you can fully resolve a need, the greater your risk for dysfunction. The less you can replenish what your life requires, the less you can function. The less replenishment of what’s required, the harder to overcome addiction. B1. The less resolved a need, the more intense the accompanying pain. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, independent of subjective awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs. Furthermore, it anticipates that the more urgent the need for one's functioning, the more intense that emotion. Not just randomly, but with a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Reasonable connection: When pain persists, including emotional pain, there is likely some need or needs not being adequately addressed. Testable assumptions. Anankelogy recognizes a need as an objective fact, which we subjectively experience after the fact of reduced function, occurring independent of awareness. This study of need also recognizes emotions exist to personally convey those needs, and that there is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Apart from the body compelled to warn of a perceived threat, it is impossible to experience any pain. No perceived (or vicariously felt) threat means no felt pain. Reasonable connection: Because every need exists as an objective fact for objective functioning, and pain only exists to report a threat to functioning (i.e., unresolved need), there should be a high degree of predictability. This theoretical correlation is to be tested to determine its veracity. Theorized hypothesis: The less a need is resolved, the more intense the accompanying pain. The more a need resolves, the less intense the accompanying pain. Null hypothesis: The less a need is resolved, there will be no significant increase in intensity of the pain. The more a need resolves, there will be no significant decrease in the intensity of the pain. IMPLICATION: If sufficiently validated, services addressing pain could focus more on the underserved needs that likely fuel the pain. The finding could help need-responders serve clients with the assurance their emotional and physical pain will likely decrease the more the service can help them to fully resolve their identified needs. This could be tested using the tools of social science research. This correlation could be tested using a survey in a clinical setting. Select a common need that conveys a specific need of a client. For example, fear or anxiety. "Apart from your need to handle something menacing, you feel no fear." Clients seeking the services of need-response are expected to report anxiety as a key feature. Survey how much they experience the need and accompanying emotion. For our example, add the level of anxiety a client experiences when experiencing the need to handle something they report as menacing. Use a Likert scale to assess their level of anxiety, from the most intense to no anxiety felt at all. After helping them handle the menacing threat and they demonstrate an ability to actually handle it, resolving their need, assess their level of anxiety again. Give this survey to a population of at least 400, anticipating a 50% response rate. After receiving usable data from at least 200 respondents, to improve the reliability of the findings, collate the data using SPSS software. Apply linear regression analysis. Process the data in a chi square table. Let this table show how much changes appear at random (supporting the null hypothesis) and how much follows a predictable pattern (supporting the theorized hypothesis). Write up the results for peer review. Follow any actionable critique to improve this testing process. Rince and repeat these steps above. A1 inverts this hypothesis. B2. The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more the pain intensifies. Pain is faithful. It consistently warns you of a perceived threat. Short of mood altering interventions, it will not abandon you until your body perceives all threats are removed. If it wasn't so unpleasant, we perhaps would be more grateful for pain's faithfulness. Thankfully, pain's predictability can be anticipated with these testable correlations: The less a threat gets removed, the more their pain persists. The more one suppress their pain, the more their pain persists The longer it takes to remove a threat, the more pain intensifies. Anankelogy adds the research tool of reflexive correlations. When a correlation suggests an accompanying relationship, and that relationship points to another association, back to the first examined correlation, we can recognize the cyclic nature of our needs. Testable assumptions. Both physical and emotional pain only occurs when perceiving a threat to one's ability to function. Pain consistently warns of a perceived threat until perceiving that threat is removed. The more such pain is ignored, the more it likely persists to faithfully warn the body of the perceived threat. Reasonable connection: Pain serves its purpose by maintaining the warning of an apparent threat to functioning, to wellbeing. Theorized hypothesis: The longer a perceived threat persists, the more pain the body measurably sends to evoke a self-protective response. Null hypothesis: As a perceived threat persists without abatement, there will be no significant change in the measurable level of pain. IMPLICATION: After a long while, such residual pain switches to biostructural pain to pull all stops to insist the threat gets removed, or to remove oneself from the threat. Then eventually the accumulating pain emerges as a threat itself, resulting in metapain. When a primary resource to remove the threat remains unavailable, an alternate resource offers some partial relief. But that may merely delay the pace of mounting pain, if the hypothesis is correct. A substitute resource may momentarily stall the alarm of pain. Which may prove necessary to reclaim some focus. But reliance on substitutes risks addiction. A2 inverts this hypothesis. B3. The less a need resolves, the less you can function. Anankelogy links inflexible needs (like water, social connection, security, self-determination, and belonging) to functioning, or more colloquially known as wellness. The less you can satisfy your thirst, or remain lonely, or left insecure, or controlled by others, or rejected from any group, the less you can function. Unresolved needs compromise wellness. Anankelogy recognizes how wellness is psychosocial. Your wellness, or capacity to function, depends both on internal psychological and biological factors as well as external cultural, social and environmental factors. Western culture emphasizes the internal to the risk of neglecting external factors. Which risks blaming the individual for not properly resolving their needs because of factors beyond their personal control. For example, the judicial system blaming a Black youth for offensive behaviors after that adversarial system previously denied the youth a stable childhood with his father for dubious reasons. The pattern unfolds in these reflexive correlations along three separate yet complementary paths. G: Picture being able to fully meet your childhood needs with your father's guidance. Y: Then picture your dad being taken away at a time you are too young to understand. R: Finally, imagine seeking guidance and only finding it among similarly impacted peers. Testable assumptions. One's capacity to function depends on both internal and external factors. Western bias can cast a blind spot on such impactful external factors. The less one can function, the more powerless to contest this destructive bias. Reasonable connection: If anyone should be able to resolve their needs with their given social environment, then incidents of lowered wellness (like anxiety, depression and addictiveness) would be statistically low. Mounting rates of poor wellness outcomes (or "mental illness") indicate otherwise. Theorized hypothesis: The less one can access primary resources to fully resolve their needs, the less they can function. Null hypothesis: The less one can access primary resources to fully resolve their needs, there will be no significant change in one's capacity to function. IMPLICATION: If verified, this phenomenon can serve as the process for symfunction capture. Which can predict outcomes when something other than primary resources (i.e., less-than-optimal resources) gets repeatedly used to react to felt needs. Symfunction creep. Having to occasionally settle for less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction strain. Acclimating to less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction trap. Having to rely mostly upon less-than-optimal resources. Symfunction capture can pull one into dysfunction. Which serves as a precursor to addiction. Which can have profound implications for addressing the problem of addictions. A3 inverts this hypothesis. B4. The less your needs resolve, the less you can reach your full potential. "Empty stomachs have no ears," goes the African proverb. As economic inequality widens under current norms, fewer can now access the essential primary resources to enable them to function optimally. They likely struggle with increasing pain and illness. Economic norms, in our alienated consumerist culture, incentivize the public market to cater to the manufactured demand (i.e., exploitive advertising) of mollifying alternate and pain-relieving substitute resources. The increased demand for less-than-optimal resources can drive down costs and prices, fueling this vicious cycle. Essentially, keeping the average Joe from living his dream could mean big business. Testable assumptions. Availability of a necessary primary resource gets shaped by market forces beyond the individual's control. Affordability of resources tend to favor less-than-optimal resources. Routinely accessing less-than-optimal resources compromises the capacity to function enough to pursue human flourishing. Reasonable connection: The equitable availability of primary resources, to fully resolve needs, is affected in part by what anankelogy recognizes as excessive resourcing. The more economic norms privilege accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, the less the marketplace gets incentivized to enable us all to properly resolve needs. Not only material needs, but emotional needs as well. Theorized hypothesis: The more the consumerist marketplace makes less-than-optimal resources more affordably available than expensive (or scarce) primary resources, the less consumers who cannot readily access primary resources can effectively function to pursue their full potential. Null hypothesis: The more the consumerist marketplace makes less-than-optimal resources readily available, there will be no significant impact on the consumer's capacity to pursue or reach their full potential. This could be easily tested with publicly available data This could be tested by comparing sales data of products with high-fructose corn syrup and health data of obesity and type 2 diabetes rates. Can it be assumed that those suffering such health effects are not reaching their full potential? Does this inexpensive sweetener incentivize those struggling with the pain of unmet needs to "self-medicate"? Foods laden with HFCS offer virtually no essential nutrients and displace nutrient-dense, whole foods in your diet. And does that undermine their capacity to pursue any human flourishing? If so, what does this imply about the ethics of food sellers using HFCS? IMPLICATION: Current economic norms readily serve the status quo social contract standard of manipulated consent of the people. The less this results in resolved needs or fewer people reaching their full potential, the more need-response challenges this status quo standard with a new one: measurably improved wellness outcomes. A4 inverts this hypothesis. B5. The more in pain from unresolved needs, the more drawn to pain coping behaviors. "Just because the pain is in my head," you could say, "doesn't mean I can do much about it." Unreplenished resources insist attention with obsessive desires. Unremoved threats persist in warning with pain. Your emotions don't care if such resources remain out of reach. If you can do little if anything about the lack of accessible resources to address such needs, then the resulting emotional strain can become unbearable, and overwhelming. Much like electricity seeking the shortest path, you will opt for substitute resources just to cope with the agony. This can devolve into your new normal. You may have to accommodate getting by somehow with less. You acclimate to an apparently manageable level of constant emotional pain. You survive on less than healthy coping behaviors, but at least you get to see another day. You might even find yourself emotionally attached (i.e., addicted) to social norms as a preferred way to cope with all of that emotional pain. As long as others act predictably according to the laws, you can trust you'll avoid harsher pains. Testable assumptions. Rising pain prompts the most readily available form of relief. Relieving pain can easily feel more important than patiently removing the cause of pain. Laws provide one way to cope with the subtle emotional pain of unresolved needs. Reasonable connection: Besides coping with addictive substances or behaviors, relying on legalistic solutions provides another way to cope with unresolved needs. Coping with illicit substances or questionable behavior taxes one's self-image. Coping with toxic legalism appears for more noble and socially supported. Theorized hypothesis: As the pain of unresolved needs mounts, one's coping behaviors also rise. The less one's needs fully resolve, the more one relies upon laws to manage their risk for more pain. Null hypothesis: As the pain of unresolved needs mounts, there is no significant change in one's coping behaviors. The less one's needs fully resolve, there will be no significant change in one's reliance upon laws. IMPLICATION: The aim of the legal system is not to properly resolve needs of all involved in a conflict, but to offer relief from pain for the winning side. Both the adversarial judicial system and the adversarial political system relies heavily on manipulating public perception that the law is the best and only option available to deal with unmet needs. Need-response challenges the legitimacy of such legalistic solutions, by raising the standard from "consent" of the manipulated people to measurably improved wellness outcomes. Any social structure holding us all accountable to improving wellness outcomes, by properly resolving needs, will produce far fewer offenders, addicts, or annoying legalists. And cultivate more space to nurture our potential to love each other better. A5 inverts this hypothesis. B6. The less you refill what your life requires, the more you crave unhealthy substitutes. There is no such thing as desire apart from unreplenished primary resources. Drinking water removes thirst. Meaningful social connection removes loneliness. Finding meaningful personal space removes feeling socially smothered. When the water your body requires feels out of reach, you understandably will settle for a soft drink. When your friends cannot be found, you understandably settle for social media "friends" affirming your posts. When the solitude you crave eludes you, you understandably shut out the noise with your ear phones and favorite music while in a noisy crowd. If all you can find is something that can help numb the pain, you understandably will settle for such an unhealthy substitute. Spread over time, you may end up craving such unhealthy substitutes. And lose hope of being free from pain, as you acclimate to the familiarity of this consistent discomfort. Testable assumptions. When a primary resource cannot be attained to replenish something depleted, to sustain or restore wellness, more accessible alternate to substitute resources may emerge that can lessen or stop the discomfort of obsessive craving. When lived experience normalizes the easier accessibility of such less-than-optimal resources, while unreplenished needs prompt desire for anything to fill the hole, one may believe they are innately prone to having such bad desires. Hyper-individualism of Western thinking (which often discounts external contexts for lived phenomena) can cast those trapped using substitute resources (i.e., addicts) as "bad people" while overlooking the "bad" of societal sickness that limits their options. Reasonable connection: Assuming addictions emerge simply from individuals making "bad choices" overlooks the psychosocial dynamics that increase the likelihood for having to opt for less-than-optimal resources to cope with the consequential agony of not being freely able to fully replenish what has been depleted or fully remove threats prompting pain. The problem is not that so many people fall through the cracks. The problem is that there are so many cracks. - James Hightower Theorized hypothesis: The less one can replenish what their life requires, the more they fall back on using substitute resources to mollify their obsessive craving. Null hypothesis: The less one can replenish what their life requires, there will be no significant behavior that chooses to settle for identifiable substitute resources. IMPLICATION: No one spontaneously desires illicit drugs, junk food, social media "likes" over meaningful connection, or a host of other unhealthy cravings. These all emerge as something of a backup plan to try to fill that hole with something. Which serves as the etiology of almost every addiction. In short, moral agency is only as good as the real options available. And not simply a cost comparison rational choice. Yes, everyone is responsible for their own consequential choices. But no one is responsible for the actions of another or a system that removes all of the oxygen from a room. Public policies overlooking the equitable access to primary resources risks reinforcing the problem of addictions. The less the people in a population can fully resolve their needs with stable access to primary resources, the more discomfort they will endure, and the more of their wellness will be compromised. Which slips easily into a vicious cycle. A6 inverts this hypothesis. B7. The less you can fully resolve a need, the greater your risk for dysfunction. Having to opt for a less-than-optimal resource to abate emotional pressure means your evoked need cannot be fully resolved. At least not right away. Some level of emotional message will return to insist this impact on functioning gets addressed. Anankelogy illustrates this with its focal range diagram. Aware. Emotions prompt awareness of a need, then accessing the relevant resource promptly results in relief from pain or pleasure from desire. Alert. Emotions alert the risk to functioning if the need is not fully resolved, as the threat to one's functioning persists. Alarm. Emotions scream out a painful alarm if the threat to functioning risks damage, when the vital resource remains elusive. To manage such persisting pain or incessant desire, we naturally organize our lives to limit how much we suffer. Getting by with a limp is better than not getting on at all. Testable assumptions. Unresolved needs prompt pain, to warn against the threat to one's functioning. We naturally prefer to avoid the displeasure of persisting pain and unfulfilled desire. We typically prefer a lowered capacity to function over mounting discomfort. Reasonable connection: Theorized hypothesis: The longer one adjusts their life to a norm of fewer needs resolving, the more likely they slip into dysfunction. Null hypothesis: The longer one adjusts their life to a norm of fewer needs resolving, there will be no significant risk of slipping into such dysfunction. IMPLICATION: Anankelogy recognizes a process between wellness and sickness. Called symfunction capture, it helps to explain how we can slip almost invisibly into dysfunction. This process recognizes three key phases. Symfunction creep from fully resolving needs to partially resolve some needs. Symfunction strain from partially resolving some to most needs. Symfunction trap from partially resolving most needs to not resolving any need fully. Without reliable social supports to endure discomfort, for the discipline of accessing vital resources to fully resolve needs, one tends to slide into this symfunction capture process. As more of us struggle with loneliness and alienation, we depend more upon impersonal rules to convey each others needs. Which results in fewer of our needs being properly addressed. A vicious cycle ensues. Public policies neglecting this reality risks perpetuating the problem by offering legal relief over addressing the unresolved inflexible needs behind the troubling pain. Which fuels growing disillusionment with legalistic institutions. Need-response moves beyond such dangers of toxic legalism to incentivize more responsiveness to our vulnerable needs. If the hypothesis can be verified, then the need-specific approach of need-response can close the "cracks" to this gateway to dysfunction. A7 inverts this hypothesis. B8. The less you replenish what your life requires, the less you can function. Desire only exists to replenish something depleted in your life. Once refilled, and short of psychological habit, you experience no desires. Sure, you can feel attracted to something or someone at any time. But this is not the same as the emotional obsession to fill some internal hole that we know as desire. A casual wish can be dismissed, unlike a pressing desire. If not getting what you need in water, nutrition, social connection, personal space, or any other requirement when required, you will not be able to function as well. You will become increasingly unwell. Testable assumptions. Desire only exists to replenish something depleted in your life. Desires can be mollified with substitutes that do little to aid functioning. This shift from healthy to unhealthy desire is largely invisible. Reasonable connection: The notion of willpower and perhaps discipline to withstand some questionable desires fails at the weight of life compelling behavior to fill that hole. Theorized hypothesis: The less one can replenish the vital resources one's life requires to wholly function, the more exposed to illness outcomes. Null hypothesis: The less one can replenish the vital resources one's life requires to wholly function, there will be no significant increased exposure to illness outcomes. IMPLICATION: Redressing problems best begins by thoroughly addressing the unresolved needs fueling problems. Public policy tends to react more than respond to such needs. Need-response starts with inflexible needs, for which flexible laws and flexible policies ostensibly serve. Any law or authority that compromises wellbeing, which is necessary to fulfill the purpose of law, lacks legitimacy. The less one can function, the less capable to compy with every law or norm. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above our natural needs for which laws exist to serve. Desires cannot be constrained by mere law. Inflexible needs will spur desires in ways no law can change. Only how we respond to such needs and desire, never the needs or desires themselves. Need-response incentivizes us to honor the needs of others as own own, to properly resolve each need so they do not sink into improper desires. Which leads to noble authority. There is no greater human authority than resolving needs with love. A8 inverts this hypothesis. B9. The less replenishment of what’s required, the harder to overcome addiction. If unable to find meaningful connection with trustworthy friends or family, it can be next to impossible to break free from relying on social media to seek some affirmation. Or to stop binge eating junk food if unable to restock nutrients with healthier foods beyond reach. But let's think beyond such personal addictions to address society's addiction to toxic legalism. Our societal sickness gets rooted in large part to normalizing the neglect of each other's vulnerably affected inflexible needs. If our social structures and cultural norms do little to support properly resolving needs, then dysfunction and addictions will predictably abound. Testable assumptions. Dysfunction prioritizes relief from pain, not getting to the source of such pain. Addictions typically emerge as a way to cope with continual pain. Restocking what the body requires tends to negate illicit desires. Reasonable connection: Widespread addictions to social structures that are privileged to remain unresponsive to inflexible needs undermines sustainable attempts to address personal addictions. Theorized hypothesis: The longer one feels they must opt for discomfort-easing options, including legalism, the more prone to becoming addicted to such options. Null hypothesis: The longer one feels they must opt for discomfort-easing options, including legalism, there will be no significant risk to becoming addicted to such options. IMPLICATION: Any public policy overlooking any affected need will fail. In fact, legalism's offer to relieve pain for the winning side in a public conflict reinforces dysfunction and addictions, by deliberately neglecting painful needs. If adversarial law is the only official option, then emotional attachment to such legalism likely emerges. Instead of restoring wellbeing by resolving affected needs, adversarial law in politics and the judiciary evolves as unhealthy substitute resource. Many are drawn to legalistic solutions that rarely resolve needs. Adversarial options usually prevent us from resolving needs, from restoring wellbeing, and from removing pain. Which ironically reinforces widespread dependence upon legalistic authority as the familiar way to cope. Until disillusionment upends it all. Disillusionment abounds with many current institutional options. Many are disillusioned with lawyers. And many are disillusioned with psychotherapy. There a growing number of lawyers disillusioned with being a lawyer. There a growing number of psychotherapists disillusioned with being a psychotherapist. Those disappointed by the courts are disillusioned with the adversarial judicial system. Wrongly convicted innocents are disillusioned with the legalistic innocence movement. Much of this comes down to power differentials provoking poor wellness outcomes. Power holders lacking a track record of positive wellness outcomes tend not to be trusted as much, which compromises their legitimacy. Especially when they benefit from the harm that traps us in dysfunction and addictions. Current norms rarely incentivize them to empathize and relate to the specific needs they impact in subordinates. Need-response dares to raise the social contract standard from manipulated consent of the governed, held down by dysfunctional legalism, to measurably improved wellness outcomes, anchored in love for one another. Need-response incentivizes us to socially love one another, to honor the needs of others as one's own. Then we can replenish what life requires in us all, to properly resolve needs with the power of love. A9 inverts this hypothesis. BONUS: Theory explaining what shapes our political views The second foundational principle of anankelogy recognizes the priority of one's needs as objective fact. This applies to the basis of one's political views. Anankelogy recognizes political orientation as the outward flexible expression of one's inward inflexible psychosocial orientation. WIDE oriented: When your self-needs get more resolved over time than your social needs, you naturally develop a "wide" psychosocial orientation. You tend to guard your resolved self-needs, like guarding your turf. You generalize how others are to respect your less resolved social needs. In the American political spectrum, you likely favor progressive policies. You guard your unconventional individuality, while championing social policies like equal rights and social justice. DEEP oriented: When your social-needs get more resolved over time than your self-needs, you naturally develop a "deep" psychosocial orientation. You tend to guard your resolved social-needs, like guarding your turf. You generalize how others are to respect your less resolved self-needs. In the American political spectrum, you likely favor conservative policies. You guard the social cohesion of your family, while championing individual rights like personal property and personal protection with you your own firearm. This understanding challenges the widely accepted reductive view that political beliefs can be debated and readily changed. Because "political beliefs" outwardly express an inward inflexible orientation, any challenge can feel like an existential threat. The meaningful difference here is not lateral; it is not between the political left and political right. Neither side can change their priority of needs, lest they compromise their wellness and suffer pain. The vital distinction is vertical: between immature and mature development. Or what anankelogy identifies as one's epistemic reliance level. The immature preconventional gravitate toward overgeneralized political views, correlating with high incidents of dysfunction. The maturing conventional benefit from the wisdom of the crowd but risk groupthink, correlating with stifling symfunction. The matured postconventional can readily empathize with all sides, correlating with the liberty to reach peakfunction and enjoy human flourishing. Current politics tends to pull down from optimal peakfunction and into more familiar zones of symfunction and dysfunction. Unfortunately, the familiar pain we feel is often preferable to the growth pain we fear. If politics was more about honoring the priority of needs in ways with the least negative impact upon the needs of others, political conflicts would naturally clear up. As more politicized needs resolve, personal and collective wellbeing could improve. And less pain suffered. To dive deeper into this need-focused appreciation of politics, check out this video and post on Let's Unpack Politics. Conclusion (but not necessarily conclusive) Why Steph Turner? I bring to the table a fresh perspective for better understanding and resolving our needs. As an indigenous person, I am less socially conditioned into Western constructs. For example, I am inclined to maintain a holistic view while examining minute details. I am less prone to disconnecting the parts from the whole of nature. Or objectify people. Or slip into reified reduction. With my indigenous background and spiritual gift of wisdom, I am intuitively compelled to brainstorm ideas and intuitively experience epiphanies, independent of pouring through available research on the subject matter. Which has opened my eyes to see what others generally miss, like the objective fact of needs. By earning degrees in education, theology, anthropology, sociology, public administration and counseling, I bring something of a holistic view to this new social science of anankelogy. But my lived experience of being marginalized has yet prevented me from bringing this new social science to the academic world. Perhaps that can soon change. Another social science Until the Anankelogy Foundation can establish its own research department, these correlations will have to rely on clinical findings when testing our new need-responsive interventions. Anankelogy aims to build upon the shoulders of the other established social sciences. And add to their findings. Anankelogy adds the insight that bias results primarily from unresolved needs compelling attention for their relief. The more a researcher or scientist stays atop of their needs, the less prone to confirmation or other forms of bias. Without unattended needs compelling their attention, they remain freer to recognize more of reality. They experience more epiphanies, as ideas can instantly blossom out of intuitive connection unimpeded by emotionally charged unmet needs. In short, resolved needs mitigate risks of bias while freeing up the scientist's cognitive bandwidth. All the other social sciences tend to neglect the centrality of need to the human experience. Its literature often oversimplifies this motivating factor as simply "goals" or mere "interests", as if free will could alter what a person or community factually requires. Appreciating the plumbline of need can demystify much of the human experience. Anankelogy seeks to complement the other social sciences by adding this overlooked perspective. All the social sciences—psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics—exist to address our needs. Now we have a social science to better understand and address the needs themselves. The author invites your input Leave a comment below. Drop a line in our inbox. Let's start a dialogue about our needs. back-to-top

A new service for speaking truth to power & listening to those impacted video script Power differentials impact the wellness of the powerless side. Let’s call them impactees. Which impacts the legitimacy of the powerful side. Let’s call them impactors. Impactees need to speak truth to power in a way that the powerful will listen to those impacted. Each best speak to what the other side needs. . Impactees could help impactors earn legitimacy by incentivizing the impactor to help improve impactee wellness. By impactors helping impactees resolve their power-impacted needs. That’s exactly what the new program of Wellness Matters seeks to do. Bring both sides together for a win-win solution. Its 8-step process incentivizes both impactee and impactor to honor the need of the other as their own. If cooperation breaks down, the impactee asserts a path toward greater wellbeing. “No” is not an option. You can help shape this. First, learn more about this visionary service at anankelogyfoundation.org/post/wellness-matters. Then connect with us at engage@anankelogyfoundation.org. Let's build a brighter future together, with the power of love.

