Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
Post Reply
IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by IlliniDave »

Alphaville wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:54 pm
yeah i thought the one for 5 was like... a 1. but ultimately for me the number doesn't matter. what matters is the quality and integration of my assigned/designed network. same as music: i dont care about rankings on "the charts" or whatever: if it's great, it's great.
The numbers don't really matter to me either, it was more about understanding "what I was missing" in the discussion. Now I sort of have a Rosetta stone. And diagrams like that are second nature to me. I have a stack of 4' textbooks in my garage full of them, haha. Layers of them on my white board that will never come off. I just kind of figured since engineers are pegged as second-rate thinkers here, that if I tried to communicate in our little cave paintings I'd get laughed off the forums. :lol:

Sometimes I think of ere as driving towards Hobbits in the Shire, and it's largely how farm families up in my corner of the Midwest in my great-grandparents'/grandparents' generations made ends meet, as almost all the money generated from the primary crops/livestock went to mortgages, maintenance, and next years' operations.

I used to think KFC was the bomb. Not so good any more, and I've eaten quail bigger than what they try to pass off as chicken nowadays.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by jacob »

Before [...] get carried away with all the excitement, it should be noted that the illustrations do miss quite a few aspects of the ERE-design philosophy. It is a somewhat simplified drawing much like a square with a triangle on top of it is not really a house as much as it conveys the idea of a house as compared to the idea of a car (rectangle on top of two circles) to someone who has never seen either. Knowing the name of something---or seeing an illustration of something---does not imply knowing something.

As always, the map is not the territory.

What this does show:
  • It conveys the increasing degree of resilience. You can snip several flows (lines) in WL7 w/o rendering it unfunctional. WL5 is more fragile.
  • There's a difference in kind between the stages and it's clear what it is. This makes the validity of levels easier to understand and hopefully unfreezes the "Well, according to the table I'm a level 4 on my spending and a level 6 on my vacation but I do 9 in my day job as a journalist so what am I really?"-incredulity loop.
What this does not show:
  • The flows only track one resource at a time and that resource changes from link to link. Tracking multiple resources would turn it into a royal mess of lines ... the graphic equivalent of spaghetti code. (This is why I've never bothered to explicitly draw my personal WoG. Heuristically it's a lot easier to experientially internalize a bunch of rules(*)(**))
  • There's mostly only one (sometimes two) side-effects. This means that tensegrity is ignored. In reality you want more, including accounting for negative ones.
  • Telicity is not distinguished. You can not see whether one part of the system is hurting or helping another part of how "healthy" the "whole of the system" is. The diagram does not show goals. This is not a diagram of a WoG.
  • It mainly shows the "food+garden"-subsystems with one reference to "fitness" in WL7.
The territory is not the map either!

Anyway ... it is a lot better than the "TL;DR-have opinion anyway" guessing games that seemed to dominate the thread earlier on and hopefully it'll move the thread away from that, yet hopefully not in the wrong direction(!!)

If the diagrams are interpreted literally, it could easily end up in a situation similar to what happened to the 4%-rule in the now almost fully popified FIRE-movement. I'd really hate for people to end thinking that ERE systems-design is just a standard flow chart.

(*) Experienced investors do the same thing. This is immensely frustrating to context-free noob investors because they get handed a list of 15 rules out of which only 9 seem to be satisfied for a given investment: "What do I do with this ARGH?" ... whereas experience teaches one to evaluate and rank the rules .. when to ignore and when not to. Doing this requires substantial practice in "chunking" and internalizing the effects of the various rules in order to connect them. Nobody can keep 15 rules in active short term memory at the same time.
(**) E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life has exactly 3 rules. However, it would be very hard to decipher what those rules were by looking at a picture of a bunch of simulations. Conversely, it would be very hard to see what could be simulated without trying to do the actual simulation. This is why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" in both directions. This is also why the best approach from WL6->7 is iterative trying, learning, doing, rereading, repeat.

