Focussing on the 'Macro' over the 'Micro' to maintain sanity

[BWND]

Hi everyone,

Has anyone ever experimented with trying to avoid political discussions on the 'micro' level, reserving their engagement for the 'macro' stuff? It's something I have been pondering for a while as a strategy for myself to reduce frustration and to try and improve the quality and tone of debates/conversations.

This isn't fully formed, so my definitions can be amended - feel free!

Macro - think geopolitics, long-term economic trends, in the shorter term, think focus on actual policy positions put forward in an election campaign.

Micro - he said/she said, is he a racist, that leader is a boring speaker, immediate reactions to BLM protests. To use an example, and this isn't a criticism of the discussion as it all looks rational, but I noticed that the Kamala Harris thread has been discussing her accent in a speech and how it 'plays' with the voters on a 'sincerity' level. Politics as soap opera, goodies and baddies.

I have a suspicion/limited experience that on the 'micro' level things get heated much more quickly and are much more emotive over specific issues that have limited importance over a longer period.

Conversely, it seems like staying on the 'macro' field tends to navigate the discussion towards cause and effect, acknowledgement that some things become apparent over time, and crucially puts the micro into perspective.

To give it a somewhat tenuous ERE slant, it seems to me the macro is much more important to spend time considering.

[BWND]

I'm replying to myself initially.

Just for absolute clarification, whether a leader is racist or sincere, or how they react in the immediate wake of a crisis is also important. I'm just wondering if I/general society spend too much time at the micro end of whatever Overton window I'm trying to draw.

[ertyu]

I instinctively do this. Didn’t realize I had stumbled onto a worthwhile strategy by chance. Also, I assume that for what you call micro, you will get different versions in different media. I also blanket-assume it all to be biased and inaccurate—though I do admit a weakness for AOC owning idiots on Twitter

Still - I treat it more as entertainment than as my main focus when it comes to the articles and tweets I read about politics.

[Hristo Botev]

I'm not good at practicing what I preach, but the political thinkers that I most admire (and that are most appealing to me) are those that take a very long view of things (focusing on the marco, so to say). These tend to be people who have a very good understanding of both history and political philosophy, who see themes, trends, movements that span decades and even centuries. The person that comes to mind immediately for me is Russell Kirk, from whose writings I see someone who wouldn't be particularly successful operating in the click-baity, blogs parading as journalistic articles, Twitter-war world of today; in large part because he seems to focus so much on the macro that anything he'd write (a) would not speak specifically to the micro-level goings-on of the day, but also (b) would be as relevant to those micro-level goings-on of today as they were to the micro-level goings-on of the day 50 years ago.

I personally should strive more for that level of zen and well-informed detachment of the micro. I suspect practicing some daily ritual of expressing gratitude would be a big help to that end, whether in the form of an Ignatian Examen or a Stoic reflection.

Edit to add that I'm currently reading Greer's Long Descent, and there's something particularly comforting about coming to terms with the idea that civilization as we know it is declining, if gradually. All the micro-level insanity/outrage I see through my particular lenses, and the different insanity/outrage that I suspect others see through their own lenses, all make perfect sense when viewed through the prism of that decline.

[jacob]

Has anyone ever experimented with trying to avoid political discussions on the 'micro' level, reserving their engagement for the 'macro' stuff? It's something I have been pondering for a while as a strategy for myself to reduce frustration and to try and improve the quality and tone of debates/conversations.

Uhm, yeah!?

I think it would be fair to say that "going from micro to macro" has essentially been my primary focus(*) since I quit my finance job in 2015. In finance, people take a professional pride in staying out of the fray and only considering what kind of investment impacts things have w/o getting emotionally/ideologically involved. All that matters is that there are predictions and your success in predictions are measured in alpha-dollars. As far as politics goes, this lead me to ultimately adopting this perspective: viewtopic.php?p=220927#p220927 (pls click the 'true neutral' link in that link).

(*) Kahneman/Tversky, fallacies, Kegan's adult development, personality models, stack theory, ... theory of mind stuff, and basically trying to get into other people's heads.

I've participated here as an admin/owner of the forum with "great powers and responsibility" (blargh!), but I've also been active outside the forum (online/offline) w/o my ERE-bona fides. My experience in the two worlds have been different while confirming the same lesson from two different levels.

