A Jacob Mention

[ffj]

@Ego

I was one of those already doing it before I ever came across Jacob or his writings. His blog was great, it still is and I occasionally re-read some of that material. It was a wonderful motivator in that he clearly explained his actions and why they worked, and even though I was doing many of the same actions before his suggestions, he succinctly made it obvious why it was beneficial. I would encourage anyone to read those blog posts if they haven't and it's a pity he discontinued that to have discussions which involve sentences such as this:

"Though, the scarcity of attention is also hand in hand with incompleteness or partial wholes and can become but just a faint signal through the encapsulation of incompleteness within the concept of a part/whole or holon which can locally/contextually complete or short-circuit an indeterminate chain."

My apologies to daylen*, but what value is communicating like this where 99 percent of people won't understand and the remaining 1 percent will find it off-putting to have to work so hard to understand when there are clear alternatives for communicating? Where is the value here? Where is the value in making this forum so esoteric that most people will ignore it or not have the ability to either understand the material or find a way to connect the dots?

Also, thought without action doesn't really mean that much. I don't much see the point of endless discussions with no discernible outcome. I'll read threads that go into minutia with no conclusion as to what is best or works. A lot of it appears to be mental masturbation as far I can tell. Again, why is someone going to read this kind of material?

And here is something to think about also:

One of the reasons I don't like the whole Wheaten level concept is that it is centered, or at least named after a polarizing figure. The guy sets off my radar as to what I don't like about humans. But more importantly, the table has tremendous capacity to ostracize others as well as form cliques or I dare-say groupies. Or to diminish an argument that has merit because a level 3 couldn't possibly understand what a level 5 is trying to convey. Blah. They would be two levels apart for goodness sake. Being a bit dramatic here but we all know how humans work and even if everyone behaves perceptions will come into play, and perceptions are reality whether true or not.


* I think you are great, just using this exchange as an example due to its recency.

[daylen]

For me personally, I get bored if communication doesn't seem novel. I communicate here in the simplest way I know how while being confident in my ability to engage with anyone who interacts with me (in a meaningful way for both of us hopefully). Call it personality or a character flaw if you want but it reduces the energy required for me to feel like I am contributing.

[daylen]

That is most of the time. If someone engages me, I slide towards being one with us in an attempt to find our flow. In a way, speaking esoterically is a filter for avoiding conversations that do not go very deep.

[daylen]

This is part of the pull strategy.. to lure others into a web of their own making.. thus trapping them into the "perfect" description.. or so far as the pulltopia goes.

Balanced with pushing, this all becomes far more subtle.

[daylen]

Oh, and if you ask me to rephrase, I will rephrase with pleasure.

[7Wannabe5]

Endless abstraction without action may be regarded as useless mental masturbation, but for those of us who err on the side of exploration/abstraction, those who are primarily doers can come off as a rough mix of dangerous or dull.

Daylen reminds me of my own INTP son, and I can always see clear to where he is going with his models even though I frequently lack the brain power to follow. Jacob’s superior brain works differently than mine, so I have to “pull” his stuff apart in order to grok it. So, for instance, I fret a bit about the inclusion of Kegan in Jacob’s strategy, because I have not had the time to “pull” that line of thought apart enough, but I don’t fret at all about Jacob’s inclusion of the hard (truly not debatable) science of man made global warming in Jacob’s strategy.

Alphaville was a valuable contributor to this forum, to the extent that this forum is supposed to function like a University for Renaissance Development, because overall this forum errs on the side of over representing the North Side of Campus where the engineering and business school and physical fitness buildings exist. OTOH, he seemingly exhibited a stubborn resolve* against doing the reading for this forum which is being held in hall bordering the main campus. There is good modernism and there is good post-modernism, and there are also aspects of both lines of thought that become dangerous when applied by just-do-it dullards.

Anyways, from the point of view of somebody whose only mildly desired power position would be Librarian General I think a lot of difficulties could be resolved if posters would be more straightforward in noting references or offering bibliographies.

*Also what Ken Wilber would describe as being “heapistic” vs “holistic” by insisting on strict uniqueness of all things with little tolerance for any generalization. Of course, the obvious counter-argument would be well known evils of reductionism, as in “When you label me, you negate me.”

