5 elements of toxic legalism

Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to address their self-needs and their social needs. The more your self-needs resolve relative to your social needs, or the more your social needs resolve more than your self-needs, the more you experience a disturbing tension. You outwardly express this tension in your political views.

Nature compels you to integrate your inward self-needs with your outward social needs. You find wellness with psychosocial holism—resolving your self-needs (like personal autonomy and self-initiative) on par with your social needs (like acceptance from others and group supports).

To understand how how so many of us can slip into hyper-individualism can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction.

Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep

From a norm of effectively holding individuals personally accountable for their impactful behavior to normalizing the blaming of individuals for some things beyond their personal control.

Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain

From a norm of blaming individuals for some things beyond their personal control to normalizing the exaggeration that you can be held responsible for an increasing load of items beyond your personal control (i.e., locus of control from internal to external).

Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap

From the norm of being held responsible for a growing list of items beyond your personal control (which others who can effectively maintain an internal locus of control and intrinsic motivation poorly assume others should be able to do likewise without knowing their specific situations) to normalizing the generaliza­tion that you are solely responsible for all of your actions regardless of the sociocultural limitations to effectively address your inflexible needs.

Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction

From a norm of generalizing of being solely responsible for everything that befalls you to normalizing the resulting as something you solely must cope with on your own.

TLDR

From a norm of holding individuals personally accountable for their behavior to normalizing being solely responsible for all that happens to you.

Need-response balances internal and external factors affecting our needs. Sometimes you can resolve your needs with individual merit. Other needs run into systemic structural barriers.

Anankelogy recognizes our problems occur on at least four levels.

1. Personal problems. You can easily solve on your own.

2. Interpersonal problems. You solve with cooperation with your peers.

3. Power problems. You solve with cooperation with those in authority over you.

4. Structural problems. Solving such problems calls for systemic changes.

Anankelogy recognizes how each problems level differently affects our self-needs (like autonomy and personal freedom) and our social needs (like acceptance and group support). Easing our self-needs more than your social needs, or easing your social needs more than your self-needs, leaves you with uncomfortable tension.

That tension is “psychosocial imbalance”. This informs our political views. How these sets of needs resolve relative to each other shapes your psychosocial orientation. You externally express this internal inflexible priority of needs with your flexible political views. The more you can resolve your self-needs and social needs on par with each other, the less politically passionate and more responsive to each other’s needs.

Need-response cultivates each other’s psychosocial orientation from ignoble psychosocial imbalance to noble psychosocial balance by addressing and even resolving self-needs and social needs on par with each other. In short, we proactively transition from hyper-individualism to psychosocial holism.

Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to interacting with others. You typically keep yourself defensively guarded from those you do not know, and likely do not know you. You are more inclined to drop your guard and be more vulnerably honest to those you feel you can trust.

You mature better the more you can be vulnerably honest to all of those around you. Hyperrationality provokes defensiveness. Daring to drop your guard invites others to do likewise. Which opens the door to mutually understand each other on a deeper level.

To understand how so many of us can slip into hyperrationality or even pseudo-rationality can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction.

Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep

From a norm of checking our emotional overreactions, that can lead to inappropriate behaviors, to normalizing the disparaging of intense emotions as automatically dangerously irrational.

Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain

From a norm of disparaging intense emotions as dangerously irrational to normalizing the attitude that all intense emotions are dangerously irrational and must be rationally suppressed, increasingly leading to guarding own emotions from other’s reasoning.

Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap

From normalizing the attitude that all intense emotions are dangerously irrational and must be rationally suppressed to defensively hiding one’s own emotions behind “reasoned arguments” that easily blind us from our vulnerable needs.

Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction

From a norm of remaining ignorant of our own emotionally fueled needs with “reasoned arguments” to a norm of repressing emotions to the point of overlooking the underlying needs, which increases the likelihood of more intense emotions as those needs scream with emotional pain for prompt relief.

TLDR

From a norm of keeping our emotions in check to routinely denying our emotions to the point of neglecting the underlying needs, which ensures our “irrational emotions” shall persist.

Need-response incentivizes us to let go of our rational arguments long enough to drop our guard to expose our indefensible and inflexible needs. We nurture trustworthiness to courageously reveal our vulnerabilities.

There is less reason to DEBATE when you can vulnerably RELATE. When we first address what both realize cannot be changed—our inflexible needs—we put ourselves in a better position to address areas that can be changed. We reward honestly admitting how our flexible response to our needs can unintentionally hinder others from resolving their own inflexible needs.

Emphasis on rational arguments easily discourages humble admissions. We make it safe to expose our imperfections when shifting from rationality to safer vulnerability. We honor the knowledge of our internal needs over knowledge of merely external things. That stuff is important, but never as important as the needs requiring to be resolve so you can function well enough to contemplate on those external things.

