Yields and Flows

[take2]

I’m really enjoying this thread - very thought provoking.

@c_L - I understand your premise but not sure that example fully works (although perhaps it’s my own lack of sufficient Wheaton level)

The assumption is that the person(s) offering the ride is getting the same (or similar) value from the nurse via the cancer group that they’re providing via the ride and thus value is exchanged but money isn’t used as a medium. However this could lead to an imbalance such that the nurse may become a “mooch” if he requires rides (value) above what the person(s) are receiving in the cancer group. This is probably mitigated to a certain extent by various people within the cancer group willing to offer rides but I bring this up for a reason:

In my own life I like to travel quite a bit and also enjoy keeping my costs down. I typically “hack” flight costs (level 5?) but also “hack” accommodation by staying with friends that I’ve met on different travels. I make an effort to stay in touch with friends from around the globe such that I have various places to stay, and of course offer the same benefit to them in return (level 6?)

However, if I were to forego my permanent home and just bounce around, perhaps on a much cheaper (or even cash neutral) transport budget I would no longer be providing a similar “value” in return. That is, I stay with you but you can’t really stay with me. Is this a form of Wheaton level 7 or just “mooching”?

Another example - I lived with my parents rent-free for the first 2 years of my career which was instrumental in saving $$. But even though there was a complete absence of $$ I view that as more Wheaton level 5 (optimising) then a Wheaton level 7.

[jacob]

@anesde -

Level 7 is thinking in terms of networks.
Level 6 is thinking in terms of branching.
Level 5 is thinking in terms of nodes.

Replacing financial capital with social capital (potentially leading mooching if the social capital is being spent down) is still thinking in terms of nodes. The resilience of the network is that if some branches get cut off, one can still reroute the flows and preserve the network.

[take2]

Ok. Not to belabour the example but then if I travel somewhere, expecting to stay with a friend but that friend get an emergency and can no longer offer me a place - if I have excess financial capital that easily allows me to stay at a hotel that would be level 6? (i.e branches) Or just jumping to a different node, still on level 5?

Perhaps my issue is that I can’t see past either using financial or social capital (or some combination). I understand a built up social network (i.e one friend fails but there’s another one), and financial capital (i.e sufficient excess funds such that an emergency is treated without issue). But sounds like all of that is still level 5?

[jacob]

5.5, refer to

What's the "Hegelian dialectic"-operator? Basically, for order N, it's
Step 1) Form a framework that explains your way of understanding the world at the Nth order. (What Jordan Peterson calls "Being".) [the thesis]
Step 2a) Begin to realize that there are things that don't make sense within the framework formed in step 1. [the antithesis]
Step 2b) There may be more than one antithesis. At this point, we're at Kegan N+1/2 or so.
Step 3) Create a bigger framework that explains or rather contains both of them. [the synthesis]. Note that if one's strategy is to force step 2a/2b into the framework established in step 1 (e.g. "those who do not understand [me] are obviously idiots, one has not really leveled up"). In order to do that, one has to be ready and willing to break down the framework constructed in step 1. This is like pulling teeth because one builds one's identity based on that framework! Therefore, it often only happens insofar one has either hit rock bottom or some other bottom [wrt one's world view].

[daylen]

Here are some examples of 7-like thinking with drawings.



Networks are the objects of thought at this stage. The idea is to use modular design where links can be disrupted (a change in topology) without cascades (straight out of ERE book).

The top web deals with basic types of activities with a dependence on the left two columns. Columns 3 and 4 can potentially generate capital of various kinds. Column 5 can be cut without too much hassle.

The second section displays a hypothetical future web for me. Flows between mushroom production and woodworking include sawdust, containers, tools, production facilities, etc. Competence in math, mushroom production, woodworking, gardening, forestry, cooking, electrical, plumbing, cleaning could all be taught either through tutoring or writing. Forestry provides wood for woodworking. Foraging could provide food or even scrap that could be used in a carpentry project (such as used bottles). Chemistry can provide an outlet for experimental research and help form reliable substrates for mushroom production. The flows are too many to count.