8-step program to address impact from power differentials TLDR Summary Still in its infancy as a proof-of-concept model, this pioneering program addresses the impact of power differentials. Wellness Matters is the provisional name for this new need-responsive process that brings both sides of a power differential together to cooperatively solve problems, by mutually resolving needs. Win-win. Problem Solution Prep, Process & Product Testing this Your input Contact Me Problem A power differential occurs between an identifiable "impactor" and "impactee". The impactor impacts the relation more than impacted by it. The impactee is impacted by the it more than impacting it. For example: Employer-employee Creditor-debtor Doctor-patient Teacher-student Police-civilian Counselor-client Politician-voter Attorney-client And many more. The impactor typically gets what they want from the relation more than the impactee. The power diffrence tends to coax the impactee to sacrifice what they honestly need. Which can negatively affect the impactee's wellness and undermine the impactor's trustworthiness, or legitimacy. Not only on an individual transaction level, but also insitutionally and societally. Power problems Wellness Matters specifically exists to address "power problems". A power problem is one endured by the impactee from the power difference, and falls outside the scope of legal remedies and therapeutic adjustment. Which is why so many impactees suffer from them. Each challenging problem translates into an opportunity to resolve a power-impacted need. For example, the line worker suffers when her supervisor overloads her with added work because he trusts she is unlikely to complain about it directly to him. He could assign the work more equally among his staff, but is not legally required to do so. Problem: work overload. Need: equitable delegation. If her upbringing or values or cultural background makes it more difficult for her to vocalize her concern, then her boss is exploiting her silence in a legally privileged way. And why should she seek counseling to adjust to a situation not of her own making? Click here for a list of more power problems & their related power needs Power problem Related need privileged discrimination cultural incompetence surprise billing rushed decision misinformation social justice cultural competence transparent billing informed decison verifiable sources Such common problems could use a radical solution. Solution This pioneering service brings both sides together to serve the other. Instead of compelling attention with laws or reasoning to serve what each one needs, this process incentivizes each side with internal motivation to serve the other. The impactee needs wellness, from resolving a stubborn need. The impactor needs legitimacy, from earning trustworthiness. Impactee needs wellness The impactee needs to resolve a need with the impactor's cooperation. Until resolved, it objectively diminishes their capacity to fully function: their wellness. Impactor needs legitimacy The impactor must be trustworthy to their subordinate impactees. Until then, distrust undercuts the impactor's capacity to lead effectively: their legitimacy. Only this new program from need-response incentivizes each to serve the need of the other. As the impactor helps the impactee resolve their need, restoring wellness, the impactee can vouch for the impactor's effective leadership, their legitimacy. Each needs the other. Need-response is a new profession applying the new social science of anankelogy. Only need-response recognizes the objective fact of both the impactee's need and the impactor's need. Only need-response can design a program that recognizes the objective fact of each other's capacity level, of each other's affected wellness. Prep, Process and Product "Wellness Matters" serves as this program's current provisional name. It will likely change. Steph, its creator, serves as its first guinea pig client. We break the program down into three main phases. Prep: Getting the service user started on a sound footing. Process: Walking the service user through its eight steps. Product: Guiding the user to utilize the results of each step. Prep The service-user is always the impactee. The impactor can invite a subordinate to start the process, but as currently envisioned they can never start a process themselves. The service captures the impactee-user's wellness baseline. This holds the process accountable to evidence-based outcomes. This proof-of-concept version relies on an Excel spreadsheet to serve as a dashboard. Most of its 61 pages replicate the pair of impactor profile pages like pages 5 through 8 seen here. The impactee-user brainstorms a list of power differentials with impactors currently affecting their life. Their employer, their creditors, their healthcare providers, etc. From this list the impactee-user selects which to target first. Next, they identify potential peer supporters, who they will invite to follow their progress. Then the process gets under way. Process This proof-of-concept version experiments with this 8-step process. Which will likely evolve as it gets market tested. Each step identifies a challenge, then shifts it into an opportunity for Wellness Matters to address. Step 1: Alert. Power differentials tend to keep impactor and impactee alienated from each other. Wellness Matters introduces the impactor to the impactee's affected need, along with this opportunity to address it together, in a meaningful engaging way. From alienation to engagement. By bring impactor and impactee together to honestly engage each other. click to dive deeper Step 2: Follow-up. Power differentials tend to limit impactor's awareness of the actual impacts they have on others. Wellness Matters follows up on that initial alert to bring greater awareness to the challenges and underutilized opportunities of power differentials. From obliviousness to awareness. By following up on the initial alert message, introducing more of this process. click to dive deeper and brochure introducing th impactor to this program. Step 3: Good faith. Power differentials tend to sour rapport between impactor and impactee. Wellness Matters builds mutual trust by mutually assessing each other's responsiveness. From distrust to trust. By developing impact parity that nurtures mutual support for each other's needs. click to dive deeper Step 4: Options. Power differentials tend to limit options available to impactees, to either react adversely or concede in silence. Wellness Matters adds the alternative of mutuality. From power imbalance to impact parity. By recognizing and shifting from standard poor options to a better option of mutuality. click to dive deeper Step 5: Law-fit. Power differentials tend to enable the impactor to coerce compliance to those laws which advantage them and disadvantage the impactee. Wellness Matters ties each applicable law to the need or needs it exists to serve, along with the actual effects on each other's needs. From legalism to responsivism. By relating honestly to the inflexible needs constrained by flexible laws and legalism. click to dive deeper Step 6: Exaction invoice. Power differentials tend to coerce the impactee to sacrifice value without just compensation. Wellness Matters itemizes the hidden imposed costs of a power differential interaction and then provides the impactor with opportunity to convert this into earned legitimacy. From ascribed to earned legitimacy. By converting itemized coerced costs to empirically demonstrated trustworthiness. click to dive deeper Step 7: Mutuality. Power differentials generally rely on the social contract of "consent to law" which is often manipulated to suit the powerful. Wellness Matters raises the social contract standard to mutually improved wellness outcomes, measured in ways that cannot be manipulated. From manipulated consent to improved outcomes. By hammering out a Memorandum of Understanding with mutual regard. Step 8: Liberty. Power differentials tend to normalize the shrinking capacity of impactees and impactors to fully resolve their needs. Wellness Matters concludes this process by asserting the freedom to properly resolve needs with or without the cooperation of others. From societal sickness complicity to societal wellness credit. By pledging to properly resolve needs with or without the impactor's full cooperation. Click to view an example Product The above process produces each "product" as the conclusion of that step. Alert draft message that alerts thee impactor to the impactee's underserved need. Follow-up message and brochure to orient the impactor to this new service. Good faith survey to assess each other's responsiveness. Options menu, and if waived if impactor agrees to mutuality option. Law-fit form to identify relevant laws and the needs involved. Exaction invoice that itemizes hidden costs and invites conversion to earned legitimacy. Memorandum of Understanding to mutually work out how best to address each other's needs in amicable terms. Memorandum of Agreement that puts the negotiated MoU into actionable terms that prioritizes the liberty to properly resolve needs. Unilateral or Cooperative Each step provides the impactor a "unilateral track" in case the impactor exits or never responds. The preferred "cooperative track" leads to more value, but the service does not leave the impactor, with their inflexible needs, vulnerable to the whims of any impactor. 'No' is not an option When invited to cooperate to help resolve the impactee's need, which the impactor affects, "no" is not an option. We move on without that impactor. Perhaps they will onboard later after realizing all that they are missing. Until then, the impactor must plow ahead. Consequences The uncooperative impactor may regret the consequences built into the program. Options menu: adversarial options may be reasserted. Exaction invoice: itemized items stand as documentation for potential legal contest. Declaration of Liberty: impactee asserts right to properly resolve needs on thir own. And other less pleasant results. Including FOMO. After demonstrating good faith intent and offering mutual regard for the impactor, it will be difficult for that impactor to politically rationalize their departure. Adoption, of course, should be more for positive gains than unpleasant costs. But only by testing it in real time can we know for sure what actually works. Testing this in real time I am now testing this on myself with the impactors influencing my life. I need this service to improve my own wellness, as ethically questionable professionals hinder my ability to fully function. I begin by addressing three different types of power differentials. 1. Power differential type: healthcare provider/patient. Problem: surprise medical billing. Need: transparent medical billing. Despite transparent medical billing mandated by the 2022 Federal No Surprise Billing Act, some of my healthcare providers send me a bill I either do not owe or convince me to receive nonurgent care without an estimate of what it would cost me. Is it worth sliding into medical debt to undergo an expensive medical examination that warns me of some future health risk that some lab result flagged? What about my current health need not to be subjected to financial stress? 2. Power differential type: creditor/debtor. Problem: siloed transactions. Need: contextualized finances. Each of my creditors remain ignorant of every other creditor and bill collector knocking on my door. Until now. Each will now be informed of the context of my limited finances. Then challenged if their legally privileged economic pressures fall under predatory behavior exploiting the economically vulnerable. 3. Power differential type: employer/employee. Problem: cultural incompetence. Need: cultural incompetence. My supervisor and manager over him damage their rapport with me when trying to motivate me with emotion or when paternalistic toward me. Despite appearing as a white person like them, I am indigenous to the core (enrolled member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin). The more culturally competent toward the culturally different, the more productive we all could be. These are impactors who interact with me each day. So I should be able to get through this process much more quickly with them. Who's next? After initial testing on myself and these impactors I target, I hope to find a handful of fellow impactees to continue testing this. They will likely be innovators who struggle with at least one power problem, is gravely aware of this power problem, has a priority to solve it as soon as possible, is currently seeking a solution to it, and will willingly risk this untried solution. Does that sound like you? If so and you're interested in helping this grow, click the Contact Me button below. I look forward to hearing from you and onboarding you to help try this visionary new service. I need your help working out the bugs. To offer a complementary perspective. And to test any built-in assumptions. Assumptions to test Every new idea includes high-risk assumptions that could derail it if proven false. "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." No market plan survives first contact with the market. Sending out alerts to my impactors begins the process of testing my unproven beliefs. Will they validate or invalidate my calculated expectations? Here are some of my assumptions now put under the shredder. Desirability A significant percentage (25%?) of impactors will opt for our mutuality alternative over status quo options. Null: An insignificant percentage of impactors will opt for this mutuality alternative, which suggests we will have to pivot or maybe scrap the program. (Apply this null hypothesis to each assumption below.) A significant percentage of impactees (20%) will trust this as a viable alternative to shaky ascribed legitimacy and agree to earn their legitimacy by accountably helping the impactee resolve their power need with this process. A significant percentage of impactors (20%) will follow through all eight steps with the impactor. A significant percentage of impactees (20%) will value a testimonial from a served impactee and/or their vouching for successfully helping them. Viability A significant percentage (25%) of impactees exposed to this option will eventually participate and pay for this new service. The process will inspire a significant percentage of impactors to invest their own money to cultivate widespread improvements. Click for a summary of the revenue model and its assumptions to test Assumption: After a member of the public becomes aware of this service and takes interest in it, a significant number (20%) will enroll in our a free follower program.: "Your Needs Matter". Your Needs Matter Type: free educational program - introduces the objective fact of needs and how that measurably applies to others particpating in the Wellness Matters program, and can inspire hope in the each free follower with power problems of their own. Cost: Free as in no charge at all. Benefits: Receive routine reports of how this service is helping others, and how it can help the follower. Might include exclusive DIY content if subscribing to the podcast. Assumption: A signficant percentage of YNM participants (15%) will sign up, with the 30-day trial, to try the WM program. Assumption: A signficant percentage of trial period participants (50%) will continue to pay the monthly membership fee to participate in the WM program to address their own power problem and needs. Wellness Matters Type: personal "case" program - peer-supported or DIY process incentivizing individual impactors to work mutually with individual impactees to solve power problems and earn legitimacy. Cost: $119.48 per month, lowered to $48.98 per month at the start. Benefits: Proactively address problems not solvable by current legal or therapeutic options, which can boost wellness and unleash human flourishing potential. Support: Peer supporters are often professional need-responders seeking to build rapport with the impactee, to encourage them to gain the value of their added support. Assumption: A signficant percentage of WM participants (10%) will upgrade to the Results Matter option, if they gain the support of an increasing volume of grassroot backers. Results Matter Type: shared "project" program - a professional need-responder guides a group of impactees to work individually or collectively with impactors, especially those unresponsive at first, which can raise their legitiimacy to the laudible competitive level. Cost in addiction to monthly membership fee: $150/week. This gets spread to supporters who invest as little as $30 each week, as a kind of crowdfunded venture. Benefits: Receive regular (weekly?) group support led by a qualified professional need-responder, who is qualified to incentivize even the most stubborn impactor individuals and entitiies to improve their reach among their constituent base. Support: Pro need-responders are typically trained psychotherapists with experience guiding group therapy, but learn to shift from psychotherapy to psychosociotherapy where the power relation dynamics is the subject to be changed and not the individuals themselves. We anticipate finding qualified candidates among psychotherapists disillusioned with psychotherapy as a profession. Perhaps that includes you. Assumption: A signficant percentage of RM participants (5%) will upgrade to the Maturity Matter option, if they gain the support of an increasing volume of grassroot backers. Maturity Matters Type: collective "movement" program - one or more professional need-responders coordinate invested impactors working toward transformative structural change, to improve many impactee lives and raise impactor legitimacy to the exemplary transformative level. Cost in addiction to monthly membership fee paid by impactees: $300 per billable hour, up to six hours per week, paid by the invested impactor entities, typically for support to create transformative structural change. No added cost to impactees. Benefits: Backed by fully onboard impactors, guided by qualified pro need-responders shifting the focus from "consent to laws" that privilege the powerful to "measurable wellness outcomes" that fulfill the purpose of laws and carves open a path toward mutual human flourishing on a larger human scale. Support: Pro need-responders are typically trained lawyers with experience applying laws to specifically address underserved impactee needs underserved in the adversarial legal process, which necessitates shifting from the adversarial role of attorney to the mutuality nurturing role of a "responsivist". We anticipate finding qualified candidates among lawyers disillusioned with law as a profession. Perhaps that speaks to you. Assumption: A sufficient number of impactors will be inspired enough to invest thousands of dollars to transform social structures to liberate human potential and meaningfully solve deep seated structural problems. Pro need-responder compensation Each contracted professional need-responder directly receives 80% of the billed amount. They qualify to receive up to half of the withheld amount, as a performance bonus, if at the end of the process the impactor quantifiably improves their wellness outcomes in a way that quantifiably improves the impactor's trustworthiness to surveyed impactees. Public Fund Pool Any amount of that 10% balance not claimed by performance bonuses gets placed in a public fund pool. Impactees in the program can then request an interest-free loan to help cover any unexpected costs necessary to resolve their power need. The first loan will be set at a low amount (like $200) and the impactee cannot request another until paid back in full. Of course, any of this could change overnight. Feasibility The impactee can find and use the targeted impactor's contact information, and this will lead to the impactor receiving the impactee's message. Alerts sent directly from the Anankelogy Foundation provides a level of professionality that could incentivize the targeted impactor to take the message more seriously. NOTE: Incorrect assumptions about contacting impactors or incentivizing their response could fast track the "unilateral track" in a not so legitimate way. Your input invited Would you like to see such a program succeed? Could you use such a service? Do you now suffer a power problem? Each impactor may utilize this service to address an impactee who sits over them. Which could help this service go viral. I want to hear from you. Especially if you're disillusioned by current institutional options. Are you disillusioned with lawyers? Are you disillusioned with psychotherapy? Are you disillusioned with the adversarial judicial process? Are you disillusioned with the inncence movement? Are you disillusioned with politics as usual? If so, then let's build this out together. Perhaps I could partner with law schools. Perhaps you can add something I'm overlooking. Am I missing anything? Want to learn more? Then follow its development. Follow developments Want to know what happens next? Follow developments on my Need-Response Podcast. Episodes drop every other Wednesday morning. As soon as I can start season three. Because I need this service, I continue to struggle with personal challenges. My day job drains much of my energy, so I am best able to invest my efforts on the weekend. I am seeking someone who can complement my limits. If left entirely to me, this may never get off the ground. Know of anyone who can help. I am open to suggestions. Currently, I do not aim to launch a nonprofit for this. Not yet. I first aim to find a fiscal sponsor and another nonprofit to host this visionary program. I am open to suggestions. I welcome your help to turn this into a going concern. Have any questions? Concerns? Insights? Comments? I look forward to engaging them with you, sooner than later. Start responding to this now Two ways you can provide your feedback. Comment below. Share your input for all to see. Let others see any feedback to your comment. And see if you start a helpful public discussion. Direct message. If you prefer to keep your message discreet, then use the button below to contact me personally. I will reply as soon as I can. Contact me Send me your direct message using our contact form. Thank you for your interest.

The 2nd step in the need-response process What Why Who How Next Coda Need-response process chart Downloadable brochure Follow-up message template Anankelogy Foundation, 126 E Kilgore, Ste 400 #469, Portage Mi 49002 [DATE] Recipient Name Recipient address City ST 00000 Dear Recipient: This follows up a message you should have received from [NAME]. And fulfills the second in eight steps of a dedicated wellness journey. [NAME] is committing to improving their wellness amidst challenges presented by power differentials. We identify your relation with [NAME] as a power differential. [NAME] now invites you to help them address their need to [NEED]. Without your cooperation, the need will likely remain unresolved and produce a bad outcome. And that risks compromising your legitimacy. Need-response is a new professional service specializing in helping power differentials shift from provoking negative outcomes into cultivating positive ones. Learn more from the enclosed brochure. Thank you, /S/ This follows up the initial alert to a power problem identifying the receiver’s involvement. The previous message followed a basic business professional format. Similar to what you get in a late payment notice from a service provider. A) Affirming the receiver’s value to the sender or affirming their apparent need(s). B) Bringing up the need(s) the receiver apparently impacts in this power differential. C) Continuing to cultivate mutual rapport to cooperatively solve this power problem. That brief message initiates the need-response process. This follow-up provides more details to answer some likely questions. 1) What is need-response? Need-response is a new profession focused on identifying and addressing underserved needs. Specifically, it addresses needs shaped by power differentials. Where one side impacts the other side more than being impacted by it. The impactor impacts the power differential more than impacted by them. The impactee is impacted by the power differential more than impacting it. For example: Employer-employee Supervisor-supervised Doctor-patient Teacher-student Police-civilian Counselor-client Politician-voter Media outlet-viewer And many more. If receiving a follow-up, you are identified as an “impactor” to the “impactee” who sent it to you. You could be an impactee in other relations, such as your supervisor or to government authorities. As an impactor, you typically enjoy more control over outcomes than the impactees under your influence. If a conflict emerges, you usually get your way more than the impactee. Consequently, power differentials impact wellness. Both on a personal level and on a societal level. Only need-response seeks to resolve needs to solve problems. Only need-response links this proper resolution of needs to measurable wellness outcomes. And only the professional service of need-response works to accountably improve the health of society as a whole. 2) Why need-response? Where can the vulnerable impactee go with their power problem need? Such as… Wrongly convicted innocent persons refused justice by the errant courts. Patients in pain exploited to accept expensive medical care leading to debt. At-will employees coerced to take on an exhausting workload. Lawyers can help apply the law, but the legal process can do little to stop exploitive impactor behavior that is legal. Besides, the legal options prematurely pit parties against each other. And legal battles offer pain relief to the winning side without any accountability for resolving the underlying needs. Psychotherapists can offer emotional support, but many problems persist outside of one’s internal processes. As the Indian sage Krishnamurti put it, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Political and judicial options easily slip into problems themselves. Only need-response offers a viable alternative to the toxic legalism that taints these institutions. Consider these two examples. Need-response incentivizes mutuality instead of legalistic adversarialism. Politics and the courts needlessly provoke mutual defensiveness, and squanders human potential to empathize when rushing into a conflict. Need-response incentivizes engagement instead of legalistic alienation. The law privileges impactors to avoid whatever they find uncomfortable about impactees. Only need-response aims to fill the gaps left open by lawyers and psychotherapists, when a client is faced with a problem beyond their control. Only need-response prioritizes inflexible needs over arbitrary law exploitable by the powerful. And only need-response aims to remove cause for pain by getting to its source—unresolved needs. 3) Who is it for? This need-response process is for every impactee in a power differential who cannot resolve some stubborn need or needs. Resolving that need will improve their wellness and decrease their pain. This process is not only for the impactee but also for the impactor who needs legitimacy. By helping the impactee to resolve their need, the impactor earns the public’s trust. And the impactee is incentivized to vouch for it, and even provide a testimonial for the impactor. The need-response process indirectly serves lawyers with clients who cannot sue an impactor for illicit actions privileged by law. With a business associate agreement, the need-responder can complement the lawyer’s efforts by incentivizing that impactor to honor the impactee’s need. The need-response process indirectly serves psychotherapists with clients who they cannot fully help because of a power problem need. With a business associate agreement, the need-responder can complement the psychotherapist’s efforts to reduce their client’s anxiety by getting to its source. Only need-response accountably addresses all the needs in a conflict. Only need-response holds impactors accountable with incentivized reason to be measurably responsive. And only need-response prioritizes the inflexible needs over laws, which ostensibly exist to serve such intractable needs. 4) How does it work? The process puts both the impactor and impactee on a level playing field. Both are incentivized to understand and honor the need(s) of the other. After each step in the first half of the need-response process, each side assess the other’s trustworthiness. No one side gains advantage over the other. No one is to be exploited under color of law. Impactor responsive status – Impactee responsive status – significantly untrustworthy moderately untrustworthy not yet assessed moderately trustworthy significantly trustworthy The process is open to suggestions, recommendations and requirements for how to improve one’s rating status. Both ways. After each step in the second half of the need-response process, each side gets assigned by the other into one of these informative categories of responsiveness. offensive substandard standard admirable exemplary offensive: disputed or hostile toward expressed need substandard: dismissive of any role in expressed need standard: sympathetic but no responsiveness to the expressed need admirable: presented responsiveness to the expressed need exemplary: demonstrated responsiveness to the expressed need By the second half of the process, the impactor’s responsiveness categories look a little different, in preparation for accrediting their legitimacy. Admirable becomes competitive. Exemplary becomes transformative. offensive substandard standard competitive transformative If what gets measured gets done, then the impactor will gradually convert their privately assessed responsiveness to publicly available legitimacy accreditation. This could all change by the time you read this. And there is much more to cover on how the need-response process works. We will have to learn it together as the rubber meets the road. But we’re confident we are introducing you to something exquisitely wonderful. Only need-response creates a bridge to link to those who need to speak truth to power and those who need to listen to those impacted. Only need-response creates a bridge of mutual benefit to turn power differential conflicts into beneficial opportunities for both sides. And only need-response aims to improve societal wellness by improving the responsiveness to needs of those in power. And what’s next? In its current design, this follow-up provides the second of many steps. It offers more context than the brief message sent earlier. Unless altered, the next step aims to cultivate mutual good faith. This chart presents the need-response process as it is currently designed. Keep in mind how this untested process will remain in flux, as realities on the ground will alter its contours. Indeed, no plan survives contact with the enemy, whoever that is. As now designed, each step and action is either initiated by the impactee or by a need-responder on behalf of that impactee. NEED-RESPONSE PROCESS CHART No. Step Action 1 alert Contacts the impactor to report a power problem need using the ABC communication format, with the opportunity to help solve it. if impactor unresponsive Sends a follow-up that rates the impactee’s responsiveness to the impactee’s mutuality intent, which can expose the impactor’s incompetence or neglect. transition when responsive Shifts from alienation to engagement, by recognizing the objective fact of needs and affected wellness we all impact in one other. 2 follow-up Recaps expressed power problem need with added context, plus details about this pioneering alternative. if impactor unresponsive Proceeds with next step of cultivating mutual trust along with identifying the benefits that could be missed. Hesitation expected. transition when responsive Shifts from obliviousness to awareness, by acknowledging how negative impacts can be cooperatively turned into positive ones. 3 good faith Cultivates mutual trust to relate to each other in good faith by incentivizing each other’s positive intent toward each other. if impactor unresponsive Proceeds with next step of sending the impactee’s limited options which could expose the impactor’s bad faith & unprofessionalism. transition when responsive Shifts from distrust to trust, by cultivating empathy for each other’s affected needs and liberating potential for social love. 4 options Presents the impactee’s standard and alternative options for dealing with the power problem in this power differential. if impactor unresponsive Suggests the listed adversarial & avoidance options will not be waived if the impactor does not opt for the preferrable mutuality option. transition when responsive Shifts from impact disparity to impact parity, by addressing each other’s needs on an equal basis, removing distortions. 5 law-fit Identifies the needs to be served by applicable laws and checks how toxic legalism fails to serve impactee and impactor needs. if impactor unresponsive Proceeds with next step of sending an exaction invoice itemizing hidden costs of privileged coercion. transition when responsive Shifts from legalism to responsivism, by acknowledging threat of legally privileged harms to trustworthiness and recognizing better outcomes when shifting from react culture norms to social love. 6 exaction invoice Itemizes the hidden coercions costing the impactee their full wellbeing, then invites the impactor to earn legitimacy in lieu of financially compensating these documented structural exactions. if impactor unresponsive Informs the impactor that the itemized list could be used as evidence if impactee must revert to their adversarial options. transition when responsive Shifts from ascribed legitimacy to earned legitimacy, by having impactee accredit impactor’s public trustworthiness after they demonstrably help impactee to resolve their power problem need. 7 mutuality process Coordinates mutual support to properly resolve each other’s identified needs, spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding. if impactor unresponsive Barred from having any further harmful impact on others by supporting impactee to sever all ties to such an impactor. transition when responsive Shifts social contract standard from manipulated consent to improved outcomes, by measurably improving outcomes that ground authority in properly resolved needs. 8 liberty Pledges to mutually honor needs, both the power problem need & accredited legitimacy, spelled out in a Memorandum of Agreement. if impactor unresponsive Avows to resolve needs unilaterally, with or without impactor cooperation, spelled out in an assertive Declaration of Liberty. transition when responsive Shifts from societal sickness complicity to societal wellness support, by properly resolving needs together to solve structural problems. Coda We encourage you to critique the process, to point out any gaps, question anything confusing, and kindly challenge our faulty assumptions. How can we improve this to better serve you? Comment below. We’re bracing for likely resistance to something so new, so different, so aspirational during a time of low bar pragmatism and pessimism. But failure is not an option. So pardon our dust. We’re going to build something amazing together that the world sorely needs right now. And you are on the ground floor of this inspiring solution. Know anyone who could benefit from this? Then please share the news by sharing this link. Let’s spread some love. Trifold brochure (pdf) Click this cover image to open in a new tab

The 5th step in the need-response process State the cited norm(s) Identify the need(s) to be served by the cited norm(s) Describe the apparent impact on all needs from enforcing the norm(s) While no one sits above the law, no law sits above inflexible needs. The law can only do so much. Need-response takes us beyond minimal legal standards to respond directly to the needs our laws exist to serve. In other words, we ensure our flexible laws "fit" our inflexible needs. To ensure wellness of all. CONTENTS Why would you need law-fit? The problem of toxic legalism Asserting the greater authority of properly resolved needs Responding to needs over mindless obedience Who benefits? For whast need? Applying the praise sandwich format Use this simple ABC template Affirming paragraph Broaching paragraph Continuance paragraph Example from real life Do it yourself with peer support Law-Fit professional support Need-response offers this service of law-fit to introduce you to this new way to improve your wellbeing. When anyone cites some law or informal social norm, you have them state the need they expect that standard to address. Law-fit: linking a norm with a need to be served. Law-fit serves as an entry level for a much more thorough process of "citationization". Which dives deeper into this link between any cited norm and its impact on needs and wellbeing. Citationization: process to link flexible norms to accountably serve inflexible needs. Why would you need law-fit? After doing everything you can to obey the law, you can still find yourself in trouble. Perhaps some lawyer has convinced a court that you are in the wrong, despite the independent fact you are clearly in the right. To start small, this service focuses first on the wrongly convicted innocent. Have you—or someone you love—been falsely accused and convicted of a crime? Perhaps they were not even there. Or no crime even occurred. Are you fully innocent and not yet exonerated? Are you—or your loved one—unable to get a lawyer to reverse the conviction in court? Are you disillusioned with the legal process? Are you disillusioned with the innocence movement? As this gains ground helping the innocent overcome injustice, it can expand to serve others strangled by the adversarial legal process. For example, those denied insurance coverage for a legal technicality. Or those unduly denied their rights by any aspect of the adversarialist legal system. Are you ready to give up on the adversarialism of the broken legal system? Are you open to a fresh alternative? Can you see yourself pioneering a new approach of mutual respect for each other’s needs? Law-fit radically changes gears. You shift from failing adversarialism to mutual engagement of each other’s needs. Yo directly address the needs our laws ostensibly exist to serve. You break free from mindless compliance to fallible laws to embrace engaging responsiveness to each other’s inflexible needs. Click this image to engage this principle. Law-fit raises the standard. It holds authorities accountable to the inflexible needs they affect. It shifts from easily contorted legal arguments to the independent accountability of measurable wellness outcomes. You fit the purpose of law to serve each other's needs over passively serving the law itself. It prioritizes everyone's inflexible needs over flexible laws. Use it to overcome the privileged problem of toxic legalism. The problem of toxic legalism Reliance on laws to address your needs only takes you so far. Laws reek of imperfection. The imperfect institutions we trust to create and enforce them slip easily into costly errors. Need-response identifies and counter five costly errors built into the human laws. Each starts with a benign purpose. Then slips into a painful problem we often overlook. 1. Slipping from personal accountability to hyper-individualism. Laws hold us personally accountable for our actions. But risks neglecting the socioenvironmental contexts challenging our needs. 2. Slipping from rational authority to hyperrationality. Laws emerge from rational authority. But risks suppressing the rich emotional content of our experiences of needs under a shroud of disingenuous rationalizations. 3. Slipping from vagueness to overgeneralizing. Laws remain intentionally vague to apply to a wide array of circumstances. But risks privileging exaggerations that avoid dealing with the messy details of our complicated lives. 4. Slipping from impartiality to alienating avoidance. Laws remain impersonal to apply equally to everyone. But risks alienating us from each other to the point we no longer personally engage each other. 5. Slipping from punitive enforcement to hostile adversarialism. Laws compel compliance by opposing violators with harsh punishments. But risks objectifying you as a presumed offender to the point of opposing the needs you cannot change. The adversarial legal process presumes each side in a conflict must be opposed to the other. Need-response dares to test this assumption. This feature of adversarialism risks provoking mutual defensiveness. The more each side guards their side against the perceived or real threat from others, the less attention they typically give to the affected needs fueling the conflict. Instead of solving the problem, a rush to oppose others risks perpetuating the problem. The more you resist their inflexible needs, the more they must dig in their heels. You typically get more of the problem you ostensibly seek to solve. This adversarial approach generally denies our potential to be more understanding of one another. Law-fit brings out this overlooked potential in a more proactive way. Asserting the greater authority of properly resolved needs No law is necessary wherever a need fully resolves on its own. For example, no law proves necessary to compel individuals to breathe properly. Or to compel you to drink enough water to function properly. Laws can restrict how you access your water. Laws forbid you from stealing water from your neighbor's well. But no law can forbid you from requiring water. Or from requiring friendship. Or from requiring solitude. No law can legitimately negate your need for security, or for self-determination. If they do, need-respose asserts the higher authroity of properly resolving needs. To properly resolve your needs means you do not negatively impact the inflexible needs of others. The detached way the adversarial legal system operates tends to illegitimately negate many of our inflexible needs. Law-fit starts with the gacious assumption that such authorities mean well. It seeks to help authorities realign its actions with its founding purpose to respect needs. Over time, many institutions drift from their founding purpose. Law-fit can help authorities recognize their mission creep that undermines their legitimacy. Click this image to engage this principle. We rely on authorities to create and enforce laws. But we dangerously allow ourselves to become excessively dependent on laws to compel others to respect our needs. We allow ourselves to become more alienated. You never have to ask others what they specifically require of you when you convince yourself that following the rules should be enough. Do established rules always cover your exact needs? Law-fit challenges our blind faith in enforcement authorities to ensure the social order. As long as you are not the one objectified as a threat to the social order, it can be easy to hold enforcement authorities at a lower standard. Law-fit asserts the higher authority of properly resolved needs. The more we can resolve our needs, the better we can function. We can all aspire to step beyond the harm reduction standards of law to do something that actually improves each other's lives. We can love. Law-fit challenges the passivity of mindless obedience that undercuts our human potential to be more loving to each other. It reminds us to put each other's inflexible needs over the arbitrary demands of impersonal authorities. Responding to needs over mindless obedience Your needs can never fit the demands of laws. Laws must always fit the demands of your needs, and the needs of others. Click this image to engage this principle. Laws can only guide our actions to address one another's needs. No human law can ever change the needs themselves. Our actions are flexible and rightly fall under the domain of laws. However, our innate needs remain inflexible and therefore supersede all laws. Law-fit reprioritizes our inflexible needs over flexible laws. Law-fit can get us back to honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own. It encourages our potential to be more loving to each other. Click this image to engage this principle. Toxic legalism easily separates us from the purpose of law: to faithfully address each other's needs without compromising our own needs. We must resolve our own needs to function well enough to sufficiently respect the needs of others. Impersonal laws can drive a wedge between us, undermining our potential to be more loving toward each other. Law-fit can get us back to honoring the needs of others as we would have them honor our own. Law-fit melts normalized isolation to explore some key questions. Not to defy authority or law, but to get to the helpful purpose of applying some authority or law. Law-fit can help us fulfill the purpose of laws. For the interest of wellness, need-response uses law-fit to ask these two sets of basic questions: 1. Who benefits from the cited norm? And at what cost? 2. What need does it exist to serve? And what actual needs are being served? Q1: Who benefits? Cui bono? Who stands to gain from the establish norm, or from its current interpretation, or from its application and enforcement? How can we know when this benefit is achieved? By extension, what cost does this norm impose? Who stands to lose from the norm’s enactment, interpretation or enforcement? To what end or to what purpose? Is norm enforcement premature? What evidence of bad faith warrants this application of the norm? Why resort to external pressures of norm enforcement? Have intrinsic motivations been first incentivized? Have all mutuality options first been exhausted? Q2: For what need? Quid egestes? Since every affected need exists as objective fact, what are the intended and actual wellness outcomes? What specific need is to be served by the cited norm? Is it serving an inflexible need, or placating a flexible preference? How is that being empirically measured? Click this image to engage this principle. What are the actual needs driving the conflict? Can those impacted by the conflict become aware of these needs with a more conciliatory approach? Or is harsh enforcement the only way to compel a response to the needs the norm exists to serve? How is each affected person and entity able to function as a result of official action? Is anyone even gaging such impacts? How can we shift from alienating enforcement to mutually understand and address each other’s affected needs? We communicate this good faith intent to resolve needs mutually using the effective format of the "praise sandwich". Applying the praise sandwich format Law-fit nurtures mutuality by utilizing the communication format popularly known as the "praise sandwich". Any bad news gets sandwiched between bookends of good news. More specifically, law-fit lays out three communication modes in these three lawyers. A. Acknowledge the cited norm, and affirm the needs the norm apparently addresses. Good news to them. B. Broach your affected needs. Likely bad news to them. C. Continue cultivating mutual rapport. More good news for them. Use this simple ABC template Law-fit applies this simple ABC format to make sure each side addresses the underlying needs in good faith. A. Affirming paragraph Acknowledge any cited norm. Affirm any needs the norm ostensibly addresses. B. Broaching paragraph Identify how enforcement impacts your actual needs. Especially any of your neglected needs. Assert that your needs and their needs are inflexible, in contrast to any cited norm which remain flexible. Perhaps identify how prioritizing flexible (and fallible) laws over inflexible needs correlates with your poor wellness outcomes (i.g., anxiety, depression, addiction). C. Continuance paragraph Express your intent to identify and resolve each other's affected needs. You want to earn their trust that you will continue to seek to mutually resolve needs properly, beyond legal minimal requirements. You express your aim to improve wellness outcomes for all, and could help them improve their legitimacy by supporting their resposnives to vulnerable needs like yours. You welcome a dialogue. Do you see how this follows the POSITIVE-NEGATIVE-POSITIVE format of the “praise sandwich”? Can you envision how this can to cultivate and sustain mutuality? Law-fit counters the destructive norms of adversarialism by exhausting all possible mutuality avenues. Only after all mutuality options fail do you assert your held adversarial options. Online public campaign exposing the unresponsiveness of this particular authority. Independent media campaign of you speaking truth to power in this proactive way. Complaining to any ethics boards to test the reliability of any resourse options. Spotlighting the recurring failures of the adversarial process to faithfully serve needs. Exposing any self-serving reactions that resist accountability to serve affected needs. Challenge funding streams lacking performance measures to accountably serve needs. Civil disobedience with attention of a wide array of supporters and the whole world. You incentivize those in positions of power that you both are not foes to each other, unless you both completely fail to support resolving each other’s affected needs with the power of love. Example from real life I recently applied this format to resond to the State of Michigan. They sent me a letter threatending to garnish my wages for an unpaid tuition bill. But this occurred because of the unjust fallout of being wrongly convicted back in 1993. Injustice spurs more injustice. Note how I sandwich my concerns between addressing their concerns. I nullify cause for them to get defensive. I negate adversarialism by prioritizing each other's affected needs. Dear Collection Services Bureau: My name is Steph Turner and I am acknowledging receipt of a State of Michigan Liability Information Statement. It indicates I owe the state $3,659.16 in overdue tuition, from attending Oakland University’s masters of counseling degree program a decade ago. Thank you for drawing my attention to this problem of unpaid tuition. I support the State of Michigan to receive all due funding to maintain its educational system, like Oakland University. I must contest any assertion that ascribes responsibility for this overdue tuition solely upon my actions. I assert my rights to counter this claim, to provide full context that this action ostensibly overlooks. If I was offered an opportunity in the past to contest the claim, then I missed it. I also join the millions disappointed in the adversarial legal system to properly address such problems. I am currently developing a viable alternative, called need-response, to counter adversarialism with a more engaging mutuality approach to such litigated problems. It can potentially lead to a better outcome than this ill-informed legal action. You are invited to take part. I invite you to follow the upcoming podcast to help us find a meaningful solution to the limits of the adversarial legal process to solve such a problem. More information is to follow. Thank you, /S/ At the time of writing this, I have yet to hear back. I look forward to providing updates on the Need-Response podcast the letter mentions. Do it yourself with peer support If you have been wrongly convicted and no longer incarcerated, but cannot get a good job or housing, try this law-fit message template. After we refine this tool and gain traction with the authorities, we can branch out to apply to it the wrongly convicted innocenct who are still incarcerated. And eventually apply to others who endure the wrongs of the adversarial legal system. To get started, you can try this Word document template. Simply edit it to fit your needs. Let us know how it works for you. Or drop us a line if you have any questions. Help us shape this to best serve your particular situation and needs. Help us build this service to fit your particular need. Use this Law-Fit discussion for: Exploring how applicable this Law-Fit template is to your particular need. Offering suggestions for how to shape it to suit your particular situation. Sharing how effective or not so effective this is for you. Connecting with others trying this alternative to the adversarial legal process. Your helpful input is already appreciated. Let us help each other overcome the problematic limits of the adversarial legal process. I previously crafted an interactive tool for automatically calculating the viability of an innocence claim. It compares the details of the entrant's case with those cases already exonerated. Then produces a number that demonstrates the likely innocence of the claimant. You can download your own copy by clicking this button. The resulting Estimated Innocence Report offers a boost to the legal process. But it risks falling into the same trap of adversarialism. We are unlikely to fix a broken system with the same tools that broke it. You can supplement your law-fit message with our Responsive Innocence tool. It applies the same praise sandwich format. GOOD NEWS: Identifying and respecting the apparent needs of the complainant. BAD NEWS: Identifying your own affected needs. GOOD NEWS: Inviting mutual regard for each other's affected needs. Click this button to learn more, and to download your own copy. Law-Fit professional support Law-fit operates on a relatively basic level. We kept it simple enough for any layperson to use on their own. If the contacted authority replies, and you're uncertain how to what to do next, we can take this to the deeper analytical level of citationization. You can receive personalized support by the law-fit creator with one-on-one online sessions. When you are ready, click the 'Book Now' button and find an available time slot that fits your schedule. We offer the first session free with the understanding you will show your appreciation with what you can afford. We will continue offering this support for free for a limited time. Once we gain traction with a viable service, we will likely start charging for this service up front. Keep in mind this is all brand new. We cannot promise anything but a fresh alternative to the disappointing adversarial legal process. If you are innocent and repeatedly ignored by the adversarial judical system, what do you have to lose? Let's create this alternatie to improve your life in ways the law can never do. Let's get back to the power of love. back-to-top

The 6th step in the need-response process Authority has the privilege to coerce concessions beyond what the individual is obliged to give up. When unchecked, authority loses its legitimacy to affect the needs of the less powerful. Need-response can turn illegitimate manipulations into legitimate outcomes. PROBLEM: Power Differentials Transactional standard The less two people personally know each other, the more their interactions tend to become transactional. Each side gives and takes value from the relationship as their position allows. Each side gives up or gains what they personally seek in value. When one side holds more social influence than the other, much of the exacted value tends to flow in favor of the more influential, or more powerful. The less influential, or powerless side, tends to give up more than intended. Sometimes to simply avoid the displeasure of the more powerful side. Distorting power differentials In a more perfect world, each side naturally respects the rights and sanctity of each other. In reality, the "power differential" of one side unduly impacts the other side. Such imbalance frequently brings trouble. But of a kind often invisible to the law. Anankelogy identifies a power differential where one side impacts the other more than impacted by it. The Impactor: The relatively more powerful side, who impacts the relation more than impacted by it. Symbolized by the purple of royalty. The Impactee: The relatively less powerful side, who is impacted by the relation more than impacting it. Symbolized by the green of grassroots. A resulting problem on each side We begin on the scientifically sound premise that all needs are inflexible, that they exist equally for all, and no need clashes with other needs. Solving problems is all about properly resolving needs for all involved in a situation, which improves wellness. In other words, the personal needs of the vulnerable impactee exist as equally important as the personal needs of the powerholder impactor. The exaction invoice addresses a key need for each side. Adversarial systems ultimately disadvantage both sides. The powerholder impactor risks their legitimacy. The vulnerable impactee risks their wellbeing. The exaction invoice conveys the estimated costs the impactor's advantage imposes upon the impactee. But then shifts from the adversarial process of seeking literal compensation to our mutuality process of seeking mutual resolution of each othere's affected needs. Adversarialism prematurely provokes mutual defensiveness, which compromises our full human potential to affirm each other's inflexible needs. The exaction invoice brings both sides together to address the problem of their unmet needs. But that unlikely can be done effectively as long as one side holds most or all of the cards. SOLUTION: Impact Parity Need-response balances the power differential by incentivizing each side to provide for the key need of the other. Each needs something from the other. The impactor may improve the impactee's wellness The impactee requires wellness, which need-response guides the impactor to help resolve. The impactee could improve the impactor's legitimacy The impactor requires legitimacy, which need-response guides the impactee to help resolve. The exaction invoice places both sides on a level playing field. We call this "impact parity". See how this negates legalistic adversarialism and alienation? See how this optimizes our human potential to mutually empathize and support each other more? Impact parity enables both sides to respond equally to the other.