Actually, weak bad form post-modernism is kind of like animal-living-in-the-muscular-moment just-do-it-ism because both inhibit complex model formation, although through very different mechanisms.

ETA: IOW, I don’t think anybody can knowledgeably comment upon or offer criticism of Jacob’s latest revision of the ERE Wheaton Table without reading Kegan, because Kegan’s take on cognitive/moral development through adulthood is woven into the hierarchy/holon. Since I read Kegan prior to Jacob’s release of the revised ERE Wheaton table, this was immediately apparent to me. Since I wasn’t entirely convinced by Kegan, I also have reservations about integration of Kegan into ERE Wheaton Table, but ... not my baby, and my thoughts are not well developed enough to offer argument. I could be convinced, but I’m not.

ETA: Okay, I will offer weak example of why Kegan might be not best approach. According to my understanding of modern neuroscience, we initially form our understanding of intent of others with our reptilian brain towards survival, then we assign emotional content to our perception of intent with mammalian brain, then we rationalize what we did about it with our human brain. So, for instance, most efficient solution to complex problems like global climate change might be drugging majority of population with happy, relaxing chemicals until they are content to live very materially modest lifestyle.

[jacob]

My apologies to daylen*, but what value is communicating like this where 99 percent of people won't understand and the remaining 1 percent will find it off-putting to have to work so hard to understand when there are clear alternatives for communicating? Where is the value here? Where is the value in making this forum so esoteric that most people will ignore it or not have the ability to either understand the material or find a way to connect the dots?

complexity = length * difficulty

For a given level of complexity, description can be described in simpler (or clearer) words by increasing the length of the description. (The opposite holds as well.) However, when people ask for "simple explanations" they typically also want those explanations to be short. This can not be done without sacrificing complexity (simplifying things). The requested length (such as what may fit in a table entry) and difficulty thus puts an upper limit on the complexity that can be communicated.

This should be obvious, but we've had loooong discussions about the (im)possibility of violating this trade-off. Usually people who insist it can be done offer complaints and questions but no solutions. Because there are no solutions that wouldn't sacrifice complexity and become vague, incomplete, misleading, or even wrong.

By upping the difficulty, it's possible to say more with less words. It is therefore possible to talk about greater levels of complexity. Some people are interested in that and some are not. That's part of what the whole WL table covers. Some want to know everything that can be known and others prefer a brochure that can be read in an afternoon. (And of course some want to know everything but would prefer it in the form of a brochure or exchanging a few IMs.)

From the perspective of the mainstream, ERE already is quite esoteric and incomprehensible. The value in talking about systems theory and so on is that it allows us (here) to command and control that level of complexity and so live better lives. However, being the 1% who understand these concepts we can have conversations rather than read book length explanations before we even begin to understand. Whereas the mainstream can only have conversations about "which brokerage is best?" or "how to save on milk"---they in turn need a book or at least a chapter to understand what DCA is, whereas we just need the acronym.

There's probably not much value in communicating on THIS forum that so esoteric that 99% here don't understand it; except to demonstrate that here's someone who wants and has moved further in terms of complexity and who is capable and interested in having conversations at that level. Of course, aside from being more expedient for complexity, jargon also excludes "comments from the peanut gallery" which is sometimes necessary so as not to sacrifice progress for inclusivity.

What I suspect is the problem is that the ERE forum is beginning to span a bit too wide for cohesiveness. The way I see it is that there are two (all too clear) factions, namely some who want to explore as deep as possible and some who are fine just where they are. Expanding and highlighting the table over the past half year made this painfully obvious. There's thus a conflict of desires/goals/values (insofar we're not ignoring each other) that doesn't always go seen. It's the standard "paradox" that those who are two+ levels behind are "assholes" and those who are two+ levels ahead are "insane" no matter what the level. This wasn't a problem insofar the forum conversations historically spanned about WL4-7 ... but when the conversations begin to span WL3-9 it is. The likely solution would be some kind of spin-off, but I'm not sure what form that would/will/can ultimately take.

[Seppia]

This wasn't a problem insofar the forum conversations historically spanned about WL4-7 ... but when the conversations begin to span WL3-9 it is. The likely solution would be some kind of spin-off, but I'm not sure what form that would/will/can ultimately take.