I do understand that there are different educational philosophies in place here and that some prefer "knowing" in order to do and others prefer "knowing-about" in order to dialogue. I developed in the former paradigm but have also experienced the latter from both sides of the pulpit. They are quite different and they have quite different educational aims as well. I'm trying to respect both desires but I'm definitely partial to the former and I don't enjoy being dragged into the latter.

guitarplayer
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by guitarplayer »

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:30 pm
I do understand that there are different educational philosophies in place here and that some prefer "knowing" in order to do and others prefer "knowing-about" in order to dialogue. I developed in the former paradigm but have also experienced the latter from both sides of the pulpit. They are quite different and they have quite different educational aims as well. I'm trying to respect both desires but I'm definitely partial to the former.
Thanks for spelling it out I've been thinking about it recently. This is maybe way of this topic but one ethos that I try to keep up with is to strike a balance between 3Hs, them being head, heart and hands. In this framework what you wrote about was the difference between hands and head. The heart could be seen as the motivational aspect, why bother to begin with and to carry on going.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Alphaville »

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:30 pm
Before [...] get carried away with all the excitement, it should be noted that the illustrations do m

What this does not show:
  • The flows only track one resource at a time and that resource changes from link to link. Tracking multiple resources would turn it into a royal mess of lines ... the graphic equivalent of spaghetti code. (This is why I've never bothered to explicitly draw my personal WoG. Heuristically it's a lot easier to experientially internalize a bunch of rules(*)(**))
    […]


    Anyway ... it is a lot better than the "TL;DR-have opinion anyway" guessing games that seemed to dominate the thread earlier on and hopefully it'll move the thread away from that, yet hopefully not in the wrong direction(!!)

yes, it's obvious that this is a simplification, but the shape is tons more useful than a chart/table which graphically does not reflect the "spiderweb" which is a useful pointer/metaphor but it's also an insufficient model when taken literally.

also

https://www.theguardian.com/culture-pro ... icism-arts

criticism is a contribution.

my contribution is not "tldr", my contribution is that some aspects of this modeling/theorization (purposefully?) obscure what should be clear concepts because they are just a recombination of things we already know/ have concepts for.

the royal mess of lines can be grasped intuitively even if it's impossible to graph.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by IlliniDave »

I think most of us grasp the fact that a comprehensive system is both more complex and complicated than a 2-D illustration. Humans do a huge amount of learning visually and sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by jacob »

Alphaville wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:57 pm
my criticism is not "tldr", my criticism is some aspects of this theorization (purposefully?) obscure what should be clear concepts because they are just a recombination of things we already know.
Or, no offense although I suppose it's hard not to, but maybe you don't know as much as you think you know? ...

Some of your posts such as asking questions that have been answered 3-4 times before or asking about "who said what in some other thread" really give me a strong impression of TL;DR. It might be fun asking questions but it is not fun answering the same one over and over lest it leave a third-person impression that nobody knows the answer.

Likewise, suggesting earlier today that a "proper research poster" should feature a spiderweb or a network makes me think you've neither read the book, which features such networks, nor the blog posts that featured such, nor watched the Stoa slide presentation or listened to any of the podcasts that talk about networks, nodes, and connections. If you actually did know this and was presenting a leading question to engage in some kind of social dialectic, know that I find this [dialectic] approach rather ineffectual/annoying and will try to ignore such bait. That is to say according to my theory of your mind, you're basically trying to put the pieces together exclusively from the table along with random readings of "the most recent forum posts"; not playing 4D chess.

In short, if this was so clear to everybody all along why oh why did we just spend a combined 10 pages going over this again and again?

It [me being annoyed with that] could very well come down to fundamental pedagogical or educational differences. Mine is definitely different from yours. In the society (also open) I grew up under, education was free but merit-based. Since education was free but limited based on merit, there was also far less student-entitlement or consumer-attitudes and so in combination with being expected to "do the homework" the locus-of-control was almost exclusively within the student. There was a lot of emphasis on students being able to do the work instead of just being able to know^H^H^H^Hbullshit-about it at an oral exam. Anyhow, the teacher was there to facilitate problem-solving and unstick people when they got stuck in a problem set. Since students didn't pay tuition, they paid with their effort. No effort and they would eventually fail out to make room for someone who did. Showing up unprepared basically meant spending class quietly studying what one should have studied already; not a license to ask the teacher if they could please explain the homework in more detail.