On the forum, I've used this 'macro' meta-perspective to [mostly successfully] dampen the worst of the emerging culture wars over the past 5 years instead of diving in at the visceral level. We've gone through climate change, fascism/socialism, white supremacy, feminism/metoo, and lately COVID/BLM. We've had it all #FML. The only issues we seem to have missed is getting riled up by are transgender bathroom access and anthem kneeling? (Did I miss any? No, I don't wanna know!) However, dampening the worst is not the same as declaring victory. From a moderator standpoint, the forum sometimes feels more like running an adult daycare center and I've just about called it quits on that as indicated here: viewtopic.php?p=224208#p224208 . In the Kegan sense, I do believe we're (<- humanity) largely In over our heads. Yet threads like this give me some hope that I'm not just endlessly whac-a-moling the latest viral controversies. Because it sure often seems like it's unsolvable. And endlessly renewable. Yet ...

It took years and/of sustained effort to explain the difference between E-ER and ERE and developing the ERE Wheaton framework but people like @cL, @AH, @J+G, @RF, and @HR (sorry if I forget anyone ... probably counting you as already having understood it) eventually started grokking it and passing on their insights to others. And now it's getting exponentially appreciated! This does indicate that sustained efforts are worthwhile although it sometimes seems like an uphill battle, especially when being right in the middle of it with no apparent end in sight. It's important to realize that change often takes years, maybe even decades, when you're at the front-end of the S-curve. http://earlyretirementextreme.com/bette ... urves.html ... Point being: Once you have the capital surplus, maybe expend it on the early (left-hand-side) efforts to get the process started. It's worthwhile even if credit is often captured in the middle and riches are eventually captured towards the end.

In my head, the strategy is to generate a sustained environment that eventually allows the epiphany to happen. This becomes easier and easier the more people are part of that environment. Sun Tzu, chapter 9 (the one about the territory)

On the other hand ...

Outside the forum, I feel increasingly out of touch! I see that most just want to fight the man for their cause while pushing their one fundamental problem/solution that explains everything: https://carolynbaker.net/2012/10/20/cli ... -chefurka/ .. Actually, scratch that. Those who push their favorite problem/solution are not the problem as much as they just think they have the only possible solution: "Get rid of all the ...". Most people are dead asleep and happily oblivious. They'll repeat whatever talking points they've most recently heard based on whatever channels they most recently tuned into based on whatever someone they somehow trusted recommended to them.

My conclusion from having engaged at two different meta-levels... is that if you ever move too far ahead, you're going to feel alone and possibly bitter and frustrated. Too far ahead. It's basically the Wheaton level problem. Pushing the limits is worthwhile insofar it's possible to get others to come along and share the insight/experience. I don't think it's worthwhile if you're the only one doing it for yourself because you'll increasingly leave everybody else behind. That's only going to lead to frustration and eventual disgust or bitterness... and that sucks.

In conclusion, I suppose I'm still suggesting that the way to go is being a gentle teacher. However, given that this is my default, I have a strong suspicion that my default recommendation is only an expression of how how far I've come so far. So there... It might be that there are better approaches to achieving sanity. I just haven't figured them out (yet).

[Hristo Botev]

The only issues we seem to have missed is getting riled up by are transgender bathroom access and anthem kneeling?

Just created a new topic! (kidding)

Without blowing too much sunshine up your ass, thanks as always for this forum, for creating and disseminating the ERE philosophy, for being patient with those of us (read: me) who have absolutely no business on this forum, and for managing the chaos that is the ERE daycare.

[BWND]

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies. I'm glad there's something worthwhile in this.

My route to the forum involves going to the main site first and I saw the Kondratief cycles post looped around the other day. Interestingly Jacob you prophesised the next world war might a propaganda war on whose cultural understanding should be dominant circa 2011 or something (!) But the main point is it's another example of that long-term macro, meta thinking of the world. The Kondratief wave idea is something you likely appreciate, Hristo.

