black_son_of_gray's Journal

[Jin+Guice]

@7w5: I didn't fully explain what I was talking about. You've inspired me to go into more detail as this is very interesting to me and occupying a lot of my thoughts as I attempt to "level-up."

As coincidence would have it I recently read Paul Wheaton's book. So recently that it was on my coffee table when two of the people I was referring to in my previous post as potential ERE Wheaton level 7s came to visit me last weekend. I suggested the book to one of them because he is a secret ultra-hippie and we often scheme together. As fate would have it, he read aloud the chapter where Paul Wheaton describes the Wheaton Scale. His not very hippie and much more opinionated girlfriend (who is my poster child for a non-ERE, ERE Wheaton 6/7) responded "Wow, make a scale and put yourself at the top of it. I'm not sure there is more of a way to be a douche bag."

Wheaton's book has a chapter on ERE. IMO, he punts hugely in this chapter* by recommending that his readers not study investing and instead pursue side hustles. I consider this a punt because he has an opportunity to take his readers out of their comfort zone and he chooses not to.

*For the record I really liked the book and found it very informative and helpful and I plan to implement some of the suggestions in my day-to-day life.

Context really matters. It's hard to get people to seek information they aren't already primed to accept. I doubt there are many true ERE 6/7s floating around because the idea of combining frugality, systems thinking, environmentalism, DIY, financial investment and quitting your job is wildly fucking novel. I think you need some interest in all of those things to truly break into the higher levels of ERE. If you're looking for ERE 6 or 7 examples that you already know IRL, it's extremely unlikely that you'll find them. However, if you're looking for people employing level 6 or 7 thinking that you know IRL, your odds are much better.

I initially thought about this because I entered ERE as a 4/5. I wasn't really a 4/5 though, but I was employing the thinking, so very soon after I "got" ERE, I was a level 5, because the thinking was already there and all I had to do was implement the details.

My point is, it's hard to be on a scale you don't know exists. I don't disagree that someone isn't truly an ERE Wheaton 6 or 7 without the idea that you can live luxuriantly and frugally. That idea is too central to be ignored and at some point, if you're not executing those skills, you're not doing it. However, I do think that it's possible to employ the thinking necessary to be ERE Wheaton level X without being on the scale. It's interesting to observe people who are exhibiting the thinking of the higher levels as one tries to figures out what it all means, which is why I think this is relevant to @bsog's original post.

[7Wannabe5]

@Jin+Guice:

I agree that it is entirely possible to understand (or intuit) systems thinking while choosing to optimize a wide variety of interests, values or even core truths. For instance, the Arts are an obvious example of realms to which psychological Wheaton levels apply. I am not musically gifted, so my taste in music has for the most part been informed by frequent exposure to talented musicians within my social circle. So, when my sister who is very gifted chooses to play something that sounds to me like appropriate background music to committing suicide on a melting ice floe, I recognize that there is likely something I am missing that is limiting my enjoyment rather than vice-versa. OTOH, even though my knowledge/appreciation of the visual arts is also likely quite middling, I can comprehend the difficulty of the task of attempting to explain the value of avant-garde abstract work to an individual who just spent $399 for an oak framed Kincade cottage. However, although obviously much valued by the original Renaissance Men, the Arts or anything much to do with Aesthetics is given quick flyover in particular models constructed by Jacob and Paul Wheaton.

I used to work in a very big bookstore in a major university town, so in the magazine section we stocked hundreds of very specific hard-to-find periodicals catering to interests both wide and specific. Since I have long had the habit of reading many lifestyle design books, one thought I had was that you could spin yourself around in such a large display of periodicals and randomly pick any 5 magazines and proceed to construct a lifestyle based primarily on these choices integrated and developed forward. If you didn't snag anything on the shelving unit near Mother Earth News then you would be less likely to end up with a lifestyle system design that resembles Jacob's or Paul Wheaton's except for the fact that reality in terms of such system concepts as "limits to growth" will eventually intrude upon any systems level design. However, the values or morality any given individual might choose to apply to this reality could also vary significantly. For instance, answer to question of how limited resources might be fairly shared.

[jacob]

Maybe consider that Wheaton levels also parallel Maslow's pyramid. While the top takes different forms, it's predicated on an existing foundation.

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/fulfillment.html

[Nuuka]

I really enjoyed reading BSoG’s journal. He definitely has a sharp mind, working a little bit like Freud who analysed himself and then generalised based on that.