It is interesting to compare the Russian professor vs Danish students interaction. The Russian professor was exactly like you described. The Danish students were different though. The grad students, knowing more, did well. The undergraduates hoping for an easy pass quickly dropped the class. It was just embarrassing showing up for class asking "remedial" questions ("yeah, dude we covered that in the first week, which you'd know if you weren't at home at the time curing your hangover").

Those of us [undergraduates] who stayed worked the hardest we ever had and learned a ton. It was definitely one of my more memorable classes. That's not to say that some teachers aren't good, but the general attitude was that if some of the other students seem to understand just fine when I struggle, the problem is with me and not the material.

Since the majority do seem to understand the table (and the book) just fine, my interpretation is that my communication is just fine for the intended target. Those who want the pop-light version or just want something to talk about are not the target. And since nobody is paying tuition, I'm absolutely happy to punt on those who think the writing is too abstract or contains too much jargon. I communicate the way I do because it makes it possible to communicate as much information as possible in as few words as possible to those who have done enough previous work to understand it. Not to provide edutainment for the masses. Basically, you get what you pay for. In return, I deliver what I feel like.

I'd rather a few people understand more than have more people understand less by dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator and losing the potential of the former. I'm not going to bother with the latter until someone pays me and nobody is willing to do that. So maybe quit asking?

Anyhoo ... I understand that this entire forum is not just Danish-style grad school. However, it was my impression that this thread was intended to explore a very specific thing whereas it basically got hi-jacked by the socializer party-group. Maybe it's time to fork?

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by theanimal »

It should also be noted once again that the Wheaton level chart is not the first line of thought in this area. There ARE diagrams in the book, the whole web of goal framework. It's not really new and the reason no answers are being provided and people are getting frustrated is perhaps because what is being asked has been shown elsewhere in other places like the book itself.

BookLoverL
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: England

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by BookLoverL »

I wasn't intending to send the discussion to focus on social capital when I brought it up, I was just trying to understand 6 and 7 through the example of my own life and it's been a prominent theme for me lately, FWIW.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Alphaville »

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:07 pm
Or, no offense although I suppose it's hard not to, but maybe you don't know as much as you think you know? ...
yup, i don't know a lot of things. i don't know most things actually. it's easy to know simple things, but complex things are difficult and uncertain, so i'm always asking questions: to learn, to confirm, to try again, to reframe, etc. i always start from doubt.

no offense taken, i don't need or pretend to know all. where would be the offense in that? i'm not threatened by the realization of my enormous ignorance. only from that one can begin to (try to) learn.
jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:07 pm
That is to say according to my theory of your mind, you're basically trying to put the pieces together exclusively from the table along with random readings of "the most recent forum posts"; not playing 4D chess.
yeah i don't play 4d chess, don't know what it is, or wouldn't even try.

but i was not trying to put "all the pieces together" from the table. i was dealing with the table, which was derived from a different theory about something else for a different purpose.

so i think the structure and framing of the table misleads, but i think your spiderweb is the right metaphor. so i am trying to suggest that building on that would be a better model than adopting someone else's chart created for a different purpose.

eg a chart that showed evolving networks. i am not claiming to "know" this btw. it's an idea i'm putting out there and maybe the hive mind can proceed on it, or not.