The bottom two webs are more modest. (research, job, clean/cook, socialize) is more of a high level version of my current web. If the socialize node is thought to be in a third dimension extending out of the page, then this 4-node topology is an excellent networking unit to work with (triangles are good too). The right figure relates housing, transportation, and production. This sheet took me like ten minuets. I have a few binders filled with stuff like this .

One thing is keep in mind is that your current web can have many different scopes/resolutions. At 5, only individual nodes are visible at any given time (hence the isolation of contexts or "dimensions"). At 6, nodes have inputs and outputs without any apparent senders/receivers. Early 7 sees a single integrated network at a time. Later 7 can compare/validate multiple networks of various resolutions. All my examples were fairly high level in the sense that there are tons of details I am ignoring (so called known unknowns or hidden complexity). What counts as a node or not depends on the degree of coupling which can be quite subjective or experimental. New nodes may require a certain amount of nourishment/in-flow before they become self-sustaining.

In reference to Jin on dimensions.. at this stage everything relevant/common to your consciousness is seen as integrated and can be quickly cycled through. The focus is more on how/why to integrate/disintegrate. 7 thinking anticipates how adding/subtracting nodes will alter flows in the entire network.

This is also related to the DMN I talked about in the updated cognitive function model thread. Conscious awareness and manipulation of this network in the brain corresponds with the external manifestation. Thinking in nodes, flows, or networks is equivalent to executing the nodes, flows, or networks in 'reality'. This is the subject-object symmetry.

[Toska2]

7 is the biker that starts a community ride to enjoy other people's company and reduce cancer rates (more fit community) while skipping past the cancer poster.

[daylen]

Some additional relations:



The fifth order of conscious thinks across frames in a dialectic (decisions are made with deliberate compromise). Frames are sets of boundary conditions that constrain what is allowed to exist and what is considered valid. A boundary could have locality (in spacetime for instance) or just be an non-local criteria. Only specific data structures generated from one of the models can serve to validate propositions made within the frame. Frames allow for pining various types of models into a network and interchanging them with alternatives (7-like thinking). For instance, all the personality models could be alternative nodes in a frame that can construct/validate loosely coupled feedback processes with humans as components.

If you look closely, each frame has two divergent networks that are not strongly connected. This is the gap of intuition or the [typically unconscious] leap from some initial state to a conclusive state. Any logical structure has these gaps because our attention is limited to a finite set of discrete points. Limiting processes required to fill in the space between such gaps would require infinite time.

This relates to a classification I found on Quora:
1. logic
2. fuzzy logic
3. patterns
4. fuzzy patterns

Logic is linear in the sense that there is an ordered operation to 'read' it. Patterns are non-linear in the sense that there is no objective ordering. Fuzziness is a degree of inclusiveness or relevance (see fuzzy set theory). Fuzzy logic may assign a probability of being valid/true to propositions. So, logical thinking is "x is y" (or cause-effect relations). Fuzzy logic is "x is y" seems to fit better than "x is z". Patterns are not expressible in this form without creating a list of processes and telling the reader to ignore order (partly why I like to draw diagrams). Fuzzy patterns could be drawing a bunch of patterns at different levels of resolution and comparing how the degree of precision matches to the statistical validity (or something like that).

Logical expression of a network is a single flow that begins and terminates without cycling (returning to origin node). Patterned expression of a network involves several cycles that partially overlap but are not equivalent. This can appear to someone thinking logically to have contradictions, and this is true from their perspective. Yet someone thinking with 3 or 4 is giving up [local] consistency on a more precise level for [universal] completeness (filling in gaps and including peripheral nodes).

Not sure if any of that makes sense, but I have been thinking about this a lot .

[classical_Liberal]

However this could lead to an imbalance such that the nurse may become a “mooch” if he requires rides (value) above what the person(s) are receiving in the cancer group.

This and your other examples are assuming a tit for tat, net zero transaction. Of course there are situations like this in life. However, positive sum situations are equally possible. Frankly they are the driver of modern economics. If tit for tat, sharing places with friends no longer works, why not find someone to stay with who gains something by having you around. Are there not people who volunteer a place on couch surf because they enjoy the company and showing off their town? Just because you may not want to do that, doesn't mean someone else won't. What do you think your parents actually gained by having you stay with them for those two years?

