Knowing
Relational knowing
Anakelogy—the study of need—casts light on how we know what we apparently know. It offers fresh insight into epistemology—the study of knowing.
Anakelogical knowing: needs inform
Nature-based anakelogy (the paradigm of anakelogy espoused here) sees any original sin as leaving the Garden of our ancestral intimate connection with nature. If you wanted to know something, you simply asked and then received.
Indigenous peoples across the world—including my recent Oneida ancestors—maintained that intimate connection for knowing. Then passed down this epistemological wisdom, now being passed along to you.
Nature-based anakelogical epistemology asserts we know primarily through the lens of our experienced needs. We are naturally compelled to “know” what we first need to know.
Our needs—and specifically how we experience such needs—compel us to gather information for our individual and shared functioning. When we struggle to meet our basic needs, knowing beyond what we need for minimal functioning could be a luxury we can hardly afford.
Western knowing: bias against bias
By contrast, Western epistemology easily overlooks the impact of our needs upon how we know what we presumably know.
Original sin, according to a popularized version of this Western perspective, means you were born broken—and in constant need of others to help correct your biased thinking. It’s inherently paternalistic, demeaning, and disempowering.
Traditionally, dependence on science relies on this narrative that people are indiscriminately prone to biases. According to this narrative, our thinking capacity is helplessly broken. So we must rely more on knowledge generalized by others.
Democratized knowing
From this anakelogical view, bias is not innate brokenness. Bias simply prioritizes easement of unresolved needs. Once resolved and removed from your focus, you can better relate and know reality. You enjoy more free space in your mind to focus on other things.
Great insight springs less from struggling to reason against the grain of unmet needs, and more from epiphanies when resolved needs open wide the doors of clarity, illuminating the brilliant interconnections of meaningful reality. You can then freely see beyond what your unmet needs had been distorting your attention to see for relief.
When your needs are resolved, it’s easier to focus on the needs of others—to relate to their needs without having to reference your own. You can more freely engage their needs, beyond minimum expectations laid down by impersonal laws.
Nature-based anakelogy counters with testable hypotheses that any well-functioning person can do. Instead of constantly deferring to others, anakelogy democratizes knowing. You either know impersonally or know relationally.
Western impersonal knowing
If you’re prone to biases, according to the popular Western view, you must overcome them with reasoning skills. And you must expand the base of what you know by learning all you can from experts. You must trust they know what’s best, and what’s best for you to know and do.
You defer to impersonally knowing what others need of you, and trust others sufficiently respect you with these norms. A cadre of rules dictate how we best interact with each other. Your social standing depends in large part how you fit your experience into these social rules for behaving.
The Western mindset easily allows its impersonal “rational-legal authority” to displace intimately knowing specific needs. Nature does not submit to our static beliefs about authority, so we are vulnerable to repressing those needs—and their reporting symptoms—for the sake of conforming to generalized norms.
Anakelogy’s relational knowing
Instead of settling for generalized norms—often slow to keep pace with rapid change—you can deliberately engage your impactful surroundings. You can think in terms of a testable hypothesis: the more (or less) of this, then the more (or less) of that.
Here are some helpful examples.
The less your needs remain resolved, the more distorted your thinking. Your mind prioritizes your focus toward their relief, overruling where necessary your best reasoning skills. The more your needs remain resolved, the less distorted your thinking. Your mind remains freer to focus on other things, leaving you less prone to biased thinking.
Each of these relational statements can be “operationalized.” Operationalizing a hypothesis means putting into more specific terms, to be tested.
The longer you go without eating any food, the more you find yourself thinking about food. The more you think about food during such a fast, the less you can focus on reading your book—as measured by how many pages you can read in the same amount of time relative to reading when not feeling hungry.
By relating and engaging one another more, we can reliably know more that impacts our needs, with less reliance on impersonal rules. Relieving pain from continually unresolved needs produces less reliable insight than resolving needs.