The other solution is to "force" the forum within a similar bandwidth as before, only more in tune to where you are now.
So assuming your goal is to train the trainers (this is what I think you're trying to achieve as a side effect?)
when you were a 7 the forum ranged from 4-7
Now that you've advanced to 9 the forum will have to move to 6-9

those who were happy at 4 will be left behind
Most of the 5 will too
a few of the 5 who care about this forum will see this as a needed push to finally move up a level*
the 6-up will find themselves in a better space and will be more willing to contribute, ultimately making this a "better" place (meaning where the discourse is more in tune with the people who care about it)

Someone said above that the forum form is dead as a mainstream communication platform .
I see this as a huge plus

*this is where I see myself being

[IlliniDave]

"Though, the scarcity of attention is also hand in hand with incompleteness or partial wholes and can become but just a faint signal through the encapsulation of incompleteness within the concept of a part/whole or holon which can locally/contextually complete or short-circuit an indeterminate chain."

My apologies to Daylen as well, whom I also regard as a valuable colleague in this realm.

Sentences like these are important to me.

I have done a lot of technical writing during my career, and it's influenced my speaking as well. A number of times through the years I've had colleagues express astonishment at my writing, and also my speaking vocabulary (on the rare occasions I bring it fully to bear). Reading items like your example remind me that I am a mental midget, albeit a well-dressed one maybe.

I am also reminded of the danger to me that living too much in my head presents. That's a very individualized thing, and something for which I have less resilience than many. I think that is why I've experienced a resonance flirting on the edges of Zen philosophy. That may seem counterintuitive, but focusing inward and cleaning house frees me to venture outward. Digging in and pushing the bounds of what my brain can do is stressful and produces anxiety. Especially at my age because I can feel it slipping away. Reading here can be like watching a pickup basketball game in a park while a bunch of NBA All-Stars are playing. You just know you don't belong on that court. Fun to watch and appreciate from afar, though.

One thing I'm learning/relearning in these last few chaotic weeks hurtling towards the fruition of all my plans is that finding the right place (somewhat figuratively speaking) is going to be extremely important to me. There's a lot of places I wanted to go as a person, many I'd planned to, but my discard pile is now growing rapidly. I don't think there will be much for me but a barbell distribution of my blue collar roots (the appropriate image is maybe a run down corner bar with beer-in-fist) and wandering the lonely places where there's not enough money to be made for the hoards to notice.

Funny thing is, I'll always wonder how ere turned out. I say that with no intention to disengage from the forums in the foreseeable future. I just don't have the vigor and likely the ability to keep up. And to borrow/riff on a melancholy song*, with my finite and shrinking reservoir of life, "... there are things that lie in my path, [things] I just have to do."

As far as a contribution to the discussion, I'd encourage anyone up for the challenge to take your ideas as far as you can in whatever way you need to do it. My corollary to a popular Zen saying: when the teacher is ready, the student will come. Meanwhile hopefully I'll be sitting in a kayak sucking blood from the pad of my thumb after finally landing that 30" walleye I've been chasing since 1976, or some other such navel gazing nonsense. And I'll post pictures if you will.

*If memory serves, I think the song is "Ghost Town" by First Aid Kit.

[ffj]

@daylen

I once took a World Religions class back when I attended college and I still remember our professor due to his speaking and teaching style.

As he taught, his phraseology and use of exotic words would overwhelm everyone in the class within 5 minutes of starting his lecture. He would notoriously after every point look at the class and ask: " Are there any questions or comments?" This was always met with stunned silence throughout the entire semester. That should have been a clue to him that the simpletons weren't understanding enough to even ask a question, much less comment!

I passed the class by reading multiple books on the subjects he was teaching which was a lot of extra work. I also remember becoming irritated when a book I was reading clearly explained what he clearly could not and I never understood the harm in simplifying matters, especially this professors refusal to use common language to describe these religions. It wouldn't have made his points less true if everyone understood what the hell he was saying! But I get the feeling he reveled in using a literal language nobody understood as it made him happy. The cost was an entire group of lost students. I still wonder how many people actually passed that class.

Maybe that is why I am a bit sensitive (ha) at taking a fairly simple concept (ERE) and making it unnecessarily complicated. One can understand the concepts fairly easily but like all things, the hardness comes from executing the plan.