The 4th step in the need-response process Conflicts within power differentials offer limited options with predictable results Power problems A power problem occurs within power differentials. When one or both sides cannot meet their needs due to some conflict within the relation, need-response identifies this as a “power problem” with its own peculiar options and effects. A power differential involves an impactor and impactee. The impactor affects the relation more than gets affected by it. The impactee gets affected by the relation more than affects it. Illustrating the power differential For example, for professional power differentials: Employer-employee Supervisor-supervised Doctor-patient Teacher-student Creditor-debtor Counselor-client Media outlet-viewer Bill collector-unemployed customer for government power differentials: Police-civilian Prosecutor-detainee Politician-voter City council-resident Gov't case manager-service seeker Zoning official-businessperson IRS-taxpayer ICE-immigrant And many more. The impactor typically enjoys more control over outcomes than the impactee. If a conflict emerges, the impactor tends to get their way more than the impactee. All is not well… Consequently, power differentials readily impact the wellness outcomes of impactees. Either positively or negatively. In ways widely overlooked in other professional options. The more the power difference impedes the impactee’s ability to properly resolve their needs, their capacity to function swiftly declines. All too often, the impactor is not even aware of their harmful influence. Not only on the impactee, but also on themselves. As the impactee’s wellness declines, the impactor’s trustworthiness (or legitimacy) correspondingly declines. This phenomenon is so pervasive that it fuels a significant portion of “societal sickness”. Need-responders function like first responders on a mass scale, to try to heal society one power differential at a time. Their approach sifts through three main options. Three sets of options Two that are sour and one that is sweet. Avoidance When the impactor’s pressure remains subtle and tolerable, the impactee typically opts to avoid confrontation. It can be easier to endure the inconvenience than risk bigger trouble. Adversarial When the impactor’s pressure becomes more opaque and painfully intolerable, the impactee likely will challenge the impactor. The risk of absorbing the blows becomes too great. Mutuality The new professional service of need-response introduces a viable alternative to those extremes. Instead of evading or confronting each other, need-response incentivizes mutual cooperation. TABLE of CONTENTS Click on the item to quickly get to that item covered below. Once there, click on its title to return to this table of contents. Part One: Impactee's options & effects I. Adversarial Options (cope: fight) I.1 Legal & Formal Channels I.2 Advocacy & Public Pressure I.3 Support & Resource Mobilization I.4 Strategic/Tactical Options II. Adversarial Effects II.1 Limitations & Reality Checks II.2 When Systems Fail II.3 Adversarialism overlooks specific needs III. Avoidance Options (cope: flight, freeze, fawn, flop) III.1 Physical and situational avoidance III.2 Informational self-protection III.3 Documentation as passive resistance III.4 Strategic compliance III.5 Third-party and structural routes III.6 Formal channels (higher visibility, higher risk and potential payoff) III.7 Collective strategies III.8 Emotional/psychological pacing IV. Avoidance Effects IV.1 Self-protection IV.2 Strategic positioning IV.3 Emotional regulation IV.4 Costs to the individual IV.5 Costs to the system IV.6 The trap IV.7 What tends to determine which way it nets out IV.8 Uncomfortable emotional warnings IV.9 Stressors: allostatic load Part Two: Impactor's options & effects V.1 Deliberate exploitation V.1.1. Information asymmetry V.1.2. Manufactured dependency V.1.3. Selective enforcement of rules V.1.4. Extraction of unpaid labor or compliance through fear V.2 Unconscious/structural exploitation V.2.1. Default assumptions treated as neutral V.2.2. Discretion without accountability V.2.3. Empathy gaps V.2.4. Self-serving narratives V.2.5. Professional norms that protect the institution over the individual V.3 Why it's often mixed, not either/or V.4 Legalism undermining impactor legitimacy V.4.1. Atomization V.4.2. Hyperrationality V.4.3. Imposed generalization V.4.4. Privileged avoidance V.4.5. Premature opposition V.5 Other power dynamics undermining impactor legitimacy V.5.1. Misassumption V.5.2. Compliance overreach V.5.3. Self-serving dismissiveness V.5.4. Depersonalizing objectification V.5.5. Coerced concessions V.5.6. Coerced poor options dependence (CoPOD) V.5.7. Diminished awareness V.5.8. Mission creep VI. Impactor Effects Part Three: Mutuality options & effects Applied to specific power differentials PART ONE: IMPACTEE’S Options & Effects I. Adversarial Options (cope: fight) I asked Claude: “What are all the adversarial options a vulnerable individual can take when their rights or their needs are being violated by those with more power?” The highlighted text is Claude’s reply to my prompt. I added the numbered outline for easy reference. This is an important question about power imbalances and justice. Here are the main adversarial options available to vulnerable individuals: I.1 Legal & Formal Channels I.1.1. Civil lawsuits — Sue for damages, injunctions, or specific remedies. Requires resources but creates a formal record. I.1.2. Criminal complaints — Report violations to law enforcement or prosecutors. Victim advocacy organizations can sometimes help navigate this. I.1.3. Administrative complaints — File with agencies like labor boards, housing authorities, civil rights commissions, healthcare regulators, or consumer protection agencies. Often free or low-cost. I.1.4. Regulatory bodies — Report to industry-specific regulators (financial, environmental, healthcare, workplace safety). I.1.5. Appeals and grievance processes — Within organizations, institutions, or government systems that have internal review mechanisms. I.2 Advocacy & Public Pressure I.2.1. Media exposure — Documentaries, journalism, social media campaigns can shift public opinion and create pressure. I.2.2. Organizing & collective action — Unions, tenant unions, worker organizing, community coalitions amplify individual voices. I.2.3. Public testimony & comment — At city council meetings, regulatory hearings, school boards, or public forums. I.2.4. Demonstrations & protests — Visible, organized public action to demand change. I.2.5. Petitions & public campaigns — Build support, pressure decision-makers. I.3 Support & Resource Mobilization I.3.1. Legal aid organizations — Free or low-cost legal help. I.3.2. Advocacy nonprofits — Groups focused on civil rights, labor, housing, immigration, disability rights, etc. I.3.3. Pro bono attorneys — Lawyers working for free on civil rights cases. I.3.4. Community organizing groups — Help build power and strategy. I.3.4. Whistleblower protections — Some laws protect those reporting illegal conduct. I.4 Strategic/Tactical Options I.4.1. Documentation — Detailed records, photos, videos, contemporaneous notes (crucial for any case). I.4.2. Demand letters — Formal written demands before escalating. I.4.3. Negotiation & mediation — Sometimes third-party mediators can help resolve disputes. I.4.4. Strategic lawsuits — Class actions amplify individual claims; precedent-setting cases create broader change. I.4.5. Political engagement — Voting, lobbying, supporting candidates/policies that address the issue. II. Adversarial Effects Claude added how adversarial options pack some chilling risks. II.1 Limitations & Reality Checks The effectiveness of these depends heavily on: II.1.1. Resource access — Money for lawyers, time to pursue complaints, transportation II.1.2. Power differentials — Systems often favor those with more resources and institutional backing II.1.3. Systemic barriers — Discrimination, bias in institutions, retaliation risks II.1.4. Type of violation — Different violations have different remedies II.1.5. Geographic/jurisdictional factors — Available protections vary by location II.2 When Systems Fail In situations where formal channels are blocked or ineffective, vulnerable people sometimes: II.2.1 Seek support from faith communities, mutual aid networks, or international human rights organizations II.2.2 Document patterns to share with journalists or researchers II.2.3 Build long-term community power for future change II.2.4 Appeal to higher authorities (appeals courts, ombudspeople, international bodies) The hard truth: Adversarial action requires sustained effort and often carries personal risk—retaliation, financial strain, emotional cost. Success is not guaranteed, and the most vulnerable often face the greatest barriers to justice, which is why collective action and institutional support are so important. These all point to legal adversarial options. Under certain harsh conditions with desperate souls demanding prompt change, a violent revolution is not out of the question. If Thomas Jefferson wrote that we have the right or even the duty to replace illegitimate government, then what could happen if all legal options thwart such an agreed upon necessary change? Both JFK and MLK illuminated this risk for violent revolution. And we know both lost their norm-transcending lives to the violence of a gun. MLK’s love-focused message warned of the costly risk of an adversarialist path. II.3 Adversarialism overlooks specific needs Need-response identifies some additional limits beyond Claude’s helpful insights. II.3.1. Provoked defensiveness – Adversarial options easily trigger mutual defensiveness. Instead of trying to mutually relate to each other’s affected needs, both sides raise their guard and avoid any meaningful dialogue. Instead of encouraging cooperation, both sides understandably get selfish. What you reactively resist you reflexively reinforce. II.3.2. Cognitive contraction – Adversarial options consume more focus, as triggered defensiveness prioritizes threat removal or avoidance. Less space is available to reflect on better options. Each side is typically too busy looking out for themselves. II.3.3. Toxic legalism – Adversarial options is featured in toxic legalism where the structure of law assumes oppositional parties, which presume each side must be categorized and processed (i.e., objectified) with rational-legal authority. Relief is offered to the winning side in a political or judicial contest, without accountably addressing all affected needs. II.3.4. Squandered potential – Adversarial options wastes precious human potential to empathize with each other, to care about each other’s affected wellbeing, and to nurture the potential to love one another amidst conflict by honoring the inflexible needs of others as one’s own. II.3.5. Elite coercion – Adversarial options grant more power to expert leaders who may impose their own imperfect solutions to those in a power differential conflict. Their top-down solutions rarely address every relevant detail necessary to fully resolve a conflict and restore each other’s wellness. II.3.6. Coerced poor options dependence – Adversarial options pull each side into relying on suboptimal choices. Instead of being incentivized to identify and resolve each affected need, the opposition structure normalizes accepting the results as the best on can get, which often favors the more powerful impactor as the impactee is pressured into accepting some concessions compromising their wellbeing. II.3.7. Damaged trust – Adversarial options undermine legitimacy in our institutions as the dismal results rarely improve the lives of those struggling in power differential. Especially if the power conflict is with a government official or with a government institution itself. II.3.8. Societal sickness – Adversarial options compromise the wellbeing of individuals who are kept from properly resolving their affected needs. As such adversarial options become the normalized go-to for handling power conflicts, or even peer conflicts, the increasing volume of unresolved needs takes its toll on the whole of society. More of us then sink into symfunction. We then risk slipping into dysfunction and despair, unable to reach our lives’ full potential. Let’s admit this merely scratches the surface. And AI remains imperfect. More could be said about adversarial options and effects, but let this serve as a grounding start and then move on. By the way… A power differential with a professional is one thing. They typically enjoy access to greater resources to get their way at the impactee’s expense. They may even invisibly harm the impactee under color of law, such as cutting off much-needed service. But they do not claim an exclusive use of violence to compel your compliance. A power differential with a government official or entity is quite another. They present the power of the government, with exclusive claim to violence, to impose their will upon the impactee. The affected impactee may concede to state pressure to avoid the threat of property loss (i.e., a fine) or loss of their freedom of movement (i.e., incarceration). While appearing to be a solution, adversarialism can quickly devolve into a problem of its own. Consider the hidden problem of countless wrongly convicted innocents sent to prison. Including those who eventually are released and spend the rest of their lives without their full rights restored. I’m one, like some kind of canary in a coal mine. Canary in a coal mine What is the falsely accused impactee to do if the same impersonal legal system that wrongly convicted them is not properly incentivized to recognize or correct its costly mistakes? The estimated volume of wrongly convicted innocents runs into the hundreds of thousands. The United States has the highest volume of prisoners in the world, due in part to an adversarial criminal judicial system that can indict a ham sandwich. Of the 14.5 million Americans with a felony record but no longer under state custody, most struggle from losing their rights—from what are called collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Apply 3.5% to that population, and you get half a million innocent Americans without their rights. They are innocent in that they had no role in the reported crime. But continue to suffer privileged discrimination, under color of law. The current number of exonerees (about 4,000) presents a mere drop in the bucket to this devastating but mostly hidden problem. There are not enough lawyers to utilize the adversarial options provided in the legal process to review every viable innocence claim. And not every viable innocence claim reviewed by a lawyer finds it way back in court. And not every viable innocence claim reheard in court gets this miscarriage of justice corrected. You can think of these half million innocent Americans as canary in a coal mine. They know firsthand how easily adversarial options under law can fail them. Many of them are disillusioned with the adversarial judicial process. Some are even disillusioned with the innocence movement that was suppose to offer their last chance for justice. Here’s some more bad news. If you naively trust the adversarial judicial system to correct its mistakes and then treat a wrongly convicted innocent as if guilty, then you could be guilty of legally privileged “innocence offending”. Only need-response offers a post-legalist solution to this overlooked problem of lost innocence. They typically have been disabused of legalistic adversarial options. What failed them could likely fail you, and not only with criminal justice but with other uses of adversarial law. So you best brace yourself. You could be next. And that’s not all Let’s admit this merely scratches the surface. More could be said about adversarial options and effects, but let this serve as a grounding starting point. Then move onto avoidance options, III. Avoidance Options (cope: flight, freeze, fawn, flop) Sonnet 5 medium Next, I invited Claude to answer: “What are all the avoidance options a vulnerable individual can take when their rights or their needs are being violated by those with more power?” Again, the highlighted text is Claude’s reply to my prompt, and not the numbered outline which I added. This is a real dynamic across employment, healthcare, government services, family systems, and institutional settings generally — when someone has structural power over you, direct confrontation isn't always safe or effective. Here's a fairly comprehensive map of the options, roughly from lowest to highest risk/visibility: III.1 Physical and situational avoidance III.1.1. Minimizing unnecessary contact or exposure to the person/institution III.1.2. Choosing settings with witnesses or recording capability (where legal) for unavoidable interactions III.1.3. Seeking transfer, reassignment, or exit from the relationship/context entirely (changing jobs, providers, agencies, households) III.1.4. Timing interactions to reduce vulnerability (avoiding one-on-one situations, scheduling during less volatile periods) III.2 Informational self-protection III.2.1. Limiting voluntary disclosure of information that could be used against you III.2.2. "Gray rocking" — giving minimal, unremarkable responses to avoid escalation or giving the more powerful party material to react to III.2.3. Compartmentalizing what different people/departments know III.3 Documentation as passive resistance III.3.1. Keeping detailed, dated records of interactions, decisions, and communications III.3.2. Requesting things in writing rather than verbally III.3.3. Building a paper trail before any formal action is taken — this is often the single most useful low-risk step, since it preserves options later III.4 Strategic compliance III.4.1. Complying with what's required while avoiding going beyond it (sometimes called "malicious compliance" when used pointedly) III.4.2. Buying time — asking for delays, clarifications, or "getting back to you" rather than immediate answers under pressure III.5 Third-party and structural routes III.5.1. Ombudspersons, patient/employee advocates, union representatives — people whose institutional role is to buffer power differences III.5.2. Anonymous or confidential reporting channels where they exist III.5.3. Peer support or informal networks (others who've dealt with the same institution/person often know what actually works there) III.6 Formal channels (higher visibility, higher risk and potential payoff) III.6.1. Internal grievance or complaint processes III.6.2. External regulatory bodies or licensing boards III.6.3. Legal consultation — sometimes just to understand rights, not necessarily to act III.6.4. Whistleblower protections, where applicable III.7 Collective strategies III.7.1. Coordinating with others facing the same power imbalance, since isolated individuals are usually easiest to dismiss or retaliate against III.7.2. Public/media pressure as a last resort, where other channels have failed III.8 Emotional/psychological pacing III.8.1. Deciding what to engage with now versus later — not every violation needs an immediate response, and pacing yourself matters more than it might seem when you're depleted III.8.2. Naming the asymmetry explicitly to yourself, even if you can't act on it yet — this itself protects against internalizing blame that isn't yours A few things tend to matter across all of these: avoidance and confrontation aren't opposites so much as points on a sequence — documentation now often enables formal action later, and exit doesn't have to mean giving up on accountability, it can just mean removing yourself from harm while other routes play out. The right mix usually depends on how retaliation-capable the more powerful party is, and how much the vulnerable person has to lose in the short term versus the long term. IV. Avoidance Effects Unlike the adversarial options, Claude didn’t include the effects of avoidance options. So I put it to Claude to share some of the likely positive and negative effects of avoiding a direct confrontation with someone with more power. Formatted the same way. Avoiding direct confrontation with someone who holds more power over you is one of the most common strategic choices people make, and it's genuinely a mixed bag depending on context. Here's a breakdown: Likely positive effects IV.1 Self-protection IV.1.1. Preserves your job, relationship, standing, or safety when the power differential means confrontation could lead to retaliation (firing, demotion, social exclusion, escalated conflict) IV.1.2. Buys time to gather information, build allies, or find better leverage before acting IV.2 Strategic positioning Lets you pick a better moment, channel, or method (e.g., going through HR or a paper trail instead of a heated conversation) IV.2.2. Avoids triggering a defensive reaction that shuts down any chance of change — sometimes indirect approaches (asking questions, modeling alternatives, working through intermediaries) get further than a head-on challenge IV.2.3. Preserves the relationship for future negotiation, which matters if you'll be dealing with this person long-term IV.3 Emotional regulation IV.3.1. Prevents saying something in the heat of the moment that you can't take back Reduces immediate stress and anxiety Likely negative effects IV.4 Costs to the individual IV.4.1. The underlying issue often doesn't get resolved — it just gets deferred or displaced IV.4.2. Chronic avoidance can lead to resentment, anxiety, or a sense of powerlessness that compounds over time IV.4.3. Can erode self-respect or self-trust ("I know what happened wasn't okay, but I said nothing") IV.4.4. Sometimes the avoided problem gets worse, not better, especially if the powerful person interprets silence as approval IV.5 Costs to the system IV.5.1. Enables the power-holder to continue problematic behavior unchecked, since there's no feedback signal IV.5.2. Contributes to a culture where speaking up feels unsafe, which can affect others besides you IV.5.3. Institutional harms in particular tend to persist and even get normalized when nobody with firsthand experience of the harm pushes back IV.6 The trap IV.6.1. There's a real risk of a self-reinforcing cycle: avoidance reduces confidence in your ability to confront, which makes future confrontations feel even more daunting, which leads to more avoidance [NOTE: Courage is not the absence of fear but acting while still afraid and learning one can indeed handle (and no longer avoid) what previously seemed too overwhelming to handle.] IV.7 What tends to determine which way it nets out IV.7.1. Reversibility — can the issue still be addressed later, or does delay foreclose options? IV.7.2. Actual retaliation risk — is the power differential just uncomfortable, or is it genuinely dangerous (livelihood, safety)? IV.7.3. Whether there are indirect paths — sometimes "avoiding direct confrontation" just means choosing a smarter route (documentation, coalition-building, formal channels) rather than avoiding the issue altogether IV.7.4. Pattern vs. one-off — a single strategic retreat is very different from a general life pattern of never pushing back If you're thinking through a specific situation, I'm happy to help reason through the particular tradeoffs. IV.8 Uncomfortable emotional warnings IV.8.1. Anxiety – Anxiety builds up if having to handle an unknown threat from some source of power, or having to vulnerably deal with a powerful person or entity. IV.8.2. Depression – Energy for the external social realm quickly dries up to compel attention to one’s neglected internal realm, often as a consequence of habitually appeasing the powerful in ways that undercut one’s capacity to keep functioning. IV.8.3. Addictiveness – Unquenchable craving to fill an insatiable hole left open from not being able to replenish something depleted, which can result after conceding too much to those in power. Actual addiction does not need to occur to point to this ill effect from unresolved power conflicts. IV.9 Stressors: allostatic load IV.9.1. “Wear and tear on the body” can be measured with certain biological markers, such as cortisol levels. Constant subordination to power holders can trigger prolonged cortisol release. Which weakens immune systems. This can provide an independent measure of the ill effects to power conflicts, to validate or invalidate any self-report measures of anxiety, depression and addictiveness. PART TWO: IMPACTOR’S Options & Effects For the more advantaged side of the power differential, I invited Claude to explain: “How do those in positions of power knowingly or unknowingly take advantage of those without power?” With highlighted text for Claude’s reply and the same numbered outline. Power imbalances shape outcomes in ways that don't always require bad intent — though intent varies across a real spectrum. Here's how it tends to work, from more deliberate to more unconscious: V.1 Deliberate exploitation V.1.1. Information asymmetry. The powerful party often knows more — about how a system works, what alternatives exist, what the "standard" terms should be — and can withhold or obscure that information to extract better terms. Landlords, employers, and institutions do this by making processes deliberately opaque or burying key terms in fine print. V.1.2. Manufactured dependency. Structuring a relationship so the less powerful party has few exit options — company towns, non-compete clauses, visa sponsorship tied to a single employer — increases leverage even without any single dishonest act. See CoPOD. V.1.3. Selective enforcement of rules. Rules applied strictly to some and loosely to others (or written vaguely enough to allow this) let power-holders reward compliance and punish dissent while maintaining plausible deniability. V.1.4. Extraction of unpaid labor or compliance through fear. Implicit threats ("you don't want to be difficult, do you?") extract concessions without anyone having to state the threat outright. V.2 Unconscious/structural exploitation V.2.1. Default assumptions treated as neutral. Institutions design processes around the needs, schedules, and communication styles of the powerful, then experience anyone else's needs as "special accommodations." No one intends harm, but the default itself encodes whose time and comfort matter. V.2.2. Discretion without accountability. When officials, managers, or professionals have wide discretion and low oversight, small everyday choices — whose case gets attention first, whose tone gets read as "aggressive" versus "assertive" — compound over many interactions into large disparities, without any single decision looking unfair in isolation. V.2.3. Empathy gaps. People in power tend to interact with the consequences of their decisions abstractly (spreadsheets, reports, occasional meetings) rather than directly experiencing them. This distance makes it easier to underweight the cost a decision imposes on someone else. V.2.4. Self-serving narratives. People with power often genuinely believe the system is fair, partly because it's worked for them and partly because believing otherwise is uncomfortable. This isn't cynical — it's a well-documented tendency (motivated reasoning) that lets structurally unequal outcomes persist without anyone feeling responsible for them. V.2.5. Professional norms that protect the institution over the individual. Norms like "don't admit fault," "follow protocol regardless of context," or "protect the organization from liability" can systematically disadvantage the person with less power, even when every individual professional is following the rules in good faith. V.3 Why it's often mixed, not either/or Most real situations combine both: a policy created for defensible reasons (case management efficiency, legal liability) gets enforced by individuals who benefit personally from not questioning it (less work, less risk, more approval from superiors), producing outcomes that are exploitative in effect even if no one along the chain intended harm. That's often what makes these dynamics hard to fix — there's rarely a single villain to hold accountable, just a structure that keeps producing the same result. Perhaps you would prompt Claude or another AI differently, and get a completely different result. Or a complementary response. Let these serve as a starting point. V.4 Legalism undermining impactor legitimacy No totalitarian state has withstood the weight of its own making. The more it limits society to flourish, the less it can function well enough to last long enough into the future. Even Hitler used the law as a vehicle for tyranny. Need-response sees law as a guide and not as some panacea. When left to rot under the unresponsiveness grip of power holders, law easily spoils into something we call toxic legalism. Impactors lose legitimacy when imposing their will against impactees under color of law. Toxic legalism manifests in five key features harmful to impactees, each privileged by law. V.4.1. Atomization – Removing the individual impactee from the social context, then assuming impactee responsibility beyond the impactee’s personal control; prematurely faulting the individual impactee. V.4.2. Hyperrationality – Assuming the impactee should reason their way through everything without regard for how intensifying social pressures constrain their cognitive capacities. V.4.3. Imposed generalization – Sidestepping specifics to get a wide shot of the impactee’s situation, then applying that broad view as literal reality in ways neglecting essential details. V.4.4. Privileged avoidance – Evading anything uncomfortable about the impactee, or the impactee’s situation, or about oneself in regard to the impactee, which normalizes alienation with the impactee and invests little to no empathy or compassion toward impactee suffering. .4.5. Premature opposition – Rush to assume impactee is at odds with another or with the impactor, then typically reacting defensively. V.5 Other power dynamics undermining impactor legitimacy V.5.1. Misassumption – Impactor holds inaccurate beliefs about the impactee(s) or situation, leaves little to no room for correcting such assumptions, and acts upon such faulty notions in ways not good for the impactee(s). For example, assuming the impactee experiences the same problems as the impactor or suffers them in the same way (i.e., projection), and then acts upon this projected yet familiar belief in ways not good for the impactee(s). For example, a manager assumes all of her subordinates are extrinsically motivated when in fact about half of them are intrinsically motivated and vulnerable to being disincentivized when micromanaged. For another example, a juror assumes anyone indicted must be guilty of something and decides early to vote guilty unless something extraordinary comes up that can convince them to vote otherwise. V.5.2. Compliance overreach – Impactor pressures impactee(s), knowingly or unknowingly, to conform to established rules beyond what is necessary to serve the purpose of such rules, but out of self-convenience does not inform impactees of their onerous conformity. For example, medical staff has a patient in pain fill out a personal medical history form but does not X out items unnecessary to serve the patient’s urgent need that day. For another example, medical staff has a pregnant new mother drink a full glass of glucose to fulfill a malpractice liability requirement to check for a risk of diabetes while implying the test is only for the good of the pregnant patient. V.5.3. Self-serving dismissiveness – Impactor disregards the impactee’s expressed objection or raised concern, to avoid dealing with the discomfort, leaving the impactee underserved. For example, a case manager denies program placement to a welfare applicant who made a correctable mistake on their application form, but the case manager insists they lack the time to revisit all such filing errors. For another example, a landlord denies housing to a prospect tenant who cannot pass a criminal background check due to a wrongful conviction years earlier and can demonstrate their innocence, but the landlord dismisses such claims as stereotypical of all felons. V.5.4. Depersonalizing objectification – Impactor applies convenient categories to process the served impactee, but then starts to treat the impactee primarily or solely in terms of that convenient category, overlooking context outside of such narrow categories. Sociology shows with labeling theory how impactees then get narrowly identified, and then may behave in ways reinforcing the perception of such convenient categories. For example, law enforcement applying the category of “victim” who may also be a victimizer in the situation or adjacent situation in the comprehensive context. For another example, an impactee presenting chronic anxiety may be labeled as “mentally ill” by an impactor who remains in the dark to how their privileged pressures contribute to the impactee’s unaddressed anxieties. V.5.5. Coerced concessions – Impactor manipulates the impactee, knowingly or unknowingly, to unwillingly forfeit or extract something of value from the impactee, to benefit of the impactor. Another name for this is “structural exaction”, which occurs when a power relation legally coerces the impactee to involuntarily transfer something of value to the impactor, without accountably allowing for affected needs to properly resolve. For example, when a boss “asks” a worker to commit to overtime and the worker grudgingly concedes to avoid the boss’s scorn or subtle retribution. Remember that scene in Office Space when Lumberg asks Peter to come in on the weekend? For another example, when a local prosecutor offers a time served plea deal to an innocent defendant in jail who feels she must take the deal to avoid going to prison and losing her son. V.5.6. Coerced poor options dependence (CoPOD) – Impactor pragmatically offers limited options to an impactee in need, who is compelled to accept such less-than-optimal options. But is then improperly faulted for not being able to fully function anymore. Which need-response identifies as “symfunction capture”. Which feeds into patho-pragmatism on a mass scale, shaping societal sickness. For example, a physician prescribes pain relief medication for a persisting biological ailment without investing much time or effort to understand its psychosomatic roots, which could remove the cause for such biostructural pain. For another example, an addiction counselor dependent on income from clients may unconsciously prolong the number of therapy sessions instead of promptly helping the client recognize and address the unresolved need(s) fueling their insatiable cravings. V.5.7. Diminished awareness – Impactor’s advantage gains some benefit that harms the impactee, with little to no self-awareness, in what need-response recognizes as quantifiable evil. For example, a politician exaggerates a national threat to evoke fear among impactee voters, who will then more likely support the impactor politician’s goals at the eventual expense of the voters’ freedoms. For another example, an impactor pundit characterizes all asymmetrical warfare as a form of terrorism (i.e., using loaded language) to attract more impactee viewers who lack sufficient access to all the facts and whose potential empathy can be squashed. V.5.8. Mission creep – Impactor posits the needs of an institution they serve over the needs of the people that institution exists to serve. Internal pressures coerce the impactor to neglect the external less influential impactees in favor of