Overgeneralizing at root to all sorts of evil
There appears a significant correlation between unresolved needs and overgeneralizing. It appears to be a reflexive relationship, each reinforcing the other.
The more a need goes unresolved, the more pain from it you then endure. The more pain you endure, the more relief you seek to deaden the pain. The more you deaden the pain, the less attention you give to resolving that need (allowing pain to build). The more you relieve that pain, the more that need goes unresolved—a vicious cycle.
Closely related is the role of generalizing. Impersonal knowing through widely applicable rules tends to rely on generalizing. It’s generally easier to get alone with others, and maintain some social cohesion, if you don’t bring up too many exceptional specifics.
The more painful a specific need you cannot resolve, the more likely will seek some generalized way to get relief. The more you rely on generalizations for relieving pain from unresolved needs, the less resolved your specific needs. The less resolved your specific needs, the more dependent you’re apt to become on generalizing for relief—another vicious cycle.
Breaking these vicious cycles is one aim of psychosociotherapy. The generalizing but opposing categories in economic relationships, judicial relationships and in political relationships exist more for generalizing relief. Psychosociotherapy dives into the specifics beyond these convenient but divisive categories, to responsibly resolve needs on all sides.
Now let’s not hate on the West
Keep in mind this is not contrary to well established Western philosophy. Rather, it recognizes such philosophy easily gets watered down for mass consumption. Overgeneralizing it gets us into trouble. As I trust you will soon see, the bulk of popular philosophy favors relieving pain over resolving needs causing such pain.
Prioritizing relief over resolve easily distorts our otherwise liberated cognition. When Hume observes how reason serves our passions, can you see how there are no passions without needs. All pain and all desire exist to personally convey need. All laws exist to impersonally convey need.
Those who left the Garden after impersonally knowing good from evil easily lack perspective to more intimately know good from bad by personally relating to each other’s needs. Once raised on the central role of impersonal law, it can be difficult to see how there is no good nor bad—no good nor evil—except for need. All law exists to serve need; or it can be no law at all.
No one sits above the law, yet no law sits above need it exists to serve. Only nature (by any Name) has authority over need. There’s no such thing as authority outside of interacting needs. Any human authority failing to respect needs is a fragile authority, compromising its presumed legitimacy.
Great insight springs less from struggling to reason against the grain of unmet needs, and more from epiphanies when resolved needs open wide the doors of clarity, illuminating the brilliant interconnections of meaningful reality.
No one sits above the law, yet no law sits above need
it exists to serve.
Democratized knowing:
hypotheses you can test yourself
Hypotheses express two (or more) things that predictably move in association with each other. The item that seems to move first tends to help explain the movement of the item that moves afterward. But we remain open to discovering more, since “correlation is not necessarily causation.”
Hypotheses testing in the social sciences accepts less than a strong one-to-one correlation, as can be expected in the hard sciences. “The more a human being socially interacts with others, the more you can trust that human is breathing” can understandably result in a 1:1 correlation, or 1.0 (100%). Most correlations are much weaker, and yet significant enough to be useful.
Tolerating some uncertainty
A .6 correlation (60%) may be strong enough to warrant a useful conclusion for predicting future behavior. Humans are complex. So we keep in mind the possibility of exceptions, so we can utilize a significant (even if not 100%) association between two things that seem to move with each other.
According to this nature-based anakelogy, the more resolved your needs then the more tolerable the uncertainties of human complexities. Conversely, the more you suffer from painfully persisting unmet needs, the more certainty you tend to seek, and less ambiguity you’re likely to tolerate.
You can check your own level of ambiguity tolerance when testing your own relational knowing.
Testing your own hypotheses
Next you will find a series of testable hypotheses. They are given as broad statements. When applied to your specific situations, we can operationalize these relational assertions into something that can be measured directly, or indirectly.
For example, “The less resolved a need, the more the body insists on relieving it” could be operationalized as “The less quenched your thirst, the more likely you’ll obsess over something to drink.” Then after fasting from drinking anything for a couple of hours, you corroborate or disconfirm from your own experience.