I think maybe it's the understanding of the flow between these "branches" that starts to open up Wheaton 6. Not just how it impacts you directly. However, they don't have to be social in nature. That just happened to be the example I used.

FYI, that whole spiel and the one to G+J was me thinking aloud. Trying to gain understanding myself. These concepts are often put forward here too abstractly for me to gain insight. I learn by trying to place the abstractions into a real world context for my understanding, I hope it's not confusing you or others.

[take2]

No, not confusing - they’re actually more helpful than the abstract for me.

What I’m struggling with is the discussion on being or not being able to be across different levels simultaneously. I see this as possible in the current context:

To have multiple sources of income - a rental house, dividends, primary job, side business. Each sufficiently de-coupled and able to provide a large portion of one’s needs. That appears to be to be Wheaton level 6 thinking. To accomplish something like this, in part the costs have been cut down via optimisation. This appears to be Wheaton level 5 thinking.

So a person has optimised their lifestyle by cutting out unnecessary expenditure, and further built resilient streams of income to provide for that lifestyle. Is this not a mix of the two levels? Perhaps this is the 5.5 that Jacob mentioned above? In any case in this example the “slack” is still constructed around money.

Perhaps a further example - if say an engineer who works in construction develops skills and contacts to enable him to purchase, rehabilitate, and rent a home. Frugality leads to building financial capital required, professional work leads to developing project management skills, connections via work lead to building a network of plumbers, electricians, etc. The end result is an advantage over the average to deliver a new income stream. Skills developed during the rehab allow the next one to go smoother, etc. I feel that I could build a case that all of the above is some kind of optimised “network” but it’s all still with money as the “slack”, or at least at the centre of the whole thing. That leads me to think it’s just a Wheaton level 5 at its core?

[daylen]

To have multiple sources of income - a rental house, dividends, primary job, side business. Each sufficiently de-coupled and able to provide a large portion of one’s needs. That appears to be to be Wheaton level 6 thinking. To accomplish something like this, in part the costs have been cut down via optimisation. This appears to be Wheaton level 5 thinking.

This isn't actually thinking, though. It is just a picture of an agents behavior that is directly apparent from a particular outside perspective. 5 would have a different optimization mindset for each context (rental house, portfolio management, job, etc.). 6 would notice and consider how each of these has inflows and outflows but the origins/destinations are not tracked. 7 would notice and consider how changes in the self-contained optimization structures would effect other nodes in the network. If an agent is only focusing on rental houses, then all the outflows could be redirected back into expanding ownership of rental properties. If an agent recognizes that some of the yield is dissipating elsewhere in their lives, then perhaps they will try to limit or direct it. If an agent can keep in mind both their optimal rental house strategy and their optimal portfolio management strategy, then perhaps they will try to find a balance between the two where neither is optimal in isolation.

In terms of a relationship: 5 is thinking in terms of their own best strategy regardless of what the other person does. 6 considers how their own strategy could have effects on others or how others could have effects on their strategy. 7 can see a network of people with their own optimal strategies and how specific people influence their own social network. Perhaps Johnny prefers to talk about X rather than Y, but in a social situation with Billy who prefers Y they may focus on how Y is similar to X (compromise). If a Stacy walks into the room and starts talking about Z which Billy loves but Johnny knows nothing about, then perhaps Johnny will sit back and listen more (these could just be tactics in isolation, but may also be part of a more encompassing strategy).

----------
Now, I should note that it does make sense to consider different Wheaton scales in different contexts, but it also makes sense to assume that there is some universal context. The tricky part is that an agent has no "objective" way to determining exactly what is universal to them. An agent can consider how their actions and environmental influences may fit with their own blind spots. It is like a puzzle where there are always some pieces missing, and intuition is what fills in these gaps with a narrative of sorts. Even though your own level goes unseen, you can still infer what it may be by process of elimination. A focus on negative as opposed to positive propositions (what is not as oppose to what is). Elimination of such blind spots can be done by better using scarce attention to find particulars with powerful induction chains (i.e. if not x then y or z is more likely, and if a or b then c is more likely.....). Remember the Sherlock quote.. ".. when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.". Jacob also made a post not too long ago on how he determines what skills to learn that relates to this.