appeasing those to whom they immediately report, or to compelling political pressures. For example, a prosecutor cites “conviction finality” to refuse revisiting viable innocence claims, ostensibly to not retraumatize the reporting victim but more accurately to not admit their conviction rate is based on miscarriages of justice. For another example, a professor declines to offer helpful critique to a student’s work to avoid risking a lawsuit alleging unprofessional bias, resulting in grade inflation. More could be added to this partial list. Let this serve as a helpful start. Consider how each undermines the public’s trust in the impactor. Consider how the predictable effects can compromise impactor legitimacy. VI. Impactor Effects When the impactor manifests [AN ABOVE LISTED ITEM] in a power differential, especially if exploitive of impactees, the impactor loses the public’s trust. When not promptly corrected, it costs the impactor the legitimacy to keep impacting vulnerably impactees. Perhaps the impactor’s particular leadership style can mitigate these risks. Problems will likely still seep through. Damage will inevitably continue to occur under the radar. Caveat To each impactor: “You don’t know what you don’t know” and unlikely consider to ask. Life is busy, so you fall back on what you know. Your assumptions can mislead you. You probably rely on impersonal rules to guide your interactions with impactees. Short of some violent pushback or threats challenging your comfort zone, you will likely continue to create more negative than positive impacts on the vulnerable. Disillusionment Interpersonal trust decreases. The public loses faith in you. Your legitimacy declines. Their disappointment gives way to disillusionment, in many public quarters. Consider all the impactees… disillusioned with divisive politics, disillusioned with the adversarial justice system, disillusioned with the innocence and movement, disillusioned with lawyers, disillusioned with psychotherapy. Impactees sit on the frontlines of institutional decline of the legal and psychological professions, as they disappoint those in need of meaningful solutions. The former prematurely provokes mutual defensiveness. The latter neglects addressing external pressures from disappointing impactors and their institutions. Disillusioned impactors Consider those impactors now… disillusioned with being a lawyer, or disillusioned with being a psychotherapist. As employers realize how workers don’t quit their jobs as much as they quit their bosses, then provide leadership development to improve talent retention, the same or something similar could be done for other impactors. That’s what need-response seeks to do, one power differential at a time. PART THREE: Mutuality Options & Effects Need-response starts with the evidence-based premise that every natural need exists as objective fact. Which suggests that any option—adversarial, avoidant or otherwise—leads to more problems if it fails to result in properly resolving the affected inflexible needs. Need-response is all about “solving problems by resolving needs”. Need-response holds every powerholding impactor accountable to these resulting ill effects. And need-response offers to turn negative impacts into positive ones. One power relation at a time. Need-response offers this illuminating insight: Any action neglecting the objective fact of natural needs will ultimately fail. But actions respecting such inflexible needs will more likely succeed in a sustainable way. Like a grounding plumbline, need-response holds itself and all accountable to the objective fact of: recurring needs, fluctuating function (or wellness level), and occurring emotions with subjective content of how to respond to such needs. Unresolved needs objectively compromise wellness and objectively evoke painful emotions. Need-response skips less objective social norms in favor of the scientific grounding of inflexible needs. And forgoes psychological efforts to persuade in favor of objective fluctuating of one’s capacity to function. And debunks the notion that needs and emotions are totally subjective by respecting the pain that unresolved needs predictably provoke. Because… Results matter more than empty promises. Maturity matters more than persuasiveness. Resolved needs matter more than feel good answers. Legitimacy shall now be earned. Results matter: Accountable to outcomes Mirroring Kohlberg’s three levels of moral development, need-response brings you the three maturing levels of epistemic reliance. It helps to understand the frame of mind of each impactor and each impactee. Preconventional “beliefer” – who cling to their ideas of what is true or untrue with little to no effort to challenge such beliefs. Certainty abounds. o Such impactors are dangerous. o Such impactees are most vulnerable to impactor exploitation. Conventional “faither” – who accept as true or untrue what their identity group holds as true or untrue. Groupthink abounds. o Such impactors risk becoming exploitive leaders. o Such impactees may be drawn to personality cults. Postconventional “truster” – who continually examine their understanding of what seems true or untrue. Critical thinking abounds. o Such impactors are most trustworthy. o Such impactees actively seek reality even if upending their cherished assumptions. Maturity matters: Improved wellness Whatever happened to that idea that one should never lower their standards to fit the immature? Why do we normalize immaturity in the name of politics? Or in the name of what seems easier to reach? Impactors earn the scorn of impactees when complicit in holding them back. When doing little to nothing to support impactees struggling to break free from stifling institutions that measurably infringe on their lives’ full potential, if only because it seem as the more practical way to do things. Need-response shifts from such pathological pragmatism to cultivate our neglected potential to be more than we are right now. By letting go of those compromise that no longer serve. And loving each other more, by measurably honoring the needs of others as one’s own. Impactee maturity can lead to empirically measurable improved wellness outcomes, like less anxiety, less depression and less addictiveness. Which need-responses gages with well check instruments. Impactor maturity can lead to improved responsiveness to impactee needs, enabling greater legitimacy. Which need-response vouches for with testimonials from helped impactees. Resolved needs matter: Impact parity Impactees need meaningful solutions by resolving needs to solve problems. Impactors need sustainable legitimacy by establishing their trustworthiness. Each can give what the other requires by working cooperatively together. Need-response provides the supportive bridge of impact parity. Legitimacy assessed The need-response process has the impactee assess the quality level of the impactor's presenting trustworthiness, or legitimacy, to affect their power affected need or needs. A "power affected" need (or power problem) is one that cannot be resolved without the cooperation of the identified impactor or impactors. Offensive illegitimacy: Harming impactees with one's authority or privileged influence, worsening their power impacted need(s). Substandard legitimacy: Insufficient attention to the impactee's power affected need(s). Standard legitimacy: Minimally doing no harm to vulnerable impactees, but also not doing much to enable them to resolve their power affected need(s). Competitive legitimacy: More trustworthy than other impactors in enabling impactees to resolve their power affected need(s). Transformative legitimacy: Solving structural problems by proactively transforming norms and practices. After the impactee establishes their good faith demonstrating their own trustworthiness and good intent toward the impactor, the need-response process aims to convert the impactor's fragile legitimacy into one the impactee can vouch for with an inspiring testimonial. The impactee then offers to suspend or waive their adversarial & avoidance options. Once a foundation of mutual trust gets laid, the impactee offers to suspend or waive their adversarial and avoidance options. Both can then commit to mutuality options during their shared need-response process of impact parity. Cause for either side to get defensive melts away. Instead of hostility toward each other, need-response incentivizes both sides to benefit from the cultivated good faith of the other. The impactee gains the impactor's support to improve their wellness, by enabling them to properly resolve their power impacted need(s). The impactor gains the impactee's support to earn legitimacy, by vouching for their demonstrated effectiveness to solve public problems. Legitimacy earned Need-response distinguishes between status quo legitimacy and a fact-based kind. Ascribed legitimacy – Persuading impactees that the impactor is trustworthy, typically by providing little to no evidence. Impactor’s risk losing such trustworthiness. Earned legitimacy – Measurably establishing responsiveness to impactee’s power impacted needs, toward improved wellness outcomes. Which is not easily lost. The need-response process has the impactee itemize the endured costs from the intractable power problem. These get issued to the impactor as an "exaction invoice" documenting the transactional coerced concessions. This invoice clearly identifies itself as NOT A BILL. But it can be used for documentation if the impactee feels forced to use their adversarial options. The invoice invites the impactor, who agrees they do indeed powerfully impact the impactee, to convert such listed costs into an opportunity to earn legitimacy by helping the impactor resolve their power impacted need(s). Along the way, they both enter into a new social contract less amendable to coersion. Social contract standard conversion The status quo social contract standard of “consent of the governed” gets easily exploited by impactors counting on ascribed legitimacy. Need-response offers a viable improvement. Manipulated consent: The old social contract frequently fails impactees, and compromises the legitimacy of impactors. How long until this mess explodes into some violent backlash? Measurably improved: The new social contract forges an explicit agreement between impactee and impactor: Impact me positively or do not impact me at all! ascribed legitimacy --> correlates with --> manipulated consent --> correlates with --> negative outcomes earned legitimacy measurable improvement positive outcomes Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence welcomes a revision of the social contract. If we fail to take him up on his words to collectively improve power differential results, all of society will continue to suffer with more negative outcomes. Like widespread anxiety, loneliness, family estrangement, alienation, and addictions. We can no longer regard these as merely individual calamaties. Societal wellness Since needs and affected wellness levels occur as objective facts, and fewer of us can fully resolve all of our needs and return to optimal functioning, society as a whole gets dragged down. Look around and we can see that we live with a “sick society”. Need-response helps impactors earn legitimacy, and boost their professional profile, by guiding them to shift away from the patterns pulling us in societal sickness and toward societal wellness. Which features shifting away from toxic legalism and to the responsivism of personally supporting each other’s power impacted needs. Under the higher social contract standard of "improved wellness", the impactee does not earn legitimacy until their impact on impactees correlate with the impactee's measurably improved wellness. The process makes sure the impactee exhausts their internal means to improve their wellness. Butt also recognizes that their internal efforts may stumble without proper external adjustments supporting their progress. Wellness is psychosocial. Sure, there will be problems shifting to this new approach. For one, finding reliable wellness measures that are also readily available will be one challenge. Compared to the chaos unfolding from the lower manipulated consent standard, we think that is a much better problem to have. Or challenge, cast as an opportunity for greater human flourishing. Individually and societally. By responding better to each other's needs. REACT or RESPOND? Society and individuals cannot reach their peakfunction potential while reacting to each other more than responding to one another’s factually existing needs. Need-response recognizes the hold of cultural norms privileging more reaction than responsiveness. Need-response calls this “react culture” or “reactive culture”. Anything that does not address each other’s specifically affected needs falls under “react”. For example… Faulting the individual for external matters beyond their personal control. Expecting reasoning alone to fix a problem with taking responsive action. Oversimplifying complex problems to evade the discomfort of a complicated reality. Opposing others without relating to the unmet needs fueling their questioned behavior. Addressing each other’s specifically affected needs in good faith falls under “response”. Which should produce better outcomes than reacting. For example… Asking each other if they have exhausted all of their options to solve a problem Listening empathetically to each other express the feelings evoked by a problem. Exploring the nuance beyond immediate generalizations to better relate to each other. Cultivating mutual understanding instead of provoking mutual defensiveness. Need-response incentivizes both impactee and impactor to cultivate that untapped human potential to love each other. To honor the needs of the other as one’s own. For the impactee to honor the impactor’s need for sustainable legitimacy by vouching for their support to help them resolve their power impacted need(s). For the impactor to honor the impactee’s need for meaningful solutions to intractable problems held back by power structures. Win-win. Better outcomes. And let’s our love potential flourish. Who wouldn't want more of that? Applied to specific power differentials Professional power differentials (Pro) Employer-employee: at-will employment (Pro A) Gemini AI: what are the adversarial and avoidance options available to a worker who feels overwhelmed by an at-will job or by an insensitive boss? Workers navigating difficult employment dynamics under at-will contracts often choose between confrontational or protective actions. Here are the adversarial and avoidance options available to employees dealing with an overwhelming environment or insensitive management. PA-1. Avoidance options (Disengagement and Withdrawal) Avoidance options focus on self-preservation, minimizing contact with the source of stress, or exiting the situation entirely. PA-1.1. Quiet Quitting: Performing only the exact duties outlined in the job description to conserve mental energy. PA-1.2. Internal Transfer: Applying for a different role or department within the same company to escape the specific boss. PA-1.3. Resignation: Leaving the job entirely, either with a standard two-week notice or quitting effective immediately. PA-1.4. Mental Absenteeism: Emotionally detaching from work outcomes and treating the job purely as a financial transaction. PA-1.5. Presenteeism: Working while sick, with ailments likely due in part, or in whole, to the toxic work environment. PA-1.6. Sick Leave Utilization: Taking accumulated paid time off, mental health days, or FMLA leave to gain temporary space. PA-1.7. Communication Minimalization: Using only written channels like email or chat to limit direct, real-time verbal interactions with the boss. PA-1.8. Diminished productivity: PA-2. Adversarial options (Confrontation and Resistance) Adversarial options involve directly challenging the behavior, authority, or systems maintaining the toxic environment. PA-2.1. Formal Grievance Filing: Submitting documented complaints to Human Resources regarding hostile work environments or policy violations. PA-2.2. Whistleblowing: Reporting illegal activities, safety violations, or regulatory breaches to external government agencies. PA-2.3. Constructive Pushback: Setting strict verbal boundaries regarding workloads, deadlines, or communication styles during performance conversations. PA-2.4. Legal Action: Consulting an employment attorney to sue for discrimination, wage theft, or harassment. PA-2.5. Collective Organizing: Rallying coworkers to demand better working conditions, higher pay, or managerial accountability. PA-2.6. Documentation Logging: Keeping private, chronological records of toxic interactions to use as leverage or evidence. PA-2.7. Bad Publicity: Posting scathing reviews online, such as at Glassdoor and at Indeed.com. Complaining on social media and hoping it goes viral. Recommending others to boycott the business. PA-2.8. Abruptly quitting: Whether finding another job or not, leaving without notice. Maybe in the middle of a shift. Deciding to not show up when the employer is most busy and in desperate need of trained labor. PA-2.9. Incite termination: Intentionally getting fired, short of misconduct, in order to qualify for unemployment benefits. Which can free up time to look for a new job. PA-3. Mutuality options PA-3.1. Need-response alternative: Mutual support for each other's identified need. Impactee then puts all these avoidance and adversarial options on hold. Shift from alienation to cultivated rapport. Employer-Employee: at-will employment Doctor-patient: medical billing/debt (Pro B) Avoidance options Adversarial options Mutuality options PB-3.1. Need-response alternative: Mutual support for each other's identified need. Impactee then puts all these avoidance and adversarial options on hold. Doctor-Patient: medical billing/debt Governmental power differentials (Gov) Prosecutor-innocence claimant: public exoneration (Gov A) Avoidance options Adversarial options Mutuality options Prosecutor-Claimant: public exoneration Politico-voter: politically homeless (Gov B) Avoidance options Adversarial options Mutuality options Politico-Voter: politically homeless BACK TO TOP Need-response service types Employer-employee: at-will employmeent Healthcare Provider-Patient: medical debt Innocence offending: public exoneration Politician-voter: politically homeless

Balancing power differentials to solve problems Need-response brings the powerful together with the relatively powerless to solve problems, by resolving each other's affected needs. To do this, both sides are put on an equal playing field, called the "impact parity model". STTP = speak truth to power For their wellness, the relatively powerless impactee needs to courageously "speak truth to power". Or they risk losing their ability to fully function. LTTI = listen to those impacted For their legitimacy, the relatively powerful impactor needs to proactively "listen to those impacted". Or they risk losing the public's trust. Need-response incentives the relatively powerless to speak their truth in a way that incentivizes the relatively powerful to "listen to those impacted". Serving the need of the other can help resolve one's own need, with the guidance of this new profession. First, we must address the elephant in the room: the power differential. Or "power imbalance". Where one side has more power than the other. Risky power imbalance Otherwise known as a power differential, this refers to a relation between two people or entities with different levels of influence on each other. Need-response identifies a power differential, or power imbalance, where one side regularly impacts the needs of the other far more than the other side impacts the needs of the first. Power differentials present a tension between the powerful side and the less powerful side. Need-response identifies these as the "impactor" and the "impactee". Impactor: Impacts the relation more than impacted by it.. Impactee: Is impacted by the relation more than impacting it. Consequently, the impactor typically gets their way far more than the impactee. Which risks harming the vulnerable impactee, sometimes without the impactor aware of such harm. Which rightly damages trust. Both sides lose something. Power differentials impact wellness for good or bad. Need-response uses this impact parity model to incentivize each side to honor the inflexible needs of the other. It presents impact parity as a preferable option over the impacte's otherwise limited optons. Impactee options Need-response recognizes the limited options available to impactees in a power differential. As Thomas Jefferson observed... [A]ccordingly all experience hath shewn, that [people] are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence Impactee avoidance options While under duress of a power differential, the impactee tends to endure mounting pressures taxing their wellness. Impactors get away with extracting concessions from impactees who prefer to avoid risking losing far more. Impactee adversarial options Some impactees get to a point of tolerating impactor pressures no more. They push back with a queue of contentious options. Lawsuit, social media campaign, ethics board, etc. These trigger defensiveness, and do little to improve wellbeing. Impactee mutuality options Need-response provides the impact parity option. Both become dependent on the other to effectively address their affected need. They share each other's concerns. They mutually respect each other. Win-win. Impact parity Need-response incentivizes each side of the power differential to honor the need of the other. The impactee needs wellness by resolving some power-hindered need to solve a problem. The impactor needs legitimacy to be publicly trustworthy to continue their influential role. As the impactor helps the impactee to resolve their identified need, restoring their wellness, the impactor earns legitimacy. Without impact parity, the impactee typically relies on "pain relief" to cope. With impact parity, the impactee removes cause for pain by resolving the underlying need. Without impact parity, the impactor typically relies on "ascribed legitimacy" that's easily lost. With impact parity, the impactor gains "earned legitimacy" not easily lost. Impact parity evens the playing field by linking each side to the value of the other. The relation balances as each side equally needs the other. Which incentivizes fairness. The impactor's need for earned legitimacy Need-response identifies two kinds of legitimacy. Ascribed legitimacy: The leader persuades those led to keep following them, without much accountability for how well they actually impact the lives of those led. To be sure, this a fragile kind of legitimacy, and can be easily lost. Earned legitimacy: The leader measurably enables those led to properly resolve needs, which measurably results in positive wellness outcomes and reduced pain. You can probably guess that need-response is all about this second kind. Ascribed legitimacy stinks of symfunction, of the mediocrity of just getting by. It tends to hold down our personal and collective wellness. Earned legitimacy leads to peakfunction, of reaching more of life's full potential. It can restore more of our personal and societal wellness. ascribed legitimacy earned legitimacy Impact parity improves the opportunity for impactors to measurably improve their trustworthiness to affect other impactees. The impactee's need for meaningful solutions The impactee's need to solve stubborn problems. Behind every stubborn problem is one or more needs that cannot be readily resolved. Need-response distinguishes between low quality and high quality solutions. Generic solutions: Distant leaders often offer impersonal answers to deep seated public problems. They try to placate those under their influence with pat answers. These low quality solutions inevitably fail. Failure too often gets pinned upon the impactee. This compromises that leader's trustworthiness, and fuels anti-elite populism. Meaningful solutions: The leader measurably enables those led to properly resolve needs, which measurably solves problems and restores wellness while reducing pain. Need-response provides opportunity to leaders to earn legitimacy by enabling meaningful solutions. Generic solutions stink of symfunction, by offering pain relief that neglects the source of that pain, which is their unresolved needs. This tends to hold us down and compromise our personal and collective wellness. Meaningful solutions lead to peakfunction, by resolving the needs prompting pain, and restoring us to greater levels of wellbeing. This can bring out more of our personal and collective wellness. generic solutions meaningful solutions Meaningful solutions improve wellness Need-response defines a solution as meaningful when it results in improved wellness. And removes cause for prompting pain. Any unresolved need limits one's capacity to fully function, to be fully well. Pain results to compel attention to the unmet need. By solving a problem that resolves a need, wellness gets restored and pain removed. After all, an impactee's natural need exists as an objective fact. Which objectively impacts their wellness, their capacity to fully function. And in turn objectively provokes emotional pain to compel their subjective attention to their compromised wellness. Impact parity offers their subjective attention a better option than going it alone. Subjective pain is not the problem as much as the threats that pain objectively tries to report. By contrast, the impactor's "need" for legitimacy occurs more flexibly. Without gaining trust, they can still fully function in some other viable way. Impactees are less fortunate. How impactee wellness will be measured remains a work in progress at the time of this writing. We start with three approaches. 1. Self-reported: anxiety, depression & addictiveness The impactee self-reports their current levels of anxiety, depression and addictiveness using our wellcheck tool. Power differentials impact wellness in such levels. 2. Rule out internalities: socioenvironmental impacts Another tool contrasts internal biopsychological factors with external socioenvironmental factors. To isolate results from external stressors. 3. Independent measure: allostatic load For a fully independent measure, the impactee's allostatic load can be measured by their family physician or by a medical clinician. This measure on the "wear and tear on the body" can remove self-reporting bias, for a more accurate accounting of actual wellness results. Serving each other's needs Need-response incentivizes our untapped potential to give more by relating to needs of the others side as if they were one's own. Honoring the needs of others as one's own, as a demonstration of social love, serves as a key component of need-response's "mutuality process". The powerholder needs the public's trust to maintain their social influence. They need meaningful legitimacy. The relatively powerless need their leaders to enable them to solve their stubborn problems. They must resolve their needs. The impact parity model ties the resolution of each one's need to the service of the need in the other. It instills a discipline wholly lacking in the adversarial legal process. earned legitimacy meaningful solutions With both sides on the same level, the impactee helps the impactor to earn legitimacy to improve their leadership as the impactor helps the impactee to find meaningful solutions to improve their wellness. Win-win. See how this contrasts sharply with the standard adversarial process in the judicial system and in politics? The adversarial process needlessly spurs hostility toward each other. Such mutual hostility prematurely provokes mutual defensiveness. Which typically shuts down needed awareness of each other's affected needs. And traps each other in pain. Opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it. By contrast, establishing impact parity in this mutuality process paves the way for both sides to properly resolve needs with love. However... What if the impactee feels they need a meaningful solution more than the impactor feels they need improved legitimacy? What if the impactor feels they need improved legitimacy more than the impactee feels they need a meaningful solution? Applying impact parity With need-response, the impactee finds the supported courage to "speak truth to power" (STTP) to report how the powerful impact their chances for finding a meaningful solution. Need-response incentivizes the impactor to "listen to those impacted" (LTTI) on their path for earning legitimacy. The less the powerholder impactor listens to the impactees they influence, for good or ill, the less legitimate that impactor's authority. The less the impactees can speak truth to power to draw necessary attention to their exposed needs, or vulnerable needs, the less likely they can solve their problems. Need-response bridges this divide with its mutuality process. Need-responsive mutuality process Need-response crafts a strong first impression with its mutuality process. Which provides a clean break from alienating adversarialism that so easily hinders meaningful resolutions. Instead of the normal expectation for each to work out their own problems, this starts on the prosocial footing of affirming each other's inflexible needs. No one chooses to require water, or chooses to require companionship, or chooses to require solitude. Such needs are inflexible, and its pointless to oppose them. To affirm each other's needs while questioning how they act upon such needs, we apply the simple communication format of the "praise sandwich". Impact parity begins by establishing mutual rapport by using this effective messaging format. Which mitigates the risk of prematureely triggering each other's defensiveness. Positive slice: Affirm their inflexible needs. Negative slice: Bring up your affected needs. Positive slice: Cultivate mutual rapport Need-response cultivates impact parity with this deliberate mutual affirmation of each other's needs. Then it can move on to address the likely complexities in a power differential. Need-response recognizes these complexities Implementing impact parity faces some complexities. This address some of them. A) Impactor array Need-response recognizes different degrees of impact. Not all impactors influence their impactees the same. Need-response identifies a taxonomy of impactors. Which suggests which impactor to target for impact parity. Direct impactors. Impactors who directly impact the impactee's need. E.g., prosecutor to the falsely accused and wrongly convicted indigent defendant in need of justice. Indirect impactors. Impactors who indirectly impact the impactee's need. E.g., defense attorney representing the innocent defendant. Peripheral impactors. Impactors who peripherally impact the impactee's need. E.g., local news outlets parroting a prosecutor's improper indictment of the innocent defendant. Nondescript impactors. Impactors who impact the impactee's need in some distant way. E.g., jury pool populace clinging to misconceptions about the criminal judicial system. B) Legalism power dynamics Need-response recognizes the insidous pull of "law". Modern societies rely heavily upon laws to impersonally convey needs. Instead of personally telling the impactor what the impactee specifically needs from the impactor, we passively trust the law to prevail. Impactors typically have more resources to take advantage of the legal process. Even the threat of legally privileged action is enough to favor the impactor's interests at the expense of impactee's needs. The noble purpose of law then turns into something toxic. Toxic legalism pollutes the well of human potentiality for both sides to proactively support each other's needs. Power differentials exacerbate each of these five elements of toxic legalism. Atomized individualism. Legalism generally isolates the impactee individual, and overlooks the context of their intractable problems. Legalism permits the impactor to blame the individual impactee for the impactor's actions, such as directly or indirectly limiting the impactee's access to primary resources to properly resolve needs. As legal options isolate the individual impactee, amidst an epidemic of loneliness and family estrangement, they become much more vulnerable to the impactor's legally privileged exploitive advantages. Impact parity cultivates appreciation for psychosocial wellness. Motivated reasoning. Legalism often distorts our thinking by dissing our emotions. Rational-legal authority easily reinforces the widely held misconception that emotions bias our thinking. Our unresolved needs command our attention with powerful emotions. Suppressing such charged emotions with the rule of law does little to resolve our bias-inciting needs. The law privileges impactors to rationalize their "bias-overruling" power. With costly effects on impactees. Impact parity inspires honest processing of each other's evoked emotions. Convenient generalizations. Legalism privileges convenience categories neglecting specifics, oversimplified solutions, reification of hyperbole, exploitive exaggerations and power-serving generalizations. Legalism enables impactors to present their generalizing as the only option for impactees. The more these fail to provide the impactee with a meaningful solution, the more dependent the impactee tends to become on the relief offered by such soothing generalizations. Impactors benefit from this vicious cycle. Impact parity illuminates awareness of relevant nuance both require. Privileged avoidance. Legalism privileges the impactor to avoid whatever they find uncomfortable about facing in the impactee. The impactor controls the agenda and can "selectively ignore" the challenging impactee with little if any consequence to their power advantage. Impactors benefit when their advantage invisibly pressures impactees to self-censor their valid concerns. Neither side truly benefits from remaining alienated from each other. Problems persist without solution where needs resist full resolution. Impact parity encourages each other to engage even the most unpleasant realities. Defensive adversarialism. Legalism provides the impactor with the means to oppose the impactee's attempt to redress their grievances. Legalism not only permits such hostility, but treats such antagonism as the key or only way to solve a power differential conflict. Such adversarial legalism can present a veneer of good faith negotiation while the impactor takes advantage of the impactee's vulnerabilities under color of law. Impact parity incentivizes mutual understanding and mutual respect. These five toxic legalism elements feed into what we call "react culture". Which is a set of cultural norms privileging not resolving needs. Impact parity counters "react culture" by encouraging greater responsivism. Which is the belief and practice of responding to each other's needs more than reacting to them. Being more responsive to needs opens both sides of a power differential to better options. C) Coerced poor options dependence Need-response recognizes the impact of limited options. Dilluted choices Power differentials can trap impactees and impactors into painfully disappointing options. Or what can be called coerced poor options dependence (or CoPOD for short). When primary resources for fully resolving a need remain inaccessible, impactees typically settle for alternate resources that partially eases the need. When you can't have it all then a piece of it must