Systems!- Level 6 towards 7

[Qazwer]

@7w5
Level 7 realizes it will take 500 hours to learn a new skill of performing a complicated repair which is done once in their life time and it will take 1 hour to make a gourmet meal so they ask Joe the Plumber to do a quick fix and make him a gourmet level meal to bring to his wife fir Valentine’s Day
Awareness and understanding of systems

[Ego]

I agree it's important to learn as much as possible, but I also think that no one is a 7+ unless they have a mental rolodex full of people willing and able to help them with almost any problem that might arise.

Well, I guess the steelman argument would be that it is possible to minimize needs to the point where a person owns only those things they can fix themselves.

Of course, no man or woman is an island. The extreme minimalist approach works extremely well until it doesn't. When it fails, the failure is big.

What would the antifragile approach look like?

[jacob]

I agree it's important to learn as much as possible, but I also think that no one is a 7+ unless they have a mental rolodex full of people willing and able to help them with almost any problem that might arise.

That's analogous to saying that "no one is a 7+ unless they have enough money to pay someone else to solve almost any problem that might arise". It's the social capital analogy to WL3 for financial capital.

On the flip side, I don't want my example being misinterpreted in the sense that "no one is a 7+ until they can fix all their own technology themselves", because that's the same problem.

WL7 is about breaking down the barriers between the different boxes of capital developed up to WL6. At WL6 they're all seen as separate. At WL7+ they all seen as "one" integrated whole, that is, there are no artificial boundaries between them.

[jennypenny]

I'm not talking about paying people to do everything. I'm talking about reaching for well-developed social skills as often as other skills.

At WL7+ they all seen as "one" integrated whole, that is, there are no artificial boundaries between them.

Yeah, but where are the threads discussing the intricacies of highly developed social capital (beyond amorous relationships)? I must have missed those.

My biggest point was only that (1) this crowd tends to be deficient in social skill development,* and (2) blending social skills with other skills is a great opportunity to develop it (even *if* you already know how to fix/deal with a problem). Example ... I've been working on my cooking skills and learning how to put up more food. While I'm pretty good and could have taught myself what I wanted to know through blogs and youtube videos, I instead chose to reach out to people who could teach me, using a 'need' to also develop more social relationships. In the end, I still didn't spend any money and managed to develop two types of capital in the process.

I stand by my statement ... the trend here lately sounds like a 'social capital optional' version of self-sufficiency, especially when discussing leveling up, almost like one can level up past the point of needing social capital. I wholeheartedly disagree. Boyle has taught me that as much as anyone. I'm not in competition with anyone else, and I no longer see myself as trying to build a fortress of self-sufficiency. I'm striving to be a talented traveller of sorts who's a part of the system, not isolated from it.


* in particular, I mean developing relationships with a variety of people, not just like-minded

[Alphaville]

i agree with @jennypenny in that the social isn't optional. does anyone really want to be robinson crusoe in this day and age?

people are reluctant to embrace the social i think because it invites (again) specialization and trade which leaves you exposed to trade network failures.

but like it or not though, the social is the actual system. in this the marxists were correct. the individual is just a part of it. and while overspecialization can be problematic (except in the case of neurosurgeons--i really want the most specialized neurosurgeon), underspecialization can be problematic too, i.e., leaving you with nothing to offer anybody else.

besides: transdisciplinary integrations usually require some kind of mastery or expertise, which then serves as a bridge towards other disciplines. the person who can see the universal in the particular usually has a very good knowledge of some particular particular

same thing with innovation and crosspollination: innovation is usually the product of a particular dedication to something, rather than the combination of innumerable basic-level mediocrities.

so, the higher integrations ("wheatons" are a unit of what?) occur at the social, not the individual level. as the austrian economists say, the economic calculation is carried out by society as a whole.

same thing with the body, see. we're not a collection of indefferentiated amoeba-like cells performing all similar functions just in case the other cell fails them. cohesion requires coordinated specialization and interdependence of systems, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, molecules, etc.

but yes, insurance is good, redundancy is good, backup systems are good. however as @qawzer says, insurance is expensive. and insuring against everything-- the most expensive thing of all?

--

eta:

then again if this particular internet community specializes in insurance, then that's this community's specialization... which contributes to and receives contributions fro other communities that specialize in something else.

[jacob]

I suspect the latest trend [towards the technical capitals] has much to do with COVID shutting down the application of both social and financial capital and exposing the vulnerability of those who previously relied more on those. It can't have been much fun to have been an outgoing minimalist in the past year+. This should revert shortly as society and the economy open up again.

[Alphaville]

I suspect the latest trend [towards the technical capitals] has much to do with COVID shutting down the application of both social and financial capital

did it shut it down though? or did it in another way emphasize it?

consider our reliance on essential workers, delivery services, vaccine researchers, online communications, and so forth--our mutual interdependence was more evident than ever. normally it's just there unnoticed and we take it for granted.

and the financially comfortable of course had access to anything from the ability to pay a little extra for instacart, to working remotely if they needed to work on their desk jobs, to having a house in the country, all the way to quarantining themselves in yachts. savings and investments actually went up during the pandemic, highlighting the importance people place on money during emergencies.

we had lockdowns, but not social disintegration. governments pumped money to keep households and businesses afloat. if there's something that saved us, it was that society was able to function in spite of the hurdles. for example, i have a friend who was bringing food deliveries to needy folks while all this was going down.