While your own experience may not generalize to the whole population, or even generalize to other times or aspects in your life, nonetheless you experience a viable starting point to know for yourself—and less stuck relying on “experts” to inform you what you need or do not need. Ultimately, only you can know your specific needs.
Testable hypotheses: Impact on epistemology
The more a need is relieved by a substitute not helpful to (or even hindering) functioning, the more one’s “knowing” remains narrowed to what is true for that relief, and less reliable for broader reality.
The more a need is resolved and defocal, resulting in greater functioning to promptly attend to other needs, the more what one “knows” engages a broader scope of reality.
An increase in cognitive distortions and biases correlate with less resolved needs compelling focus for their relief, sometimes by any means necessary.
The relative absence of cognitive distortions and biases correlate with more resolved needs, freeing focus on engage a wider and deeper array of reality.
Testable wellness hypotheses
The less resolved a painful need, the more the body insists on relieving it, either the need itself or its pain. The longer a need persists unresolved, the more that unresolved need presents itself in what we cite as mental health symptoms.
The less you find yourself able to control outcomes affecting your needs, the more powerless you will likely feel. The more you find yourself pulled into a direction not right for your specific needs, the more depression (or redirection) you will experience. The more you’re compelled to handle beyond what you are certain you can handle, the more anxiety you will feel.
The less resolved a need, the more pain endured. The more resolved a need, the less pain endured (since a need resolved no longer must report with pain that it requires attention, although sometimes it takes time for the body to be assured of no further triggering of that need).
The less accessible a resource to resolve a need, the more reliance upon substitutes to provide some relief from the pain of unresolved needs.
The more unresolved needs that the mind must process, the more taxed one’s cognitive load. The more taxed one’s cognitive load, the less free to focus on other matters. The less free to focus on other matters, the more one’s body prioritizes for easement of such needs, including relief that precludes resolution of such needs.
The more a pain from unresolved needs find relief from a substitute resource that does not help with functioning, the more likely that need will remain unresolved to the point of diminished functioning.
The more dependent upon a substitute for relief, the more difficult to transition to the substantive resource for full functioning.
“As indicated by”
Each relational finding can be strengthened by some way to reliably measure that association. You do not need to conduct a double-blind experiment to find useful associations.
Value Relating uses three basic types of accessible relational knowing.
-
Self-reporting (SR) – what you say about your own experience of needs. Self-reporting may seem to be the least reliable measure, but when linked to resolving needs it can be highly reliable. E.g., self-reporting how anxious you feel, or your current level of depression.
-
Independent observation (IO) – what anyone can independently see about your needs. E.g., how long you can hold a piece of ice while improving your resiliency.
-
Measurable functioning (MF) – what others relate as your trusted level of functioning with them, ostensibly based on how well you respect each other’s needs. E.g., your social capital identifying your soft skills strong points and weak points.
For example, “the more I smile at my customers when greeting them upon entry, the more they spend during each transaction, as indicated by a 23% increase in sales compared to days when I do not smile at my customers when greeting them upon entry”
Applied to this service, “the more I can freely express what I need of impactors without fear of retribution, the less anxious or depressed I feel, as indicated by a 30% drop in my anxiety and depression levels.”
With a numerical way to measure the association, you can replace “as indicated by” with “as measured by.” To remain widely accessible, with humble openness to ambiguity, we typically stay with the “as indicated by” when offering to support the association.
The null hypothesis
Science recognizes how easily to find evidence to support our claims, completely overlooking contradicting evidence. To mitigate this confirmation bias during the testing phase, the relational assumption, or hypothesis, is framed in a way to discount any significant relation or association.
This alternative finding is the null hypothesis. We seek to find if sufficient evidence exists to support the conclusion there is no significant relation between two observable things. If we instead find there actually is substantial correlation, well, then we know we're onto something.