Oh, the "I will rephrase with pleasure" got a chuckle out of me. Good stuff

@7

I shouldn't have to read Kegan to understand simple concepts. I seriously mean that, and the notion I keep hearing that one has to do their homework before they engage in a conversation here is ridiculous. The end result is that you are self-selecting for a bunch of academics that jerk each other off in a competition to complicate the simplest of notions.

Most people will understand they need some background before entering particular chats. It truly is rare that someone will blatantly ignore this fundamental rule, although their opponents will argue otherwise. Ha. Arguments are good though, because they lay bare peoples positions and others can understand why someone believes what they believe, and the merit thereof.

And I am not advocating for people to be lazy, but have you ever considered how many people are scared to post here? Terrified that their post will be considered dumb or unenlightened? Now they have to contend with a Wheaten chart to see if they measure up. Are we trying to become a relic? This place will be great for the handful of people that top the charts but the audience will be gone from a very small group anyway.

@Jacob

Again, I will reference your blog posts. That is a winning formula for reaching people who are looking for guidance and motivation. They are interesting, informative, and actionable. They are a compilation of a great systems-based approach that works and anybody of normal intelligence can understand the concepts.

Why is that formula abandoned for endless discussions of Wheaten levels? I would rather watch S-class fix his vintage Mercedes a thousand times over one discussion over what a level 7 means. I don't think I am alone in this opinion. I would be very interested in the forums metrics since you have embraced this new direction.

The original explanation of a Wheaten level to describe the difficulty of communicating and connecting between people at different stages of their life has lots of merit, but I think this concept has been expanded way beyond what is necessary or helpful.

[7Wannabe5]

I shouldn't have to read Kegan to understand simple concepts. I seriously mean that, and the notion I keep hearing that one has to do their homework before they engage in a conversation here is ridiculous. The end result is that you are self-selecting for a bunch of academics that jerk each other off in a competition to complicate the simplest of notions.

The concept is not, or should not, be complicated, but it is complex, and I highly recommend that you read Kegan and many other books that Jacob has recommended or mentioned if you want to follow the discussion.

Running book groups used to be part of my job description, and I have belonged to several other forums focused on discussing complex topics, so I have a fairly good overall take on what makes them work/persist. Adding complexity, making it clear that this is the Great Books Group not the Young Adult Novels Group is not a problem, but creating a closed club will eventually kill the social "organism." OOH, if you are the individual responsible for running the book discussion, you can't let people slack off too much on showing up without even having read the book or letting the discussion devolve to nothing but gossip over snacks/wine. OTOH, and this is particularly relevant to anonymous internet setting, you have to allow the participants to yield some sort of social pleasure from participation, especially since you aren't serving snacks, wine, or creating much opportunity for meeting somebody cute. Also, as should be abundantly clear to even the most ardent advocates of Just Do It!/Don't Talk About It! philosophy/practice, we literally can't do stuff together on an internet forum. All we can do is type words back and forth. I would further note, that even though I am totally err on the side of Overthink, I actually offered open invitation for those who prefer to Do to come Do stuff with me at my new permaculture project. If the forum devolved to nothing but typing about how to Do stuff, it would IMO eventually fall pretty flat, because obviously not even remotely best means by which to instruct/experience. The forum format is archaic medium for that compared to YouTube, although obviously much better vetted for those with actual expertise.

[jacob]

Why is that formula abandoned for endless discussions of Wheaten levels? I would rather watch S-class fix his vintage Mercedes a thousand times over one discussion over what a level 7 means. I don't think I am alone in this opinion. I would be very interested in the forums metrics since you have embraced this new direction.

Because HOW- and WHAT-type posts are only possible from a given WL and down. E.g. WLn can write how/what for n, n-1, n-2, ... and all the way down. However, WLn+1, n+2 how/whats are impossible because these modes of thinking are fundamentally unthinkable.

The only way I know of to get to N+ is to consider the WHY of N and try to root out some overall principles for the entire meta-structure. E.g. Hegelian synthetics, Kegan, ... once the why for N+1 is understood, it becomes possible to do those what and how type things at N+1. Before that it will just be N pretending to be N+1 or N+2.

My personal problem in particular is that insofar I was only doing what and how type posts, I would always be alone and teaching backwards talking about what I already know, over and over. You'd see WL6-7 posts forever. Nothing beyond how to design systems. People would learn and move on. New people would come in and the process would start all over again. I would learn nothing lest I go elsewhere.