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:07 pm
In short, if this was so clear to everybody all along why oh why did we just spend a combined 10 pages going over this again and again?
i don' t think it's so clear to everyone, but if you believe it is, then you know best, please pay no mind to what i'm saying.
jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:07 pm
not a license to ask the teacher if they could please explain the homework in more detail.
i didn't ask for repeat explanation of "homework," i suggested that a certain explanation (the chart) was a bad one.

no offense here either but if something is generating unwanted effects maybe consider it's not always the other party's fault.

then again, i'm not here for "free tuition", and i don't come here to receive "instruction from above." i bought and read your book, but dont come here for more of the same.

here in the forum i try to contribute to a discussion with a collective. sometimes things pan out, other times they don't. that's the nature of group discussions. but i'm not here as a taker. i think i give back, and i pay my rent. maybe not to you, but to others.

nevertheless if i'm supposed to sit here receiving wisdom from above, ok, good to know, i shall reframe my perspective when it comes to your posts.
jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:07 pm
Anyhoo ... I understand that this entire forum is not just Danish-style grad school. However, it was my impression that this thread was intended to explore a very specific thing whereas it basically got hi-jacked by the socializer party-group. Maybe it's time to fork?
ok, im not sure if this is you kicking me out or what, so i'm asking for clarification because, as stated above, i don't know everything, and the world is often a confusing place, and i'm not a mind reader, so i always begin from doubt, and ask for confirmation. fork what?

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by AxelHeyst »

Alphaville wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:38 pm
fork what?
I'll take a stab. This thread is explicitly about discussing ways to get from WL6 to WL7.

You made several comments to the effect of "I think this is bad theory" (pretty sure that's a direct quote, or close) - aka criticizing the table itself.

Which is fine, but it's not on topic to this thread. As I suggested before, start a different thread for that (or continue posting in the Wheaton table thread, which is also an appropriate place, and has some answers to some of the questions you came to this thread with). I wasn't being sarcastic. This thread is for people who think the table is useful to some degree, and are trying to work with it, as well as the rest of the material (the book, the Wheaton Table thread, the yields and flows thread, etc).

You do have valuable insights and criticisms of the various things discussed here. You *do* contribute value to the forum. But your sense of when and where it's appropriate sucks. It feels like you post literally whatever pops into your head, with no "is this the right place for this?" filter.

I sometimes feels like a bunch of nerds standing around discussing chessic philosophy, and every once in a while you pop in and go "chess is stupid! go is way better", which may or may not be true, but it's not an appropriate comment.

You also commonly bait jacob by subtly implying he thinks that we should just accept what he says as gospel ("I was told habemus papum") which makes me at least think that you are toeing a line with trollish behavior. It's very distracting.
Last edited by AxelHeyst on Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by AxelHeyst »

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:30 pm
This makes me think of the quote "plans are useless, but planning is essential". Except here we might say "diagrams are useless, but diagramming is potentially useful if you're the sort of person who does well with visual sketching every now and again."

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Alphaville »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:54 pm
I sometimes feels like a bunch of nerds standing around discussing chessic philosophy, and every once in a while you pop in and go "chess is stupid! go is way better", which may or may not be true, but it's not an appropriate comment.
ah, ok, i hear that. but im not against chess philosophy, i'm just against this particular one though. and yes, i'm against excess platonizing. e.g. trying to describe hypercomplex systems in apparently deterministic terms.

i undestand that simplification is difficult, which is why i'm trying to say that in the process of simplification room must be made for the inevitable ambiguity of complex systems.

e.g instead of listing money as first sole resource (i understand it was a necessity, my criticism doesnt imply that @jacob is annidiot, a bad student, etc) it can be said "one resource, two resources, three resources," which is more general and easier to fit but also more accurate. resource types can be listed at the outset to provide context.

i understand some people prefer to deal with finished products, and @jacob suggested that those who disagree should make their own table, but the criticism is the contribution towards the new table. hence the guardian link i posted. criticism is contribution.

also, i think that quadalupe's graphs are superuseful, and it's obvious that they are incomplete, but i think they're better a philosophy, or a beginning to a philosophy, than the table. i felt they were too swiftly dismissed when they could be reworked instead.

examples could be constructed for each desired level (which don't need to be 10, they can be as many as there actually are in this system), with the added commentary of other aspects to consider when looking at the graph.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:54 pm
Which is fine, but it's not on topic to this thread. As I suggested before, start a different thread for that. I wasn't being sarcastic. This thread is for people who think the table is useful to some degree, and are trying to work with it, as well as the rest of the material (the book, the Wheaton Table thread, the yields and flows thread, etc).
well, it's hard if one disagrees with the premise. i asked @7w5 what her chess problem was but turns out it wasn't a problem. then i asked the thread to analyze the problem in chess philosophy terms but nobody replied.

