FIRE Lifestyle Classification

[Fish]

I want to develop a MBTI-like framework for classifying the various types of lifestyles that result from pursuing FIRE. What are the relevant dimensions and what is the minimum set that is needed to adequately describe a particular lifestyle? Can it be done in 4 or fewer? The spending dimension is popularly used (leanFIRE vs fatFIRE) but what additional info is helpful?

Another way to look at it is, suppose you are reading a FIRE blog or ERE journal for the first time, what details of the person’s life correlate highly with the “flavor” of the blog/journal?

Example dimensions:
Age
Gender
Spending (leanFIRE vs fatFIRE)
Income (easy/hard modes)
Nomad/Homesteader
Consumer/DIY
Singles/Couples
Kids/No kids
Working/Unemployed
ERE Wheaton level?

[prognastat]

I think a big one is Consumer/DIY or Insourcing vs Outsourcing. Some prefer to DIY as much as possible whereas others would rather spend more time at their work and pay others to do tasks they rather wouldn't or get paid more for their time at their job. Of course this is on a spectrum, almost nobody can do everything themselves. Even the guy who forsakes society and builds his own log cabin living off the grid likely bought his saws/axes etc outsourcing the work making them to someone else. On the other side you can of course have someone making a high 6 figure salary outsourcing their yard work, cooking, driving etc.

ERE tends to skew towards the DIY end, but we've got some variety/differing opinions even here.

[jacob]

If we stick to binary preferences, I think this will cover most situations with sufficient differentiation to be interesting:
lean/fat (how many dollars are used)
producer/consumer (how much value does each dollar generate)
conventional/unconventional (looks and appearance) IOW, does the lifestyle superficially look normal to e.g. family, neighbors, ... (how are the dollars used)

For example, I would consider myself a lean conventional producer. I think these variables determines one's [solution] approach to problems more so than civil status or #children. This implies that I'm primarily interested in differentiation HOW people solve problems ... not what kind of problems people have.

PS: It's long been my ambition to create something akin to the geekcode for FIRE but it appears copyrighted.

Add: Yes, lets call the producer/consumer dimension insourcing/outsourcing.

[daylen]

You probably want to find a classification that identifies and labels clusters. Some of the measures you mention (like spending and income) would have too many edge cases to be of much use. I would use a sub-set of MBTI to identify different types of "purposes" people would identify with after the money problem is solved. Ultimately, anyone who wins at the money game must find some other infinite game to play with measurable pay-offs. Here is an example:


[(Se,Ni),(Te,Fi)] types would be more effective at advising or steering humans/systems towards a more viable/sustainable future outcome.
[(Se,Ni),(Ti,Fe)] types would be more effective at building/inventing tools/systems for others to use.
[(Si,Ne),(Te,Fi)] types would be more effective at guarding past traditions/constructions/ideas and promoting proven solutions.
[(Si,Ne),(Ti,Fe)] types would be more effective at recording observations, teaching the use of language, and expanding our ability to efficiently articulate outcomes.

[daylen]

You could create a hierarchical system with classifications for macro-clusters and micro-clusters.

EDIT: This probably didn't make much sense. I meant that unsupervised clustering may be used to inform the supervised classification process. Also, the classification would already be hierarchical, so that didn't mean anything except that another level could be purpose/role/preference.

[Fish]

I'm primarily interested in differentiation HOW people solve problems ... not what kind of problems people have.

It could make sense to differentiate both the problem and solution space. Some people like reading and interacting with others who have similar problems.

The problem seems mostly defined by income (easy mode vs hard mode), net worth, and a person’s relationship status. So combining what we have so far:

Problem: (Easy/Hard)x(Accumulation/FI)x(Single/Couple)
Solution: (Lean/Fat)x(Producer/Consumer)x(Normal/Different)

The goal here is not the geekcode of FIRE (I had to look it up) but merely its A/S/L.

[7Wannabe5]

Solution: Lean/Producer/Different
Problem: Slacker/Neither/Both

[jennypenny]

I've always thought the D&D evaluation was a pretty good character match for ERE and could substitute as its geekcode. We discussed it once in a thread tangentially related to this one.