For example, instead of directly looking for evidence to see if the more resolved a need, the less pain endured, we seek to see if the more resolved a need, no change in the level of pain occurs compared if the need was not resolved.
Operationalizing a hypothesis translates the relational statement in a way it can be empirically tested. To operationalize this one, we refer to the data collected when asking you your current level of anxiety, depression and such.
-
"The more you're able to monetize your life purpose, no significant change in your reported wellness levels will emerge."
-
"The more your need to overcome injustice of a wrongful conviction gets resolved, no significant change in your reported wellness levels will emerge."
-
"The more your need to overcome political polarization gets resolved, no significant change in your reported wellness levels will emerge."
If the data confirms the null hypothesis, that no significant relation exists, we pivot. We change directions to consider alternatives.
On the other hand, if the data disconfirms the null hypothesis, we discover a significant association between your progress in resolving your stated need and your changing levels of anxiety, depression and such.
If others of similar situation also disconfirms the null, adding merit to your conciliatory cause, we collectively build a voice to speak our truth to power. We hold coercive others to account if they dare ignore this empirical finding of broad significance.
At this point, the validity remains limited because the data is self-reported. Self-reporting presents its challenges. We address that issue elsewhere. There is also the issue of the assumptions shaping our hypotheses. Let's address that next.
Assumptions and assumption checking
IPM premises and presumptions
Premise: something that can be tested
Presumption: harder to quantify or measure
Premise 01: Acknowledged Impactors (AI) prefer to have positive than negative impacts upon others under their influence.
Testable: When invited into a conciliatory approach to first see their identifiable impacts (including upchain impacts of their duty), and then have options to positively impact them, more AI will opt for doable options than dismiss them—especially if mutuality provides them some significant albeit asymmetrical benefit.
Premise 02: Impactors value impact data.
Testable: When provided option to purchase RI owned impact data, enough AI will willingly pay.
Premise 03: When provided conciliatory options, most RI will be more open to value exchanging than if merely presented with negative value adversarial options.
Testable: If presented first with adversarial options by RI, then later presented by more attractive conciliatory options, the rate of AI engagement will rise significantly.
Premise 04: When given the option to support a RI client who’s receiving growing support, AI will more likely add their support.
Testable: The rising dollar contributions to RI client from support team will correlate significantly with willingness of AI to match $-for-$, when growth is consistently shown.
Premise: Clients reporting anxiety and depression stem largely from enduring life challenges with little if any supports.
Hypothesis 01: Most prime clients will report lower anxiety and lower depression levels after experiencing VR’s psychosociotherapy as a meaningful response to their life challenges.
Testable: As support increases from handling on own to entering psychosociotherapy conciliatory intervention, BAI & BDI scores go down.
This process is repeated at intervals.
Hypothesis 02: Supporters will be more inclined to believe in prime client’s recovery after seeing their anxiety and depression decrease.
Testable: After supporters are asked to see client’s improving BAI & BDI scores, their engagement—as measured by weekly dollar contributions to sessions—will rise.
This process is repeated at intervals.
Hypothesis 03: As Ascribed Impactors (AI) see improving scores followed by rising support team engagement, they will be drawn more to benefits (albeit minimal for them at the start) of this invited conciliatory approach—over adversarial or resigned options that arguably contribute to the baseline BAI and BDI scores.
Testable: AI invited to engage client with growing support team by matching dollar-for-dollar to cover client’s recovery & aspiration costs; the more client demonstrates improved scores as a worthy investment the more AIs will attempt to match dollar-for-dollar.
This process is repeated at intervals.
Anakelogy heuristic measures starts where one is at, even if stuck in relief-generalizing that actually perpetuates their painful troubles. Then builds from there with more specific (“degeneralizing”) relating to need-experience.
-
As you sense [this] goes [up/down/remains generally the same], you sense [that] goes [up/down/remains generally the same].
-
As you experience your need for [NEED] go [up/down/remain the same], you also feel [FEELING] go [up/down/remain the same].