it would be nice to see models at work though.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:54 pm
You also commonly bait jacob by subtly implying he thinks that we should just accept what he says as gospel ("I was told habemus papum") which makes me at least think that you are toeing a line with trollish behavior. It's very distracting.
wait, i only did that once, not "commonly." but yes, mea culpa. anyway i wasn't trying to troll, i was indicating why i gave up on that particular thread.

generally speaking i see more wisdom emerging from the collective exchange than from a single uncontested source. that includes criticism, and criticism and criticism, and so forth. so i appreciate your feedback on what you see me doing, and the contribution of your criticism is valued.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by AxelHeyst »

Alphaville wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:23 pm
wait, i only did that once, not "commonly." but yes, mea culpa. anyway i wasn't trying to troll, i was indicating why i gave up on that particular thread.
You just did it again in your last post:
Alpha wrote:nevertheless if i'm supposed to sit here receiving wisdom from above, ok, good to know, i shall reframe my perspective when it comes to your posts.
I believe that you aren't trying to troll. I'm trying to point out that some of your comments come off as rather thoughtless and a smidge toxic. Which is confusing, because then you'll go on and put a lot of thought into some other point. It's very confusing! I'd almost prefer you were 100% troll, because then I'd know to just not read any of your posts. But you have insightful stuff in there, so I typically read them.
Alphaville wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:23 pm
generally speaking i see more wisdom emerging from the collective exchange than from a single uncontested source. that includes criticism, and criticism and criticism, and so forth. so inappreciate your feedback on what you see me doing.

Agreed. You aren't the only one criticizing theory around here. And now I'm delivering criticism to you. :) And just to clarify the feedback I'm giving: criticism is super valuable and important. Sometimes it feels like you don't put in the effort to listen to the response to your criticism, e.g. when you came to this thread and asked Jacob what the point of the table/ERE is, when he'd just quoted BookLoverL twice in the last thread. If you look back in this thread to the place where you quoted Jacob saying "if one takes the goal as renaissance man..." and asked "Ah, is that the goal?" I had a "is this guy serious? Jacob JUST spoke to this in the last thread" reaction. It make me think you were baiting him - it honestly looked like you were trying to bait him into contradicting himself. To me, that feels a little toxic.

No one is telling you to take things without question. We are asking you to pay attention to the responses and incorporate them into your next iteration of criticism, because you aren't demonstrating that you are.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Alphaville »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:37 pm
You just did it again in your last post:


I believe that you aren't trying to troll. I'm trying to point out that some of your comments come off as rather thoughtless and a smidge toxic. Which is confusing, because then you'll go on and put a lot of thought into some other point. It's very confusing! I'd almost prefer you were 100% troll, because then I'd know to just not read any of your posts. But you have insightful stuff in there, so I typically read them.
haha, no, i honestly see @jacob framing things like he's he master and the good students must come to him. seems a little arrogant. but that's what i honestly see him doing a little bit? it's not uncommon to see smart people doing that. e.g., my phd advisor terrified everyone but me. but we got along because there was a good back and forth--unlike the terrified ones, i could respond,

so i was annoyed once when @jacob referred to home depot employees as "drones" (was a question about achieving 18% gray in his walll.) there are other ways he puts down people. c'mon... he does. i accept that, nobody is perfect, i have my own shortcomings, but if i see that attitude i am turned off and react. so yes i see that sometimes. i can't lie. i see that. it's not a dealbreaker for me, but also i can't just say nothing, if that makes sense?