"Create value" seems like a much more potent and resilient perspective than "independence", perhaps especially from an emotional standpoint. These are merely abstractions of course, but at least for me it seems to nudge me towards industry, collaboration and contentment. "Independence" has led me more towards excessive risk-aversion, rent seeking and passivity. But these things are obviously very personal.

My understanding is that Independence and Value Creation are both different aspects (e.g. attributes) of Identity.

Value Creation is a (skill-based) role one selects (or drifts to) so that both one and one’s connected persons (e.g society) accept one’s role (e.g observable identity).

Independence is one’s degree of freedom to choose identity, and its manifestation outside as one’s role in society (to create value)

Independence has financial component. But it has also other components such as freedom from commitments (e.g. favours), and freedom from (fear of) exposure (e.g. corruption), freedom from envy (e.g. Inheritance). ERE covers only financial component. In real life the latter three are really difficult to anticipate and deal-with.

Let me take role of Devil’s advocate:

Analysis of BSoG situation. He decided to accept SO’s/mother’s invitation to live at mother’s home. Does this mean in practise that whenever there is a conflict of interests in his current or future role, will he be kindly reminded that he was given roof on top and food to the table by the SO’s family, so better do this and not do that? Independence gone for good?

BSoG’s value proposition is to write novels that sell. Identity would be to be a narrator or creative writer. Role would be novelist/fiction author. To be able to sell the books he needs to sell himself as well. He has been scientist, so he has zero experience of selling. Does selling fit into his identity? Would ghost writer be sufficient? Then he would not need to sell. Would SO’s family be happy to host BSoG staying 10 years as ghost writer? Especially SO’s siblings (thinking BSoG is eating their inheritance?). How long time siblings’ concerns can be dealt-with without conflicts? Which side is SO’s loyalty if there is a conflict? Is it possible to pre-emptively defuse the potential sibling inheritance problem by discussing future plan in advance?

[black_son_of_gray]

@ Jin+Guice and 7Wannabe5

Reading your comments have helped me put a finer point on what I was trying to say in my above post. I think there are two "orientations*" of ERE: 1) there's a narrow, concrete, pragmatic orientation of ERE (what I'd called the "goose"), and then 2) there's a broad, abstract, theoretical orientation of ERE (what I'd called the "golden eggs").

*probably a spectrum, but call these the poles.

This can make some forum threads read somewhat bizarrely, because users with very different orientations chime in and talk past each other fairly regularly. There are lots of terms we use all the time on this site, and many of them have both abstract and more specific meanings. The nuances matter!

financial mostly refers to the management of money.
economy is usually referring to the production/consumption of goods (quantified in a financial sense) of a country of region, but can also mean something like "the careful management of available resources."
frugal can be referring to "simple and plain and costing little" (which is the slightly negative definition that most non-ERErs are primed for), but can also mean being economical as in careful with what you have.
…and so on.

So depending on the definition—

I'm convinced the higher levels actually have nothing to do with frugality and don't require it.

—I'm inclined to agree or disagree. [Agree that higher levels of ERE have nothing to do with a miserly interpretation of frugality, disagree that ERE has nothing to do with careful management of available resources.]

Years ago, I started thinking of these concepts in the more abstract way rather than the narrowly money-specific way. Dare I say, the ideas and concepts have become more philosophical to me. (It's ok if you just threw up in your mouth a little when you read that—I get it. It's just in my nature to gravitate towards "meaning seeking" over raw practicality.)

Said another way, I think there is a "systems approach to personal finance"-ERE framed largely in money-focused definitions, and then there is a "holistic personal economy"-ERE framed largely in abstract, theoretical, and semi-philosophical definitions. A lot of people are drawn to ERE as a "systems approach to personal finance", and, while I thought this orientation was interesting when I first discovered ERE, the vast majority of my interest in ERE is centered around ideas of a "holistic personal economy." I'm not saying either of these orientations is right or better (maybe @jacob has an opinion on that), but the "systems approach to personal finance" is a likely stepping-stone to a more abstract "holistic personal economy" orientation, and not the other way around. I'll wager it's nearly impossible to grok systems thinking without a specific, concrete example to bat around for a while in your mind. Economics and ecology are fertile areas for this, hence ERErs and permaculturists. For my part, I spent thousands of hours designing far less practical reaction-diffusion simulations... but it got my thinking mode in the right place!

However, although obviously much valued by the original Renaissance Men, the Arts or anything much to do with Aesthetics is given quick flyover in particular models constructed by Jacob and Paul Wheaton.

However, the values or morality any given individual might choose to apply to this reality could also vary significantly.