suffice. For example, when the impactee resorts to eating processed foods after an exhausting day at work, to appease the impactor boss. Or when the impactee student relies heavily on AI to finish an assignment while balancing a full time job. When alternate resources for easing needs become increasingly inaccessible, impactees will then settle for substitute resources that can relieve the pain of unresolved needs. Minimal suffering is preferable to perpetual agony. For example, when the impactee indulges in junk food to offset the misery of a hated job. Or when the impactee student plagiarizes a report she has no spare time to do. Impactees can then grow dependent upon such less-than-optimal options. Exploiting atomized individualism Such power differentials feed on the hyper-individualism myth that impactees should make better choices, without addressing the real barriers to making the best choices. Need-response recognizes how power differentials can trap trapping impactees in what it calls "symfunction capture". Poor options to address needs pulls the impactee from wellness into illness. They can not function as well. Their unmet needs evoke painful emotions that consume their focus. As the impactee's cognitive bandwidth shrinks and prompts errors, impactors are apt to misidentify the impactee as stupid, irrational, undisciplined, or having no self-control. Impactors tend remain in the dark to how much they contribute to such bad results. Lowering the standard As the power differential coerces the impactee to acclimate to less-than-optimal choices, creeping normalcy fuels what need-response recognizes as pathological pragmatism. We lower our standards to match what seems most practical. Noble ideals like loving each other get dismissed as too impractical, as too idealistic. As power diffentials trap impactees in diminished wellness, perpetual pain, cognition contraction, and coping options, need-response challenges the status quo of such impact imbalance. Impact parity incentivizes better options. Raising the standard With incentivized impact parity, need-response helps both the impactee and impactor to meaningfully shift our social contract standard from "manipulated consent" to "measurable wellness". From coercing depeendence on poor options to accountably improving wellness outcomes in order to maintain legitimacy. D) Diffusion of accountability Need-response recognizes different structures of impact. Called diffusion of accountability, four distinct structures can compound efforts to build impact parity. Which limits how an impactor can accountably help an impactee solve their problem. Upchain. The impactor must defer to a higher authority, either a person or written rules. Downchain. The impactee has delegated the authority to act to those of lesser authority. Sidechain. The impactor shares authority to act with equal others, such as a committee. Nondescript. The impactor cannot act alone for some other established reason. Need-response recognizes each impactor exists as an impactee in other relations. Seeing how this process can produce better outcomes, the imactor may invite impactors over them to try this pioneering approach. And invest their enegy and resources to personally support the impactees under them to resolve their need. When the impactor cannot personally help the impactee due to one or more of these structures, the identified power problem turns into a structural problem. Which complicates earning legitimacy. E) Legitimacy levels Need-response recognizes different degrees of legitimacy. An impactor's trustworthiness to affect the impactee's vulnerable wellness falls within these five levels. Offensive illegitimacy. Impactor is documented as harming the impactee. Substandard legitimacy. Impactor offers relief that impedes resolution. Standard legitimacy. Impactor neither harms nor helps the impactee. Competitive legitimacy. Impactor outperforms responsiveness to impactee needs. Transformative legitimacy. Impactor transforms norms to enable impactee to resolve needs. Need-response utilizes impact parity to incentivize the impactor to earn legitimacy. By measurably using their power to measurably improve the impactee's wellness by helping them to resolve their power-impacted need. The more the impactee can freely function after the impactor's intervention, the more improved the impactor's trustworthiness to impact such impactees. Impact parity includes mutual assessment of each other's demonstrated trustworthiness. Each impactor and impactee assess each other's 'good faith'. Each needs the other. F) Affected legitimacy Need-response recognizes different statuses of legitimacy. An impactor may be assessed as having sufficient personal legitimacy but insufficient professional legitimacy. For example, the manager presenting personal sympathy for a valid whistleblower complaint but does nothing that could jeopardize their professional position. Their complicity continues to impede resolution of impactee needs. Impactor legitimacy can be assessed on three levels. personal legitimacy status professional legitimacy status institutional legitimacy status The typical impactor is unlikely to change their institution's poor responsiveness to the impactee's needs. Need-response will have to cultivate a movement of accountable responsiveness to set the stage for needed structural change. G) Power types Need-response recognizes different constructs of "power". From an indigenous nature-respecting perspective, power isn't really power unless it resolves needs. That's merely social influence. Need-response differentiates between "weak power" of mere social influence and "strong power" of meaningfully solving impactee problems. weak power of repeatedly relieving pain, which compromisees wellness. strong power of sustainably resolving needs, to improve and sustain wellness. Weak power offers a win-lose fight, such as political contests and judicial battles. The winning side gets to relieve their pain while neither side is supported to properly resolve their needs. Strong power provides a win-win path, so all can meaningfully solve their problems by mutually resolving their needs. All sides enter into this problem-solving journey with impact parity, meaning no one has meaningful power untill all sides can resolve their affected needs. Along the way, inflexible needs come to the fore while flexible preferences and institutional norms get forced to yield to each other's inflexible needs. And such core needs never clash. Impact parity has the power to illuminate the problem of excessive resourcing and incentivize proactive contentment of by mutually coordinating access to essential resources, to properly resolve needs. That's strong power, producing meaningful solutions that results in improved and sustainable wellness for all. Results matter. The weak power of contentious legalism can never get us there. To quote MLK, "Only love can do that." H) Disillusioned individuals Need-response recognizes The standard adversarial approach presumes individuals have more power than they honestly do. Impact parity turns this hyper-individualism on its head. Unlike psychotherapy, the aim is not to help the individual adjust but to adjust the power relation. Which can redress growing disillusionment with psychotherapy. Unlike legal services, the aim is not to fit individuals to policies, but to serve the needs for which those policies exist. Which can redress growing disillusionment with lawyers. There is good reason to be disillusioned with the adversarial judicial process and with divisive politics. Now there is a viable alternative to such power differentials: impact parity. Power research This impact parity model benefits from the academic research into power differentials. Anderson, Berdahl (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journ. of Personality and Soc. Psych., 83:6, 1362-1377 Two studies of task-focused dyads tested the approach/inhibition theory of power (P. Keltner, D. H. Gruenfeld, & C. Anderson, in press), which posits that having power increases the tendency to approach and decreases the tendency to inhibit. Results provided preliminary support for the theory: Participants higher in personality dominance or assigned control over resources expressed their true attitudes, experienced more positive and less negative emotion, were more likely to perceive rewards (i.e., that their partner liked them), and were less likely to perceive threats (e.g., that their partner felt anger toward them). Most of these effects were mediated by the sense of power, suggesting that subjective feelings of power are an important component in the effects of power. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) Berdahl, Martorana (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 497–509. The approach/inhibition theory of power proposes that elevated social power increases the experience and expression of positive emotions and that reduced social power increases the experience and expression of negative emotions (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). The evidence to date for these proposed relationships is correlational. Studies that have attempted to find a causal link between power and emotions have failed to do so. The current study manipulated social power in 61 three-person groups that engaged in a meaningful discussion (explanations for poverty in the US) that produced disagreements and strong emotions. High power individuals experienced and expressed more positive emotions and less anger than low power individuals did. High power individuals were also more likely than low power individuals to openly express their opinions during the group discussion. Implications for theory and future research are discussed. Copyright#2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 3, 453– 466. Three experiments investigated the hypothesis that power increases an action orientation in the powerholder, even in contexts where power is not directly experienced. In Experiment 1, participants who possessed structural power in a group task were more likely to take a card in a simulated game of blackjack than those who lacked power. In Experiment 2, participants primed with high power were more likely to act against an annoying stimulus (a fan) in the environment, suggesting that the experience of power leads to the performance of goal-directed behavior. In Experiment 3, priming high power led to action in a social dilemma regardless of whether that action had prosocial or antisocial consequences. The effects of priming power are discussed in relation to the broader literature on conceptual and mind-set priming. Guinote (in press). How power affects people: Activating, wanting and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology. Socio-cognitive research has demonstrated that power affects how people feel think and act. Here, literature from social psychology, neuroscience, management, and animal research is reviewed, and an integrated framework of power as an intensifier of goal related approach motivation is proposed. A growing literature shows that power energizes thought, speech and action, and orients individuals towards seeking salient goals linked to power roles, predispositions, tasks and opportunities. Power magnifies self-expression linked to active parts of the self (the active self), enhancing confidence, self-regulation and prioritization of their efforts towards advancing focal goals. The effects of power on cognitive processes, goal preferences, performance, and corruption are discussed and its potentially detrimental effects on social attention, perspective taking, and objectification of subordinates are examined. Several inconsistencies in the literature are explained by viewing the goal directedness of power holders as more dynamic and situated than is usually assumed. Keltner, Gruenfeld, Anderson (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110:2, 265-284. This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others’ interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others’ goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed. Schaerer, Plessis, Yap, Thau (2018). Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 149 We examine the role of low-power individuals in social power research. A multi-method literature review reveals that low-power individuals may be insufficiently understood because many studies lack necessary control conditions that allow drawing inferences about low power, effects are predominantly attributed to high power, and qualitative reviews primarily focus on how high-power individuals feel, think, and behave. Challenging the assumption that low power tends to produce opposite consequences of high power, we highlight several similarities between the two states. Based on social exchange theories, we propose that unequal-power (vs. equal-power) relationships make instrumental goals, competitive attitudes, and exchange rules salient, which can cause both high- and low-power individuals to behave similarly. Two experiments suggest that although low-power individuals sometimes behave in opposite ways to high-power individuals (i.e., they take less action), at other times they behave similarly (i.e., they objectify others to the same extent). We discuss the systematic study of low-power individuals and highlight methodological implications. Smith, Bargh (2008). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Soc Cogn. 26:1, 1-24. According to the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), having power should be associated with the approach system, and lacking power with the avoidance system. However, to this point research has focused solely on whether power leads to more action, particularly approach-related action, or not. In three experiments, we extend this research by exploring the direct, unintentional relation between power and both approach and avoidance tendencies. Priming high power led to greater relative BAS strength than priming low power, but did not affect the BIS (Exp. 1). High-power priming also facilitated both simple and complex approach behavior, but did not affect avoidance behavior (Exp. 2−3). These effects of power occurred even in power-irrelevant situations. They also cannot be explained by priming of general positive versus negative constructs, nor by changes in positive, negative, approach-related, or avoidance-related affect. Tost (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders ‘‘feel the power’’? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior 35 Recent research in social psychology has examined how psychological power affects organizational behaviors. Given that power in organizations is generally viewed as a structural construct, I examine the links between structural and psychological power and explore how their interrelationships affect organizational behavior. I argue that psychological power takes two forms: the (nonconscious) cognitive network for power and the conscious sense of power. Based on this view, I identify two causal pathways that link psychological power and structural power in predicting organizational behavior. First, the sense of power is likely to induce a sense of responsibility among (but not exclusively among) structural powerholders, which in turn leads structural powerholders to be more responsive to the views and needs of others. Second, the sense of power, when brought into conscious awareness, activates a non-conscious association between power and agentic behaviors, which in turn leads structural powerholders to enact agentic behaviors. I discuss the ways in which these predictions diverge from previous theorizing, and I address methodological challenges in examining the relationship between structural and psychological power. In doing so, I suggest that certain features of the predominant methodological approaches to studying psychological power may have induced a bias in the empirical findings that obscures the crucial link between power and responsibility. ß2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Authors. (Year). Title. Publication. doi Abstract Accountability—the sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of others—often acts as a constraint on unchecked power. Individuals in power who know they will be held accountable are more likely to consider social consequences and take others’ interests into account. (Keltner, et al., 2003) Key article: Power, approach, and inhibition. Too long, didn't read? Dacher Keltner is one of the leading experts in this area. With his colleagues, he contrasts the powerful and powerless. They propose twelve propositions, six for the dynamics of elevated power and six for dynamics of reduced power. POWERFUL IMPACTOR ​POWERLESS IMPACTEE positive affect attention to rewards automatic info processing disinhibited behavior negative affect attention to threats controlled info processing inhibited social behavior Proposition 1: Elevated Power Increases the Experience and Expression of Positive Affect Proposition 2: Reduced Power Increases the Experience and Expression of Negative Affect Proposition 3: Elevated Power Increases the Sensitivity to Rewards Proposition 4: Reduced Power Increases the Sensitivity to Threat and Punishment Proposition 5: Elevated Power Increases the Tendency to Construe Others as a Means to One’s Own Ends Proposition 6: Reduced Power Increases the Tendency to View the Self as a Means to Others’ Ends Proposition 7: Elevated Power Increases the Automaticity of Social Cognition Proposition 8: Reduced Power Increases Controlled Social Cognition Proposition 9: Elevated Power Increases the Likelihood of Approach-Related Behavior Proposition 10: Reduced Power Increases Behavioral Inhibition Proposition 11: Elevated Power Increases the Consistency and Coherence of Social Behavior Proposition 12: Elevated Power Increases the Likelihood of Socially Inappropriate Behavior Research summarized and presented by researcher Amy Cuddy In anankelogical terms, power easily enables refunction, while powerlessness risks defunction. I think this idea that power is related to approach is mostly a good thing. I mean we want a world full of people who feel personally powerful [in charge of their own lives]. I think it creates value for everybody. – Amy Cuddy BACK TO THE TOP

Impartially establishing innocence independent of biased adversarial law Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – in brief After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. Steph consistently maintains their innocence and has no other history of criminality. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to the need for justice. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty, unable to use their talent and degrees. Steph proactively addresses the needs for which laws ostensibly exist to serve. Steph raises the standard for justice to measurably improved wellness outcomes for all. Steph now holds all accountable to this higher standard, anchored in love. Steph welcomes anyone to engage them to better understand what this can mean for them. All legitimate personal and public relations with Steph will now expect acknowledgement of these facts. Acknowledging these facts improves the person's rapport with Steph. Failure to acknowledge these facts sours the person's rapport with Steph. Yes, Steph will be keeping score. Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – full 1. After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. 2. Steph empirically demonstrates their innocence and cause for being scapegoated. 3. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to justice needs. 4. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty and homelessness. 5. Steph unpacks the threat to wellbeing from power differentials PART 2 6. Steph proactively addresses the needs for which laws ostensibly exist to serve. Being a "transspirit" compels Steph to prioritize respecting the inflexible needs that norms exist to serve, over respecting such relatively flexible norms themselves. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve. Steph invests their education and transspiritual gifts to convert the problem of damaging power differentials into an opportunity to improve overall wellness. It applies anankelogy's new insights to solve problems by resolving needs. Starting by leveling the playing field of power differentials, with is called "impact parity". Steph now tests this new profession of need-response on their own problem of power differentials. Steph will soon test these four pioneering tools: Tool 1 - mutuality process form: To incentivize mutual empathy to solve problems. Tool 2 - law-fit: To fit any cited norm to the needs it affects. Tool 3 - exaction invoice: To quantify the hidden costs from power differentials. That last one invites the powerful impactor to earn legitimacy with a testimonial by converting the itemized amount into good faith effort to mutually support each other's needs. impact parity to redress problem of power differentials Click for comprehensive details 6.1) Impact parity If impact disparity can contribute to unwell outcomes and illegitimate authority, then balancing the impact between both sides in a power differential can set the stage for improving wellness outcomes and improving legitimated authority. In other words, if a power differential can produce negative outcomes, then the right conditions should be able to produce positive outcomes. For both sides. The impactee needs improved wellness. The impactor needs improved legitimacy. As each need something of value from the other, both sides can be incentivized to respond to each other's needs more responsibly. Both sides can engage each other equally, to demonstrate good faith effort to properly resolve inflexible needs. 6.2) Fair trade The impactee begins with a baseline wellness score for their current level of impacted anxiety, depression and addictiveness. Their impacted wellness gets assessed after each engagement with the sent need-response tool below. These self-reported levels get independently verified by periodic measuring of the impactee's allostatic load. As the impactee's wellness level improves with declining anxiety, depression and addictiveness, the impactor's earned legitimacy rises. Of course, the impactor is not responsible for the impactee's wellness. Then neither is the impactor's influential advantage divorced from any impact on the impactee's wellness. Likewise, the impactee is not responsible for the impactor's trustworthiness to the public. But each incremental improvement correlating with the impactor's good faith effort can vouch for the impactor's demonstrable trustworthiness (i.e., earned legitimacy). Impactee wellness impact significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Impactor legitimacy level significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure The more the impactee's wellness levels improve, controling for other variables, the more the impactor's legitimacy goes up. The more the impactee's wellness declines, controling for other variables, the more the impactor's legitimacy stagnates or goes down. Need-response tools Steph introduces four need-responsive tools to incentivize impactors to listen to those they impact, for their own benefit. Each is initiated by the impactee, to incentivize the identified impactor to properly respond to the identified impacted need, or needs. Tool 1 Tool 2 Tool 3 mutuality process law-fit exaction invoice These tools remain untested until now. Steph will test each on the power differentials impacting their own wellness outcomes. Which will likely alter them, to fit what is necessary for all sides. 6.3) Need-response tool 1: mutuality process form We first shift from crippling adversarialism to engaging mutuality using the 'praise sandwich'. Any "bad news" from the impactee to the impactor gets sandwiched between the "good news" slices of affirming the impactor's affected needs and a warm invitation to sustain this proactive cooperation. Defensiveness gets negated from the start. Good faith effort can then grow legs. A) Affirm the other side's affected need or needs B) Bring up own affected need or needs C) Continue building rapport to mutually respect needs Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE mutuality intent by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt firm yes soft yes equivocal soft no firm no no reply 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each othe's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation Impactee wellness impact significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Impactor legitimacy earned significantly improved moderately improved relatively the same moderately declined significantly declined no measure Applied to the wrongful conviction The A) I realize the school neeeds to B) C) Applied to medical billing The A) B) C) Applied to employers The A) B) C) 6.2) Need-response tool 2: law-fit How well do applied norms fit the needs they ostensibly exist to serve? Application of law is only as good as is its accountable respect for all affected needs. Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. - Plato Anankelogy, the study of need, recognizes while no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve. At best, laws impersonally convey needs. When your moral compass relies less on impersonal laws and more on personal love to honor the inflexible needs of others as you would have them honor your own, then you are set free from the bounds of legalism. In contrast to conventional wisdom about civil disobedience, to prioritize moral conscience over laws and authorities, need-response goes beyond individual conscience by introducing the plumb line of honoring all objectively occurring needs in us all. Individual conscience can be incorrect; engaging others to relate more personally with their affected needs goes much further to properly resolve needs for which laws ostensibly exist. 6.x.x) Law-fit form Now there is a helpful mechanism for identifying the needs affected by laws and their enforcement. It's call law-fit. It fits any law or social norm to the needs it is expected to serve, then includes the actual impact on our inflexible needs. 1) State the cited norm(s) 2) Identify the need(s) to be served by the cited norm(s) 3) Describe the apparent impact on all needs from enforcing the norm(s) Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE post-legalism shift by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each other's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation Applied to the wrongful conviction Does the law adequately address the complainant's presenting need or needs? 1) MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a) 2) To protect children from sexual predation of adults 3) The complainant's need to be affirmed and supported for experiencing same-gender attraction was never properly addressed. If it had, the wrongful conviction most likely would never have happened. Instead, the adult authorities apparently projected their sexual anxieties onto the asexual trans defendants under color of law. Item 3 departs significantly from item 2, which indicates poor legitimacy. At the time, there were few if any legal protections for children to be out as LGBTQ+. Applied to medical billing Does the law adequately address healthcare consumers' wellness needs? 1) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260): Federal No Surprises Act 2) To protect healthcare consumers from "surprise billing" of unexpected large medical bills, in contrast to the ethics of transparent medical billing 3) Steph is slipping into medical debt from being coerced into making uninformed healthcare decisions that result in large copays beyond their means to pay it promptly. Item 3 departs significantly from item 2, which indicates poor legitimacy. The social power of healthcare providers toxic legalism that undermines societal wellness. Applied to employers Does the law adequately address the problem of abusive managers who use their anger to coerce employee compliance to their expectations, with their unquestioned assumptions? 1) No statute recognizes the wrongly convicted innocent, nor asexual employees, nor transspirit worker, as a protected class. "The line between the legal definition of harassment and general unkindness can be a blurry one." Abusive use of anger to manipulate worker compliance, even applied to intrinsically motivated workers, is not explicitly illegal (unless aimed at a protected class), and under law does not by itself constitute a hostile work environment. 2) For intrinsic motivations to be encouraged and not disincentivized by any boss abusing their authority by coercing compliance with anger with the implicit threat of compromising the worker's economic security. 3) Steph's productive potential continues to be undermined, to placate the boss's anxiety about expected performance. With costly consequences to their economic wellbeing. Item 1 shows how the law cannot effectively address every problem, especially this problem. This simple 3-step form can serve as a precursor to a more thorough process known as citationization. Which asks for more probing questions. How is the norm interpreted? How is the norm enforced? Who benefits the most from this norm's enforcement? How can we know if the purpose of the norm is being fulfilled? How is the norm's enforcement impacting the population? How effectively does this norm address the needs it exists to serve? Such inquiries can be adjusted to fit each particular power differential situation. Any bad law is no law at all. - Augustine of Hippo 6.3) Need-response tool 3: exaction invoice 7.X) From ascribed legitimacy to earned legitimacy 6.3.1) Ascribed legitimacy MCOG 6.3.2) Earned legitimacy MIWO 7.4) From systemic exaction to the exaction invoice Exaction Invoice This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 While not a bill seeking collection of the totaled amount, it can serve as impactee-supplied documentation for any adjudication contest if the impactor remains in a legally privileged adversarial and avoidant stance. If the impactor opts out of this good faith alternative, it can be used as evidence to challenge the impactor's legitimacy to further impact the lives of the vulnerable. If the adjudication body compounds such biased adversarialism and privileged avoidance of the impactor's underserved inflexible needs, the results can be used as evidence to challenge that adversarial legal system's legitimacy to further impact the lives of the vulnerable. And then as a basis for asserting the higher authority of resolving needs with love. Need-response process 1) ANNOUNCE coerced costs by sending this completed form to the appropriate contact info 2) ASSESS impactor's responsiveness by how prompt in acknowleging receipt 3) AUDIT impactor's good faith to cooperatively redress each other's relevant needs 4) AVOW to proceed with or without the impactor's cooperation 6.4.1) Applied to the wrongful conviction The Exaction Invoice 1 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 6.4.2) Applied to surprise medical billing The Exaction Invoice 2 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 6.4.3) Applied to the employer The Exaction Invoice 3 This is NOT a bill. FROM: Impactee's name; contact info TO: Impactor's name; contact info DATE: Date sent No. Item of extracted value cost qty amount 1. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 2. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 3. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 4. $ 0.00 0 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 REACT or RESPOND 7. Steph raises the standard for justice to 'measurably improved wellness outcomes' for all. MoU Leave sick world of toxic legalism to enter th special world of need-responsive love. The imperfect adversarial legal process repeatedly fails to live up to the ideals of the "consent of the governed" social contract. Such consent gets easily manipulated. Steph lives by the higher "measurably improved wellness outcomes" social contract. Anything less results in a sick society. Click for comprehensive details 7.1) Memorandum of Understanding A Any powerholder lacking such mutual understanding shall be counted as not fully authorized to impact the identified impacted. Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is made and executed by and between: 1. Purpose This 2. Objectives, Scope and Major Activities The 3. Responsibilities of the Parties The two Parties 4. Duration and Option to Amend, Extend or Terminate This MoU 5. General Terms The 6. Signatures This MoU shall enter into force on the latest date of signing by qualified representatives of both institutions. /S/ /S/ 7.2) Shifting from "reacting" to "responding" In the face of persisting conventional problems, we apply these unconventional solutions. We leave the ordinary world of reacting to problems with cold legalism, to enter the special world of mutual responsiveness to each other's affeeected needs. This includes turning away from toxic legalism and toward need-respecting love. 7.3) Redressing toxic legalism From the sacred writings of the Apostle Paul to the more recent warnings from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, we know that excess dependence on the role of law compromises human flourishing. And we intuitively know that too much law and not enough love makes for a sick society. As the sage Jiddu Krishnamurti warned us, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Transspirituality compels Steph to transcend divisive social norms to connect with life's full and yet untapped full potential, for human flourishing. Unfortunately, conformists tend to misread Steph's nonconformity as some kind of pathology. Projection? transspirituality - Benefocent compulsion to transcend constraining conventional norms to connect with life's full potential. Transspirituality inspires Steph to question divisive social norms, to resist the creeping normalcy of depending on poor options We all are coerced into poor options dependence (CoPOD for short) Almost all of us drift into "symfunction" of adequate wellness that robs us of human flourishing. drift - symfunction capture - creeping normalcy of coersion to rely on poor options (CoPOD) ... need-response - to liberate from suffocating norms benefiting billionnaires more than the populace Need-response aims to nurture us out from the iciness of toxic legalism and into the warmth of need-respecting love. From REACT to RESPOND to needs 7.3.1) From hyper-individualism to psychosocial balance For example, in the wrongful conviction With surprise medical billing, Applied to workplace mangers, 7.3.2) From hyperrationality to emotional honesty 7.3.3) From overgeneralizing to relevant nuance 7.3.4) From avoidance to meaningful engagement avoidance culture 7.3.5) From adversarialism to mutuality process post-legalism exoneration 7.4) Cultivating human love and human flourishing Peakfunction The adversarial legal process basically offers pain-relief to the winning side in a legal battle. From toxic legalism to mutual love 8. Steph now holds all accountable to this higher standard, anchored in love. Pronouncement of Innocence innocence offending complicity Heralding Post-Legalism cultivating "Mutual Good Faith" Declaration of Liberty declare the liberty to properly resolve needs Heralding Love universal principles unilateral good faith...asserting higher authority of properly resolve needs in love Click for comprehensive details 8.1) Pronouncement of Innocence Nobody requires another's permission to breathe. Pronouncement of Innocence Steph Turner demonstrates being wrongly convicted and offers an alternative to faulty legalism Overlooked innocence Whereas the current structure of the adversarial judicial system remains slow to recognize, admit and correct its errors; Whereas academically estimated rates of wrongful convictions of the innocent, who had no role in the criminal act, span from 1 to 5% of all convictions, potentially even higher, and this totals over a hundred thousand; Whereas the current National Registry of Exonerations identifies exonerations nowhere near this number; Whereas wrongful convictions stem from known contributors that can be identified in a case; Context Whereas LGBTQ+ people have historically been targeted by law enforcement; Whereas the complainant had a clear motive to implicate the transgender defendant as a way to avoid being outed for same-sex attraction and risk rejection of her same-sex attraction at a time when acceptance was rare, and her stepfather uttered homophobic slurs; Whereas the defendant has no other criminal history; Whereas asexual transpeople present no threat of sexual violence to the public; Legalism limits Whereas the investigation did not question the defendant’s own three underaged daughters; who never accused the defendant of any criminal wrongdoing; Whereas the defendant continues to endure a history of being scapegoated along with legally privileged economic marginalization; Whereas repeated requests for legal assistance from innocence projects to review this case has not borne fruit and never because they could not find merit for its potential reversal in court; Post-legalist alternative Whereas a viable alternative to the limits of adversarial legal process can be found in the need-based mutuality process, as presented by the new professional service of need-response; and Whereas this mutuality process invites input from anyone affected, as long as they willingly submit to the discipline of this mutuality process to properly address each other’s needs; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that STEPHEN DENNIS TURNER effectively demonstrates their innocence of all charges from the alleged incident on 7th of July, 1993. 