-
As you interact with others about [NEED IN QUESTION], they report [NEED] [getting worse/improving/not changing significantly].
This last anakelogical heuristic dips into the kind of interviewing startups are recommended to do in order to know their market. I.e., problem-solution fit, and then product-market fit.
Testable hypotheses:
The more we rely on generalizing, the more prone to error.
To put it more specifically: The more binary generalizations substitute for nuanced specifics, the more problems emerge (from needs that do not fit neatly into binary generalizing).
Testable hypothesis:
Improving pain tolerance (stretch-grow) could increase one’s cognitive load capacity.
Fundamental hypothesis behind psychosocial support agency, and behind psychosociotherapy: The more each side to an impactful interaction (and I focus on impactful interactions with a power differential) relate better to their own needs, the easier to relate to the needs of others, and in turn their actions result more in resolving needs than merely relieving pain of impacted needs, spurring a positive cycle replacing the likely negative cycle around psychosociopathologies.
Assumption checking
Assumption: Law enforcement exists to serve needs.
Null: Law enforcement does not exist to serve needs.
Assumption: No one sits above the law, but not law sits above need.
Null: No one sits above the law, but law does sit above (or equal with) need.
Assumption: Law enforcement culture tends toward a siege mentality.
Null: Law enforcement culture does not tend toward a siege mentality.
Assumption: Law enforcement culture tends toward a siege mentality when interacting impersonally with the public.
Null: Law enforcement culture does not tend toward a siege mentality when interacting impersonally with the public.
Assumption: ?
Null: ?
You “know” primarily through the lens of what you need to know. Your needs compel you to gather information for you to function. If you’re having difficulties functioning, knowing beyond what you need to function may be a luxury you cannot afford.
The less resolved a need,
the more pain endured.
Politism: How can you fully know specific political needs if seeing only through the arbitrary lens of divisive political categories?
Econism: How can you fully know specific economic needs if seeing only through the arbitrary lens of divisive economic categories?
Justifism: How can you fully know specific justice needs if seeing only through the arbitrary lens of divisive judicial categories?
Value Relating services hypothesis
TH: The more cognitively convenient generalizing categories are relied upon to represent reality, the easier to overlook impacted needs not adequately reflected in those generalizing groupings.
Operationalized by service
TE TH: The more opposing economic categories (e.g., worker/employer; buyer/producer; expense/ investment) are relied upon to represent situation of need, the easier the economic needs of the most vulnerable get overlooked and even compounded.
TJ TH: The more opposing judicial categories (e.g., guilty/innocent; good-guy/bad-guy; criminal/ crime-victim) are relied upon to represent situation of need, the easier the criminal justice system overlooks and even compounds the impacted needs of the most vulnerable.
TP TH: The more opposing political categories (e.g., left/right; conservative/ liberal; voter/rep) are relied upon to represent situation of need, the easier the political needs of the most vulnerable get overlooked and even compounded.
Testable transeconomic hypotheses
TBD
Testable transjudicial hypotheses
The more your case mirrors already exonerated cases, the more likely your claim is believable and accurate.
The more you can verify your innocence claim with available documents others can check, the more you’re the estimated percentage of viable innocence.
The more you can endure the chill of holding an ice cube, the more of life’s natural discomforts you can endure without habitually avoiding life’s pain.
The more mindful you consume food and drink, the easier to delay gratification in other areas of life improvable with discipline.
The more supported you are by those who love you, the easier to endure the difficulties of maintaining a conciliatory approach. The more conciliatory you are toward others in a conflict, the more capable you are to resolve needs.
The more you contribute to resolving needs, the more valuable you are to others. The more valuable you are to others whose needs you can positively impact, the less they are to discount your innocence claim.
The more enthusiasm among loved ones to support your innocence claim, the easier to attract support from better-resourced strangers involved with the issue.
The more your needs remain resolved (defocal), the easier to process other needs, instead of letting pain build up and distortion your focus.