This is where I am feeling a little bit of personal disorientation with ERE—because for me, with my "holistic personal economy" orientation to ERE, I'm trying to figure out how to include the Arts/Aesthetics/Morality/Spirituality. For me they are important considerations, and I probably place much more YMOYL-style value on them than people with a much more purely financial orientation would. And it's in this sense that I think I need to figure out how to tune my system for "goodness" by playing with the levels, and it's in this sense that I think the journey has to be done alone.

[black_son_of_gray]

He has been scientist, so he has zero experience of selling.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

[jacob]

Ehh, some of you guys talk about art and aesthetics as something one puts on a piece of canvas or expresses through a guitar. More generally speaking, aesthetics is everything in the right place and a right place for everything. Art then is creating (Creating) something aesthetic. For gardening, that's permaculture. For efficient living, it's ERE.

Fundamentally, one can not make art without knowing enough rules to break them rightly (and righteously). This is why the Wheaton levels are what they are. Also why learning proceeds in a non-obvious way, sometimes having to learn something that is wrong in order to establish the foundation for being able to learn what's right.

Remember the Pearsal-Jackson quote:

The master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence at whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.

This is also what the other Lawrence (Peter) was getting at in his guest post. There's NO distinction between the artist and their art! In particular, an artist must make art. I consider ERE when exercised at a high level to be a kind of art. This is why it's a philosophy and not a plan. Perhaps this sounds high-falutin ... but there's more to it than paint by numbers. Following a formula is not art.

[black_son_of_gray]

@jacob
I agree with what you wrote.

Here's my question: How high up on the Maslow's pyramid-equivalent are you putting ERE? Is ERE at the very top for you, or is there some aspect of life that exists outside or higher-order to ERE?

In the ERE Wheaton levels chart (titled "The Wheaton levels of personal finance" in the version I have saved), ERE is listed at level 7. But the chart has 8 levels, the 8th being "Chop wood, carry water". The book is titled "Early Retirement Extreme: A philosophical and practical guide to financial independence. The forum is "For those on the fast track to financial independence". On About ERE, you say "ERE is a set of principles that are based on a systems theoretic approach to “lifestyle design” allowing each individual to create their own robust strategy to a flexible lifestyle that is resilient to economic downturns and which meets all needs and reasonable wants while minimizing ongoing costs and effort." In the previous post, you've equated ERE to the art of "efficient living".

I swear I'm not trying to be pedantic! These varying descriptions of ERE are smeared across multiple levels of hierarchy. Is that intentional for different audiences? Because it's really muddying the waters for me. From lowest to highest, I might rank them as financial independence < personal finance < systems theoretic approach to lifestyle design/art of efficient living, where each encapsulates the others like Matryoshka dolls. This can also be confusing because much of the discussion on forum threads centers around "financial independence" topics which are either contradictory (e.g. I argue financial independence is impossible) or irrelevant (if "$$ becomes almost irrelevant to the systems" in Level 8, then FIRE itself becomes irrelevant) at the highest ERE Wheaton levels. Why are we spending so much time talking about living expense multiples? This is just an example of "sometimes having to learn something that is wrong in order to establish the foundation for being able to learn what's right"?

For my part, my philosophical orientation towards ERE still doesn't put it at the top of my pyramid—even at it's most expansive, I still feel like ERE doesn't encompass some aspects of my life. Maybe with your interpretation, when framed as "the Art of living", it does? I get that ERE isn't a plan, and that it isn't about following a formula. But how comprehensive is ERE to you as a philosophy? If you think of it as the "art of living" in your Lawrence PJ quote, then it would seem to be more or less complete no?

Just seeking clarification.

[jacob]

The multiple levels are intentional(*). Sometimes you have learn the wrong thing in order to be able to later learn the right thing. Think of karate students rehearsing specific punches or kicks as if there's only a finite number of punches or kicks; or worse, rehearsing moves. White-belts are literally not able to go side-ways. Of course that's not how one thinks about it at the black belt level or as a fighter; but it was necessary to learn the moves in order to learn how to move. Some of this discussion suggests that sometimes the approach is understood from the wrong side... in Wheaton table terms that would be trying to jump level... or convince oneself that one operates all over the range.

(*) And there's a deeper purpose too: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/myths ... uture.html

As for the Wheaton table, I consider level 7 to be "conscious competence" (the black belt) of the system and level 8 to be "unconscious competence" (the fighter).