Hiding your vulnerabilities behind reasoned arguments often becomes counterproductive. The more you rely on rationalizations to avoid your vulnerabilities, the less likely you can fully resolve those affected needs. Especially if kept hidden from everyone. The less your needs resolve, the more intense the resulting emotions. Which you likely seek to cover with more motivated reasoning as you keep your guard raised to avoid feeling hurt.

Need-response cultivates an environment to safely drop your guard to each other. To cultivate the vulnerability to be better known and appreciated by each other. Instead of constantly trying to prove something to others, you welcome knowing each other as you truly are.

You can then recognize we each are doing the best we can with the challenges facing us. You help each other to make it easier to honestly face our own needs, and our imperfect responses to them. You appreciate rational arguments as a tool, and never as a panacea to guard your vulnerabilities.

Need-response cultivates each other’s vulnerability orientation from ignoble self-protective rationalizing to noble self-disclosed needs that posits inflexible needs over flexible reasoning that often avoids the vulnerability of inexplicable and inflexible needs. In short, we proactively transition from hyperrationality to vulnerable honesty.

“To understand people, I must try to hear what they are

not saying, what they perhaps will never be able to say.”

- John Powell, Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am?

Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to relating to the world around them. You either generalize about those things that matter little to you or your needs. And you tend to seek specifics to address the details of your life.

You enjoy more wellness the more you engage the relevant nuance affecting your life. And the more you engage such specifics in the lives of others, the trust you engender. Let every generalization serve as a temporary pit stop on your way to delving into it a little deeper.

To understand how so many of us can slip into overgeneralizing can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction.

Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep

From a norm of leaving written rules vague enough to apply to various situations to a norm of overlooking relevant specifics not addressed by laws.

Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain

From a norm of overlooking relevant specifics to an emerging norm of evading specifics that may risk disagreement from others whose support is counted on.

Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap

From the norm of avoiding potentially controversial specifics to a norm of neglecting the reality of relevant specifics, trusting generalizations to offer reliable answers for all.

Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction

From a norm of sidestepping specifics to latch onto comforting generalizations to blindly trusting one’s generalizations to somehow effectively lead to satisfying results.

TLDR

From a norm of keeping rules vague for wide applicability to the norm of overgeneralizing to the point of neglecting relevant specifics, which keeps needs from being fully resolved.

Need-response encourages us to utilize our trusted generalizations as mere stepping stones. Behind everything we learn, we can always dig a little deeper. Anything we learn can serve as a bridge to explore the finer details affecting our many complicated needs.

We graciously invite better awareness of our needs. No more hiding behind sweet sounding generalizations that offers more comfort than sustainable solutions. Too much hyperbole and exaggerations easily pull us away from resolving needs, which easily traps us in pain.

First, we distinguish between needs we cannot change and our responses that can be changed. We cannot solve our problems by provoking other’s defenses when triggered to guard their inflexible needs with our rational sounding generalizations. We melt defensiveness when explore missed specifics behind their needs. Which models how they can be more specific about our exposed needs.

We let go of generalizations that no longer serve. We replace oversimplifying rationalities with relevant nuance. We get down the nitty gritty of what each other specifically needs. And explore the details of how to address those needs with minimal negative impacts on others (i.e., externalities).

Need-response cultivates each other’s relational orientation from ignoble exaggerations to nobly addressing specifics to address what often gets overlooked. In short, we proactively transition from overgeneralizing to relevant nuance.

Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to discomfort. You either habitually avoid just about every level of pain. Or you routinely endure life’s natural discomforts.

You only experience pain when your body reports some threat to remove. The more you embrace this discomfort, the more aware of those threats and what to do about them. Let such discomfort embrace serve you well.

To understand how so many of us can slip into alienating avoidance can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction.

Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep

From a norm of striving for impartiality by keeping enforcement as impersonal as possible to a norm of keeping “professionally” yet coldly distant from those targeted for enforcement.

Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain

From a norm of keeping coldly distant from those targeted for enforcement to a norm of formalized estrangement toward those affected by enforced social norms.

Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap

From a norm of remaining alienated toward those affected by enforced norms to objectifying those targeted for enforcement while avoiding their actual experiences.

Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction

From a norm of objectifying those targeted for enforcement that avoids their actual experiences to normalizing the avoidance of uncomfortable awareness of negatively impacted painful needs.

TLDR

From a norm of trying to stay impartial to norm enforcers standardizing avoidance of the underlying needs, and of any pain resulting when those needs are kept from being fully resolved.

Need-response seeks to inspire our neglected capacity for greater resilience and audacious engagement of each other. Instead of dodging what’s unpleasant about ourselves or each other, we stretch our resilience.