The better you understand how your needs work in your life, the easier to resolve them.
The more loved you feel, the less self-protective you generally are. The less self-guarded you are, the easier to maintain the vulnerability to resolve needs.
Testable transpolitical hypotheses
The more resolved your self-needs on par with resolving your social-needs, the less pulled you are into relying on political generalizations for relief.
The less resolved your self-needs relative to your social-needs, the more pulled you’re likely to be to seek relief from political generalizations.
The more reliance on generalizing for relief, the less likely specifics will be addressed to fully resolve the underlying needs.
The more psychosocial need imbalance, the more one leans ideologically one way or the other. The more psychosocial need balance, the less one leans ideologically one way or the other.
The more self-needs resolved than social-needs, the more one leans ideologically leftward. The more social-needs resolved than self-needs, the more one leans ideologically rightward.
The more suffers their own needs painfully unresolved (focal left in alert or alarm), the less awareness they can afford to the needs of a different psychosocial orientation. The less resolved one’s needs, the more dependent upon generalizations for relief.
The more dependence on generalizations for relief, the less oriented to resolve needs. The one’s own needs persist painfully unmet, the more inclined to vilify others who seem to oppose own needs (as each side prioritizes public access to resources to bend to their painful needs).
Needful knowing:
You and I know what we know primarily through the lens of our needs. What do you know, after all, about neutrinos? Unless you need to know about them for your job or learning, you can remain completely ignorant of these subatomic particles that never register with our senses—and still thrive. We must know what impacts our needs. We must know for informed decisions, or risk a painful loss of functioning.
Modern social sciences tend to perform poorly when it comes to understanding the dynamics of the needs underpinning their observed human phenomena. Anakelogy fills that gap.
Anakelogical epistemology: how do we know?
Anakelogy essentially begins with the core need. At the root of all of our actions, to ease some need, is the core homeostatic experience of seeking functional balance.
The less water your body holds, for example, the less well your body can function. So your body prompts you to restore its moisture level by provoking you to feel thirsty, and then drink in enough to return to functional balance.
The bladder eventually signals a build up of moisture for you to expel. And so this cyclic rhythm passes above and below an optimal level of water for your body to hold. Your other physical needs are much the same.
Indeed, this process mirrors our emotional needs as well. We naturally feel ourselves pulled closer to one another. Then we feel a need to withdraw for some time of solitude.
The more time spend apart from any human interaction, the more your need for some social interaction comes to the fore. Framed this way, this is a testable hypothesis.
Starting from scratch
Consider this thought experiment. Think, if you can, back before anything in the universe ever existed.
Prior to the beginning of all: nothing existed. No movement. No need.
Then something existed. Without interactions with something else, still no need.
With two or more things existing in close proximity, these things interact. Here is where “need” emerges.
core hypothesis: as this resource is accessed and utilized, this level of functioning is impacted by this much, as indicated by this measure.
Foundation of all needs
Some things help, others hinder. Some things aid functioning more than others. Functioning means continued existence. Need continues existence.
Some things limit functioning more than others. Limits to functioning threaten existence. Limiting things evoke pain. Pain compels removal of such limiting things. Severely limiting things evoke severe pain.
Things helpful to continue existing (e.g., water) evoke desire, for more of it to continue existence. All desire points back to things necessary for continuing existence. Desired helpful things aid functioning.
When inaccessible, substitutes (e.g., alcohol) may provide relief from the persisting discomfort of unfulfilled desire. However, desired substitutes limit full functioning.
When relying on substitutes to alleviate desire, full functioning may be limited. Desire persists for what is necessary for full functioning.
Painful things limit functioning. Severely painful things prevent functioning. This distinction between limiting and preventing functioning can be broken down into four overlapping ranges.
Ranges of functioning
1. At-rest. When functioning fully, nothing is required to be drawn in—no desire—and nothing must be removed—no pain. The "green zone" of full functioning.