now he might not intend to come across like that, but i hear him that way, if that makes sense.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:37 pm
Agreed. You aren't the only one criticizing theory around here. And now I'm delivering criticism to you. :) And just to clarify the feedback I'm giving: criticism is super valuable and important. Sometimes it feels like you don't put in the effort to listen to the response to your criticism, e.g. when you came to this thread and asked Jacob what the point of the table/ERE is, when he'd just quoted BookLoverL twice in the last thread. If you look back in this thread to the place where you quoted Jacob saying "if one takes the goal as renaissance man..." and asked "Ah, is that the goal?" I had a "is this guy serious? Jacob JUST spoke to this in the last thread" reaction. It make me think you were baiting him - it honestly looked like you were trying to bait him into contradicting himself. To me, that feels a little toxic.
nah, i have adhd, but i'm not here with malice. i am trying to process ideas and contribute to the collective processing. even when it is in opposition, it is a contribution. ie im not trying to sabotage the chess philosophy process when i try to warn about what i see as a wrong model in development.

not everyone is an intj and doesnt process intj-like. i think incorporating neurodiversity helps detect blind spots.
AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:37 pm
No one is telling you to take things without question. We are asking you to pay attention to the responses and incorporate them into your next iteration of criticism, because you aren't demonstrating that you are.
well, trust me i'm trying. i may be trying in a different way, or i may be listening to different parts than you, or i might hear other frequencies, but i am paying attention in my own way.

also i am terrible at reading tone on the internet and prefer to be told things directly rather than implied. so thanks for the clarity. seriously, no sarcasm here, i understand what you're saying--i see the communication gap you're pointing at and will put my mind to ensure we're clear.

but please note that my trying to make sure we are communicating correctly often comes in the form of-- questions.

BookLoverL
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: England

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by BookLoverL »

I think what people are getting at is that criticism of the model doesn't belong in "people who have already seen the model is imperfect and decided to use the model anyway" thread, but in a different thread such as the thread about the model or a new separate one.

I just had a thought of what it reminds me of - in a fan discord server I'm in for a fiction series, there was recently an issue where every time someone would say "so I was thinking about (particular fan theory involving a main character)", people who didn't like the theory would immediately jump in with "I don't like that theory about that character", effectively shutting down the discussion of the people who do like that theory and want to discuss it. The people who don't like the theory are valid in not liking it, and they are valid in discussing how they don't like it, BUT it was decided in that server that it was rude to jump in and say it when the people who do like it want to talk about the good parts. So the idea there is not to censor discussion, but to take criticism discussions to separate threads than people who are trying to do something else other than criticism.

So basically, you are welcome to start a thread about "Criticism of ERE Wheaton Levels" or discuss that in the original thread, but this thread is starting from the assumption that levels 5, 6, and 7 are reasonable models for something that happens in people's thought processes. Not necessarily everyone's thought processes, but enough people that members of the forum might find them useful to examine.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Alphaville »

BookLoverL wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:06 pm
I think what people are getting at is that criticism of the model doesn't belong in "people who have already seen the model is imperfect and decided to use the model anyway" thread, but in a different thread such as the thread about the model or a new separate one.

I just had a thought of what it reminds me of - in a fan discord server I'm in for a fiction series, there was recently an issue where every time someone would say "so I was thinking about (particular fan theory involving a main character)", people who didn't like the theory would immediately jump in with "I don't like that theory about that character", effectively shutting down the discussion of the people who do like that theory and want to discuss it. The people who don't like the theory are valid in not liking it, and they are valid in discussing how they don't like it, BUT it was decided in that server that it was rude to jump in and say it when the people who do like it want to talk about the good parts. So the idea there is not to censor discussion, but to take criticism discussions to separate threads than people who are trying to do something else other than criticism.

So basically, you are welcome to start a thread about "Criticism of ERE Wheaton Levels" or discuss that in the original thread, but this thread is starting from the assumption that levels 5, 6, and 7 are reasonable models for something that happens in people's thought processes. Not necessarily everyone's thought processes, but enough people that members of the forum might find them useful to examine.
ok, i hear ya, i'll see about trying to reintroduce the subject in the original thread, and if i get pelted with rocks then i get pelted with rocks, ha ha, such is life.

i appreciate the clarity, and thanks again.

