E01 Conflict Principle

Which do you think would be more effective?

Relieving pain of stubborn problems by relying on agreed upon comforting generalizations.

OR

Solving stubborn problems by addressing the overlooked specific needs behind them.

Anankelogy

This one was inspired in part by an apocryphal quote of Einstein. This one adds the oft-overlooked contrast between distracting generalizations and engaging specifics.

This applies to both senses of the word generalization. Wide application and avoiding specifics.

1) You generalize by applying it across the board. For example, the risk of causing a car accident while texting and driving is something that can be generalized to all drivers.

2) You also generalize by avoiding disagreeable specifics. For example, you hold together a fragile coalition by not addressing any specifics that could drive a wedge between some factions.

If I generalize that everyone should read my book, I am both

1. applying this generalization to all without exception, and

2. avoiding specific good reasons many have to not read my book.

In either sense, the risk of error steeply rises. Politics runs thick with errors because of its reliance on such sweeping generalizations. Popular politics tends to force all into a policy that may not fit their needs and avoid addressing those specific needs.

Yet, we cling to many stifling generalizations. Such as generalizing that we must oppose one another’s beliefs with debates to reach better solutions, instead of keeping it safe to address each other’s specific vulnerable needs.

And many of us cling to generalizing that it is better to avoid all pain instead of embracing the naturally sharp pain of resolving our more painful needs, which guarantees the problem will not be solved and the pain of unmet needs repeatedly recurs.

Generalizing for relief to avoid uncomfortable reality generally produces crappy results. Enduring the natural discomforts of engaging vulnerable specifics does far more to address the underlying needs fueling our problems.

Once we solve those specific needs, the general problems tend to take care of themselves.

Need-response

Many social norms overgeneralize, exposing your specific needs to neglect. Whether written or unwritten, many social norms overlook your particular experiences. Which ignores your specific needs. Passive compliance usually leaves your needs unresolved, and keeping you in continual pain.

For example, an overgeneralizing version of the principle “no one is above the law” can impose authority over your specific needs. The power of nature will not allow you to bend your inflexible needs to fit some flexible law or social norm. The more you mindlessly obey, the more pain you likely suffer.

While no one is above the law, no law sits above your natural needs which nature created prior to any human law. You don’t require anyone’s permission to breathe, but overgeneralizing authority can coerce you to suppress your specific needs. Pain naturally results, which tends to keep you attached to comforting generalizations in this vicious cycle.

A problem cannot be solved until each underlying need gets resolved. Anankelogy appreciates a problem as a situation of unresolved needs. A solution addresses a way to resolve each affected need creating the problem. Placating the pain of unmet needs does little to solve problems.

Reactive Problem

The more problems emerge to overwhelm us, the more likely we opt for widely accepted generalizationsfor some relief.

We could do more to solve our personal problems. And be more effective and disciplined to solve interpersonal problems. But we’re generally powerless to power problems and structural problems.

We must then rely on institutions offering comforting generalizations that divide us. Politics easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s specific needs. The adversarial judicial process easily keeps us divided instead of resolving each other’s affected justice needs.

Their comforting generalizations is about all we have. Until now.

Responsive Solution

Need-response upends these destructive norms of generalizing for relief. Need-response inspires stretches your tolerance for discomfort of boldly facing your unmet needs. Need-response equips you with the greater ability to face and embrace the shaper pain of resolving your specific needs.

The less your needs fully resolve from trusting generalizations, the less you can function and the more pain you suffer. Your body must repeatedly warn you of this threat to your ability to function. You gradually become accustomed to the dull pain of unmet needs and rely more on generalizations offering some relief. Consequently, you tend to drift from engaging reality—and feel trapped in perpetuating pain.

The more your needs fully resolve from engaging specifics, the more you can function and not suffer so much pain. Your body has no cause to warn you with pain if there is no threat to your ability to function in this area. You gain the insight of what fully resolves the need, with many helpful specifics. Consequently, you find yourself drawn closer to reality—and less reliant on these stifling generalizations.

A wellness campaign specifically addresses the four anankelogically recognized types of problems.

1. Personal problems.

2. Interpersonal problems.

3. Power problems.

4. Structural problems.

With a wellness campaign, you can solve your specific problems without adding to the generalizationsthat helped to create your problems in the first place. And all involved can see the wisdom in letting go of their reliance on such generalizations. They too can resolve more of their needs, remove cause for their pain, and reach more of their potential for love and in life.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• What if I have not access to the specifics, and must rely on available generalizations?

• Is there any generalization I can act upon without neglecting specifics?

• What’s the worse that could happen if I keep acting on generalizations I’ve always trusted?

• Who’s to say if a specific is actually specific or just another specific-sounding generalization?

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.