In terms of Maslow, I put the philosophical framework at the top. This also means that to me, it's comprehensive. ERE is me---or the best description I have of me in the same way that INTJ is the best description of some of you guys. Being as the "art" is "living" and "aesthetics" is "efficient lifestyle design", this also happens to take care of the lower levels. However, I don't think one gets to the top level before having dealt with the lower levels of Maslow.

[Jin+Guice]

Very interesting discussion. I'm going to backtrack a bit to my discussion with 7w5 because some of the stuff y'all have said is relevant.

—I'm inclined to agree or disagree. [Agree that higher levels of ERE have nothing to do with a miserly interpretation of frugality, disagree that ERE has nothing to do with careful management of available resources.]

"Careful management of available resources" still sounds miserly. I think it's useful to view the upper levels through different lenses. Getting to the destination through ERE methods is only one path, and not everyone is going to have the map that leads to that trailhead. That doesn't mean they can't end up somewhere near the final destination. Those who get to their through a different path will view the final destination through a different lens. My analogy is breaking down, but I hope my meaning is still clear.

I wouldn't call those who aren't doing extreme frugality ERE Wheaton level 7s. It's more like they are exhibiting ERE Wheaton level 7 behavior.

Remember the Pearsal-Jackson quote:

Lawrence PJ wrote:
The master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence at whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.

This is also what the other Lawrence (Peter) was getting at in his guest post. There's NO distinction between the artist and their art! In particular, an artist must make art. I consider ERE when exercised at a high level to be a kind of art.

I think it's possible to live in this manner without frugality. ERE is a framework that breaks tons of cultural norms. If I could convince the few people I know who live at or close the manner Jacob describes above that the ERE framework was valid, I'm confident they could rapidly move to level 6 or 7.

I think searching out these people and observing them is useful as one tries to advance. The first stage of the CCCCCC model is copying. It's useful to have more people to observe and copy, especially people one knows IRL.

If you didn't snag anything on the shelving unit near Mother Earth News then you would be less likely to end up with a lifestyle system design that resembles Jacob's or Paul Wheaton's except for the fact that reality in terms of such system concepts as "limits to growth" will eventually intrude upon any systems level design.

I would think extreme frugality is a lot less important if it weren't for this, which is why I think the ERE/ permaculture pathway is important. It's hard a sell because systems that incorporate "limits to growth" still violate tons of cultural norms, and when someone's pet norm is violated, they tend to stop listening.

From lowest to highest, I might rank them as financial independence < personal finance < systems theoretic approach to lifestyle design/art of efficient living

Erase everything before "systems theoretic approach..." and it's possible to fill it in with another path to get there.

This can also be confusing because much of the discussion on forum threads centers around "financial independence" topics which are either contradictory

ERE and financial independence are the path we chose to follow. If you still care about the issues that lead you down this path, then it's still meaningful to discuss them, especially for those who are newer/ at lower levels. It's pretty cool that we don't have to do bullshit meaningless work our whole lives to afford a decent life. It's cool that a side effect of pursuing this path is resilience and damaging the environment a little less. At least for me personally, the question of "freedom to..." is much more interesting than the question of how to achieve "freedom from..." To answer the "freedom to..." question, it's useful to observe those in ERE above yourself, but eventually their are fewer of them. I find it useful/ informative to look for examples outside the ERE frame as well.

[classical_Liberal]

I think it's possible to live in this manner without frugality. ERE is a framework that breaks tons of cultural norms. If I could convince the few people I know who live at or close the manner Jacob describes above that the ERE framework was valid, I'm confident they could rapidly move to level 6 or 7.

I noticed this phenomenon when reading The Fifth Discipline. The book lists many system archetypes that appear commonly in business/personal life. It shows potential lever points in these generic systems. I noted several examples of the archetypes that had sprung up in my life through the years, and that I had dealt with them at the correct lever pointe intuitively. That's not to say I was thinking in terms of systems. Rather I had, somehow, through experience, learned how to deal with these types of problems. IOW I exhibited systems thinking approaches to problem solving without even knowing what systems thinking was.

...but the "systems approach to personal finance" is a likely stepping-stone to a more abstract "holistic personal economy" orientation, and not the other way around.

What if this is not true? What if there are many people who have managed to create a reasonably "good", holistic personal economy without ever broaching the financial aspects? They have managed to find several of the right lifestyle lever points and are operating at fairly high levels in most areas of their lives. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) these are the people J+G is talking about, because I've met some myself. They tend to be people who operate under the radar in Working Man and/or Business Man Quadrant(s), who mostly ignore the finance aspect, but are very acutely aware of the yields and flows of their lives.