2026-06-07 Innocence Offending Violating the rights of the unexonerated innocent continues to be privileged by law 8.1.1) Innocence offending Anyone treating the wrongly convicted innocenct as if guilty, under color of law or unquestioning acceptance of any biased adversarial legalism, is complicit in that injustice. We call in innocence offending. legacy of harm 8.1.2) Widespread complicity – either support the innocent to rebuild their reputation and lives or fall complicit to this historical injustice accusations as projective admissions, moral inversion from reactive legalism 8.2) Unilaterally asserting the higher standard of properly resolving needs "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." - MLK step beyond the alienation of avoidance culture and beyond the adversarialism of oppo culture with thee power of love. Replacing alienation and adversarialism with love Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. creeping normalcy slowly destructing humanity But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. With the higher social contract standard of earned legitimacy, of measurably improving wellness outcomes (MIWO), 8.3) Declaration of Liberty As used here, liberty means the "freedom to properly resolve needs to cultivate human flourishing". 8.4) Unilaterally applying the higher standard of love You SHALL love "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." step beyond the alienation of avoidance culture and beyond the adversarialism of oppo culture with thee power of love. Replacing alienation and adversarialism with love 8.5) Unilaterally revising the social contract Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. creeping normalcy slowly destructing humanity But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. With the higher social contract standard of earned legitimacy, of measurably improving wellness outcomes (MIWO), Universal need-responsive principles: character refunctions gratitude grace endurance patience humility forgiveness perseverance trustworthiness honesty atonement discipline generosity kindness mercy equanimity empathy gentleness justice resilience love Like Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death! Indeed, the lack of freedom to properly resolve needs leads to a slow death. 9. Steph welcomes anyone to engage them to better understand what this can mean for them. dynamic effort to improve our wellness, starting with myself." Engage: Interact with Steph Express your support or your doubts. Have any questions? Click for comprehensive details 9.1) 9.2) validation honor REACT or RESPOND With great power comes great responsibility Is this making a difference? Check each impactor's responsiveness Check Steph's progress using this process If you need this kind of public declaration, Add your headline here This is a placeholder paragraph. Replace this text with your own content. to be proactive without premature opposition that inevitably provokes mutual defensiveness Never oppose another's inflexible need or needs. That never works. There is no greater revolution than to revolve back to love, to accountably honor the needs of others as one's own. "If you don't accountably honor my needs as I have accountably honored yours," Steph asserts, "then why shall I continue honoring yours?" Then adds, "Perhaps I should put this into transactional terms and send you a bill for what your one-sided extractions cost me." 5.x.x) Need-response tool 4: exaction invoice Such potent love can do far more to incentivize responsiveness to inflexible needs than caustic adversarialism. Those who fail to engage our good faith efforts shall risk 5.x.x) Earned legitimacy No [person] is above the law, and no [person] is below it. - Theodore Roosevelt firm yes soft yes equivocal soft no firm no no reply Steph introdues some new tools, yet to be tested

Impartially establishing innocence independent of biased adversarial law Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – in brief After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. Steph consistently maintains their innocence and has no other history of criminality. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to the need for justice. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty, unable to use their talent and degrees. Steph unpacks the hidden threat to wellness from power differentials. PART 2: Steph proactively addresses the needs for which laws ostensibly exist to serve. Steph raises the standard for justice to measurably improved wellness outcomes for all. Steph now holds all accountable to this higher standard, anchored in love. Steph welcomes anyone to engage them to better understand what this can mean for them. All legitimate personal and public relations with Steph will now expect acknowledgement of these facts. Acknowledging these facts improves the person's rapport with Steph. Failure to acknowledge these facts sours the person's rapport with Steph. Yes, Steph will be keeping score. Public Exoneration of Steph Turner – full 1. After coming out as trans, Steph Turner was falsely accused and wrongly convicted in 1993. Steph Turner came out as trans in 1993 to Janet Turner, their older trans sibling. After moving in together, a young girl with lesbian feelings gawked at Janet, apparently inspired by Janet's defiance of gender norms. When in trouble with her mother for not being home, the young girl accused Janet of snatching her off the sidewalk and dragging her to Janet's apartment to be sexually assaulted. This nascent lesbian could not risk being outed. Both Janet and Steph were accused of popular anti-trans groomer tropes and then charged with CSC. Later, both were wrongly convicted and sentenced to serve lengthy terms in men's prisons. Janet died in prison of cancer. Being ineligible for parole for maintaining innocence, Steph finally left prison in 2005. Now required to register as a sex offender for life, the asexual Steph cannot get a meaningful job using their talents, skills and education. Before being released, Steph switched from identifying as transgender to identifying as a wisdom-dispensing transspirit. While overwhelmed by social problems, Steph aims to help develop some meaningful solutions. [NOTE: Steph uses gender neutral pronouns primarily because indigenous languages do not have gendered pronouns as with European languages like English. This simple decolonization act also works well with the gender transcendant dimension of Steph's transspirituality, as a secondary purpose for gender neutral language.] Click for comprehensive details 1.1) Context Coming out In February 1993, Steph came out as trans to Janet, Steph's older sibling, who was already out publicly. Both were estranged from each other for 16 years. Janet previously ran afoul of the law, but now law-abiding and more emotionally mature since embracing her transgender self. Janet then lost her job and apartment in Elkhorn, Wisconsin. So she moved in with Steph in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Four weeks after moving in, Janet attracted the unwelcomed attention of a young neighbor girl. Later, Steph learned that this young girl was experiencing nacent lesbianism and could not risk being outed to her homophobic parents. After gawking at Janet throught the apartment front window, Janet naively tried to placate the girl's curiosity about this "man with lipstick" by inviting her inside. Steph remained asleep in the back bedroom. All hell breaks loose Steph awoke to hear voices. Leaving the back bedroom, Steph observed Janet talking with a young girl that Steph had never seen before. Leaving the apartment for errands, neither Janet nor the girl acknowledged Steph's presence nor exit. After returning, Steph saw that the girl was gone. When asking Janet who that was, Janet seemed unwilling to talk about it. Shortly after, the girl's upset mother appeared at the door. She demanded to know what Janet was doing with her daughter. Janet stepped out to explain. Before Janet could finish, the girl's stepfather rushed at Janet with a crowbar. Janet jumped inside and Steph locked the door. As the man repeatedly beat the door with the crowbar, Steph called 911. Police arrive Police get involved. The young girl was interviewed. The officer had Janet and Steph wait in the back of his squad car. Then the officer joined the other officers who were interviewing the girl, who desperately could not be outed to them. About 20 minutes later, the officer returned. He indicated that both Janet and Steph were now being charged with CSC. Steph asked the officer what CSC stands for. "Criminal Sexual Conduct," he answered. "What did the girl say we did?" Steph increduously inquired. "I think you know," the officer replied, as he drove away to take the two to the county jail. 1.2) Falsely accused of sexual assault on July 7, 1993 CSC 1. Steph Turner was accused of aiding and abetting a sexual assault allegedly committted by Steph's transgender sibling, against a ten year-old neighbor whom Steph has never met. CSC 2. Steph was also accused of fondling the complainant's chest. The specifics remain unclear, as the charge was cherrypicked from an allegation m we were both being arreested for CSC. ade from an inconsistent testimony apparently coached with leading questions (standard at that time). Steph soon learned how easily trans folks get overcharged and over-incarcerated compared to most non-trans people. Implicit bias. Steph also had to quickly detransition for survival in the men's jail. Steph's older trans sibling Janet (deadname Daniel) was accused as the principal. Since Janet died of cancer in prison on October 8, 2001, little else is mentioned of her here. 1.3) Wrongly convicted of CSC charges on December 13, 1993 The trial began on November 30, 1993. Both Janet and Steph were tried together, but each had a separate jury. Steph expected to be acquitted since the accuations lacked corroborating evidence. Then Steph's defense counsel showed in a Michigan law book that "no corroborating evidence is necessary for a conviction of sexual misconduct". That sank Steph's mood. Steph's defense counsel believed in Steph's innocence, but had doubts about Janet's innocence. The jury later indicated that if Janet was guilty, then they assumed Steph must also be guilty of the charges. Neither jury was checked for the propensity to project sexual angst onto asexual trans folks simply because they are different. Amidst a nationwide moral panic of sex abuse hysteria, at a time many believed the transphobic trope of "sexual predators", both were found guilty. 1.4) Sentenced on February 2, 1994 to serve 30 years in a men's prison The Presentence Investigator expressed her doubt about the conviction, but explained she had to do her job to examine all the relevant details and recommend a sentence as determined by law. Her Presentencing Investigation report recommended sentencing Steph at the low end of the 5 to 10 year minimum range. The maximum was set by statute at 30 years, which Steph did not fully appreciate at the time. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor argued for a minimum closer to 8 years. Steph's defense counsel counter-argued for a minimum closer to 2 years. After sentencing Janet 30 to 50 years, the judge claimed he had to keep the sentence for Steph proportional to the codefendant. This misapplication of the Milbourn case law later served as an appellate issue. The trial judge departed upward from all the recommendations and sentenced Steph 15 to 30 years. 1.5) Appeal Steph appealed the conviction prior to sentencing. Steph's appellate counsel found so many appealable issues that the written appeal ran in excess of the 50-page limit. After getting the court's permission, he filed a 60-page appellate brief on Steph's behalf. The brief was filed on December 27, 1995. The appellate panel returned their unpublished opinion in January of 1998. They threw out the CSC 1 conviction, but then replaced it with a CSC 2 conviction. While grateful for partial relief, Steph remained disappointed that the court failed to recognize and correct its costly mistakes. The appellate panel traditionally avoids the role of "tryer of fact" as they reserve that function to the trial jury. They granted themselves an exception to interpret the trial transcripts for themselves to decide a jury could find Steph guilty of CSC 2. The appellate panel remanded the case for resentencing. On February 2, 1999, exactly six years after the fist sentencing hearing, Steph returned before the same sentencing judge. He resentenced Steph to serve 8 to 15 years. This moved up the maximum outdate from 2023 to September of 2005. And this updated the earliest release date to 2001, if eligible for parole. 1.6) Incarcerated in the MDOC from March 1994 till September 2005 Faithfully maintaining the integrity of their innocence left Steph ineligible for parole. Steph finally discharged fully from state custody on September 22, 2005. And went home. While grateful to leave prison and be back home, Steph remains hopeful to reverse the wrongful conviction and restore their sullied name. Thanks in part to Janet taking the lead to embrace their Oneida heritage, Steph shifted from identifying as transgender to recognizing the indigenous aspect of gender holism. By 2002, Steph identified more as a "transspirit". Steph briefly wondered if the two-spirit tradition best explained their compulsion to transcend gender norms. But digging deeper, Steph realized the term transspirit fit better. A transspirit is one compelled to transcend divisive norms, like gender norms and hostile political sides, to deeply connect with life's full potential. This now includes transcending hostile adjudication categories of the adversarial process, like accuser and accused, and the overgeneralizing categories of guilt and acquittal. After initially in shock after asking "why me?", Steph shifted perspective by asking "Why not me? What does God see in me to test and refine my resilience and rise me up to a threat-defying purpose?". Besides being totally innocent of a wrongful conviction, Steph learned to empathize with the plight of not-so-innocent fellow prisoners, who presented many painfully unaddressed social issues. 1.7) Shooting the messenger Irony While incarcerated, Steph recognized transspiritual features in the book of Isaiah. When wondering who will step up and find the wisdom to correct such problems in society, Steph stepped forward with "Here am I, send me!" Mirroring the message in Isaiah, Steph soon wondered who will take notice of such of such profound and yet unconventional wisdom. "Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" Transspirituality gifts Steph with the wisdom to both understand the roots of conventional thinking and the its limits if taken too literally. Let these nuggets of wisdom inspire you to see beyond conventional wisdom. All natural needs sit equal before nature. Natural needs never clash with each other. There is no such things as pain apart from unresolved needs. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats pain exists to report. We cannot solve our specific problems from the level of generalizing that created them. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they make a law. There is no greater human authority than resolving needs with love. It's best to change yourself, conventional wisdom claims, before trying to change society. But what if you have done all you can and must wait for societal changes to enable you to actually change yourself? Hyper-individualism results, which prevents human flourishing. Be rational, conventional wisdom claims, and check your emotionally charged expressions. Hyperrationality results, which prevents human flourishing. Don't overthink things, conventional wisdom claims, so you best keep things simple enough for all to understand. Overgeneralizing results, which prevents human flourishing. You should be happy, conventional wisdom claims, by avoiding uncomfortable matters. Discomfort avoidance results, which prevents human flourishing. Take a stance on the issues, conventional wisdom claims, so you should oppose those that you know are wrong. Hostile adversarialism results, which prevents human flourishing. 2. Steph empirically demonstrates their innocence and has no other history of criminality. Steph presents a compelling case of actual innocence. After creating a spreadsheet form with an innocence checklist, to compare an innocence claim to those already exonerated, At no time has Steph taken a plea deal, or confessed during any investigation or at a parole hearing. At no time prior or after this alleged crime, and no time during state custody, has Steph presented any violence of any criminality. Instead, Steph as a nonconformist has endured a history of being misunderstood, outcasted, scapegoated and targeted for projected shame of others. As was the young gay complainant, who could not be as open as Janet and Steph. Both Steph and the exploited complainant need the substantive justice of being affirmed for who they authentially are. Click for comprehensive details 2.1) Estimated Innocence Report Steph created an interactive spreadsheet tool, called the Estimated Innocence Form, that automatically calculates the viability of an innocence claim. The more the innocence claim includes elements known to contribute to wrongly convicting the innocent, the higher the likely innocence score. Its attached Estimated Innocence Report summarizes the results. This effectively improves upon the adversarial law’s convenient yet oversimplified categories of guilty or not guilty. This provides a more honest look at each viable innocence claim than normally afforded in the slow motion and biased-riddled adversarial system, hampered by apparent conflicts of interest. Instead of the oversimplified guilty-or-not-guilty binary massaged from a jury's manipulated perspective, this proactive alternative provides a range of options based upon a testable correlation: The more an innocence claim matches those cases already exonerated, the higher the score attesting to likely actual innocence. As the first guinea pig, per se, Steph applied this form to their own innocence claim. When compared to cases already exonerated, Steph scores an 89% chance of being actually innocent. (A different scoring arrived at 86%, and another at 92%.) 2.1.1) Synopsis Asexual person comes out as transgender in early 90s, gets falsely accused as being a "sexual predator" homophobic stereotype. Convicted without evidence. Must register as sex offender for life. Forced into poverty and homelessness. 2.1.2) Hightlights no criminal history always maintained innocence transphobic & homophobic prosecution no corroborating evidence climate of sex abuse hysteria no crime occurred sensationalized coverage in local media despite several degrees, no one will hire 2.1.3) Flipside Prior to accepting herself as transgender, Janet (principal & codefendant) often ran afoul of the law. She appears to have suffered Asperger’s (high functioning autism), so was slow at responding to social cues. Overcoming shame of being gender different helped her escape cycles of self-defeating behaviors. She overcame dyslexia and other challenges to lead a healthy life, until this happened. 2.1.4) Summary On July 7th, 1993, Steph Turner awoke to hear voices from the other room. Steph could hear her sister Janet talking to someone. That person left, but later returned with her irate mother to accuse Janet of an incredulous crime. You see, Janet was born male and now openly transgender, long before that was socially acceptable. And Janet had yet to fully transition. At the height of the sex abuse hysteria in the early-90s, Steph came out as gender-nonconforming transgender. But living in a religiously conservative community, Steph kept it private. Steph soon came out to Janet, years after Janet had. They shared an apartment to rekindle their newfound bond. Both now freely embracing their feminine sides. Both describe themselves as asexual, as unable to feel erotic attraction unless being fully loved for their full selves. Both felt more drawn to their indigenous spirituality, of transcending the gender divide for deeper connection. A neighborhood child drew curious, peeping into Janet’s window to gawk at what she called the "man with lipstick." She later came out as gay, but understandably could not risk rejection at home because of her young age. When caught not being home on time, the child leveled bizarre claims of sex abuse unbecoming from a child. Perhaps she was exposed to porn. The child then dragged Steph into her transphobic-indoctrinated accusations. The child claimed that Janet and Steph had her pose in a photo, with her stabbing Steph in the chest with a jelly-stained butter knife. She claimed this was to scare her from talking to police, that Janet and Steph would use the Polaroid photo to claim this young girl was the aggressor. Of course, no such photo ever existed. Unbelievable? Not if you already believe trans people are subhuman. Child testimonies back then were often coached. Trans people were easily vilified. Since no corroborating evidence was necessary back then to convict for sexual misconduct, both transwomen were wrongly convicted. And both sentenced to long terms in men’s prisons. Janet did not survive. In 2001, she succumbed to cancer. Repeated efforts to overcome their wrongful convictions have failed. After serving a full 12-year sentence, Steph was discharged and finished undergraduate and graduate degrees. But now Steph must register as a sex offender for life, despite being asexual. This continues to destroy Steph's economic and other opportunities. Your support can help turn this around. This "Estimated Innocence Report" results from filling out the Estimated Innocence Form which Steph created for anyone with a compelling innocence claim neglected by the legal process. See Steph's full Estimated Innocence Report 2.2) Public Exoneration of Steph Turner Steph later created "Public Exoneration" for easier processing. The full "EIF" can be overwhelming, and include too much detail for the average person to have time to process. This "TLDR" version provides four outcomes based on answers to a few questions. demonstrably innocent more innocent than not probably innocent unlikely but maybe innocent This alternative document only asks a dozen key questions. It's honest answers will indicate the likelihood of innocence. How each answer can be verified is also addressed. No. Question Response 1. Did Steph ever turn down a plea deal or an option to reduce the charges, so they can challenge all charges at a trial? yes 2. If turning down a plea deal or opportunity to reduce charges, then found guilty at trial, did Steph express regret? no regret 3. If Steph received a lengthy "trial penalty" sentence, did Steph ever regret not taking a plea deal or admitting some guilt up front? no regret 4. Did Steph consistently maintain their innocence each time they met the parole board, despite a likely consequnce of parole denial? yes 5. Was Steph ever released on parole, or instead was Steph discharged on the maximum outdate? no parole, full sentence 6. How many major misconducts did Steph receive while in prison? 1 7. How many years has it been since the reported wrongful conviction? 33 years 8. Has Steph ever been accused of this type of crime by anyone else? no, not by anyone 9. How many years has it been since Steph was released from custody, and not been in trouble with the law again? 21 years 10. How many times has Steph been arrested besides this incident? none 11. How many other convictions has Steph received? none 12. Is Steph in a population historically profiled and frequently targeted by law enforcement? profiled not targeted Results: Steph is demonstrably innocent This includes an attempt to provide this as a service to others with a compelling innocence claim. 2.2.1) Letter to the local DA Public Exoneration invites the local prosecutor to weigh in to this non-adversarial alternative to their biased adversarial system. Which provides sufficient opportunity to the local district attorney to respond to justice needs apart from the constraints of the adversarial approach. Along the way, we assess how responsive they are to this raising of the standard to mutual understanding and mutual respect. 17 June 2026 Re: Steph Turner invites you to directly review their presorted innocence claim: Dear [local DA]: Welcome to a new way to identify wrongful convictions of the innocent. We appreciate how you likely lack the time and resources to effectively review each compelling case of wrongful convictions pointing to an innocent defendant. This new service presorts the claims for you. Instead of relying on legal arguments for how this case might be reversed in court, we rely on markers of clear innocence. This case, for example, indicates a high probability of innocence because the claimant consistently maintained their innocence from arrest, trial, parole board hearings, and now. There is no known psychological disorder for such a person to insist they are innocent in the face of inevitable parole denials. We score each innocence claim for its likely innocence. First, they must have played no role in the offense. Second, the more the case includes factors known to contribute to wrongful convictions of the innocent, the higher its viability of innocence score. This claimant was released from prison years ago, but still cannot gain meaningful employment or stable housing due to this wrongful conviction. The greater threat is not recidivism, but the unnecessary disruption of relationships, of lost income, along with consequential dependence upon public assistance, reduced tax revenue, and a heightened risk for survival crimes. You can insist that we go through the standard legal channels, but we question the ethics of vulnerably waiting upon the same adversarial process that produced the error in the first place. We find the adversarial approach needlessly provokes defensiveness, which prematurely shuts down meaningful dialogue. We instead incentivize cooperation with mutual understanding, to support you in serving the public’s interest in safety and justice. To that end, we created the Innocence Index. It provides you a "case preview triage" for quickly spotting cases within you jurisdiction that merits review. Including this case we now bring to your attention. When compared to cases already exonerated, this claimant shows an 89% chance of actually innocent. The cases listed are separated by “public” and “state” status. When accepting this case for review, it shifts from “public” to “state” status. We help you to quickly identify and clear such viable claims of innocence, that could raise your professional profile as a more effective district attorney. If you decline to accept this case for direct review, and insist we work through a defense lawyer or innocence project, we understand. The case retains its “public” status. We then address the public directly, to incentivize them to realize the risk of “innocence offending” when treating the innocent as if guilty. We directly address their needs for safety and justice. We look forward working with you to help separate the chaff of guilty defendants from the wheat of innocent lives. Let’s work together to proactively serve the interests of safety and justice for a better society. Thank you, Steph Turner Anankelogy Foundation We assess the responsiveness of the contacted DA to this opportunity to empirically improve their legitimacy. Along a range from bad to excellent responsiveness. "Public Exoneration" goes both ways. Right now, the criminal justice system is guilty of wrongly convicting countless innocent lives, which compromises its legitimacy. Public Exoneration invites the DA to shift from the tenously ascribed legitimacy of the adversarial process (i.e., manipulating juror's perceptions, only offering relief to the winning side, objectifying both complainants and defendants with little regard for their affected inflexible needs, which leads to poor outcomes) to the empirically earned legitimacy of the mutuality process (i.e., identifying all affected needs on all sides of a conflict, incentivizing positive regard for each other's affected needs, measuring the impacted wellness outcomes of all involved). Meanwhile, the unresponsiveness of the DA to the public's many justice needs contrasts with Steph's responsiveness to the needs of those involved in this case. 2.3) Responsive Innocence Another proactive alternative to the adversarial process is Responsive Innocence. Or called Responsive Exoneration, it directly addresses the impacted needs on all sides. Created as an adjunct to the EIF introduced above, it encourages the innocence claimant to shift from standardized adversarialism to more productive mutuality. To be more responsive, per se, to the specific needs of justice. This includes deliberately thinking about the apparent needs of the complainant. Steph uses this unique tool to try to empathize with what the complainant likely needed that day. And contemplate what if anything can be done for such needs now. 1. Empathize with what the complainant actually needed at the time. I sense she presented a personal struggle with her own emerging sexuality as same-sex attracted. She later came out as lesbian. She appears to be drawn to my transgender sister as someone openly being herself in a way she likely wish she could be. Or at least drawn to explore what this could all mean for her, at a time when LGBTQ+ people were largely marginalized by mainstream society and not readily accepted at home. When caught not at home when confronted by her mother, she could not say that she willingly interacted with such a "deviant" in the neighborhood. how many: fully agree - mostly agree - give no stance - mostly disagree - fully disagree - never replied 2. Identify your own affected needs from this incident. My dominant need at the time was to come out as transgender without being smeared with popular transphobic or homophobic tropes, such as the widespread belief that we're more inclined to pedophilia than cisgender and straight males. To not be falsely accused of sexual misconduct but instead be accepted as an asexual (demisexual) person. Once accused, to have the preponderance of evidence favoring my innocence to show that I am not guilty of what I am not capable of doing. Once wrongly convicted, to be exonerated. Once sentenced to lifetime sex offender registration, to be removed from that listing with prejudice. Ultimately, to have legal recourse in a system less adversarial and based more on mutually addressing the affected needs on all sides to a conflict. how many: fully support - mostly support - give no stance - mostly question - fully question - never replied 3. How would you address complainant's apparent needs if you had the chance? If the law would allow it, I would affirm her same-sex attraction. And tell her that I do not personally hold any animosity toward her. I hold no grudge against her for falsely accusing me of things I am not capable of doing. I understand her need at the time to not be out to her mother or to her homophobic-presenting stepfather. I understand her motive to accuse my sibling and then me to avoid getting into trouble by her irate mother, when her mother demanded to know why she was not at home when her mother came home from work. I understand how she was incentivized by the homophobia of the time, that prompted her to shift the spotlight onto us and to then see how the adults would react to other LGBTQ+ people like herself. I appreciate how the reaction toward us would keep her in the proverbial closet for a long time. how many: fully support - mostly support - give no stance - mostly question - fully question - never replied Next is one way to try to convey this respect for needs directly to the complainant, if she can be reached. 