Jacob you mentioned the culture in finance, and I was thinking finance is a good example of what I was thinking about when making the distinction between the two 'modes' but emphasising that one might not be inherently 'better' than the other. At a lower Wheaton level the perception is finance is about day trading, sweating on the wall street floor and making profits or losses based on price movements of the day, ear to the phone. There is deeper understanding of systemic trends the further up the scale you go.

Interestingly, I would guess that the most advanced person working in finance, with the greatest understanding and awareness of the 'macro', is likely also able to operate far more successfully in the day to day volatility of the 'micro'. For them no one way is necessarily better or worse and they understand how their choices in one relate to the other. Likewise, the most canny players of the day to day political games might be said to be those that see all possible outcomes far ahead. There will be exceptions of course. The very beginning of the True Neutral essay has "A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos." which fits in here.

Which leads me on to what I actually came on to respond with. There is lots to think about in the responses thus far and my first step is reading through the essay on True Neutral. There seems to be a range of other 'alignments' which will be worth a look to understand the whole. This seems to have arisen out of the game Dungeons and Dragons is that correct? I love when you get insights coming from places you don't expect! Wheaton levels never cease be useful

[jacob]

Alignments are either D&D or AD&D. I don't know the technical details, but an enormous amount of effort has been expended towards mapping the system onto human nature in order so that players may better play/understand their characters. Psychologists might object to these methods, but they seem practical in the sense that they can map the answers to certain question into a fuller elaboration of what those answers mean. If there's a Forrer effect, it's weak.

Is deeper understanding better? I'm not so sure. In many cases it allows you to see problems that others don't see (which is helpful), but it also allows you to see that many of these problems are almost unsolvable. It destroys the hope that would still exist without that level of insight. It makes the world look like a slow train wreck. It's possible through much effort to fix a small part of the world (like this forum) but the overall task seems overwhelming. E.g. it is possible to create a club where political controversies can be philosophically (rather than rhetorically) debated ... but it's impossible to turn the entire world into philosophers. The problem is once the focus has been turned to the macro/meta, it's hard to turn it back.

[CS]

The fight against entropy is real... and depressing.

I'm guessing D&D is not dungeons and dragons. What is D&D and AD&D?

Most people, even exceedingly intelligent people, never get that high in the development scale. The field for any sort of advanced understanding in inherently small if you take people as they are. There was some thesis on this that (sorry) I'm too busy to track down now that I probably got from here anyhow (that or a Mensa thesis). Even of those people, only a tiny percentage get to the point of understanding of the interconnectedness of all.

It takes time and the proper environment. Honestly, I think a great many people (thinking of myself) don't reach any kind of maturity until middle age or later. Or maybe it's just me.

@ertyu
It seems AOC is learning to play the long game too.

[ertyu]

On the one hand, I find geopolitics interesting. On the other hand, I am very buffled by discussing countries in a way that personifies them and presents them as entities with defined and internally consistent interests vs other such entities. E.g. when you hear, Russia wants this, Russia wants that... well, there's no such thing as Russia, in the first place. There's a bunch of normal people in Russia who mostly want to have safe incomes and to get to feel good about themselves (whether you will achieve this via investment in an invented "national history" or via investment in the tribulations of a football club doesn't seem to be very different). Then there are a bunch of rich people, those people have interests, and use the gvt and the military to promote those interests. Putin keeps the slightly-less-rich Russian people in line for them (see: the control he is supposed to have over the "oligarchs") and rides bears for the amusement of the aforementioned normal people who basically want bread and circus.

So while geopolitics is amusing, I can't help but think it's a fun story told for the amusement of the masses. This may make it different in degree, but not in kind, from the "micro" level of politics which is also spun to keep the masses occupied with something other than the way the actual very rich people are trying to arrange the world for themselves. I'm not sure either micro or macro is of much use in the grand scheme of things - though I do have a personal preference for macro (ditto in investing - i am only just beginning, but i seem to be of a macro bent).

[UK-with-kids]

But I find it a bit of an elitist attitude. That's my perception, I could be wrong.

Just what I was thinking! I had this vision of self-declared tranquil Buddha like figures freed from earthly desires. Possibly coming across as a bit arrogant in certain contexts?

I do use macro thinking myself, for example whenever some idiot car driver nearly kills me, I try and think that way to calm myself down a bit: young men are hard-wired by evolution to be risk takers, self-driving cars will soon solve the problem, etc. But to misquote Harry Browne, I will still be dead.

