jacob wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:13 pm
In terms of the [self-]pedagogical moats, I think it's possible to split the Wheaton table into three stages that might explain it. I've noticed how noobs always start out by cutting things away. This is why the initial impression as well as the initial strategy of frugality, simple living, voluntary frugality, minimalism, etc. is almost always about sacrificing or perceived sacrifices. Call that stage I... which covers W1-3.
In stage II, there's nothing left to "sacrifice" so the focus turns towards optimizing what remains. This covers W4-5. Also at this point any talk about sacrificing begins to feel noobish/not badass. The mindset has changed.
In stage III, the diminishing returns of stage II become apparent. Integration
replaces efficiency and optimization and W6-7 are just increasing levels of integration.
I therefore posit that there's more of a moat from 0 to 1, 3 to 4, and from 5 to 6, respectively than there is between any of the other levels.
... of course this could just be model dredging.
At the risk of further model dredging ...
As I look at three possible tiers in the ERE Wheaton Scale, I'd label them Simple, Complex, and Emergent.
levels 0-2: Simple — Direct results, 1 + 1 = 2
levels 3-5: Complex — Multiple/amplified results, 1 + 1 = 5
levels 6-8: Emergent — Unexpected and unanticipated results, 1 + 1 = banana
The first two tiers are more easily explained to others through (almost) universal behaviors and patterns as long as one is close enough on the scale. They also produce results rather quickly, which makes it easier to demonstrate the usefulness of the behaviors recommended at each level. The Emergent tier is much more difficult to demonstrate/explain because of the uniqueness of each individual's web and the inability to anticipate what might emerge from a robust one.
Emergence can be weak or strong. Weak emergent results might be able to be explained by others in that top tier in hindsight by examining the web and its results. The results might be unexpected but still explainable. These are the kinds of examples that are used to help level 5 people get over that last moat, which people often attempt to describe on the forum (erroneously ascribed to 'serendipity' IMO).
Strong emergent results are completely novel results. They might not be explainable, even by Emergent tier people. That's part of what makes it so hard to give examples to help people reach those top levels. There's not always a clear chain of events or repeatable outcome, and often the results are so unique to the individual's web that they're useless to the observer.
I think part of the appeal of the journals on the forum is that sometimes one can follow along and intuit the kind of strong emergent results I'm talking about and how they are not the result of luck or careful planning. There is a certain amount of faith one needs to jump to that higher tier -- you have to believe that good things will emerge even though you can't explicitly plan for them or follow in anyone's footsteps to achieve them.
@jacob -- forgive my lay attempt at an explanation if I'm way off base