These folks need only learn the basics of the financial portion of ERE to very quickly move up Wheaton levels. They have no desire or need for true financial independence (according to BSOG it's impossible anyway ). This is an audience I believe to be ripe for semi-ERE. However, I do not think this group operates in the prototypical INTJ mainstream FIRE mindset. In many ways, they are already unconsciously competent in level 6 thinking. All the talk of needing to save 25-33X annual spending immediately turns them off to the concept, before they are able to dive deeper into the true concept of ERE. In these cases, maybe it's important to look at the Wheaton levels differently than financial independence. IOW different routes to ERE level thinking, they need to acquire the smaller doll(s) to fit inside the larger one they already possess, and a methodology to properly place it/them inside their larger doll. EDIT: or they need a framework with which to place their activities so that they may proactively design them for the future. Also a reason to want to change (maybe not FI). I should also point out, I believe any person who successfully moves up to Wheaton 6+ on the FI scale, or through other potential routes to yields and flows, must possess a desire to (or at least indifference towards) live differently than social norms of wealthy Western countries. IMO it is likely that desire (or indifference) that is a catalyst for inquiry into systems style life. This immediately precludes large swaths of humanity.

[7Wannabe5]

Ehh, some of you guys talk about art and aesthetics as something one puts on a piece of canvas or expresses through a guitar. More generally speaking, aesthetics is everything in the right place and a right place for everything. Art then is creating (Creating) something aesthetic. For gardening, that's permaculture. For efficient living, it's ERE.

I think that pieces that are not directly visible, socks, underwear, anything that goes under the top layer basically should be mended, patches, etc. until it disintegrates.

I don't know how you are going to keep your everything in the right place when your underwear disintegrates. jk

Seriously, I was responding to the comments both bsog and j+g made about my moving the levers in the studio until you get to "good" analogy resonating. So, that is why I was speaking of Art in the sense of "My DS19 is attending Art School and my DD22 is attending Business School."

In the book, you use the analogy of the organization of a university to describe the lifestyle of a Renaissance man, because it is diversified, modularized, and divergent. Because I am a hopeless dilettante generalist, I switched universities three times, and majors at least 6 times, before I finally graduated with a B.S. in Math with a minor in General Science and almost every elective filled with a Lit course (also required to pull off C in Bowling, F in Tae Kwon Do, B- in Tennis.) I agree that practiced at the highest level any realm becomes art, and I agree that there could be some degree beyond a specialist PhD which could be granted to somebody who understood as many different fields or has mastered as many different realms as necessary to construct some generalized web or construct of analogies of knowledge or something like that. What I was observing is that it does seem a bit arbitrary that a "degree" in Finance need be the point of entry. It wasn't even your point of entry, because (correct me if I am wrong) your path was more like Physics->Ecology->Finance.

It seems to be the case that J+G and I have a number of close associates who are of the Enneagram Type found on the cusp of the abyss dwelling, highly disciplined Scientist and the abyss dwelling, highly disciplined Artist, known as the Bohemian. So, I was noting or agreeing that it's possible to have a path heading towards Renaissance Man that might go more like Starving Sculptor->Counselor ->Travel Agent-> Tour Director -> Small Business Owner -> Finance-> Well-Nourished Sculptor...because Maslow's hierarchy isn't really how people behave, because life is more cyclical than linear towards pyramid. IOW, even a starving sculptor who doesn't manage to learn to balance her checkbook until she is 39 might end up achieving Renaissance Lifestyle sooner than somebody who remains stuck for 20 years in Finance, even though it seems like money is more core/base than sculpture. IOW, poking fun at people who major in basket-weaving or experimental dance is eventually going to kick the more practical minded people in the butt as they attempt to ascend to higher levels.

William Morris said "“If you want a golden rule that will fit everything, this is it: Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful.” Only keeping that which is useful is like only growing vegetables in tidy rows in your garden. If art is to reflect life itself, it often must be a good deal messier than "each thing in its place" which does describe a certain aesthetic, but not the concept itself. For simple example, it is incongruent with Wheaton Level 5 take on the beautiful willfulness of dandelions.

[Nuuka]

May I propose BSoG convert Halfmoon’s journal into a movie manuscript and Jacob sell it to Hollywood. Halfmoon has already described three characters. BSoG needs to add some vicious boss and creepy neighbour, and a drunk lawyer, and some dog and wild animal characters. Storyline is there already. BSoG could do the scenes and dialogues. Of course you need to ask Halfmoon permission first and her role in production. Maybe Suo could draft contract?