I always feel like the non-financial aspects of ERE get glossed over in FIRE discussions. I don't think ERE vs. FIRE is simply leanFIRE vs. fatFIRE. I'd add a lean/fat that was minimalist vs. abundance/alpha strategy. That dichotomy tends to line up with nomads vs. homesteaders but not always. I suppose you could combine the two into a fatFIRE that included abundant capital (whether material or financial) and a leanFIRE that was minimalist (again, in both financial and material resources). That would lump preppers/homesteaders with less of a dependence on large bankrolls (GTOO/me) in with traditional fatFIRE-ish folks here (iDave/EK), and then nomads and minimalists (Ego/7W5) would be lumped in with leanFIRE folks who rely a little more on financial capital reserves but with very low expenditures (jacob).

Not sure if that makes sense? Maybe that's better as quads and not binary.

[daylen]

urban / rural or city / town / rural
supports parents / does not
cable TV / no cable TV (might not seem like a major factor financially until you consider the effects of advertising)
has workshop with tools / does not
car / no car
can perform basic household mechanical repairs / cannot
rent / own

[The Old Man]

While I agree with JLF regarding how problems are solved, I think it is also important to identify the problems themselves. For this I think the biggest problem is accomplishing ERE/FIRE with children. So, for lifestyle purposes the most important axis would be single/children.

Additionally, I think a key differentiator between ERE and FIRE is that ERE makes use of the renaissance ideal as a tool for problem solving. This I think is a key contribution to the field. FIRE is just purely financially focused. So, an important axis would be insourcing/outsourcing.

[jennypenny]

As I read through the last several posts in the Polyamory thread, I kept thinking that the discussion about breadth and depth was somehow related to the nomad/homesteader designation in ERE. Is it more a distinction between people who prefer to have multiple projects and outlets at any given time vs. those who prefer to go all in on something, even if they move on once they've exhausted their interest (like with serial monogamy). We discussed intellectual nomads in another older thread. Maybe the nomad/homesteader nomenclature isn't quite right? Maybe it's more about cycling through deeper systems vs. consistently tweaking and maintaining a broader system? I'm not sure I'm expressing that exactly right (I'm not good with systems theory language). I'll have to think about it.

[7Wannabe5]

@jennypenny:

I think of myself as being both nomad and homesteader, as well as both city mouse and country mouse. I am literally planting trees in two different locations with two different partners this spring, as well as helping my DD27 start a garden at her new home, tending small salad patio patch at my mother's apartment, interacting with two different community gardening groups, etc. etc. If/when I do manage to travel outside of my extended region, there is always a compare and contrast and attempt towards integration of that which I have developed with some depth and that which is novel. For simple instance, when I spot or grow mint in my own garden, I now think about frying it with garlic to use as a garnish on bean soup, because that's something I learned from Iranian culture.

So, I am thinking that Saver/Investor/Trader/Speculator might be a good classification filter, and I am clearly a Trader towards the Cusp of Investor. Both pure speculation and pure saving seem a bit off to me. Speculation requires too much hustle and risk, and saving is too dusty fusty.

[Frita]

Additionally, I think a key differentiator between ERE and FIRE is that ERE makes use of the renaissance ideal as a tool for problem solving. This I think is a key contribution to the field. FIRE is just purely financially focused. So, an important axis would be insourcing/outsourcing.

This relates to the dirtbag/backpacker philosophy of “Go as far as you can with as little (or as cheaply) as possible.” One needs a robots set of skills, interests, relationships, and the ability to tolerate/enjoy “discomfort.” ERE adds the financial savvy not always seen with true DBs.

[SavingWithBabies]

What if you could visually see their web of goals (like a mind map) and the goal entry had some kind of multi-step categorization system that went from narrow to wide scope. Maybe add some color coding for a quicker understanding at a higher level of the web (just thought of this recently and not sure exactly how to pick the colors but it would be fixed but ultimately subjectively -- more interested in how to pick colors that convey various aspects).

Another idea is with that web of goals, maybe you could have different overlays like social capital/value flow, monetary flow (ie this hobby costs money and I don't make any back while this other hobby breaks even, etc), and some sort of ranked priority (of the web creator on which goals were most important)?

Would such a web with all the overlays lead to understanding the motivations/lifestyle of the creator? I can see some key aspects missing for comprehension like age so maybe a little more contextual information is needed around the goal view. You could also use the scopes on the goals to create a way to compare different webs so people could see similar webs to their own (overall) or similar webs to specific goals (strands?).