Anankelogy recognizes how you only experience pain when your body warns you of a threat to be removed. Pain is not the problem as much as the threat your pain exists to report. Instead of settling for pain relief that never completely goes away (because the need persists to prompt more pain), need-response helps you remove pain by helping each other to remove threats.

The more you address the needs you affect in others, the easier for others to address your needs that they affect. You cultivate an affinity for each other’s welfare. You nurture trustworthiness, to express and engage each other’s vulnerable needs. You ultimately replace alienating avoidance with mutual resilient engagement of each other’s affected needs.

Need-response nurtures each other’s easement orientation from ignoble pain relief to noble pain removal by resolving the needs prompting pain. In short, we proactively transition from alienating discomfort avoidance to engaging discomfort embrace.

Anankelogy recognizes how everyone has a relatively fixed approach to conflicts. You either get defensive and close down or remain open to learn what each other needs. You either let yourself get pulled into the darkness of mutual defensiveness, or hold out for the light of mutual understanding.

You will reach more your life’s rich potential the more you favor mutuality over adversarialism. Fight to properly resolve needs, not fight each other. Challenge what others do, but never oppose the inflexible needs of others. Or they will oppose your needs which you can never change.

To understand how so many of us can slip into adversarialism can be explained by the phenomenon of symfunction capture. It pulls us from the benign purpose of law into its toxic legalistic elements. From peakfunction to symfunction creep, then into symfunction strain, onto symfunction trap, and into painful dysfunction.

Slipping from peakfunction into symfunction creep

From a norm of incentivizing compliance to social standards to a norm of assuming violations of norms call for some kind of punishing coercion, even if some benign social faux pas.

Slipping from symfunction creep into symfunction strain

From a norm of assuming violations of norms should prompt some kind of punishing coercion to a norm of assuming each of us are selfish actors kept in check only by external authorities.

Slipping from symfunction strain into symfunction trap

From the norm of assuming each of us are selfish actors kept in check only by external authorities to a norm of pitting “selfish actors” against each other in some adjudication process by “impartial” authorities largely biased against the accused.

Slipping from symfunction trap into temporal dysfunction

From a norm of pitting violators of social norms against each other in an adjudication process to a norm of institutionalized adversarialism that systemically discounts our potential for mutual understanding or cooperation, which regularly impedes opportunity to mutually support and resolve each other’s affected needs.

TLDR

From a norm of motivating compliance with threats of punishing rule violators to a norm of widespread adversarialism that leaves little if any room for mutual understanding or support, which effectively normalizes unresolved needs. This positions enforcement regimes as the only means to address the resulting problems of unresolved needs, which benefits from keeping needs from being fully resolved.

Need-response incentivizes all sides to a conflict to engage each other’s affected needs with a simple format:

A) Affirm each other’s objectively existing needs;

B) Bring up how the other ostensibly affects own inflexible needs; and

C) Continue to mutually understand and support each other’s good faith attempts to properly address those mutually conveyed needs.

Instead of indulging in taking a side against each other’s outwardly stated stance on some issue, we invite them to express their inwardly inflexible needs. We distinguish between inflexible needs and our flexible responses to them. We mutually affirm each other’s indisputable needs before questioning impactful responses to them.

We cultivate mutual understanding by graciously expressing how one’s own views and behaviors affect those needs. We only oppose those who refuse to engage each other’s inflexible needs in good faith, not those who cannot change what they inflexibly need to suit what we ourselves flexibly prefer.

We shift from mutual defensiveness to mutual openness and understanding, and then from mutual hostilities to mutual support. We shift from indulgent side-taking, which favors relieving pain over resolving needs, to the discipline of knowing and respecting each other’s inflexible needs.

Need-response cultivates each other’s conflict orientation from ignoble adversarialism to noble mutuality. In short, we proactively transition from antagonism and hate to mutuality and love.

When we speak of those in power or having power, then believe they literally have actual power over us, we slip further into toxic legalism. They have significant social influence that we label as "power". Without the real power of nature compelling our needs, they have no social influence. Power isn't power unless it resolves needs. Otherwise, it is only coercive force that pulls into toxic legalism.

Modern philosophy and economics emphasize how we function largely from pursuing our self-interests in a system largely complementing each other's self-interests. When watered down into a palatable "popgen version", many rationalize their selfishness and even their self-righteousness. These easily harden into hyper-individualism that politically excuses our lapse into toxic legalism.

Teddy Roosevelt rightly asserted that no one's impactful actions sit outside the reach of the law. That doesn't mean the law itself is literally above your existence, or above your inflexible needs. While no one sits above the law, no law sits above the needs it exists to serve. The inflexible needs evolved first; laws flexibly arrived later as social constructions. To forgo what you need to suit some demanding authority robs you of wellness, fueling another form of toxic legalism.