2.4) Honoring the complaint's presenting needs Empathy: Understanding her need to be accepted for her same-sex attraction at such a young vulnerable age, and seeing some hope for couragous living when witnessing a transgender neighbor. Grace: Meeting her where she was at, unable to risk being outed in a mostly hostile environment. Forgiveness: Letting go of any anger for how she falsely accused us when it seemed that was the only option available to save herself from being outed. Mercy: Forgoing any right I may have to hold her accountable for upsetting my life. Justice: To support her to resolve her needs on par with others trying to resolve theirs, in ways the adversarial justice system does not accountably do. By directly addressing such needs, I proactively fulfill the purpose of laws. message to the complainant 17 June 2026 Dear [Complainant’s name withheld], My name is Steph Turner and I am reaching out to you in peace. If you do not remember me, I was the younger trans sibling of the transgender person you met when you were ten years old, back in 1993. In a rush to judgment, police were called and life was never the same for you or for me. The police and courts divided us, but I did not. It forced us against each other, but I was never against you. I support you in ways the police and the court never could. I affirm you for who you are, as a gay woman of color. What the criminal judicial system did to you was horrific. In my view, it used you and exploited you to serve its own selfish ends. In 1993, when you couldn’t safely come out to your mom or stepdad as gay, this homophobic and transphobic system manipulated you to go after a couple of trans sisters it hated. You didn’t hate us, but they used your fear of exposure to oppress us who are LGBTQ+. When you were only ten years old, police and prosecutors forced its agenda on you, and on us. Understandably out of fear, you pointed to “that man with lipstick” to explain where you were when your mother came home from work that day. You understandably avoided trouble by saying you were not home because this “man with lipstick”, my transgender sister, snatched you up and did awful things to you. This fit their prejudice about us LGBTQ+ folks. Instead of letting you keep it 100% real, they coerced you to say things that reinforced their prejudice. Instead of helping you come out as gay, they coerced you back into the closet. Instead of helping you find self-acceptance and love, they coerced you to destroy the lives of two transgender sisters who could have helped you better accept yourself. I am not angry with you. I understand. I too avoided rejection by hiding my true self for many years. My true self compels me to transcend the gender binary, and to transcend the divisiveness of the criminal judicial system. I cannot be against you, despite what happened years ago, because of who I spiritually am. Indeed, I am for you and wish they had never done what they did to you. My transgender sister is no longer with us. She passed away years ago. But I promised her that I would continue our struggle for justice. Our fight is not against you, but against a system that seeks to criminalize us for who we are. Thankfully, we are more accepted now, but still carry the weight of past rejections. I write to you now so you will not be alarmed when I am finally exonerated. Exonerations of the wrongly convicted like me are steadily increasing. The Innocence Project will soon review my case, and allow the truth to be known. The truth is not what you did as a young child, understandable as that was, but what the misguided adult officials did back then to try to divide us as LGBTQ+ folks. By the love of God, that shall fail. Only love shall endure—including love for you as you authentically and wonderfully are. With understanding and compassion as a deeper justice, Steph Turner 3. Steph repeatedly finds the adversarial legal process unresponsive to justice needs. Steph finds the innocence movement as disappointing as the appellate process. Six times Steph as sought help and not received any for their compelling case of innocence. Steph recognizes how all post-conviction options remain mired in toxic legalism. Which is where the law serves the needs of powerful institutions more than the powerless people. Steph sees how the powerless are unaware of many inaccurate beliefs thy have about the imperfect judiciary. And how this can lull even you into "innocence offending". Steph accepts their fate as like a canary in a coal mine. By demonstrating the limits of mere law, Steph hopes to attract interest in the new profession of need-response. Which is set to respond to justice and other public needs for more accountably. Click for comprehensive details 3.1) The innocence movement replicates the problems of adversarial law While grateful for innocence orgs that can help extend recourse to challenge wrongful convictions, the huge demand from viable innocence claims far outstrips the meager supply of innocence investigators. The advent of AI holds promise to expedite cases more quickly, but it might only put a dent in the massive problem of this systemic injustice. This reality reflects a stark, systemic crisis in the post-conviction legal landscape. While thousands of wrongfully convicted individuals maintain their innocence, the combination of severe funding deficits, meticulous evaluation criteria, and a chronic shortage of investigators creates a massive bottleneck in securing justice. For now, innocence litigators offer the only avenue of hope for post-conviction relief, for justice from miscarriages of justice. Just like Steph's. 3.1.1) Steph's first attempt After the disappointing appellate opinion, Steph first sought help from the Innocence Project while early in their prison term. The law project was new and still finding its legs. They wrote back to decline offering help because they had to prioritize innocence claims on death row. 3.1.2) Steph's second attempt A few years later, Steph tried again. Back then, innocence projects focused mainly on testing DNA. The only conceivable piece of damning evidence against Steph or Janet was semen found on a green blanket. Neither Janet nor Steph owned a green blanket, so testing this DNA sample could help demonstrate their innocence. Declined again. This time told they had to prioritize innocence claims serving a life sentence. 3.1.3) Steph's third attempt Steph was rightly concerned that the wrongful conviction and lifetime sex offender registry would cost them a meaningful job and housing once out. So just before completing the full sentence, Steph again reached out for help from an innocence project. By this time, each state had its own regional innocence project to process claims. However, Steph was declined help again. They had to prioritize innocence claims who still had many years to serve in prison. 3.1.4) Steph's fourth attempt In 2014, after being out for 9 years and struggling to survive on a student loan, Steph tried again. By then, innocence projects began to specialize serving certain cases, like bogus sex crimes. This time, you guessed it, they also declined help. They had to prioritize serving those still in prison. 3.1.5) Steph's fifth attempt In 2020, Steph fell for a scam from someone claiming they needed Steph to send $50 to prevent being rearrested. So once again Steph reached for help. By this time, prosecutors launched their own conviction integrity units in response to the mounting evidence of wrongful convictions of the innocent. Steph filed an innocence claim to the Michigan attorney general Conviction Integrity Unit. They forwarded the claim to Cooley Innocence Project in Lansing, because they just received a grant to process DNA. But they declined help when prematurely deciding Steph’s case lacked a path to reverse the conviction since the case did not significantly involve DNA. Back to the drawing board. 3.1.6) Steph's latest attempt Most recently, Steph filed an innocence claim with the Michigan Innocence Clinic. They specialize in reviewing innocence claims without DNA testing. Steph has yet to receive a reply, as it takes up to two years for them to preliminarily check the claim. Steph braces for the news of being denied legal help again. In fact, Steph has become disillusioned with the innocence movement because of its reliance upon the same toxic legalism that produces such errors. 3.2) The compounding problem of toxic legalism Steph openly wonders if relying upon the legalistic innocence movement leaves them complicit in the quantifiable evils of toxic legalism. In contrast to surgical application of law, kept accountable to outcomes respecting rights, toxic legalism operates as something of a sledgehammer. It favors the wants and desires of the powerful at the expense of the inflexible needs of the relatively powerless. Wisdom recognizes such needs as objective fact. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs they exist to serve. Steph's wisdom unpacks five dangerous aspects of toxic legalism that twists the machinery of law away from justice. 3.2.1) Hyper-individualism Laws hold individuals accountable. But can drift into holding individuals responsible for making the only choice available. While holding powerless individuals accountable, usually the politically powerless such as poor people of color, the legal system rarely if ever holds its use of legally privileged power accountable. Including the power to target and wrongly convict the innocent. This compromises the legitimacy of the adversarial judicial system. 3.2.2) Hyperrationality Laws reflect rational-legal authority. But can drift into suppressing and even repressing the emotional warnings of unresolved needs in the name of reason. The emotionally charged insistence of being innocent can be dismissed as irrational denial, which denies the imperfections of the adversarial legal system. This undercuts the trustworthiness of law enforcement to relate honestly to the needs that laws ostensibly exist to serve. 3.2.3) Overgeneralizing Laws are kept vague to apply widely. But can drift into oversimplifying situations, and turn hyperbolic rhetoric into believed exaggerations. Relevant nuance gets squashed. That includes oversimplifying categories of procedural convenience. Such as accuser and accused, overlooking incidents where the violated is also an unidentified violator. And imposing the guilt-innocence binary that prematurely provokes defensiveness of the innocent. This waters down how well the legal system can be trusted to serve our justice needs. 3.2.4) Avoidance Laws are kept impartial to avoid favoritism. But can drift into alienating privileged avoidance of vital specifics. The appellate court can insist on conviction finality, ostensibly to avoid retraumatizing the accuser but enabling the courts to evade recognizing or admitting the high volume of miscarriages if justice. This pulls the rug out from fully trusting the judicial system. 3.2.5) Adversarialism Laws come with punishment for violators. But can drift into premature opposition to those assumed to be guilty of something. The falsely accused could sit down and explain the misunderstanding, to clear things up. But once adversarialism enters, any attempt to explain what actually happened or didn't happen easily appears like some kind of defensive denial. This robs the legal system of full legitimacy. You see, this goes well beyond the injustice of wrongly convicting the innocent. Justice costs much, while injustice runs cheap. 3.2) Public naivete about the actual machinery of adversarial law Most of us live with the bias that the legal system reliably protects us from violent offenders and fairly treats all who get detained. Those processed through the adveresarial judicial system quickly lose such illusions. When they speak up about the many shortcomings of the judicial system, they get silenced. Privileged avoidance smears them as stereotypical offenders, who deny accountability for their offenses. As if they are the only ones with mistakes to hide. Such accusations project as a confession. It is now easier for the accused to humbly admit their mistakes than for police and prosecutors to humbly admit their mistakes. On one level, that is how the adversarial legals system actually works. Perhaps you have seen videos on YouTube of citizens angrily protesting to some cop that they know their rights. Like the fool who insisted he wasn't guilty of "posession" of stolen property because he didn't actually "own" it but was merely holding it for a friend. Perhaps you naively hold to less extreme assumptions about the law. Are you open to questioning your beliefs about the law? Do you believe that people generally get what they deserve? Do you believe that all or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent? Do you believe that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Do you believe that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Do you believe that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Do you believe that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Do you believe that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Do you believe that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Do you believe that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Do you believe that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice? Do you believe that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Do you believe that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? The more you believe and act on such things, the more at risk of "innocence offending". 3.3) Innocence offending Steph offers grace to each identified innocence offender. And almost everyone is. Grace is meeting you where you are honestly at. It works well with humility. The more you can drop your guard and trust my understanding, the more you can learn and grow from increased awareness. Initial awareness of innocence offending can be understandably uncomfortable. Lean into it. Such pain is not the problem as much as the threats it exists to report. Together, we can remove the threats fueling our pain of unresolved needs. There is no such thing as pain apart from unresolved needs. Along the way, you too can improve your life by dropping the legalism that no longer serves. Allow yourself to learn from me, as a kind of canary in a coal mine who had to drop such wellness-compromising legalism long ago. Word document click to download PDF click to download Excel spreadsheet click to download Download your own copy of this Innocence Offending Self-Asseessment (IOSA) tool. If too many of us are being manipulated into ignoring the plight of the wrongly convicted innocent, then a post-legalist option is in order. One that steps outside the biases of adversarialism. 3.3) Canary in a coal mine The toxic legalism tainting the lives of the wrongly convicted innocent could soon target you. The government has us all under surveillance now. Zealous law enforcers can detain you for ostensibly violating laws you may never knew existed. Overzealous prosecutors, who can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich and count on conviction rates to prove their worth, could eventually target you. As American society become more culturally diverse, it has also become more legalistic. Which increases the profile of law enforcement's interactions with citizens. Conside the ICE raids as the more visible tip of this iceberg. When that hammer comes to town, you could be the nail it seeks to pound. As more Americans feel disillusioned with legalistic insitutions, most "felons" are already disabused of such illusions. They may even shrug at those who ignored their warnings and now suffer the consequences. Does that include you? Steph has been developing a new profession to complement law enforcement, or compete with it to produce better outcomes. Unfortunately, Steph shows little progress due largely to the wrongful conviction. Like you, Steph remains trapped in this sick society. Conside how far off the rails we must be when an asexual person gets put on the lifetime sex offender registry. 4. The wrongful conviction has trapped Steph in poverty and homelessness. Despite earning degrees in sociology, anthropology, public administration and counseling, Steph remains underemployed. Background checks exclude Steph from consideration. Criminal background checks excludes Steph from better housing options. Relied on campus housing Lived with family members Residing in a slum lord boarding house Steph's skills, talents and degrees remain underutilized while working in a factory for low wages and living in a slum lord boarding house. Consequently unable to afford to hire a lawyer to undo the damage, and not convinced that would do any good. And ready to confront the deeper system problem of toxic legalism. Click for comprehensive details 4.1) Shortly after leaving prison, Steph returned to college Steph attended college year round from January 2006 to December 2015. That was the only way to qualify for housing and a student loan for a cost of living allowance. 4.1.1) Bachelor in Sociology and Anthropology Steph enrolled in Oakland University north of Detroit, and finished in two years an undergraduate degree in sociology and anthropology. With honors. Steph became dependent on year round student aid for survival. And year round campus housing. This accelerated enrollment allowed Steph to finish in two years. Outside of class, Steph launched the Native American Student Association. Or NASA for short; we stayed grounded instead of heading to space. Steph also kept active in the Gay-Straight Alliance (now SAGE) on campus. Becoming its president during their senior year. By this time, Steph was visibly out as trans, the first trans woman on campus. As the GSA president, Steph oversaw coordination of its annual drag show in early 2008. And performed in it as as a student and amatuer. Outside of campus, Steph edited and produced a quaterly publication distributed nationally. This Trans Sprituity zine was for and by transgender prisoners across the U.S. It ran from December 2005 until early 2008, when funding was pulled. As some drew closer to leaving prison, they lamented the lack of any reentry service specifically for trans ex-prisoners. So Steph launched the TransAction program, the first ever reentry service specifically for trans ex-prisoners. Overwhelmed by the challenges, Steph reached out for help from Transgender Michigan, a nonprofit clearinghouse linking linking trans people to much needed services. But the lean organization needed help to be sustainable, so Steph joined the board in the summer of 2007. Steph then sought a degreee in Public Adminstration to help sustain the vision. 4.1.2) Master of Public Administration Steph continued their education at Oakland University, enrolled in their MPA program. With an emphasis with nonprofit management. Steph resigned from the Transgender Michigan board to focus on post graduate studies. But then returned for their capstone project: providing Transgender Michigan's first strategic planning process. Which helped them to refine their mission, vision, and branding...among other things. During this time, the executive director of Transgender Michigan, Rachel Crandall, was cultivating her vision to imprive trans visibility around the world. This evolved into Rachel Crandall starting the International Trans Day of Visibility each year March 31st. Background checks prevent Steph from capitalizing on this experience and education. To continue surviving on student aid, Steph returned to Oakland University to puruse another graduate degree. 4.1.3) Master of Counseling Steph enrolled in the Masters of Counseling program from 2012 through 2015. As a visibly trans woman. Early into the program, Steph openly acknowledged the wrongful conviction and wrongful lifetime sex offender registration. While many within the counseling program empathetized with Steph and appreciated how a trans person can be unjustly targeted by law enforcement, the school's attorney was not one of them. After securing malpractice insurance for interning as a student counselor, and blessed to proceed by the academic leadership including the provost, this lawyer initially refused to grant clearance. While waiting for such permission, Steph exhausted eligibility for student aid. Only then did the school attorney allow Steph's internship at Affirmations in Ferndale. Consequently, Steph was unable to pay the full tuition bill. And could not graduate. Steph soon recognized this as systemic exaction, of powerful institutions or powerful individuals coercively extracting concessions from those who can do little about it, which apparenlty is privileged under color of law. This lawyer presented the same toxic legalism manifested in the wrongful conviction. Neither the public facing public admin education nor the inward facing counseling education provided meaningful answers for redressing such law-privileged power differentials. In fact, there currently isn't any professional service to transcend the limits of law to directly address the neglected needs that laws ostensibly exist to serve. Steph might have a solution. Sabotaging Steph's attempt to rebuild their life and improve not only their earning capacity but their potential to help others, because of a wrongful conviction, is arguably not properly authorized in the more disciplined need-responsive sense. This concluded Steph's time at Oakland Univesity, and would next move in with family in Kalamazoo. But this legalism problem would crop up again and again. 4.2) Steph then moved in with family in Kalamazoo, and trouble followed Once moving in with family, Steph discontinued presenting as a trans woman. All of Steph's children reached adulthood, having kids of their own. Besides steering away from having to explain "trans visibility" to these conservative leaning kin, Steph went back to prioritizing the spiritual dimension of being transspiritual. Which is mostly invisible to others. While others wrestle with contrasting extremes, transspirituality compels Steph to integrate complementary sides toward greater wholeness, toward human flourishing. instead of unemotional or irrational sides, blending reasonableness with intuition instead of intellectualizing or emotionalizing, blending reasoning with sensitivity instead of dominating or smothering, blending safeguarding with cultivating And so forth. Instead of indulgent side-taking of clashing gender norms, which easily compromises human flourishing, the underbelly to Steph's gender norms transcendence aims to integrate the best of both worlds. Normies assume such balance can only be compelled by sexual desire, as they have no frame of reference to appreciate spiritual compulsion toward holism. Meanwhile, leaving campus life allowed Steph to pursue some entrepreneurial goals, to try to fulfill their transspiritual purpose in life. After moving to Kalamazoo, Steph... created an eCourse on Udemy: Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics, wrote a book and self-published on Amazon: You NEED This, Introducing anankelogy, built and launched a website on Wix: AnankelogyFoundation.org, began a post-legalism exoneration service for the unexonerated innocent, and launched the Need-Response podcast cohosted with a friend in Brazil. After moving to Kalamazoo, Steph was no longer active on social media. The algorithms provoking needless hostilities proved too smothering for Steph's transspiritual integrity. So normal paths for promoting these ventures were not as open to Steph. Without needed help, Steph found little success in these efforts. Due to the wrongful conviction, the pandemic shutdowns and family requiring space to raise their kids, Steph became homeless for a year. Taking a low paying factory job provided the meager means to afford substandard housing. Meanwhile, Steph endured repeated exploitation and economic exclusion of transspirits and the wrongly convicted innocent. This includes that problem with Oakland University's lawyer. 4.2.1) Damaging power differentials with attorneys Steph received notification from the state Department of the Treasury asking for repayment of the unpaid tuition bill. Steph replied each time with a request to contest the bill, to hear their side of the story. Each time, Steph's asserted due process rights were ignored. prompted Steph to wonder if innocence even matters to anyone in position of power. In the autumn of 2025, the Michigan Treasury Department froze Steph's bank account and garnished their wages. They took the alleged amount owed from Steph's bank account, and continued garnishing their wages beyond the ststed amount owed. State lawyers brazenly violated Steph's 4th Amendment rights against seizing my private property without due process. Several weeks later, they returned the "overpaid" balance, without any apology. Steph's financial health went from bad to worse. 4.2.2) Damaging power differential with healthcare providers Speaking of health, Steph endures many power differentials from medical providers failing to transparently identify actual billed costs. In contrast to the ethical standards learned in social science research with human subjets, of informed consent, Steph gets repeatedly coerced (while vulnerably in pain) into making healthcare decisions without being informed of the actual billable costs. Then later receives a medical bill exceeding their marginalized means to pay it. Slipping into medical debt runs counter to Steph's overall wellness. When asking a medical center receptionist about the actual billed amount prior to visiting the doctor, Steph was told that they do not know the specific amount because of insurance billing practices outside of their control. Which violates Steph's patient's rights for transparent medical billing. Specifically, such information assymetry and "surprise billing" violates the new Federal No Surprises Act. Is it up to the patient desperate for relief from a medical ailment to know and assert their legal rights? Or can healthcare provides exploit the vulnerably uninformed with little if any impunity? The wrongful convictions adds a layer of ethical implications, robbing Steph of the financial means to afford hiring a lawyer to undo such added damage. And no lawyer can address the innocence offending involved. Those in power continue to extact value from the vulnerable under color of law, all privileged by toxic legalism. 4.2.3) Damaging power differentials with employers The only job Steph could initially get was with Jimmy Johns. Many (not all) of its managers would repeatedly yell at the workers to coerce their compliance. As an intrinsically motivated worker, Steph easily lost motivation when externally pressured with a manager's anger. Blind to their error, these inexperienced managers would often react by yelling even more. A vicious counterproductive cycle unfolded, undercutting Steph's good faith efforts to cultivate human flourishing for us all. Once when objecting to a manager of being needlessly yelled at, the HR later called Steph and threatened termination if Steph voiced such complaints again. Steph was silenced and not allowed to complain how they were not paid for all their hours on multiple occasions. All under color of law. As long as you obey the law as those in power over you violate your rights under color of law, Steph observed, such power differentials will continue to damage the lives of us all. There must be a better way. Perhaps Steph will craft a much-needed alternative to failed adversarial law. 5. Steph unpacks the hidden threat to wellness from power differentials. Power differentials can impact wellness outcomes in positive and negative ways. As society slips further into anomie, negative impacts abound. Often under the radar of social visibility. And often privileged by social custom and written laws. Less visible is how power differentials bring about a sick society. We're quick to blame the individual, while slow to recognize the accumulative ill effects from many power problems and structural problems impeding the proper resolution of needs. Unresolved needs lead to lowered wellness and increased pain for us all. While every individual remains accountable for their moral agency, for their personal choices, those choices can only be as good as the options realistically available to them. The more the influence from power differentials constrains those options, poor wellness outcomes become predictable. Each power differential features an "impactor" and an "impactee". Impactor: impacts the relation more than impacted by it. I.e., powerholder. Impactee: gets impacted by the relation more than impacting it. i.e., relatively powerless. The impactee who remain humbly content with a lean lifestyle, instead of aggressively pursuing wealth, can be targeted by aggressive accumulators of property. Some of these wealthy then abuse others with their material advantage, to exploit the humbly content person's vulnerabilities, and invest their resources to rig the system toward their legal advantage. Then assume their actions are legitimate since few if any complain. By what authority does any powerholder impede the humble person's path toward human flourishing? How is this not some privileged evil? Moreover, what can be done about it? Steph may have an answer...in part two. Click for comprehensive details 5.1) Impact disparity Individuals interacting with professionals or with government officials will generally have less impact on wellness outcomes than that professional or official. Need-response assumes societel wellness or societal sickness primarily results from these power differentials, in ways Western culture tends to overlook. Each power differential features an "impactor" and an "impactee". Impactor: impacts the relation more than impacted by it. Impactee: gets impacted by the relation more than impacting it. Each power differential includes a powerful impactor and relatively powerless impactee. The academic literature on power differentials helpfully sheds some light on this structural problem not yet effectively addressed by any professional service or institution. Because no current service nor institution properly recognizes inflexible needs as objective fact. In arguably the key academic article in this literature, authored by Keltner and others, they address the need to hold powerholders accountable. Accountability—the sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of others—often acts as a constraint on unchecked power. Individuals in power who know they will be held accountable are more likely to consider social consequences and take others’ interests into account.” (Keltner, et al., 2003) In the words of Frederick Douglas, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." In the full context of his 1857 West India Emancipation Day address in Canandaigua, New York, he said: If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Perhaps Malcolm X was echoing this sentiment, in his Message to the Grass Roots, when declaring that "there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution". You don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. The only kind of revolution that's nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution based on loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. ... Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. As Malcolm X and others pushed back against MLK and the nonviolent civil rights movement, both sides complement each other. Need-response brings the best of both together. Only this new profession holds us all accountable to honor the inflexibility of needs in each other, heralding the standard to love over law, and also incentivize responsiveness to such needs under something of a Damocles sword. 5.2) Provoking poor wellness outcomes Despite obeying the law, Steph gets targeted by people in positions of power for exploitation. Unquestioning obedience appears overrated, in these three power differential realms. 1. Wrongful conviction. Despite Steph only having sexual contact with their then wife, this power differential privileges others to project their sexual angst onto Steph. Which hinders Steph from properly resolving needs, resulting in poor wellness outcomes. The tragic irony is that Steph is demisexual (a form of asexuality where one must first form an emotional bond to experience sexual attraction), but was accused of a sexual offense without evidence. And every background check replicates this law-privileged injustice. The power differentials built into the adversarial judicial process privileges those in positions of authority to distort public perception of reality toward their liking. The adversarial legal process offers relief from pain for the winning side, and grants Steph a steady source for anxiety and depression. 2. Medical billing. Despite enjoying relatively good health at 63 years old, Steph still seeks medical help for the ocassional ailment. Creeping medical debt from "surprise billing" of unexpectedly large copays now costs Steph full wellness. The tragic irony of trusting healthcare providers who bill for services without fully informed consent leads to compromising the patient's wellness. A tradeoff imposed by these power differentials. The power differentials built into the doctor-patient relation includes the ethical standard of informed consent. But the capitalist pressures involved find a way to brush aside this ethic of transparent billing. While easing the suffering from physical pain, such practices can evoke the emotonal pain of anxiety and powerlessness. 3. Insensitive managers. Despite seeking jobs utilizing their education, skills and talents, the wrongful conviction traps Steph in low paying at-will jobs. None allow Steph to fulfill their purpose in life. Especially when managers emotionally pressure Steph to bend to their expectations. The tragic irony of pressuring an intrinsically motivated worker with extrinsic motivations can risk demotivating top performers. Or exploiting intrinsically motivated employees with more tasks can lead to burnout and other poor wellness outcomes. The power differential built into the employer-employee relationship, on who the typical employee is vulnerably dependent upon for their economic wellbeing, dissuades the employee from seeking legal recourse to investigate potential abuses of power. What if they are wrong and then let go? Instead of making waves at a time jobs are hard to get, many suffer silently as they use a portion of theor paycheck to sooth their pain of anxiety and ecomic insecurity. ____ Steph is in a unique position to debunk the popular notion that doing the right thing brings the right results. And to illuminate how such power differentials contribute to producing a "sick society" with limited options for making things better. 5.3) Impactee options When in conflict with those with the power to make life miserable for you, you likely experience the amygdala-fueled stress response options of fight-flight-freeze-fawn-flop-or-fatigue. The flight response, or raction, can evoke your "adversarial options". The other "F" reactions evoke your "avoidant options". The less such options result in properly resolving needs, the less well you likely will remain and more pain you likely will endure. Not enough attention is given by existing professions or institutions to navigate such conflicts toward full resolution. You could hire a lawyer. But an attorney takes an adversarial stance that usually does little if anything to properly resolve your affeected needs. You could hire a psychotherapist. But a counselor can hardly help you incentivize power differentials to support your affected needs. Need-response steps in to fill this gap. For both professional and official government power differentials. Professional power differentials typically allow competition. Official power differentials typically do not. Reactions unfold accordingly. 5.3.1) Avoidance options (cope: flight, freeze, fawn, flop, fatigue) presenteeism (showing up less than 100% well) absenteeism do only what is minimally required decreased economic productivity reliance on public welfare endure mounting anxiety suffer depression cope with mood altering substances and behaviors redirect any ire to less threatening targets (displacement) 5.3.2) Adversarial options (cope: fight) lawsuit (litigate in court) administrative complaint regulatory body grievance process media campaign online negative review public petition denouncement on social media ballot (official level) direct political action civil disobedience 5.3.2) Need-responsive options Continue reading in part 2 how to shift from these poor options to what we all need. Not only for Steph's overlooked innocence, but for the power differentials impacting your life. Discover how we can speak truth to power (STTP) in ways they will want to listen to those impacted. (LTTI). Public Exoneration of Steph Turner part 2 Click the button below to conclude this post.

