.png)
Engage. Instead of ignoring or even opposing the needs of the other side in a conflict, try to find out what those needs are. Relate to those needs as the other side experiences them. Support resolving their inflexible needs in ways that do not prevent you from resolving yours, in ways you would have them support resolving your affected needs. Model to them how to respect your unchosen needs by first affirming theirs.
Which do you think could produce better results?
Challenging others to a debate to see who's right or wrong.
OR
Engaging the affected needs driving our entrenched differences.
"I'm exhausted."
"I disagree."
"I need to lay down."
"I disagree."
"I need to take a nap."
"I disagree."
"Opposing my need sounds ridiculous!"
"I agree."
CONTENTS
Start first with their unshakeable needs.
Then say what you can and cannot do about them.
Finally, link them together.
To be continued.
We're keeping score.
Let's be consistent.
If you enjoy spreading hostilities and locking us in problems and pain, this is not for you. If you truly seek peace and eager to pursue lasting solutions to our ongoing conflicts, this is especially for you.
1. Start first with their unshakeable needs.
When was the last time you chose to be thirsty?
Or chose to need a friend?
Or chose to need solitude?
Do any of your foes choose to be thirsty?
Or choose to require a friend?
Or choose to require solitude?
Or do you choose not to engage
the messy details
of each other's needs?
Engage the needs anyways.
It’s critical we keep separate
the natural needs of others
and
what they insist we do about them.
While we can change what we do about them,
we cannot change the needs themselves.
Affirm their needs.
Affirm the unshakeable needs on
both sides to any argument.
YOUR NATURAL NEEDS | THEIR NATURAL NEEDS |
Before you object to any social pressures to respect their need,
and before you insist that they first respect your affected needs,
affirm their conveyed need first.
You can do that, can't you? I believe it's called love.
Let the limited speech activist LOVE the free speech advocate: | Let the free speech advocate LOVE the limited speech activist: |
“I fully support you addressing your need for free speech so you can more fully function.” | “I fully support you addressing your need for limiting speech so you can more fully function.” |
Only after you confirmed their unshakeable need do you raise your legitimate concern about how they expect you to honor that need.
2. Then say what you can or cannot do about them.
However, I cannot guarantee that I can do exactly what you expect.”
Then state your respectable concern for why you cannot go along with their generalized solution.
If concerned about hate speech, you could say, | If concerned about free speech, you could say, |
“The more you freely express your antagonistic views to a public audience, I’m rightly concerned some who agree with you will take it to extremes that could threaten my wellbeing." | “The more you constrain everyone’s ability to publicly air their thoughts about sensitive topics, I’m rightly concerned the public discourse will sink into irrational beliefs and then some will act less appropriately.” |
You only challenge their expectations of how you’re to respond to their politicized need. You never challenge the unchosen need itself.
That’s engagement. That’s what we mean by “engage!”
3. Finally, link them together.
First, you engage each other’s core needs.
Second, you engage each other’s expectations.
Finally, you continue to engage each other to cultivate a deeper connection.
From the Left, you connect deeper with those on the Right. | From the Right, you connect deep with those on the Left. |
“The more you can appreciate my concerns about the risks of being retraumatized by extremists acting on your free speech, who take comfort in your moderate position but then takes it to a frightening extreme that threatens our wellbeing, the easier I can appreciate your concerns of the public discourse sinking into unchallenged views.” | “The more you can appreciate my concerns about the public discourse sinking into undiscussed, unexplored, and unchallenged irrational beliefs, some acted violently upon in the darkness of limited speech, the easier I can appreciate your concerns about someone acting on exaggerated interpretations of my openly discussed views.” |
Not exactly a quid pro quo.
Just keeping honest that putting their needs ahead of your own only works as long as you eventually can resolve your needs.
After all, you must maintain a level of functioning to be able to give so generously.
4. To be continued.
Treat this as an ongoing conversation. Nurture empathy both ways.