[Western Red Cedar]

Yeah, but where are the threads discussing the intricacies of highly developed social capital (beyond amorous relationships)? I must have missed those.

My biggest point was only that (1) this crowd tends to be deficient in social skill development,* and (2) blending social skills with other skills is a great opportunity to develop it (even *if* you already know how to fix/deal with a problem).

The latest WL discussion had a few pages of discussion about social capital and how it fits into ERE. I think these forums tend to attract strong introverts (heavy on the INTJs if I recall) and introverts may have a tendency to shy away from tapping into social capital.

I'd agree that neglecting the blend of social skills with other skills results in a weaker system. It's amazing what you can achieve when you expand your networks. We are social animals and cooperation is ingrained in our DNA. The Emersonian notion of self-reliance runs deep in US culture, but in my experience even modern homesteaders on large acreage rely on and benefit from relationships and a strong social network.

I think neglecting relationships and building social capital will ultimately make it really difficult to transitions from level 8-9. You can build it, leverage it, and access it at many different stages, but it really becomes important when you are trying to maximize your potential and develop a legacy.

[jacob]

did it shut it down though? or did it in another way emphasize it?

consider our reliance on essential workers, delivery services, vaccine researchers, online communications, and so forth--our mutual interdependence was more evident than ever. normally it's just there unnoticed and we take it for granted.

Okay, it did not shut down entirely, but it was certainly crimped. Interdependence is usually highlighted as something that "strengthens the community" or "makes the couple stronger". However, this increase in social relations often mean that the interdependent individuals become weaker and sometimes much weaker on their own when some of these bonds are snipped or crimped. Basically, people were taking for granted that since they could always rely on someone else, they didn't need to be able to rely on themselves. COVID showed what happened when they no longer could rely on others because e.g. goods couldn't be delivered, services couldn't be provided, or they weren't allowed to visit. That is what I meant.

As mentioned before, those forumites who were substantially more independent than they were dependent or interdependent practically breezed through COVID without having to change anything.

[Alphaville]

Basically, people were taking for granted that since they could always rely on someone else, they didn't need to be able to rely on themselves. COVID showed what happened when they no longer could rely on others because e.g. goods couldn't be delivered, services couldn't be provided, or they weren't allowed to visit. That is what I meant.

yeah, i got what you meant of course, but i was trying to qualify that such state of affairs could not have gone on indefinitely, because the selves are nodes of a larger system. and so we all rely on someone else, even when we don't want to.

to put it in a negative way-- i can only rely on myself as long as everyone else lets me. they could choose to kill me and take my stuff or any other number of things. but we had social order, we had private property, we had money and trade, so we could rely on a number of things, reliably.

As mentioned before, those forumites who were substantially more independent than they were dependent or interdependent practically breezed through COVID without having to change anything.

my wife and i are highly interdependent, both with each other and with the world, and we actually had a pretty good year economically... we actually prospered.

yes there were some adaptations required to make things work, some of our diet had to change, and so forth, but lacking crops or cattle, plus the ability to manufacture pharmaceuticals, etc, many things were delivered to our doorstep by people with strong backs who have my eternal gratitude.

everyone who kept things running made it possible for everybody else. and the richer did better than the poorer.

[7Wannabe5]

I disagree that ability to solve all problems with social skills is equivalent to solving all problems with money. Money is uniform. Social skills aren’t. Off the top of my head, a human might or might not possess the social skills of charm, dominance, humility, cooperation, humor, patience, empathy...etc. Also, the large category of stuff “money can’t buy” is inclusive of much that can only be obtained with social skills.

It’s also true that in order to maintain social skills or resources, it is necessary to care for yourself, so self-aware feedback can very much have a rippling wave effect through web. For instance, in order to obtain fix it assistance from one of the grouchy old engineers in my acquaintance, I will likely need to apply a bit of charm and a good deal of patience, and I know that in order to keep my stock of patience in good supply I need to engage in activities such as spending the afternoon at the beach. I also read books that help me empathize with the frustration that some humans feel that causes them to yell and swear when tools aren’t immediately at hand etc. and that insight also allows me to exhibit more patience, etc etc etc

There are also different social rules of thumb that apply if, for instance, you ask a human who designed part of the space shuttle or routinely contracts multi-million $ building projects to help you with a fix-it task vs. somebody who makes their main living performing that sort of fix-it task vs somebody who is just a somewhat more skilled amateur than you vs somebody who is just going to provide second set of arms/eyes while you direct the fix-it activity. My current social circle is skewed towards rough mix of the first highly over qualified specialist group and the last highly unskilled group.

[Ego]

Does this make sense?



If so, is it logical to figure out ways to put myself in the top right quadrant? Should I strive to become highly capable in both practical and social skills while maintaining the ability to do either when the other is absent or impossible?

Of course, I can't fix the plumbing myself and have a friend fix it. But I can help my friend and learn while helping. Would it be logical to put myself in as many novel situations as possible to gain practical skills and make as many connections as practicable to gain social skills?