[black_son_of_gray]

@jacob - Thanks for the clarification. If I may ask, how does the philosophical framework for ERE inform/guide your religious, or moral, or ethical beliefs (or other similar categories)? Because the way I was thinking of all of this, those types of beliefs/world views were more an influence on "why ERE" (or were irrelevant to ERE) rather than "because ERE". Meaning they were higher-order or at least co-equal in the hierarchy. This is why I mentioned above that ERE doesn't seem to encompass everything for me. Does ERE to you imply some sort of aspiritual utilitarianism? Does it have to be completely secular? Is "good" in ERE simply what is most "efficient"? (And how does ERE define those terms?) Blah blah blah, ok—I'll stop.

@others
Thanks for weighing in and sharing how you see all this.

[I'll now commence with using far too many quotation marks. "Apologies" in advance. ]

The last couple of posts have mentioned "the destination" and "paths" to get there, but if I may be so bold: I think it is more appropriate to frame levels as an "evolution"* in mindset and implementation. I agree that there are multiple ways to evolve to a similar form and function (e.g. image-forming eyes have independently evolved several times), but you can't skip steps (e.g. there are no eyes that managed to skip the inclusion of photodetecting cells) or simultaneously be at different levels in different domains (e.g. it doesn't matter if my eyesight should be biologically sharper than an elderly dog with cataracts…because a single limiting detail—mismatched focal length—it isn't. Thanks, glasses. Which is to say that the overall function is constrained by the lowest-quality element.) Now, because the form and function of ERE has been pretty tightly defined by Jacob, different implementations might look slightly different** (like the different types of eyes), but they by necessity will all share certain features. This somewhat of an answer to my previous post wondering if different Level 7's would even recognize each other.

*right off the bat, this is a bad idea, because evolution is not teleological. It has no peak, top, or desired end point.

"Careful management of available resources" still sounds miserly. I think it's useful to view the upper levels through different lenses. Getting to the destination through ERE methods is only one path, and not everyone is going to have the map that leads to that trailhead. That doesn't mean they can't end up somewhere near the final destination. Those who get to their through a different path will view the final destination through a different lens.
[...]
I think it's possible to live in this manner without frugality.

But ERE as a destination can only be arrived at through ERE methods, right? What specifically are you envisioning as the "destination" in the above? Because to me (and presumably to Jacob, though I don't want to put words in his mouth), there is no version of ERE that doesn't incorporate "careful management of available resources" into the very core of every decision. Because there is no such thing as "efficient" without "care" or "management"*. And the lower ERE Wheaton Levels are where the different facets of this care and management are grokked and internalized.

*With possible exception to Level 8, where, because the "care" and the "management"—which both imply conscious consideration—have become unconscious.

If the "destination" you are thinking of is simply a lifestyle with some sort of systems-level consideration of some of its parts, I could potentially agree with you. But then that isn't ERE.

What if there are many people who have managed to create a reasonably "good", holistic personal economy without ever broaching the financial aspects?

How can a holistic personal economy not consider financial aspects? It simply wouldn't be holistic if it was incomplete….a holistic personal economy does not only contain financial aspects, but must include it all the same. Money is the water we swim in. Even Suelo or Mark Boyle, both of whom have clearly come to design their own holistic personal economies, were not able to avoid financial aspects. They grew up using money. Everyone they know uses money. They deeply understood money…then choose not to use it, knowing what that would mean.

They have managed to find several of the right lifestyle lever points and are operating at fairly high levels in most areas of their lives. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) these are the people J+G is talking about, because I've met some myself. They tend to be people who operate under the radar in Working Man and/or Business Man Quadrant(s), who mostly ignore the finance aspect, but are very acutely aware of the yields and flows of their lives.
[...]
IOW different routes to ERE level thinking, they need to acquire the smaller doll(s) to fit inside the larger one they already possess, and a methodology to properly place it/them inside their larger doll.

Fairly high levels within a specific domain, sure. The animal has extremely sensitive photoreceptors. Ok, but how good is its whole eye at seeing a predator in the dark? Because that's what the ERE Levels are getting at. And awareness and internalization are not the same things. Awareness of "yields and flows" in some aspects of a lifestyle may influence a few decisions, in a certain context. Internalization of "yields and flows" will influence nearly every decision, across many contexts, in which it applies.