🖖

BookLoverL
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: England

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by BookLoverL »

I went back to the WL5, WL6, WL7 descriptions jacob gave on a previous page of this thread and am attempting to come up with some examples for each to try and understand them better, assuming money as the initial primary yield. I'm just coming up with these examples now so I don't know if they're correct.

Social:
WL5 - spending money on socialising seen as a waste in all circumstances. May start drifting away from social circles due to over-optimisation for money.
WL6 - has realised socialising can build "social capital". Is now willing to budget more time and more money than WL5 on socialising in the hope that the relationships will yield future benefits, both tangible (free furniture, food at dinner parties) and intangible (emotional support, good discussion, knowledge of work opportunities). The socialising is still a separate activity and is not being aligned with any other yields.
WL7 - social capital is one of multiple easily accessible yields. Socialising is done in conjunction with things that will bring other benefits (e.g. socialising while learning how to build a permaculture garden). Socialising with people who encourage undesired behaviour in the WL7 will be removed to get rid of the heterotelic effect. Socialising opportunities regularly bring in flows that are useful for the other yields and also provide a place to send the excess yields (e.g. giving away fruits of one's permaculture garden to friends as a gift).

Skills:
WL5 - skills only developed where they seem directly relevant to saving money, such as DIY to avoid hiring construction workers. Does not bother selling said skills unless they are making a proper go of that as a secondary career.
WL6 - skills are valuable in their own right. Understood that even a supposedly "useless" skill can bring in benefits if at a sufficiently advanced level. Spends time doing fun skills for their own sake, in a way that will cause technical improvement at the skill. Develops a yield from skills of being able to acquire (entertainment, house improvements, learned knowledge, baked goods, homegrown veg, etc.) without paying for them or having a friend that can do them. Is able to use those acquired skills to provide those things for others at a satisfying level and may make money from some, without making them into a career.
WL7 - skills are part of the whole system. Yield from skills is put back into social capital as favours/gifts, can also earn money easily from multiple skills, also skills reduce required spending on multiple areas. Social capital flows into the skills through ability to acquire mentors and opportunities to practise skills for others. Excess money flows into developing skills where necessary.

Environment:
WL5- is only doing things that improve the local environment by coincidence if they also save money, or are related to a pre-existing passion.
WL6- sees the value in the local environment being maintained sustainably and improved. May practise permaculture or other things in order to try and reduce pollution and improve wildlife diversity and soil health in local area and own back yard. May spend time or money doing this if seen as necessary. May be able to use another sort of capital to source seeds and mulch and suchlike but doesn't have a reliable system for doing this
WL7- environment is one part of the system. Social and skills capital flow into improving the environment of both any personal back yard and the broader local area, including through participation in environment-focused social networks and groups. Yield from permaculture garden greatly reduces grocery budget and/or can be shared with friends. Yield from improving local spaces creates better atmosphere in city for walking/cycling through (improving health), nicer and prettier public spaces for meeting up with friends (improving social capital), raises environmental consciousness in other people, and could provide money if asked to work on somebody else's space.

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Scott 2 »

I gave away my paper book. Unfortunately the audiobook pdf doesn't include the web of goals diagram. From what I remember, it's very simplified.

This thread highlights the need for an elegant visual representation of someone's web. The vast majority of people deal in pictures, not words. It's a fair suggestion from Alphaville. I've consumed just about everything ERE related. I've got a great memory. I don't recall ever seeing a full example.

Quadalupe and AxelHeyst have both made rough attempts. It seems like an area where the community could iterate upon and improve the approach. There's no question a standard visual language would facilitate communication. People will plug their stuff in because it's fun.


Words I often heard in my career (I love walls of text) - "An example would be nice."

Quadalupe
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:56 am
Location: the Netherlands

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Quadalupe »

@BookLoverL: nice, I dig those examples. I especially recognize me-of-a-few-years-ago in de WL5 social description. A penny saved is a penny earned, and with assumed 5% return, it's even multiple pennies through a lifetime! So why go have one drink with friends ever instead of always insisting to catch a drink at home!