ETA, For those who are highly optimized there is probably a sweet spot where spending time practicing practical skills takes away from practicing social skills and vice versa. Most of us are not so highly optimized that we are working toward one or the other.

[Alphaville]

but like it or not though, the social is the actual system. in this the marxists were correct. the individual is just a part of it.

actually, just wanted to correct myself-- the social is not the actual system--the universe is the system, and the galaxy and solar system and earth and biosphere and species and society (finally it shows up) are subsystems which further subordinate the "selves".

my agreement with old man marx was only tactical and temporary, not absolute. he was from an era of idealism vs materialism, with no understanding of something like deep ecology or neodarwinism. today, saying that the earth is our body is actually not woo.

but anyway, while i appreciate the great lessons of individualism i can also hold the simultaneous notion that the self is an illusion. yes, a useful illusion but an illusion nevertheless. we inhabit/we are an actual chaos. where does it all begin and end?

[Western Red Cedar]

If so, is it logical to figure out ways to put myself in the top right quadrant? Should I strive to become highly capable in both practical and social skills while maintaining the ability to do either when the other is absent or impossible?

Of course, I can't fix the plumbing myself and have a friend fix it. But I can help my friend and learn while helping. Would it be logical to put myself in as many novel situations as possible to gain practical skills and make as many connections as practicable to gain social skills?

The graph makes sense to me. I think time and capacity are the main limiting factors when putting yourself in as many novel situations as possible. Doing so may limit your ability to dive deep into an area of particular interest - or stoke. For example, if I'm highly involved in a number of neighborhood projects such as the community garden, it may limit my ability to take off on a multi-month bicycle tour. Working a regular job is obviously a major barrier on one's ability to engage in novel situations, but I also suspect there is a limit on physical/emotional/social capacity to involve oneself in others projects. I think there is a balance that at least partially depends on the individual preference or need for social connections.

In my experience, the beautiful thing about helping with your friend's plumbing (or other task) is that he or she may have a connection or or skill that will help you in the future. It doesn't always work this way, but in that case you just feel good about helping someone in need. It is best not to approach these things transactionally, but it seems additional yields evolve organically.

[Alphaville]

it seems additional yields evolve organically.

everything that evolves, evolves organically

lol im not trying to be a pain in the ass about semantics or anything. im just emphasizing the distinction of evolution vs design, which is often neglected.

[Ego]

I think time and capacity are the main limiting factors when putting yourself in as many novel situations as possible. Doing so may limit your ability to dive deep into an area of particular interest - or stoke.

Is it possible that experiencing novel situations and the resulting skill acquisition itself could be the stoke?

[Western Red Cedar]

@Ego - Most definitely. I've known a couple people like that, but they tend to be quite social and extroverted.

I'm speaking a bit from a salaryman perspective. The limitations I'm thinking of may simply be the result of spending most of my waking hours on certain tasks, and the necessary energy required to support that.

I still think there is an opportunity cost in terms of spreading wide or going deep with relationships, projects, or opportunities. The kind of people who are genuinely stoked with building skills and developing relationships simultaneously tend to develop their own projects or ideas that need time or energy.

[AxelHeyst]

For anyone who missed it I started a dedicated thread for social capital/skill.

+1 I like your quadrant @Ego. I'd just add that every person's scatter plot on it will naturally look different - whether someone skews low and right or high and left is in part a matter of their personality, strengths, and weaknesses. So while it is a valid criticism that this community tends to skew low and right, I think it's not necessarily *wrong* or bad that that is true. Also, some may strategically choose to push strengths vs. pulling up weaknesses.

[Qazwer]

I read ERE as a critique of modern life of an overshoot leaving the optimal solutions. Not learning how to even do some basic sewing (loose button) given all the costs involved in outsourcing is not optimal. Likewise, modern society has become mobile and atomized with people seeking new opportunities away from traditional communities this allows a basic understanding of social capital to be optimal compared to where most modern Americans are. So to get to Ego’s quadrant, for most people, it makes sense to move in a 45 degree angle. For some, it might make sense to go in a different direction to find the optimal. But by at least knowing where you are, it can help elucidate it.

[Jin+Guice]

Glad to see social capital made a comeback in this thread.

I think social capital is one of the main broad forms of capital. The others being financial and human capital. I think I'd also put "physical capital," i.e. stuff you own for its use value, in another category from financial capital, which is owned for its "trade value." I get that this is very WL6, and somehow these integrate later, but I don't see how yet and that's why I'm here at 6.

If the goal is escaping industrialized consumerism, it seems like having a fair amount of all four is important. One can play to their strengths, and certainly they are substitutable for each other, but is that resilient?

I don't understand the argument that building social capital is not important because it takes away from other forms of capital (usually it seems the argument is human capital on this forum). Aren't both necessary? Shouldn't they be integrated as we climb Wheaton Levels? I.E. I can call my friend to teach me how to fix the grill or look it up on youtube or pay someone to teach me how to fix it, or, in a pinch, pay someone to fix it or trade someone something to fix it or know someone who's grill I can use or....