In thinking about all of this, it's crossed my mind that perhaps most people here have different conceptions of "the destination", however you want to define that. We've all got slightly different (maybe very different) North Stars to guide us. And I wonder whether it matters how perfectly we are tracking to true North, or if it's more important that we are just pointed in the general direction and keep walking.

[jacob]

@jacob - Thanks for the clarification. If I may ask, how does the philosophical framework for ERE inform/guide your religious, or moral, or ethical beliefs (or other similar categories)? Because the way I was thinking of all of this, those types of beliefs/world views were more an influence on "why ERE" (or were irrelevant to ERE) rather than "because ERE". Meaning they were higher-order or at least co-equal in the hierarchy. This is why I mentioned above that ERE doesn't seem to encompass everything for me. Does ERE to you imply some sort of aspiritual utilitarianism? Does it have to be completely secular? Is "good" in ERE simply what is most "efficient"? (And how does ERE define those terms?) Blah blah blah, ok—I'll stop.

It's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. I considered my religious/philosophical/ethical questions settled by the time I was 25. So I hope I can save some time by throwing some old links at you if you really wanna know---this of course leaves me at risk for being misinterpreted. As far as religious beliefs go, I consider myself a scientific instrumentalist(*). Ethical system is somewhere along the lines of secular humanism with a touch of deep ecology. My morals follow accordingly.

(*) Which means that to me life is just one giant problem to be solved. That's typical INTJ too. This can and does have its downsides ("what's the meaning beyond that?!").

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... %27s_fence might give a hint of where I'm coming from in terms of navigating [this world].

Instrumentalism deliberately pursues an accurate description of the world. ERE is [epistemologicaly] compatible with that. There are certain religious beliefs that are not. "Hope and prayer" is not an investment strategy for example "The Secret" is a type I error. However, not requiring much of anything beyond functionally acting as if "reality is real" (see viewtopic.php?p=82250#p82250 if you want to know what I mean by that), ERE is compatible with a wide array of religious systems. It does not rely on a narrative (viewtopic.php?p=168412#p168412) like e.g. "stocks always go up in the long run".

Ethically, ERE seems to be founded on a certain respect for the individual. I don't know if I put it in a book, but ERE doesn't work that well w/o certain individual freedoms(*). One does need some flexibility to build one's one system, so being constricted by an existing system somewhat precludes ERE. It would be pretty hard to do anything ERE in a maximum security prison, for example. I think this mostly comes up wrt Asian traditions where filial piety is important. This is almost no interest in ERE from China, South Korea, or Japan. Singapore is the exception. This could be a language issue, but the sticking point is the strong expectation of not just having to take care of one's parents in the sense of an undesirable job (which you see in some journals here) but as an obligation.

(*) I do recall have said somewhere that ERE would function ANYWHERE with a market economy. But I think that's sufficient rather than a required condition.

[jacob]

Some further thoughts ... I think it's important to not be a punk and this applies to ERE too. A key-design constraint for ERE was the ability to scale and solve the "what if everybody did it" as well as devising it in such a way that it wouldn't take advantage of others (bandit behavior) or in any way be parasitic.

That's not a design constraint that one should take for granted!

Looking at my old blog posts you'll note that I was less shy about give certain other lifestyle designers the stink eye (Seppia would approve) when it came to funding their lifestyles by selling overpriced dreams (buy my inspirational 37 page ebook for only $99) or products (drop shipped brain powder?!). See e.g. http://earlyretirementextreme.com/is-yo ... obust.html http://earlyretirementextreme.com/makin ... esign.html

Speaking of stink. Lately, there's been some stink in the FIRE community. After it hit mainstream and split into multiple forms and shapes, there's been some "disagreement" between the original gangsters as well as some of the new ones. Also see https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths For example, should "we" use these new found powers to engage politically, e.g. to increase financial awareness, fix poverty, go green, ... is the trend towards combative tourism trying to travel or encourage travel as much as possible a good thing [these days]? What about the tech-bro image the movement has acquired? Do we have some kind of ethical responsibility for "the brand" now that we have the media attention---that might not last. Sudden fame was an emergent quality that people weren't equipped to handle. It got complicated real fast!

[Jin+Guice]

But ERE as a destination can only be arrived at through ERE methods, right?