Endure the discomfort it takes. Resolving needs will remove that discomfort faster than avoiding the needs in the name of debate.
Grant each other the space to better appreciate the merits of the other.
Observe how they can now empathize with your experience of traumatizing public speech. | Observe how they can now empathize with your experience of constrained public speech. |
As the free speech advocate acknowledges incidents of extremists exaggerating their good points that led to traumatizing the more vulnerable, the more they can empathize with your limited speech priorities. | As the limited speech advocate acknowledges cases where a lack of free and open dialogue arguably contributed in some way to a violent act, the more they can empathize with your free speech priorities. |
Allow yourself to raise the bar. From
easing the discomfort of your underserved needs
to
mutually supporting the full resolution
of each other's affected needs.
Build a reputation from being predictably
mutually defensive
to being predictably
mutually responsive
to each other's unchosen needs.
5. We're keeping score.
When invited to engage, to affirm your opponent's unchosen natural needs, we'll give you credit. We will publicly honor your demonstrated trustworthiness to put love over hate.
You're invited to regard us in the same light. We each seek to build up our response reputation. We each seek to earn your trust, as we seek to affirm your trustworthiness.
We recognize your level of trust in someone tends to fall into one of these five levels.
We apply this to powerholders as well. We affirm the unchosen needs of those in positions of authority over us. We replace "responsiveness" with "legitimacy" to specifically apply this to powerholders.
This goes both ways. If I do anything to earn your distrust, my responsive rating can go down.
If a powerholder does anything to earn your distrust, their earned legitimacy can do down.
You can join us a need-responders qualified to empirically evaluate their responsiveness to our needs, and their legitimacy as our authority figures.
6. Let's be consistent.
Apply this to any contested issue. Start with these eight hot button politicized needs. Look first for the unchosen needs on each side. Start by affirming their unchosen needs.
Replace arguing with listening for their unchosen needs.
Replace rejection with affirmation of the unchosen needs.
Replace demanding with offering respect for each other's unchosen needs.
Go ahead and apply this to any contested issue. Affirm the unchosen needs that first get expressed as what you're supposed to do about them.
But don't take the bait. Don't confuse each other's
flexible responses
with each other's
inflexible needs.
You don't have to prematurely oppose others whose needs you've yet to understand. Nor they should anyone prematurely oppose yours.
Show them how to affirm your unchosen needs by first affirming their unchosen needs.
7. Engage! Affirm unchosen needs.
Let's step it up!
We can cease fueling our differences. We can break the hold of elites over us.
We can engage each other’s unchosen inflexible needs. Unconditionally affirm them, as you would have them affirm yours.
Stop encouraging hostilities to the needs no one can change.
Engage!
No more indulgent side-taking excuses.
"What about the myth of moral neutrality?"
"What about bothsidesism?"
"What about whataboutism?"
These objections aptly apply to what we do about our needs, and never applicable to the unchosen needs themselves.
It's not helpful when such misapplied objections react more than respond. We need you to thoughtfully respond to everyone's unchosen needs.
Become more need-responsive than feel-reactive.
Those you dismiss as apolitical may be more intuitively aware of each other’s unchosen needs. If you can’t change your needs for them, then why expect them to change their needs for you?
Your political opponent didn't choose to need differently than you. Just as you didn't choose to need differently than them.
So why remain alienated from each other over what neither of you can change?
Engage!
Affirm their unchosen needs. As you would have them affirm your unchosen needs.
Engage!
Spread the love
of understanding,
of peace building,
of conflict resolution.
By affirming unchosen needs.
Engage!
Engage! | ENGAGE! | |
reaching standard responsiveness | cultivating competitive responsiveness | creating transformative responsiveness |
Your responsiveness to affirming unchosen needs
Your turn. Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content.
Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact others and create your forum comments.
Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this engage category.
Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love.
Check out recent posts of interest to you.
Add a rating to let others know how much of a good read this was for you.
Write a comment to give others an independent perspective on this content.
Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts.
Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love.
Comments