@Scott2: yes, this is something I think might be nice. Plop some examples pictures on the wiki, also state their shortcomings and give people a visual starting point to improve upon.

@meta discussion on how to discuss: there are at least two ways, Socratic and Daniel Dennett style.
  • Socratic: keep asking "why", "what would happen if X", "Is that really true?". The subject is forced to think on their previous answers and upon critical self reflection, additional insight is attained.
  • Daniel Dennet style. I think a quote from this site illustrates it best:
    Like their classical predecessors, these rules directly tie careful, generous listening to sound argumentation. We cannot say we have understood an argument unless we’ve actually heard its nuances, can summarize it for others, and can grant its merits and concede it strengths. Only then, writes Dennett, are we equipped to compose a “successful critical commentary” of another’s position. Dennett outlines the process in four steps:
    1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
    2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
    3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
    4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
      Here we have a strategy that pays dividends, if undertaken in the right spirit. By showing that we understand an opponent’s positions “as well as they do,” writes Dennett, and that we can participate in a shared ethos by finding points of agreement, we have earned the respect of a “receptive audience.” Alienating people will end an argument before it even begins, when they turn their backs and walk away rather than subject themselves to obtuseness and abuse.
IMO socratic style works best in real life, from teacher to student. On a forum, there are several downsides for applying this model in a student to teacher way:
  • The onus for all the work is put upon the teacher. The student can always ask more, quick to type, 'why' questions. The teacher has to spend a lot of time crafting increasingly verbose answers.
  • Why questions make it difficult for the teacher to gauge mastery/understanding of the material by the student. Do they misunderstand the core concept? Do they want a more thorough explanation of a technical detail?
  • Forum posts are asynchronous and lack nuance, so misunderstandings takes a while to clear up.
Dennett style on the other hand works very well on forums, and is useful for student2master, student2student and master2student communication. Here's why:
  • A student has demonstrately grappled/struggled/studied with the material the teacher, or another student provided. This creates goodwill.
  • It is clear(er) what aspects a student (mis)understood of the previous provided material.
  • The teacher might get new insights themselves via the constructive critiques the student gave.
I think doing mostly Dennett style discussions on this forum might work best. An exception might be in journals, where socratic questioning by journal visitors might help a journaller get a better insight in their actual position/question/problem.

Quadalupe
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:56 am
Location: the Netherlands

Re: Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

Post by Quadalupe »

jacob wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:30 pm
What this does show:
  • It conveys the increasing degree of resilience. You can snip several flows (lines) in WL7 w/o rendering it unfunctional. WL5 is more fragile.
  • There's a difference in kind between the stages and it's clear what it is. This makes the validity of levels easier to understand and hopefully unfreezes the "Well, according to the table I'm a level 4 on my spending and a level 6 on my vacation but I do 9 in my day job as a journalist so what am I really?"-incredulity loop.
What this does not show:
  • The flows only track one resource at a time and that resource changes from link to link. Tracking multiple resources would turn it into a royal mess of lines ... the graphic equivalent of spaghetti code. (This is why I've never bothered to explicitly draw my personal WoG. Heuristically it's a lot easier to experientially internalize a bunch of rules(*)(**))
  • There's mostly only one (sometimes two) side-effects. This means that tensegrity is ignored. In reality you want more, including accounting for negative ones.
  • Telicity is not distinguished. You can not see whether one part of the system is hurting or helping another part of how "healthy" the "whole of the system" is. The diagram does not show goals. This is not a diagram of a WoG.
  • It mainly shows the "food+garden"-subsystems with one reference to "fitness" in WL7.
This is a great example of what I mean by Dennett style. Jacob posted some explanations on WL5/6/7, I tried to make it clear for myself by making some diagrams. Jacob then gave some pointers to what the graphs did show, and what they still lacked. This gives me valuable feedback on where my thinking, or at least my graphs, are still lacking. This'll help me iterate further and grok it more.

I'm still chewing on the actual feedback, I'll check in later when I have some coherent thoughts!

Post Reply