This is where we disagree, sort of. It's useful to have a separate category for people who are doing the thing we're doing the way we're doing it. If you've arrived at a yields and flows mindset or a systems thinking mindset through following FIRE and ERE, then it's useful to study and talk to people who've done it that way as well. However, most are at lower Wheaton levels that don't require this kind of thinking. ERE benefits are great enough that it is not necessary to move beyond the lower Wheaton levels, so not everyone will. How many 6+ Wheaton level people are actually out there? How many 7+? If we restrict ourselves to those who've gotten there by ERE methods, then I think it's very few. I think it's unlikely that someone ends up as a true ERE Wheaton 6 or 7 by accident. The concepts are too novel. Someone must, at a minimum, have 1) read the book or the blog; 2) thought it was a good idea; 3) explored the concept deeply enough and been committed enough to reach the upper levels. For level 7 I think you're talking about an absolute number of <100 people.

These are not the only people exhibiting level 6 or 7 thinking though. I suspect trying to transcend optimization to reach a yields and flow mindset is actually the hard way to do it. It's the easy way for me, because I understand optimizing money. I do think there are benefits to doing it this way. However, I'm not sure it's the ideal mindset to start with. Thinking of money as a flow rather than as something to optimize doesn't require one to study investment, live frugally, care about deep ecology or desire early retirement. So while they will be "carefully managing available resources," what that means to them may be something vastly different than what it means to us. So different that if we look at them through the lens of ERE, we would never recognize them as exhibiting level 7 behavior.

To exhibit yields and flows/ web of goals/ renaissance thinking, it is not necessary to exhibit ERE thinking. If we restrict ourselves to only those who've reached level 7 thinking by following ERE principals, we are going to have a very small group of teachers. However, if we expand our definition to those outside of ERE, we will have a much greater number of teachers and can be exposed to more novel and different ways of thinking. The point isn't that we should give up the ERE way of thinking, but rather seek to expand it.

[classical_Liberal]

I think @J+G made a good response. I still tend to disagree that a "yields and flows" level person NEEDS to understand financial outside of the ERE context. In the same sense that J+G states there are other, nonERE practitioners/teachers in this realm.

Think of it in terms of stoic preferred indifference. There are "Yields and flows" operators in the world who have this attitude towards money. Sure they need some of it, and they make some of it, but when they get more than the little they need, they use it inefficiently. They blow it on some desire, they don't need any more than they need. In some cases they blow it because it is considered a vice (again stoic sense of leading to unhappiness) and have a moral sense against accumulating it. For whatever reason the thought of using accumulated financial wealth as a tool (they way they use all their other survival tools) either does not really occur to them or they are against the concept. I think this concept and way of living is very foreign to middle class/upper-middle class USA. It's much more common in the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

[jacob]

I think someone who comes from the "work man" quadrant understands flows intuitively. Flow is, after all, the ultimate expression of payday to payday or trading favors or stuff for similar. If you ever brought a batch of cookies to your neighbor to see/test (consciously or unconsciously) whether they'd bring something back, you have some idea of the flow-system in the social dimension. This has obvious parallels in the professional system ... and in the system of the spare stuff you temporarily keep in your basement.

Most who discover ERE via FIRE come from the "salary man" quadrant, where it's all about optimizing and growing. Going from salary man to work man requires a brain transplant.

Most who discover ERE via permaculture come from the "renaissance man" quadrant. They already understand the importance of having a system in place. Going from .... transplant.

Most who discover ERE via finance come from the "businessman" quadrant (which I should have called the Investor!!). They already understand yields and leverage. Going ...

Two observations:

1. The hard part about transitions is moving one's thinking between quadrants. Most people by far only has experience dealing with one quadrant! Plato's cave.
2. ERE requires some experience in all quadrants. So leaving Plato's Cave a few times.

Maybe this lens will unstick some sticking points?

[black_son_of_gray]

@J+G, c_L
I think I must have bungled my communication somewhere, because I'm nodding my head in agreement with just about everything you're saying. I totally agree that 1) many people think at a variety of "levels" (at least in certain domains, e.g. their profession/specialty), 2) these people are certainly worth paying attention to, 3) an ERE-style hierarchy is certainly not a prerequisite to having these mindsets.

Without going line-by-line through the posts, suffice it to say:

J+G
"These are not the only people exhibiting level 6 or 7 thinking though."
"To exhibit yields and flows/ web of goals/ renaissance thinking, it is not necessary to exhibit ERE thinking."

c_L
"I still tend to disagree that a "yields and flows" level person NEEDS to understand financial outside of the ERE context."

Agree!

I hope that what I wrote didn't imply that only ERE-oriented people can understand or apply various concepts or thinking modes. I didn't intend that at all. I chalk it up to the inherent difficulty in writing clearly about non-physical/abstract things.