2. Aware. You sense something is lacking, or sense something ought to be removed. Not yet a priority, sitting on the backburner of your mind. You can function fully now, but perhaps not for long. The green to yellow zone of challenged functioning.
3. Alert. Now you realize you must have what’s lacking, or must remove what’s threatening, to continue your full functioning. Now a priority, you can think about little else. The yellow to red zone of diminished functioning.
4. Alarm. Nothing else matters now. You either get what’s lacking, or remove what’s threatening, as fast as you can. Your continued existence depends on it, or so it seems. Death could soon be at your door. The red zone of collapsing functioning.
Knowing your needs
Whenever you feel desire, your body lets you know something for functioning has been depleted—and likely is. Something must be drawn in to continue existing as before. You know it’s been replenished when experiencing some form of pleasure.
Whenever you feel pain, your body lets you know something seems to exceed your tolerance for functioning—and likely is. Something must be removed to continue existing as before. You know it’s been removed when experiencing some form of relief.
But what if you rely on substitutes to ease desire, that fail to restore full functioning? What if you can only partially remove the threat causing pain? What can you reliably know about your full functioning if you continually experience a lack of full functioning?
Knowing, but how reliable?
When restored to full functioning, you experience what it takes to accurately replenish what was truly needed. And you experience what it takes to accurately remove the threat.
But if you only routinely placate desire without fully replenishing what’s missing, you miss learning what it takes to restore to full functioning. If you only relieve the pain repeatedly without fully removing the threat, you miss learning what it takes to restore to full functioning.
When merely pacifying desire or only relieving pain, you cannot reliably know what you think you know. Not until you fully relate to the reality of what restores full functioning.
Knowing through the filter of your needs
Once restored to full functioning, you are freer from obsessive desire, and from distracting discomfort. You find it easier to attend to the needs of others. You easily tolerate ambiguity. You get to specifics quicker.
When stuck on substitutes—merely placating desire and merely relieving discomfort—your unmet needs distort your thinking. You cannot fully respect the needs of others while haunted by your own. You insist on certainties, for fast relief. You generalize what’s best for you is what’s best for all, or else.
Your emotions reporting your needs clash with their need-reporting emotions. You exaggerate your needs, to compel attention for their relief. You exaggerate their motives for disagreeing with you. Your distorted knowing convinces you that you have legitimate needs while they only have ill intent.
When you responsibly convey your needs to others, they are more likely to responsibly convey their needs to you.
When you can responsibly address your psychosocial needs, you can more fully function with others whose needs differ widely from yours. With more of your needs resolving, and their needs resolving, the more you can enjoy functional coexistence.
Knowing by wellness
You exaggerate less. You can trust more of what you know, as it becomes rooted in reality and not in relief. Where your needs fully resolve, you independently know what’s equally knowable by others. You feel less of a need to argue, to debate, to fight. You find yourself less prone to the distortions of bias.
According to anakelogy, bias is prioritizing of need. You experience less distorted thinking when your needs resolve to full functioning. Short term bias prompting you to full functioning is a good bias. Generalizing all bias as bad is itself a bias.
As your needs resolve, you can trust your emotions more. You can link the drop in your anxiety and depression with greater functionality. Others can independently verify by measurable improvements in your resiliency. And can attest to your improved functioning by comparable observation of your observable soft skills.
You can know for yourself with hypotheses you can test on your own. “The more or less of this,” you can clearly see, “then the less or more of that.” You don’t need scholarly experts undermining your liberating responsibility. Only you are the expert of your own life. Only you know what’s best for you.
Welcome to democratized knowing. It’s your life. So now you can hold others accountable for how they impact your full functional being. You hold their very legitimacy in your conciliatory hand, when you call it by its rightful name: love.
WORK IN PROGRESS
You’re seeing a work in progress.
Yes, I know, some content on this page is missing.
Much of this material will inevitably be changed as we go to market.
You're the market. You can help us create value with your constructive feedback.
Thank you for helping us create this meaningful service.