[daylen]

In relation to cognitive functions, Ni latticework is the glue that holds our universal conceptualizations together and Ti breaks things apart. Ti-Si users tend to see truth as contextual where the power of a proposition is proportional to the power of the constraints. Ni-Fi users tend to see truth as suppositions that grow in prominence overtime. Ti is like a toolbox and Ni is like a seed (both in the mind). Ti-Si focuses on time-independent yet detailed distinctions and Ni-Fi focuses on time-dependent yet universal similarities. Your personality can significantly influence the flavor of these levels, but there does seem to be an underpinning framework that is consistent across types.

[7Wannabe5]

Another thought I had was that running a business will almost certainly require operating at yield and flow level. Hat’s why cash flow is reason for high failure rate of businesses that were otherwise successful.

[jacob]

@daylen - If Fish does another one of those post of the year things, I nominate you for this string.

[2Birds1Stone]

@daylen - If Fish does another one of those post of the year things, I nominate you for this string.

I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around the last few posts in this discussion, and so far my head feels like a BB rattling in a tin can.

[oldbeyond]

I feel very much the same. I think this thread has made it very clear to me that my level is definitely Optimization. I've been proud of having a holistic approach, but I think that's rather been concentrating on individual nodes, and their effects, serially. I see positive and negative side effects on other nodes, but there's always some node that's my focus.

It seems like there is a lot to unpack at level 6 and above, and not much discourse on it (this thread has been a gold mine, thank you all). Perhaps us students need to unpack it ourselves to really get it? I sort of see there being a gap here where a lot of us fivers fail to bootstrap ourselves from basic principles as laid out in the ERE book. But I can also see it being a case of explanations merely becoming false idols.

Perhaps I should finally read YMOYL.

[7Wannabe5]

This is a silly, rather messy, design I made for survivalist living on site of my Northern Permaculture Project. It is a screenshot from simulation software so you can't see the equations "optimizing" the overall flow.




I suppose if you could think like this in your head about your real life, but with more realistic and complex feedback loops, then you would be at high Level 7.

[jacob]

Hebb's theory says that "neurons that fire together, wire together". This is also how habits form. I think for those, who feel stuck at Wheaton5, having/developing an awareness of the branching aspects of the node that would otherwise just be optimized (with money) is the first step. Always be thinking, "what else does this [node] bring me/result in" or in the language of the ERE book: "Which side-effects does this action/choice have?"

Once all that is wired together, it becomes unconscious competence. Then instead of thinking about nodes, one starts thinking about the flows in the branches (W6) rather than the branching points (W5).

In the ERE book this step is covered in "5.1.2 Contigency goal-setting / Effect-mapping". It's too bad we didn't have the Wheaton levels to serve as milestones/guide posts back when the book was written, but at least the book is laid out so the next step builds on the previous step---and the book really does have everything. I suspect it's just that readers might move a little fast or skip concepts if they're not clear at the time. This is why it's worthwhile to re-read it from time to time. It has several layers of depth to unpeel.

[Fish]

Still have not read this thread or unpacked its content, but I found this quote from the 4% thread insightful and thought this was the best place to discuss.

Recall, when the Starship Enterprise gets in trouble, they don't jump into the shuttle.

This led me to ponder more familiar examples: humans generally don’t get divorced after one argument with their spouse, or quit their job over one bad day at work.

I think the reason regular people have a hard time with voluntary simplicity is because their lifestyle “design” is a hodgepodge of activities and stuff which is individually heterotelic but usually net-positive. This makes it difficult to remove any one element because it would result in a net-negative effect. Consequently, once a lifestyle is built up, it tends to stick (with only minor changes) unless forced by external factors. The tensegrity results in stagnation.

It may also explain why it is hard to progress beyond Wheaton level 4/5 is because there is no more net-negative to cut after tackling the obvious stuff like cable TV.