Clinging to false beliefs about the imperfect judiciary can lull you into "innocence offending" Do you ever slip into “innocence offending” by treating the wrongly convicted innocent as if guilty? If so, you could be classified as an “innocence offender”. And you would be in good company. Innocence offender: Someone who mistreats a wrongly convicted innocent person as if guilty. There is no law against violating certain rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, since it was the law itself that illicitly stripped those rights away. Your complicity may be encouraged. But you can resist and instead do the right thing. Check for yourself by how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Then see how each gets debunked by AI. Are you unwittingly an ‘innocence offender’? An innocence offender is anyone who violates the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent, typically by deferring to unacknowledged imperfections and errors of the adversarial judicial system. In other words, from believing what is not true. From trusting what is false. You risk being complicit in their violated innocence if you believe and act upon widely held but false views about the accused and wrongly convicted. Until you have experienced the many shortcomings within the adversarial judicial system, you likely accept these falsehoods. Do you believe any of these? People generally get what they deserve. All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent. High conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime. The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world. Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur. A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer. If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong. No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way. Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability. The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice. Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable. The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system. The more you take such things for granted, and dismiss a viable innocence claim, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”. The more you believe such things, and dismiss claims of innocence, the more likely you are an “innocence offender”. Unlike the adversarial system anchored in alienating laws, need-response anchors itself in liberating discipline of principles called ‘character refunctions’. Such as humility, grace, patience, resilience, and more. Be skeptical of the government, including the judiciary Those who run our judicial system benefit from general ignorance around the judicial system's many imperfections. Current power structures disincentivize them from alerting you to their failures. The more you accept these widely accepted assumptions, the more they are served. The bad news is this: You become their “useful idiots” as they exploit your naïveté for how the adversarial judicial system actually works—or doesn’t work. Need-response goes beyond the biased-riddled adversarial approach to address all sides more honestly. It holds a higher standard, and instills more discipline, to nurture more of our integrity. Let’s ask Perplexity to debunk these myths Expand the text to check how this AI debunks these myths. 1. How true is it that people generally get what they deserve? Debunk the myth: People generally get what they deserve. The belief that “people generally get what they deserve” is a common worldview, but it’s more myth than reality. Here’s a breakdown: 1. The Psychological Root: Just-World Belief Psychologists call this the just-world hypothesis—the tendency to assume life is fair and that good things happen to good people, while bad things happen to bad people. It offers a sense of order and control: if the world is fair, then I can avoid misfortune by behaving “right.” But this is a cognitive bias, not reality. 2. Counterexamples from Life Suffering without fault: Children born into poverty, people facing chronic illness, or those hit by natural disasters did not “deserve” their struggles. Injustice: Corruption, exploitation, and systemic inequalities allow people to thrive or suffer irrespective of merit. Randomness: Accidents, chance encounters, or sheer luck often shape lives in unpredictable ways. 3. The Harms of Believing the Myth Victim-blaming: It leads to saying things like “They must have done something to deserve it,” which increases stigma instead of compassion. Disregard for structural issues: It shifts blame from unjust systems (racism, economic inequality, sexism) to individuals. False security: People may overestimate how much control they have, which can magnify feelings of guilt when misfortune strikes. 4. A More Accurate View Life is uneven: Outcomes are shaped by a mix of personal choices, structural forces, opportunity, and luck. Responsibility matters, but not absolutely: Effort and character do influence outcomes—but never in isolation. Compassion is wiser than judgment: Recognizing randomness and inequality encourages empathy, social responsibility, and fairer systems. Conclusion The idea that “people generally get what they deserve” is not accurate. It oversimplifies a world driven by both human agency and uncontrollable factors. Real wisdom is accepting complexity—people sometimes reap the rewards of their choices, but just as often, circumstances beyond their control shape their lives. 2. How true is it that all or most prisoners claim they are innocent? Debunk the myth: All or at least most prisoners claim they're innocent. The myth that all or most prisoners claim they're innocent is not supported by evidence: in reality, the majority of prisoners admit guilt, and only a minority persistently claim innocence after conviction. Actual Prisoner Claims Research shows that only about 15% of incarcerated individuals claim innocence of their convicted crime, while most acknowledge their involvement. Surveys and criminology experts consistently debunk the misconception that virtually everyone behind bars claims they were wrongly accused. Why the Myth Persists Popular culture, media portrayals, and social beliefs have promoted the idea that prisoners routinely deny guilt. However, in prison communities, claiming innocence without supporting evidence can lead to skepticism or conflict among other inmates. Many prisoners openly admit to their crimes, especially those caught "red-handed" or who accepted plea deals. Wrongful Convictions Rates While it's true some prisoners are innocent, wrongful conviction estimates are typically around 4-6% of the prison population—meaning most inmates are not wrongly imprisoned. Innocence projects and exonerations highlight the reality of lawful errors, but these cases represent a small fraction compared to the millions serving sentences. Parole and Innocence Dilemma Systems often require prisoners to admit guilt for parole consideration, which creates a dilemma for those who are actually innocent and refuse to confess falsely. Some innocent prisoners remain incarcerated for years, or die in prison, rather than falsely admit guilt. Conclusion In summary, most prisoners do not claim innocence, and the belief that they do is a persistent myth not backed by actual inmate behavior or data. 3. How true is that high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime? Debunk the myth: high conviction rates contribute to a reduction in crime. High conviction rates do not significantly contribute to a reduction in crime, according to a broad consensus of contemporary research and statistical analysis. Marginal Impact of Incarceration and Conviction Studies from multiple decades indicate that increases in incarceration or conviction rates have only a limited—and declining—effect on overall crime rates. For instance, between 1980 and 2000, a 10% increase in incarceration rates was associated with only a 2–4% reduction in crime, and after 2000, this correlation disappeared, with incarceration accounting for virtually none of the subsequent drop in crime. Most major declines in crime since the 1990s are attributed to factors such as an aging population, increased employment, higher graduation rates, and new policing strategies—not higher conviction rates. No Effect on Violent Crime The crime reduction associated with higher conviction and incarceration rates is limited almost exclusively to property crimes, with research consistently finding no positive impact on violent crime rates. This is because as incarceration and conviction rates rise, more people sentenced are low-level or infrequent offenders, while sentences for violent and repeat offenders would occur regardless of changes in conviction rates. Potential for Negative Effects High conviction and incarceration rates, especially when concentrated in certain communities, may even increase crime by destabilizing families and communities, leading to diminished economic opportunity and increased poverty. Over-punishing people at low risk of committing crimes can sometimes make them higher risk, further undermining public safety. Decoupling Crime and Conviction National and state-level trends illustrate that crime rates can drop even when incarceration and conviction rates also fall, as seen in Utah and other jurisdictions. This evidence demonstrates that high conviction rates are not a necessary ingredient for reducing crime, and policy should focus on more effective approaches. Conclusion In summary: The myth that high conviction rates lead to a significant reduction in crime is not supported by evidence; instead, crime is better addressed through social investments, improved policing strategies, and community supports. 4. How true is it that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world? Debunk the myth: The U.S. has the best judicial system in the world. The claim that the U.S. has the best judicial system in the world is a myth; internationally, many other countries consistently outperform the U.S. in key areas of justice, fairness, and transparency. International Rankings According to the World Justice Project and global indices, the U.S. typically ranks outside the top ten in rule of law, judicial effectiveness, and civil justice. For example, in the 2023 Rule of Law Index, the U.S. ranked 23rd globally—behind countries like Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Systemic Criticisms The American judicial system faces criticism for issues such as politicization, systemic bias, unequal access to justice, and inconsistent outcomes due to its highly decentralized federal structure. Challenges also include high incarceration rates, lengthy pretrial detentions, and disparities affected by socioeconomic status and race. Global Exemplars Countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands are routinely recognized for their more transparent, efficient, and equitable judicial systems. These systems tend to offer swifter trials, more consistent rulings, and higher public trust. Conclusion While the U.S. judicial system has strengths, particularly in constitutional rights and legal precedent, it is not the top-ranked globally, and several countries offer judicial systems that are considered fairer and more effective by international standards. 5. How true is it that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur? Debunk the myth: Wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur. The myth that wrongful convictions of the innocent rarely occur is decisively false; evidence shows that wrongful convictions are more common than most people realize, with thousands affected each year. Wrongful Conviction Statistics Conservative estimates suggest that more than 10,000 innocent people are convicted every year in the United States alone. Since 1989, at least 3,175 people have been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted, spending a collective over 27,000 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Recent studies estimate that 3-6% of all prisoners in the U.S. could be innocent, representing tens of thousands of people currently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Common Causes of Wrongful Convictions Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause, involved in up to 72% of convictions later overturned by DNA evidence. Other significant causes are false confessions, official misconduct, flawed forensic evidence, and perjury or incentivized informant testimony. Flaws in legal defense, such as overburdened or underfunded public defenders, also contribute. Ongoing Problem and Impact Exonerations are increasing, with record high numbers reported in recent years, indicating growing recognition but also the persistent scale of wrongful convictions. The consequences for the innocent are devastating, including years or decades lost to incarceration, destroyed reputations, and major financial, social, and emotional harm. The data exposes a justice system in which errors and failures can—and do—result in the punishment of innocent people much more often than is popularly believed. Conclusion In summary, wrongful convictions are a significant, recurring problem in the justice system, directly debunking the myth that they are rare. 6. How true is it that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer? Debunk the myth: A criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer. The myth that a criminal defendant is more likely to lie than a police officer is not supported by evidence or logic—police officers also regularly lie, both inside and outside the courtroom, and their profession sometimes incentivizes deceit as part of investigations or to protect themselves or colleagues. Police Honesty and Incentives Law enforcement officers are often held to high standards of honesty, but documented cases and research show systematic police deceit, including lying during investigations, testimony, and even covering up misconduct. Police officers sometimes justify lying as serving a greater good, such as securing convictions, and organizational pressures can further reinforce dishonest behaviors. Criminal Defendants and Credibility Criminal defendants face strong biases—courts and juries may assume they are less credible due to their status, background, or alleged behavior. However, there is no empirical evidence that simply being a defendant makes one more likely to lie than other participants in the justice system. Comparative Evidence Officers sometimes lie to obtain confessions (legally permitted in interrogations), protect colleagues, or enhance their own careers. Systematic studies and commissions (e.g., the Mollen Commission on NYPD) have documented widespread police perjury and falsification of official records. The adversarial legal system frequently relies on credibility assessments because testimony from police officers and defendants is often conflicting. Conclusion Both criminal defendants and police officers have complex motivations and pressures affecting truthfulness, and being a police officer does not inherently make someone more honest than a defendant. The myth persists due to biases and cultural perceptions, not due to any factual basis or evidence. 7. How true is it that if someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong? Debunk the myth: If someone gets arrested, they must have done something wrong. That's a great myth to unpack, because it touches on justice, fairness, and common misconceptions. Myth: If someone is arrested, they must have done something wrong. Reality: Being arrested does not equal guilt or proof of wrongdoing. Here’s why: 1. Arrest ≠ Conviction An arrest is when police take someone into custody based on suspicion or probable cause, not proof. Conviction only happens after due process: formal charges, evidence considered in court, and a verdict. 2. Presumption of Innocence In democratic legal systems, people are innocent until proven guilty. This principle exists precisely because arrests can be mistaken or unjustified. 3. Mistaken Identity & False Accusations Innocent people get arrested due to misidentification, false reports, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Examples: eyewitness errors, unreliable informants, or fabricated evidence have all led to wrongful arrests. 4. Biases & Systemic Issues Studies show certain groups are disproportionately arrested because of racial, social, or economic biases—not necessarily because they commit more crimes. 5. Later Exonerations The Innocence Project has highlighted many cases where DNA evidence freed people who spent years in prison after wrongful arrests and convictions. Conclusion Bottom line: An arrest is not proof of guilt. It’s only an indication that police believe further investigation or legal proceedings are justified. Judging someone guilty just because they were arrested ignores due process, the presumption of innocence, and the very real issue of wrongful arrests. 8. How true is it that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way? Debunk the myth: No one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty in some way. The belief that no one would confess to a crime unless they're guilty is a myth; in reality, many people falsely confess to crimes they did not commit due to psychological, situational, and systemic pressures. Why Innocent People Confess False confessions happen for various reasons beyond actual guilt, including mental illness, intellectual impairments, and vulnerability to authoritative pressure. Intense police interrogations can break down even mentally healthy adults, especially when conducted over long hours or with deceptive tactics. Juveniles are particularly susceptible to confess due to their impressionability and desire to please authority figures. Types of False Confessions False confessions typically fall into three categories: Voluntary: Given without external pressure, often to protect someone, as a result of mental illness, or as self-punishment. Compliant: Made under pressure to escape stressful interrogations, with hope of leniency or reward, or to end the ordeal. Persuaded: Confessors come to believe they are guilty due to suggestive or manipulative interrogation tactics. Systemic and Legal Factors Police are legally allowed to lie about evidence to suspects, which can cause confusion and panic, leading innocent people to confess. Threats, promises of lighter sentences, or plea bargaining can also coerce confessions from innocent suspects. Studies show false confessions are a significant cause of wrongful convictions, with DNA exoneration cases sometimes proving innocence despite confessions. Evidence and Research Academic research and real-world cases repeatedly demonstrate that innocent people confess to crimes, debunking the myth. Nearly 30% of people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States had confessed to crimes they did not commit. Awareness of false confession mechanisms has led to reforms, such as videotaping interrogations to protect against coercion. Conclusion In conclusion, confession is not irrefutable proof of guilt—innocent people sometimes confess due to powerful psychological, procedural, and social factors, which are well-documented in law, psychology, and criminal justice research. 9. How true is it that forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability? Debunk the myth: Forensics evidence provides conclusive proof of culpability. Forensic evidence does not provide conclusive proof of culpability. It is important to understand that forensic evidence is often circumstantial, inherently probabilistic, and subject to limitations and potential errors. Scientific studies, legal cases, and expert analyses indicate that forensic evidence should be considered as one component of a broader investigative and evidentiary context, not as absolute proof of guilt. Limitations of Forensic Evidence Forensic methods vary widely in their reliability. DNA evidence is considered highly reliable but cannot always clarify how or when the DNA was deposited, thus it may not conclusively prove guilt. Other forensic methods, such as fingerprint analysis or fiber comparison, have been found to have higher potential for error or subjective interpretation. Many forensic techniques lack robust scientific validation, raising concerns about their conclusiveness in court. Circumstantial Nature and Probabilistic Interpretation Legally, forensic evidence is classified as circumstantial evidence, meaning it implies facts through inference rather than direct observation. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by excluding other logical explanations for the crime. This requires careful interpretation and corroboration with other evidence such as eyewitness testimony, alibis, or motive. Errors, Biases, and the "CSI Effect" Human factors such as bias in forensic analysis and errors during evidence collection or processing can impact reliability. Jurors and the public often overestimate the certainty of forensic evidence due to portrayals in popular media (the so-called "CSI Effect"), leading to unrealistic expectations that a single piece of forensic evidence can definitively "seal" a case. Conclusion Forensic evidence is a powerful investigative and evidentiary tool, but it is not infallible or inherently conclusive of guilt. Its value depends heavily on the context, quality of analysis, and corroboration with other evidence. Courts and legal professionals must apply rigorous standards and skepticism in interpreting forensic findings to avoid wrongful convictions. 10. How true is it that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice? Debunk the myth: The appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice. The myth that the appeals process will correct any miscarriages of justice is false. While appeals provide a mechanism to challenge convictions or sentences, they have important limitations that often prevent them from fully correcting miscarriages of justice. Reasons Appeals Don't Guarantee Correction of Miscarriages of Justice No New Evidence or Retrial: Appeals generally do not involve a new trial or introduction of new evidence; they focus on errors or legal issues in the original trial. This means that if crucial evidence was missed or withheld during the trial, an appeal may not adequately address that miscarriage. High Legal Threshold: The appellate courts require proof of specific legal errors or procedural unfairness, not just that the verdict was wrong. Many wrongful convictions persist because the courts do not deem the errors sufficient to overturn the conviction. Limited Scope on Fresh Evidence: Courts often restrict appeals from considering fresh evidence unless it was unavailable at trial due to exceptional reasons. This restricts the ability to correct cases where new proof of innocence arises post-conviction. Reluctance and Procedural Barriers: The courts and appellate systems are sometimes reluctant to overturn verdicts to preserve finality and efficiency. Legal aid and representation issues further limit successful appeals for those without sufficient resources or legal knowledge. Official Misconduct and Systemic Issues: Many miscarriages of justice stem from misconduct (e.g., police or prosecutorial wrongdoing) that taints the entire process. Appeals may not sufficiently address these systemic problems, which undermine fairness beyond just the trial errors. Key Misconception Appeals Are Not Automatic Corrective Mechanisms: Appeals are legal reviews focused on trial fairness, not guarantees of correcting wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice. Winning an appeal might result in a new trial, reduced sentence, or overturned conviction, but this is far from assured or immediate. Conclusion In summary, while the appeals process is important for justice, it is not a foolproof mechanism that will correct every miscarriage of justice due to procedural limits, evidentiary restrictions, and broader systemic challenges. 11. How true is it that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable? Debunk the myth: Eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable. The myth that eyewitness identification of a perpetrator is consistently reliable is false. Eyewitness testimony is often convincing but can be highly fallible and prone to errors. Research shows that memory is malleable and subject to distortion without the witness's awareness, meaning eyewitness identification is vulnerable to misidentifications even by confident witnesses. Key factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identification include: Speed of identification: Faster decisions tend to be more accurate. For example, identifications made within six seconds can be twice as accurate as those made more slowly. Confidence level: High confidence can correlate with higher accuracy but does not guarantee it, as confident misidentifications also occur. Face-recognition ability: Individuals vary in their capability to recognize faces, significantly influencing the reliability of their identifications. Lineup conditions: Proper lineup procedures (fair lineup, unbiased instructions, and blind administration) improve accuracy. Unreliable memory: Memory is not a video recording but a reconstructive process influenced by stress, time delay, and post-event information. DNA exonerations have revealed that a large proportion of wrongful convictions involved mistaken eyewitness identification, underscoring its fallibility. Despite jurors and the public often giving great weight to eyewitness testimony, scientific research cautions that it should not be accepted uncritically. Eyewitness memory is generally reliable only if it is uncontaminated and proper testing procedures are followed. Conclusion Therefore, eyewitness identification should be carefully scrutinized, with consideration of confidence, decision time, lineup fairness, and individual differences, to avoid wrongful convictions based on unreliable eyewitness memory. 12. How true is it that the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system? Debunk the myth: The judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system. The myth that "the judge is the most powerful person in the criminal justice system" can be debunked by understanding the different roles, powers, and limits of judges compared to other key actors like prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. Judicial Powers and Limits Judges play an important role in presiding over trials, maintaining order, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, instructing juries about legal standards, and sentencing convicted defendants. They ensure court proceedings are fair and follow legal rules. However, judges’ power is bounded by laws, legal precedents, and checks such as appeals that can overturn their decisions. Judges do not act alone; they interpret law but do not create it, and their discretion is limited by legislations and procedural rules. Prosecutorial Power and Influence Prosecutors wield significant power in the criminal justice system, especially before cases reach trial. They decide which cases to pursue, what charges to file, whether to offer plea deals, and whether to dismiss cases altogether. These decisions often have a greater impact on case outcomes than the judge’s rulings during the trial. Prosecutors influence the course of justice through discretion in charging and negotiation, shaping the system’s functioning more broadly than judges typically do. Other Key Actors and Checks Defense attorneys protect the accused’s rights and challenge prosecutorial power, while juries serve as ultimate fact-finders in many trials by deciding guilt based on evidence presented. This system of checks and balances means no single actor, including judges, holds absolute power. Instead, power is distributed among various participants who interact to ensure fairness and justice. Conclusion While judges have crucial responsibilities and control court proceedings, they are not the supreme power in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors often have more influence over the initiation and resolution of cases, and the system’s design distributes power among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. Thus, the claim that judges are the most powerful is a myth; power in the criminal justice system is balanced and shared among multiple actors. Need more independent verification to challenge these views? Ask Gemini AI Ask Claude Ask Copilot Download your own self-assessment tool. Word document, PDF, or Excel spreadsheet. Word document click to download PDF click to download Excel spreadsheet click to download Are you lulled into serving elites? The more you passively accept these myths, instead of unpacking the falsehoods for what they are, the easier for elites to exploit you. They oversee media production that fan the flames of fear, much to their own benefit at your expense. Why let them? They benefit when you slip into complicity, violating the rights of the wrongly convicted innocent. You then unwittingly becoming an 'innocence offender' with your complicity in denying the innocent their full rights. Yes, you become a sycophant to elites who benefit from this status quo. Let’s stop spreading the cultural cancer of adversarialism The more you accept these widely accepted falsehoods, the more easily you are exploited by elites. The more invested in our adversarialist legal system, despite its many faults, the more these elites may try to manipulate your views to defend it. Need-response prioritizes your inflexible need over the adversarial law of politics and the judicial system. Those systems routinely fail to faithfully address your affected needs, or to help you remove pain, or help you restore wellness. Only need-response aims to do that. Sources Hal Arkowitz & Scott O. Lilienfeld (2010). Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts, Scientific American. Accessed 2025-08-28.

Are you more of a "truster" or "faither" or "beliefer"? What do these even mean? TLDR Summary Individual belief: Rely upon what one personally thinks as true or not true. Organized faith: Rely upon what one's group declares as true or untrue. Dynamic trust: Rely upon continual interactions to accountably improve awareness. beliefer faither truster FOCUS guard self, avoid pain, relieve pain address what group declares as important properly resolve needs, reach full potential FEATURES low to no engagement socially approved engagement high engagement CERTAINTY low tolerance of ambiguity, craves certainty tolerance by consensus, prefers shared certainty high tolerance of ambiguity, embraces discovery MATURITY low maturity, not at full functioning capacity modest maturity, reach more of one's capacity high maturity, reaching much of full capacity CONTENTS Unpacking these three reliance levels Different realms in epistemic reliance Moral development levels Preconventional beliefers Conventional faithers Postconventional trusters Further distinctions Engagement Certainty Maturity Prioritizing In spiritual expression Beliefer believers Faither flock Truster testers Reactive to pain or responsive to needs Grace and understanding Takeaway Unpacking these three reliance levels Anankelogy, the discipline study of need, recognizes how not all “believing” or epistemic reliance is the same. Dependence on whatever one finds true or untrue mirrors the three levels of moral development. Consider Kohlberg’s three main levels of moral development. Preconventional. Moral reasoning relies on avoidance of punishment and seeking rewards. It tends to be egocentric. Conventional. Moral reasoning relies on social norms, as agreed upon by the collective of one’s social universe. It tends toward social conformity. Postconventional. Moral reasoning relies on universal principles that can transcend individuals and cultures. It tends to lead toward human flourishing. These reliance levels, or "reliability taxonomy", mirror Kohlberg’s three levels. Beliefing. Guarding what one thinks as true or untrue, and typically defensive toward any challenge of such views. It too tends to be egocentric. “Beliefer”. Those who defensively guard what they hold as true, while avoiding relating to details that could disconfirm their conclusions. Trusts generalizations as an end. Faithing. Accept as true or untrue based largely on social cues, such as what one’s group accepts as true and untrue. Also tends toward social conformity. “Faither”. Those who hold as true and dependable what others in their tribe or social circles also hold as true and dependable. Shares generalizations as an end. Trusting. Vulnerably relying on the most dependable over which one has no control, such as a Supreme Being, while ready to question whatever can be found as not fully dependable. It likewise points toward human flourishing. “Truster”. Those who humbly rely upon what they encounter as more trustworthy, while exposing what they think is temporally true to helpful critique and correction. Besides universal principles, uses generalizations as a starting point to explore further. These levels also mirror the levels of functionality. Trusters tend to sustain peakfunctionality, as they cultivate ways to relate to others and themselves in ways that enable them to promptly resolve their needs. Faithers gravitate into symfunctionality, as they primarily ease their needs according to the accepted social norms guiding their understanding and behavior. Beliefers risk descending into dysfunctionality. as they cope with pain from unresolved needs, and cling to oversimplified conclusions that work against resolving needs. Anankelogy unpacks how we rely on others, or how we have confidence in what we think as true or untrue, in different areas of our lives. Different realms in epistemic reliance These apply in different realms. One could be a truster in their role as a spiritual leader in a faith tradition. Then be a faither in their political ideology, going along with other partisans. While being an adamant beliefer in the criminal judicial system, avoiding its disconcerting imperfections. It's more likely, perhaps, that one would gravitate to just one of these three levels in all realms in their life. The more mature with wisdom would gravitate toward being a truster. The less mature and unwise would slide toward being a beliefer. Moral development levels These three epistemic reliance levels mirror Lawrence Kohlberg's levels of moral development. Preconventional beliefers FOCUS. The beliefer tends to focus mostly upon the self. A list of unresolved needs prompts so much emotional pain that they tend to become self-absorbed. For example, the alcoholic (or shopaholic, drug addict, sex addict) typically cling to their beliefs that offer the quickest relief. Which can be far from the actual truth. FEATURES. The beliefer defensively guards what they think is true or untrue, actively resisting critique, For example, when pseudoscience aficionados denounce any helpful critique. As they identify with their ungrounded beliefs, any critique feels like a personal attack on them. CERTAINTY. The beliefer typically demonstrates a low tolerance for ambiguity. Their high level of emotional pain, from unresolved needs, prompts them to crave certainty. For example, an extremist political activist feels their ideological views must be right. They simply cannot afford any room to doubt their political convictions or biases. MATURITY. A beliefer is likely dysfunctional. They typically prioritize relieving the pain of their many unmet needs. Which hinders their personal development. For example, the self-righteous partisan depends on their underdeveloped view of the world. Dissenters fit neatly into their overgeneralized category as the "bad" people. Conventional faithers FOCUS. The faither tends to focus more upon the social realm. What they rely upon as true is best confirmed by others in their social groups. For example, the devoted partisan of any political party finds assurance when others of similar views affirm their beliefs. This can be a good thing, when fellow partisans they trust have carefully examined their views. But can also be a case of the blind leading the blind. FEATURES. The faither gravitates towards what others in their group find reliable. They often evade critique from others outside of their group. Groupthink abounds. For example, the guilt-ridden churchgoer assumes we all fail at times to make responsible moral choices. Then regards as too liberal to admit the times we can be stuck with poor quality options. Which pulls us into symfunctionality. CERTAINTY. The faither craves shared certainty over putting up with any ambiguity. Some uncertainty can be endured when shared with others in their groups. Otherwise, any doubt feels like a sin. For example, litigants in a court battle may cling to what they find familiar, as they both sink into mutual defensiveness. Which limits their scope. The less aware in their legalist myopia, the further they slide uncontrollably into the abyss of symfunction capture. MATURITY. A faither is primarily symfunctional. They tend to prioritize easing their needs in ways that never fully resolve such needs. For example, ethnocentric club members who oppose outsiders grow accustomed to never fully resolving their needs. And likely blame their emotional pain on outsiders. Postconventional trusters FOCUS. The truster tends to focus primarily upon deeper unity. What they hold as true points to universal principles unshakable in any circumstance. For example, the deeply spiritual person relies more on principles like humility, empathy, grace and love. They intuitively realize how applying such principles will almost always result in more resolved needs, more wellness and less pain. FEATURES. The truster humbly relies on trustworthy others. They invite their helpful critique. They know the limits imposed by their own biases. They remain open to learning. For example, the effective investigator relies on tools to check their biases, and their untested assumptions. They will be slow to act on beliefs they have little to no evidence to support. CERTAINTY. The truster demonstrates high tolerance for ambiguity. They promptly embrace pain to identify what threat prompts such a painful warning. Then they remove the threat, or themselves, which faithfully removes such pain. For example, the martial artist flows through space like water. They quickly note the movement of others. They rapidly move through the air with sharpened intent. Contact with a foe bounces of a deeper reality. They move toward their pain and embrace it. They face any discomfort honestly, and let it go. Pain is not a foe but a fleeting gift. MATURITY. A truster may reach peakfunctionality. They will prioritize properly resolving needs. Which enables them to promptly restore wellbeing and remove pain. Not only for themselves, but potentially also for others. For example, a spiritual guru regards the needs of others as equally important if not more so than their own. They shape their life to avoid negatively impacting others. They encourage and even inspire all to reach more of their full potential. Further distinctions Engagement Beliefers rarely engage, and instead often barricade themselves inside a cocoon of presumed safety. Faithers rarely engage on a personal level, preferring to follow group leaders who do the risky engaging first. Trusters more openly engage, and risk the unknown, as they endure the discomfort for the likely reward of spiritual growth. Certainty Beliefers crave certainty. They present a low tolerance for ambiguity. Faithers share uncertainty. They present a low to high tolerance of ambiguity. Trusters embrace uncertainty. They present a high tolerance for ambiguity. Like Socrates, they are judiciously agnostic to remain open to learning. Trusters welcome disconfirming information. They welcome the discipline of not acting on their own unchecked biases. Maturity Beliefer - nothing else matters to consider; haughtiness, ambiguity intolerance, avoid exposing vulnerabilities. Faither- other matters to consider but can't be relevant; impression managed humble front, certainty with group, myth following. Truster - other matters to consider that could be relevant; humility, grace, honesty. Prioritizing Beliefers prioritize the self. "My needs matter more than your needs." "My wellbeing matters more than your wellbeing." "My beliefs and feelings matters for than your beliefs and feelings." Faithers prioritize the group. "Our needs matter more than their needs." "Our wellbeing matters more than their wellbeing." "Our beliefs and feelings matters for than their beliefs and feelings." Trusters prioritize all humanity equally. "No one's needs matter more than anyone else's needs." "No one's wellbeing matters more than anyone else's wellbeing." "No one's beliefs and feelings matter more than anyone else's beliefs and feelings." In spiritual expression Beliefer believers Beliefers can recall a deep spiritual experience they once had, but tend to credit it to their beliefs (what they hold as true or not). They may have actually experienced a moment of vulnerable trust they found rewarding, but misinterpret the degree of their own agency. For example, a neophyte Christian verbally credits their "born again" experience to citing the sinner's prayer to God, or to Jesus, and regards their choice of words and parochial attitude as playing a significant or central role in their conversion experience. Such beliefers gravitate toward dogmatic views. For them, things must be a certain way in order to get back to that rewarding experience. Right and wrong are categorized into simple terms. Nuance can be seen as risking appeasement, or slipping into illicit compromises. For example, that new Christian may guard traditional gender norms as absolute in order to remain in the good graces of a wrathful God. To socially mingle with others who defy such norms risks watering down God's "truth" and then backsliding. Such beliefers may cling to their religiosity and reasoning skills to cope with the mounting pain of their unresolved needs. They tend to prefer familiar pain over the unknown pain of challenging spiritual growth. For example, the young Christian interprets salvation as a way to escape intensifying emotional pain. Instead of recognizing how such pain warns of unmet needs, they become viscerally attached to the familiarity of how they handle these painful emotions. Faither flock Faithers interpret their spiritual experiences through the lens of similar others and group consensus. Fluid spiritual experiences readily congeal into religious dogma. For example, a recent convert looks to earlier converts to get some bearing. They may dismiss their skepticism as not knowing enough yet to assess the group's views. The more satisfied with the group while seeking belonging, the less they assert their individuality. Critical thinking can take a back step to save room for group cohesion. Some faithers rise to a role of lay leader or even a top position such as a head pastor, priest, iman, or rabbi, and (knowingly or unknowingly) exploit the beliefers in their midst. Often from a "democratic" mindset of attracting followers by appealing to lowest common denominator instincts. For example, an imam tries to inspire the faithful to fully appreciate tawheed in their spiritual lives, but many take this oneness of God as a shared cognitive belief and miss vulnerably relying upon God alone for what they specifically need right now. Many faithers gravitate toward sharing a consensus of what matters most to them. They champion the conventional norms of their faith tradition, while not sure what to do with the more unconventional practices or principles espoused in their scriptures or traditions. For example, as the adherent of a cult identifies more with its dogma, they may rely on the group's support in opposing those outside the group with contrary views. They feel special in a way they likely never felt before. Faithers who remain socially and intimately connected to trusters can evidence more cognitive and spiritual maturity than faithers tapped only into other faithers. Crowdsourced wisdom works best when fueled with a source of accountable wisdom, and not left to the devices of groupthink. For example, a priest at a local parish may provide needed perspective to those new to the faith. He may inspire his flock to empathize with non-Catholics. To not judge others, and to maintain the wisdom of learning from others in humility. Truster testers Trusters entertain the possibility that much of what they assumed as true is not so true. Not that they swing to the opposite extreme of assuming it all must be false, but to stay open to exploring nuanced details previously overlooked. For example, the maturing Daoist lives the opening verse of the Tao Te Ching, "The Way that can be described is not the eternal Way". They stay open to improving their awareness. Not for the sake of mere knowledge, but to tap into the fullness of life. Trusters rely less on things, like doctrines, and focus more on the innate value of people. They recognize, at least intuitively, that all beliefs include errors. They don't value their views as much as they value people, to stay open to learning what's most relevant in life. They demonstrate the supremacy of love, of honoring the needs of others as one's own. For example, the evangelical missionary shares the love she experienced with her trust in God. If that requires her to drop her familiar messaging norms to adopt local cultural tropes, then so be it. The connection means more than insisting on cultural familiarity. Such trusters tend to be interspiritual. They typically remain independent of any single faith tradition, as they draw from all spiritual wisdom. They may be misinterpreted by faithers as people-pleasing chameleons. Thy prioritize deep connection over social cohesion. For example, an imam can tap into the Jewish wisdom of "wrestling with God" to find deeper truths, while applying Buddhist teachings about the Middle Way, then capture a Christian understanding of personal sacrifice for others. All while remaining true to the core tenants of Islam. Spiritually mature trusters respond more than react to challenges in life. They turn such challenges into opportunities for growth, for maturity, and for creating shared value. For example, an interspiritual Sikh can absorb the harsh judgments from a beliefer Hindu while also not reacting to an inconsiderate faither Muslim. They will look for some way to identify and relate to their inflexible needs. They will bee sure not to add to their problems. They will try to turn the challenge into opportunity for shared development. React to pain or respond to needs Love remains the ideal of honoring the needs of others as one's own. Beliefers are often too self-absorbed to positively regard the needs of others. Many beliefers improperly or properly relieve the pain of their many unmet needs. They slip into dysfunction. Faithers gravitate toward social conformity. Hence, many faithers improperly or properly ease their needs without fully resolving them. Which pulls them in a state of symfunctionality. Trusters are in a better position to properly resolve needs. The more their own needs fully resolve, the easier to regard the needs of others. They reach moments of peakfunctionality. REACT or RESPOND Now visualize a continuum of beliefers who primarily REACT to the pain of unmet needs to trusters who effectively RESPOND and resolve needs to remove the pain. Beliefers and many faithers can be characterized as REACTIVISTS. They habitually give kneejerk reactions to problems. They tend to overgeneralize their situations, avoid any discomfort, as they gravitate toward indulgent side-taking. For example, reactivists use labels like terrorist or militant without context of asymmetrical blowback or negatively impacted inflexible needs. They're beliefers or maybe faithers. They easily drift into warmongering that feeds the military industrial complex. They champion the path to hostilities and mutual defensiveness, easily sinking into hate and war. Pain begets more pain. Trusters and some faithers can be characterized as RESPONSIVISTS. They routinely respond thoughtfully to the needs around them, without imposing their own. They see the relevant nuance in situations, embrace any discomfort that warns of threats, as they step beyond self-serving adversarialism to mutually understand and respect each other's needs. For example, responsivists recognize the urgency of the affected needs of so-called terrorists or militants, while ready to challenge or condemn the reactive violence that spring from desperately trying to redress such needs with force. They're trusters. They support all affected to return to thriving, to human flourishing, where any use of force is limited and a last resort. They champion the path to meaningful peace and love. Grace and understanding Grace exists as that universal principle of meeting you where you’re honestly at. If you honestly fit these less than laudable descriptions of a beliefer or a faither, then you need not be shamed for it. Life has put you in a dreadful spot where your options to fully resolve needs often gets limited. As a natural consequence, you cannot function to your full potential. In other words, you must resort what you find available. You prefer to take table crumbs than nothing at all. If painfully isolated from others, you understandably gravitate toward relying on what you can individually think as true or not. If surrounded by similar others whose view resonate with your experiences, then you understandably rely on what your group holds as true. If you rely upon continual engagement of what you can perceive, and welcome accountability for what you think is true or untrue, then you might feel quite different from most of those around you. “Wide is the gate” for beliefers and faithers. With anankelogy recognizing the object fact of natural needs, we can do better to understand each other. To appreciate where each other is at, with grace. And then to love others by honoring their needs as our own—even if they do not reciprocate. Awareness of being valued for who you honestly are is worth far more than mere knowledge about things. Let this wisdom inspire you to be loved and give more love. We all need love. Takeaway Belief: Rely upon what one personally thinks as true or not true. Prone to much error, which easily prompts more emotional pain. Faith: Rely upon what one's group declares as true or untrue. Vulnerable to groupthink, which can steer them toward quiet desperation. Trust: Rely upon continual interactions to accountably improve awareness. Risks indecision if not cultivated wisely.