I find it ironic that one of the links above takes you to a page where I was admonished for suggesting people who aren't interested in politics just ignore political posts rather than trying to have them banned... yet the theme of this thread is that we could all achieve the wisdom not to concern ourselves with such plebian matters anyway.

[jacob]

@CS - D&D really is dungeons and dragons (the game) and the alignment system is a two-dimensional categorization of characters along an ethical and "rule"-abiding behavior describing their general outlook on life and other people. There are 3x3=9 categories (lawful/neutral/chaotic)x(good/neutral/evil). I'm no expert of D&D (I've only ever spent a couple of hours playing it, badly) so my go-to reference is http://easydamus.com/alignment.html (which has a test). The idea of applying a game system to reality would be ridiculous if psychologically insightful humans hadn't poured years into understanding what makes different characters tick and thereby revealed many of humanity's different motivations. For example, the system is practically tailor made for understanding politicians, but in practice is it hard to apply w/o inserting significant personal bias and/or mistaking the politician for the role they play/statements they read from the teleprompter. For example, at this point I've fairly sure that Trump (ESTP/Kegan2) is Chaotic Neutral but I didn't always have him pegged as such. I suspect Biden (ESFJ/Kegan3) is Neutral Good, but I'm not sure yet. Obviously, this can get controversial/ugly real fast. Nobody likes to be called/think of themselves as evil or chaotic... however adaptable and individualistic sounds cool though. So cans of worms await if applying the alignment system in public---which I just did.

There are very many developmental scales. I collect them and even made my own once (CCCCCC) . Overall, they all seem to reflect an increasing quality of complexity (ability to hold mutually contradicting viewpoints at the previous viewpoint while synthesizing a new one at the present level) using different lenses. For example, Kegan's system is social. Kohlbergs is moral. Mine is skill.

OP's post considered political arguments and I do think political arguments reflects Kegan in a somewhat surjective way. In "In over our heads", Kegan makes two pertinent points which only come out during the last part of the conclusion in the book. Namely that personal growth takes substantial time (decades of adulthood); and that average lifespan determines what kind of development humanity as a whole reaches. For example, the current distribution is 14% Kegan2, 56% Kegan3, 30% Kegan4, and <1% Kegan5 or something around these numbers + Kegan himself believes that Kegan5 doesn't happen until at least after age 40. (Never met anyone younger). Thus the only thing that unlocks Kegan5 to begin with is increasing average lifespan so very many people live way beyond 40. This in turn creates the possibility of Kegan5 although with <1% obviously not enough. Hence "In over our heads"---because we're not living long enough.

It's conceivable that one doesn't necessarily have to sit around and wait for adult development to occur spontaneously via sudden insight but that development can be accelerated or even taught. I think having had to deal with the forum over the years have moved me forward substantially. It has been a way to see and try to internalize a lot more different viewpoints while finding a way to reconcile them and seeing how those efforts worked and failed... in a way that would have been slow and sporadic IRL. This suggests that "awareness" and active training from having and exercising responsibility actually would work to speed up the process. Systematic teaching might work too. I've found it extremely helpful to know what's possible, at least theoretically, in working towards achieving it. Similar to Wheaton levels.

Above I suggested, it might not be worthwhile to make the attempt. However, there's this

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

Yeah sure, John, but once you know, it also means it's impossible to unknow. So this might just be the ego rationalizing being trapped #stockholmsyndrome

[ZAFCorrection]

@ffj

It is elitist in the same way a firefighter might be more concerned that the roof and the south wall of a building are burning rather than about a particular chair along said wall. That elite, zoomed out view might be more useful for getting the fire put out.

[jacob]

@ffj, UK-with-kids - I think it's very much a "Wheaton scale" problem. Specifically the two rules that govern the scale

1. People 1 level ahead are inspirational. People 2 levels ahead or more are dismissed as extreme or considered downright insane. People 1 level behind just "need to try a bit harder already". People 2 or more levels behind are the proverbial "assholes who are destroying the world". With people holding this perspective of adjacent levels no matter where they are on the scale.
2. There are increasingly fewer people operating at any given level, the further you go up or down.

