Trust in authority grounded primarily or exclusively in perception, with little if any empirical measurements of the authority's actual impact on the inflexible needs of the populace. This exists as the current status quo form of authority, widely accepted and adopted, in contrast to need-responsive earned legitimacy.

Defunction: ascribed legitimacy

The new profession of need-response seeks to complement, or if necessary to eventually replace, ascribed legitimacy. Anankelogy links ascribed legitimacy to the defunction (or problem) of nomoscentricity, which posits impersonal laws over personal needs.

The more we accept the role of impersonal norms to convey our needs, the more we tend to blindly accept the emerging role of adversarial legalist institutions of politics and the judiciary. Instead of personally asking what other's need and appeal to love, we rely on adversarialism norms to force others to respect our needs. This has shaped our legalistic institutions with what can be characterized as "disappointing forms of adversarial ascribed legitimacy".

Examples: 

Adversarial politics ascribed legitimacy forms

• manipulated consent of the governed (MCOG)

• mutually pitted selfish partisanship (MPSP)

Adversarial judiciary ascribed legitimacy forms

• manipulated sentiments of the jury (MSOJ)

• coerced plea of the defendant(s) (CPOD)

None of these approaches seeks to accountably solve conflicts by properly resolving needs for all involved. Need-response counters by raising the standard to measurably improved wellness outcomes (MIWO).

Refunction: earned legitimacy