This is no fun to me even if it would result in more traffic. Indeed, the most traffic in this domain would arise from endlessly talking about how VTSAX is always going up and up and up to those who never tire of hearing slightly different variations of that sermon.

This is stunting to personal growth and if the ego wants to push onwards being stuck like that eventually results in frustration.

Just as those who are relatively too far away will be seen as "assholes" or "crazy", the adjacents will be seen as respectively "inspiring" or "catching up". Fixit posts are inspiring to some for the same reason that "I bought my first stock"-posts are inspiring to others(*). And meta-theory is inspiring to others for the same reason.

Conversely, some would find groups that are drowning in "Which is the best savings account?" or "I just saved $300 on my car insurance!" posts endlessly boring. Again it depends on perspective and where interests currently are.

(*) And these guys (raw beginners) typically have zero interest in clever ways to fix a fuel line. "Why would I learn all that just to save $50 when I'm making $80 and hour/just saved $200 by changing my phone plan".

My problem in relation to ERE is that I think I've moved too far beyond it (I see ERE as a WL7/strategist's framework that mostly reflected who I was and what I knew ~10 years ago) to a degree that I am unintentionally tearing at the seams of a forum that has been formed around that conceptual format. (See Seppia's post). Some are interested in moving along. Others are not. I don't want to break the forum.

[suomalainen]

I haven't been all that active on the forums over the last year and a half or more, so I'm probably missing some context, but I don't understand why people who aren't interested in esoteric discussions of Wheaton levels just ... don't participate in those threads and let the others who are "circle-jerking" just circle jerk. What's the big deal? To use @7w5's analogy, isn't this a collection of various book clubs? Each thread its own? This thread feels to me like an almost culture-war where each "side" is trying to create a monoculture here on the forums. I've never thought of this forum as a monoculture, which I think is why I'm so confused now. Something must have happened in the last 18 months.

ETA: I guess what happened is that @Jacob is perhaps outgrowing his own forum? And finding it lonely at the top with too few peers with whom to engage? And some of the crabs don't want him to climb out of the pot? I dunno. I get the frustration that could engender, but perhaps the only thing the higher WL folks can do is only engage on the topics or with the questions that interest them. As noted previously, the culture of the forum is adjusted one post at a time. If there isn't a critical mass to raise the level of the ERE-related discussions on the forum, then there isn't.

ETA2:

My problem in relation to ERE is that I think I've moved too far beyond it (I see ERE as a WL7/strategist's framework that mostly reflected who I was and what I knew ~10 years ago)

The likely solution would be some kind of spin-off, but I'm not sure what form that would/will/can ultimately take.

The thought occurred to me that ERE (the blog, the book, the forum) is ensconced at a certain Wheaton level. The wiki pegs the book at level 7. So if the WLs are a ladder and ERE book/blog/forum are a fixed rung of said ladder, then I see this as a tension of wanting a fixed thing (to certain people) to be a flexible thing (to certain other people). Those introduced to ERE via the book or blog will naturally see the forum as a mere extension of those. And so the forum will always have a constant flow of new people coming in who are ready to begin to engage with ERE concepts. The constant inflow will, I think, naturally tend to limit the growth that is possible, much like bogleheads and mmm and other fora will never move on from their founding principles. Accordingly, I think I tend to agree that a spin-off is the only viable solution for those who outgrow ERE for ERE2.0 (or whatever). Maybe that's a new blog, a new book and/or a new forum where the discussion level's floor / entry level is fixed by the first contents and becomes a barrier to entry to those not ready for it.

[Scott 2]

In my experience - the N+1, N+2, etc. conversations aren't feasible in an open online forum. They emerge from people with their feet on the ground, doing the thing, collaborating in person. New ideas can be disseminated and gain broader traction via a forum, but inherent limitations cause the medium to lag.

I see there's an approximation happening between journals and the meta-threads, but it's not the same. At the very least, people need to move beyond long form text collaboration. Especially when attempting to trade on highly complex ideas, the opportunity for miscommunication is far too high. There's also the issue of people talking about the thing, when they aren't doing the thing. In person, it quickly becomes ridiculous.