From that perspective, for maximum influence, it would be wise to stay exactly 1 level ahead of the average of the population. This way, one can inspire/influence as many as possible w/o the "inspirees" coming to think one is too extreme or elitist. This would be engaging proficiently at the sportsball level finding better ways to conquer turf. This is what pro-politicians do when they change their accents, repeat focus-group tested talking points, or follow the kayfabe protocols. They're tuned into their audience and play them accordingly.

Going 2 or more levels beyond would loose most influence/understanding/relatability, like tuning away from a radio station. You can barely hear them and they can barely hear you. That doesn't mean they went away. However, there would still be some left who are off-frequency and these are the ones who would start resonating with you at this level, that is, find you inspirational or an asshole or too extreme or whatever. The first rule above applies everywhere at each and every single level.

Thus---and this is crucial---realizing that everything one writes and says will be interpreted from multiple different levels each and every time one says anything. Some will find it inspirational and some will find it extreme. Some will think the person could be trying a bit harder ("Why are you talking like a 8th grader on C-Span?!") and some will think you're the asshole ruining the world.

But I don't think such considerations happen every single time people press Submit on a post.

Furthermore, quick comments might not reflect the level of insight from which they're being made! For example, I sometimes catch myself making statements that could be interpreted as me being a turf-warfighter and which I made w/o considering how this would reflect on me at the macro-level for those who are commenting on the turf wars rather than fighting directly on the turf.

So there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is to consider the other perspectives like "how will my statement be interpreted at each and every level" away from me (This is Kegan4). The other is to consider how any of your statements will change the resulting conversation (This is Kegan5). This is what I mean when I talk about how the forum is sometimes used for 1) just saying your piece; 2) conquering/defending turf; or 3) considering your audience and your standing in the club that is the forum; and how the former 1,2 can be destructive or at least risky/problematic.

(Insofar politicians are caught off camera or in a situation where they don't think they're in the public's eye. Some of them show signs that they're at least 1 or more levels beyond their public persona. This gives me some hope.)

[BWND]

@ffj and @UK-with-Kids and @anyone else that had the same impression

Just a couple of points for clarification/explanation:

I can completely accept what I was getting could be perceived as elitist. I have tried to emphasise that I'm not necessarily arguing one is inherently better than the other, though I accept that some of my choices of descriptions of 'micro' probably suggest I that is what I am doing. I was in two minds about using the Kamala accent issue as an example. I thought it was a good example that might be immediately relatable but also I wasn't trying to denigrate the points made over there.

On geopolitics etc:

Maybe to try and help refine it a little, a few contributions, including my own, have referred to geopolitics or very long-term trends. I'm not sure if I think that passage of time is necessarily a key distinguishing feature.

Regarding this:

What will have a greater effect? Staying out of the fray with zero opinions, wondering why people discuss trivialities, or engaging the political process? I'm afraid these "trivialities" have much more bearing than any highbrow discussion any of us may like to believe.

I think what I was pondering was how much value is to be gained by trying to win all of these battles (I think 2) conquering/defending mentioned by Jacob). Exhausting for all concerned and when there is no victor both sides retreat back to their own base camps. Each time you go into 'battle' to try and win them round, you aren't necessarily just debating them alone, you're up against all of the information and opinion they have consumed since the last time you engaged with them. And they feel the same about you. I personally can't win those battles in the majority of times. What might be more worthwhile is shifting to a different 'arena' altogether - What do you hope Biden's policy on cat hotels will be? Well, did you know Trump is advocating something similar? I didn't know that, tell me more! (horribly idealist but you get the idea lol)

I think I'm searching for a way to maximise what I get out of discussions and minimise anxiety and stress on both sides.

[Hristo Botev]

I think I'm searching for a way to maximise what I get out of discussions and minimise anxiety and stress on both sides.

Is this discussion/query in part a question of circle of concern v. circle of control? (I think this is Stephen Covey stuff.) I tend to think that you can't really convince anyone of anything at the micro level (in regards to politics, etc.). You can prove them wrong; as in, you can win an argument--but you can't convince them to approach the next micro issue that comes along the same way that you would unless you convince them at the macro level (this is also probably sort of a Wheaton level analogy). So, sort of a battle/war analogy. You can "win" a battle; you can in fact "win" ALL of the battles--but ultimately, if you don't engage with someone at the macro level, you're not going to win the war, so to speak.