Suppose this progression in objectives from level 1 (immediate consumption) to level 3 (maximum consumption) to level 5 (pareto-efficient consumption) to level 7 (a synergistic minimum-energy consumption from automatic production?). It’s clear that the tactics of one paradigm are not effective for the others.

Humans instinctively seek out “now is better” (L1), and also intuitively understand “more is better” (L3). From there humans can be trained to accept “more efficient is better” (L5) but an appreciation for the aesthetics of “minimum-waste is better” (L7) likely results from making an attempt at L6+ in the first place.

[jacob]

It may also explain why it is hard to progress beyond Wheaton level 4/5 is because there is no more net-negative to cut after tackling the obvious stuff like cable TV.

In terms of the [self-]pedagogical moats, I think it's possible to split the Wheaton table into three stages that might explain it. I've noticed how noobs always start out by cutting things away. This is why the initial impression as well as the initial strategy of frugality, simple living, voluntary frugality, minimalism, etc. is almost always about sacrificing or perceived sacrifices. Call that stage I... which covers W1-3.

In stage II, there's nothing left to "sacrifice" so the focus turns towards optimizing what remains. This covers W4-5. Also at this point any talk about sacrificing begins to feel noobish/not badass. The mindset has changed.

In stage III, the diminishing returns of stage II become apparent. Integration replaces efficiency and optimization and W6-7 are just increasing levels of integration.

I therefore posit that there's more of a moat from 0 to 1, 3 to 4, and from 5 to 6, respectively than there is between any of the other levels.

... of course this could just be model dredging.

A motivational guest post: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i ... -swim.html

PS: I liked 7wb5's comment about businesses. It slipped through the cracks, but there's a lot to be learned there and I think the Wheaton levels parallel the development. Most businesses do indeed fail because they fail to consider flow (insofar other businesses do it). The next step is mergers and acquisitions. Imagine your retirement going bankrupt if there were people living the same lifestyle as you did but spending less. That's the environment businesses face. Fortunately for FIRE, the best run FIRE plans can not outcompete less efficient ones because the product (life enjoyment) does not scale beyond one person.

Add: On the Star Trek analogy ... it's also not that they always spend time rerouting or optimizing. When doing routine stuff, they're usually just "recalibrating". This would be W2-3.

[classical_Liberal]

I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around the last few posts in this discussion, and so far my head feels like a BB rattling in a tin can.

It seemed like abstract gobbledygook to me as well on the first couple of reads. I've now read the series of posts 6 times over the past couple of days, and I'm starting to really "get it". It's creating a very good framework for some of the more intuitive examples I was trying to work through in my head/on this thread earlier.

@Daylen, VERY helpful. Thanks.

Back to @2B1S
Last winter, maybe December, I reread the ERE book and noted some of the realizations I made in my journal. At that time I created a similar, but more complex web, to what Daylen posted above. Of course it was specific to things in my life. One of the key takeways for me at that time was the only "node" that suffered when I removed full-time work node was the flow from it to monetary savings node. The saving node was (and still is) important to me because I view slack in my system mostly in terms of money saved and the income it can generate. I didn't think in terms of slack then, hence didn't have flows associated to other nodes from this one, outside of investment income funding other nodes. What I began to realize with this exercise was the full time work was only contributing to the savings node, and actually had detrimental effects to other important nodes in my life (ie flows from them to FT work). So even though conceptually I had no idea what I was doing, I consciously made the decision that creating more slack (slack in terms of money saved) was not worth the continued outgoing flows from other nodes to maintain FT work. I viewed quitting FT work as a wash to my complete system, so then the only remaining consideration was if I prefered spending my time at FT work or doing other things. Guess what won-out there?

Removing FT work from the web and seeing that it would still function was instrumental in my eventual plan to semi-ERE this year.

I've been looking for actionable items in this thread to advance Wheaton levels. I think my answer is that I need find ways to create slack from other nodes. IOW, extras in one that can be recycled into slack in another. Another option may be looking for waste in other systems and incorporating that into slack in my own system. However, the later has the potential of being viewed as "mooching", like @anesde noted earlier. If I can accomplish this on some small scale, then I will maybe will begin to experience/understand money is not the only option for slack. So, I believe I have my answer, unless someone else here feels I'm way off base.