I'd been watching the Mastermind group @AxelHeyst attempted for this very reason. I think the good, new stuff comes out of higher fidelity collaborations.

[Gilberto de Piento]

I think the levels are a useful framework but I wonder if they might be based on flawed data. If I understand correctly the WL hypothesis is that a person can't understand levels more than a 1 or two above. If this premise is based on the vocal minority who makes internet comments then I think we should also consider those who aren't commenting who find the higher levels totally understandable but just choose not to partake (the "silent majority" - thanks Nixon).

I can use myself as an example. I understand living without a car, I am making a deliberate choice to live with a car instead. I understand dumpster diving, I am making a deliberate choice to get food from a grocery store. To give a more complex example with more inputs, I have a long list of possible actions I could take to get my spending down and "retire" or to get down to a Jacob level of spending or to live in a much more "sustainable" way, I just don't do those things because that's not how I want to live.

I understand these actions, I'm capable of these actions, but they are just not what I want my life to be so I don't do them. No one hears from me about these actions because I don't have a comment on them and I'm not the kind of person who makes mean comments on the internet about things I'm not into, not because I don't understand those things because they are too many Wheaton levels above but because I just don't have anything to say.

[daylen]

One can understand the concepts fairly easily but like all things, the hardness comes from executing the plan.

There is ultimately little difference between understanding and execution if you make it that way. Once the claimed(*) internal complexity matches the claimed external capacity, the internal and external dividing lines matter less. It's like peering into an infinitely regressing mirror that can be inverted.

(*) as in staking your territory or domain.. what is it that you are a part of?

[AxelHeyst]

I was just going to mention the mastermind group as somewhat relevant to this discussion. I (and we, to speak for what some of then their members have expressed) am getting a ton of value out of the group, and we have both meta theoretical discussions as well as action-focused discussions. On our last call a member attributed certain real world results/progress on their project to the accountability and structure of the group.

We’re also able to have ‘freer’ and faster discussions, sometimes about basic stuff like indexing or whatever, in a safe space because we all trust each other.

I’m not saying the group is better than the forum, but I’ve found it to be a very excellent complement to the forum.

[7Wannabe5]

@GdP:

I may be wrong, but I think that maybe even semi-consciously semi-thinking that it's "crazy" to be so concerned about climate change/resource depletion might differentiate Wheaton Levels. In a Heath brothers book (recommended by Alphaville), a suggestion is made to ask differing parties what would have to happen to make the other person's viewpoint/preferred practice seem less "wrong" or "crazy." For instance, in one recent fictional book on the future, there is an event in which a lot of people basically boil to death in a lake because it was so hot and they didn't have any air-conditioning. So, maybe if something like that happened, your motivational level might change?

I'm already old, so I don't worry very much about exactly how I might die, but I do feel guilty about not at least attempting my fair share. Unfortunately, I am weak, lazy, burnt out and/or chicken-sh*t about some options for further reducing my expenses, so I have to try to be smarter in my attempts. As in all things, the great can often be the enemy of the good.

[ZAFCorrection]

@7w5

The thing that is questionable to me about resource depletion/climate change justification for ERE transcendence is, in the absence of other constraints and goals, there are a number of other ways to achieve reduction of environmental impact that would be a lot more effective and a lot easier to achieve. They just cant be discussed in polite company. When you add in those additional goals and constraints, ERE exists as one among many competing frameworks and domains of knowledge, all of which naturally have some kind of s curve for their practical utility. In that sense, I see getting the ERE high score to be a worthy hobby among many other worthy hobbies. Or maybe the failsafe is to say ERE is itself a framework of worthy hobbies.

ETA: none of my random points are intended as an implicit criticism of discussing the WL level up. Just because I don't care about it doesn't mean I get offended that people say things.

[7Wannabe5]

@ZAFCorrection:

Right. For instance, in the Robinson novel I referenced above, after a significant percentage of humans die in giant heat wave, eco-terrorists start taking out leaders of major corporations and kidnap influential people at Davos. But, maybe that wasn’t the “not to be discussed in polite company” solution you were thinking of

My three notes would be that passive “hand waving” a solution would not be indicative of highest functioning, and not matching actions with openly stated morals would not be indicative of highest level functioning, and wishful thinking without doing “the math” would also not be indicative of highest functioning.