[BWND]

That's definitely an interesting way of looking at it Hristo. In the desperation to win individual battles, sometimes a scorched earth approach is taken to undermine everything the person stands for but they aren't likely to want to engage with you in future. "Hearts and minds" in war speak perhaps.

[Hristo Botev]

That said, I do think its important at times to speak up, even on micro issues, if only to dispel group think (not sure if that's the right term) notions that everyone in a given community, neighborhood, family, etc. views a micro issue the same way that they do. A vocal and strong minority is necessary to prevent a tyrannical majority, so to speak. I don't mean engaging in battles for the sake of entertainment. But, in my own little uber-progressive enclave, I will sometimes put my stoic contemplative and philosophical observer (as if) hat to the side to voice the opinion that actually, no, not all Trump voters are morons, and some people do not view Pres. Obama as the second coming of Jesus, or whatever. BUT, the flipside of that is when visiting friends/family back home, most of whom do in fact share many of my views on the world, I try and resist the urge to take my voice up a couple decibels when discussing my worldview on a given topic, which I'm tempted to do on the assumption that everyone with in earshot almost certainly must think as I do. Or sometimes to challenge a friend/family member who is doing the same, by playing devil's advocate or at least pointing out when that person is treating as black/white an issue that actually involves some nuance, and on which reasonable people can disagree.

[CS]

@Hristo Botev
Agree with the need to at least speak up to counter other narratives. Not always fun but feels necessary sometimes. The look of surprise alone signals that - plus the relief on other faces. The reluctance to have conflict drives a lot of silence that can be taken as agreement.

(Insofar politicians are caught off camera or in a situation where they don't think they're in the public's eye. Some of them show signs that they're at least 1 or more levels beyond their public persona. This gives me some hope.)

Please share if any of those examples come your way in the future. It would be inspiring to see.

Mensa deals with a lot of the kegan-type level stuff but on a different axis. Communication breaks down at a spread of about 1 standard deviation of IQ and just gets worse from there. (Forgive me if I've repeating myself from past posts - I cannot remember). Since by definition they are two standard deviations from the average, and further away for half the population, there is a good disconnect. One phd thesis that looked at bright students talked about a woman who couldn't understand why the other students thought a class was so amazing and ending thinking she herself was stupid. She could not grok what they were seeing.

So it must have been from here that I learned of that development scale, because the over forty sounds familiar. Or a combination of the two. Try telling a teenager that - yikes.

I once told a classmate in collage that I felt better about the world because we were just a ball with a thin layer of slime growing on it and the Universe would go on without us. Poor communication skills plus macro level to the extreme only earned a horrified look. She was not reassured.

@BWND
Maybe less emphasis on 'winning' and more on presenting more data? Thoughts take time. I think expecting someone to come around to a different way of thinking in the moment is not realistic for most folks, even mature ones. Lots of people need percolation time. And our egos take their toll. I think more focus on presenting data and new ways of looking at things and leaving it at that has a greater effect on long term thinking then trying to crush the opposition to the ground. Plus it is way less stressful.( Especially here were communication is written and someone can read a statement later or again and ponder it if they so choose.)

[UK-with-kids]

@Jacob

You mention Wheaten scales quite a bit in interpersonal exchanges. I'm not so sure it is the all encompassing explanation you would like it to be, as people are fully capable of operating at multiple levels, even if perfect understanding isn't always there.

The scales are useful mental models, but the downside is that you shut down any debate by basically saying I'm too intellectually superior for a mere mortal like you to understand. And that can annoy people.

In the run up to the Brexit vote a senior UK politician called Michael Gove, when pressed by journalists on why all the 'experts' were saying Brexit would be a disaster, said:

I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

He was crucified for saying it, but I'm sure it struck a chord with people who suspected the establishment were trying to fix the election by blinding them with science.

What is more helpful is explaining why you disagree with somebody, not just lecturing them on how stupid they are. This is analogous to Hilary Clinton's comments about Trump voters and partly explains the current culture of anti-intellectualism.