The ERE Wheaton Scale

[DW]

Actually, when I put in the #, I meant it it as hashtag. As in social media and influencers.

[J_]

Insofar you actually have/find the magical communication key to unlock human behavior on this scale, please please do so! It would be possible to solve not only climate change but also the rest of the world's ecological issues as well as likely most financial issues (debt, liabilities, bankruptcies) not to mention health (lifestyle diseases, ... ) and meaning-crises. I suspect, however, that your main challenge might not be so much in crafting the "perfect message" as it will be to get people to "read/listen and act on it."

Anyway, ... here's the final update.

Thanks @Jacob.
This redrafted/renamed scale is a really improvement in clearness. Your "introduction" of this final version, of which this quote is only the last sentence, sounds right out of your heart!

[Jin+Guice]

@jacob: I disagree. We all use all forms of capital all the time. For someone interested in "progressing" in ERE WL, the necessity to use non-financial capital to reduce expenses doesn't enter the equation until WL6 when financial capital is optimized. I don't think this is a necessary feature of the Wheaton table. There's no reason a WL1 couldn't start using more of an alternative form of capital. They'll use it differently than the other WL, just as they use financial capital differently.

I'm interested in how WL 9/10 stop using the capital lens or what you mean by that? At this point, they've totally decoupled from industrial consumerism? Do you even think that is desirable? Industrial consumerism is really good at what it does, I understand wanting to break away from it, but is it necessary to totally not use it to accomplish your larger goals? Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Something major I've learned from ERE is to embrace an abundance mindset. If you are "rich" and smart enough to access this forum, everything you need is all around you at all times. This is the mentality of a WL 9/10? (I'm not claiming to be one).

[AxelHeyst]

The Wheaton table isn't intended to cover all possible paths, it's intended to represent a certain and common path. Obviously people "use" non-financial capital all the time, but the table isn't intended to cover everything people use, it's intended to cover what people on a certain path (salaryman) *focus* on. And they tend to use social capital *as a means to attain financial capital* - that being their prime focus.

One could certainly imagine a wheaton table that captures the use of social capital for non-financial aims earlier - it would just be a different path that the salaryman, who is conditioned deeply to think in terms of the centrality of financial capital.

For example one could imagine a wheaton table where the first several layers capture a certain kind of crunchy hippie, who is practically allergic to the idea of money, only take on trim jobs when they are flat broke, and rely on couch surfing and other forms of non-financial capital to make their way in the world.

[Western Red Cedar]

I like the new table. I agree that the terminology is a bit insular, but it seems to serve its purpose. I think it developed from a salaryman/FIRE perspective, so it doesn't necessarily fit comfortably for certain other lifestyles, but probably works for most. It helped me a lot when @Jacob explained one might move through different cells, on different levels, but that the primary focus is particularly important.

I've found the most use out of it in the past is just figuring out where other people are at so I can communicate more effectively (not necessarily on an ERE level, but in terms of specific activities, lifestyle choices, or perspectives).

More like this whole focus on non-monetary capitals mainly happens around WL6-8. Before that, there's only one capital, namely $$ which is why there's a "spending column". At WL9-10 the "capital lens" fades away again because at that point all capital are all there... like water to the fish. Tap water. Oxygen.

I'd agree with @J&G that social capital is pretty important throughout the WL progressions. It is pretty well documented that people in poverty (stage 1 or possibly 2) rely heavily on social capital (see Matthew Desmond). People at the low end just use their social capital differently than those at the high end. One of the main reasons people in poverty or with low-incomes don't relocate to other cities or states is because the calculation doesn't necessarily make sense when they consider leaving their social network.

I also think that robust social capital is particularly valuable for a resilient system and have actively focused on building it over the last six years.

[BWND]

I've found the most use out of it in the past is just figuring out where other people are at so I can communicate more effectively (not necessarily on an ERE level, but in terms of specific activities, lifestyle choices, or perspectives).

I have to agree with this and it was one of the core points of the eco scale.

I think as well there is a difference between this scale and the Weaton eco scale in that levels 8, 9 and 10 of the eco scale have fairly well-known examples of what it looks like in the real world. The upper levels of a reliance on industrial food system -> self-reliance on a permaculture food system scale have been explored to a greater extent.

The upper levels of this field are still being figured out with people pushing at the boundaries here and there, but in limited numbers. I think this revised table starts the look at the upper levels pretty well.

[nomadscientist]

"access, optionality, and control" sounds inherently social capital-loaded.

[IlliniDave]

My instincts align with Frita on the topic of social capital. It doesn't seem reliable, especially in the context of a doom-ridden future. It functions pretty well during crises bookended by benign spans, though. Day-to-day it's a good redundancy to cultivate and it doesn't magnify fragility so long as it's not counted on to maintain threshold resource needs with any sort of permanence.

Ironically, perhaps, people at the lowest end of the ERE table are often rich in social capital through family, church community, and geographic community, which often overlap. One of the biggest social challenges in the US is that we increasingly vote for ever larger, ever more centralized, government/control, which then grinds against those more locally-focused organizational systems. Gloomy extrapolation might suggest ultimately eliminating them as effective social capital hubs. I have a hard time imagining interwoven invisible tribes arising to effectively replace them.The path seems to be one headed for a world where our store of personal capital and our access to it are what the government says they are.

I wonder sometimes how different money and social capital really are.

Regarding the table, if people like it, that's great. I'm not the intended audience, I now understand. It's fun to score myself and try and understand my limitations. I was looking for something didactic out of it.

[7Wannabe5]

entropy of communication channels

I nominate Claude Shannon for Level 9. Maybe his machine that shuts itself off could be the icon for that level?

I wonder sometimes how different money and social capital really are.

I agree. Money is a form of social "capital." I use the " " because we tend towards using the word as synonymous with "stock of value" , but it can also mean something more like "tools." For example, if the creator of Primitive Technology constructed a kiln out of natural materials and then set me to work making clay pots to barter for apples with wage of three lbs potatoes/day, then he would be the Capitalist and I would be the Labor, and our level of technology and finance would be, obviously, Primitive.

When things hit the fan, social capital is not what many imagine. That is where being strong, independent, creative, and resilient are vital.

I agree. Modern humans often have naive concepts. For instance, imagining that your marriage has a Love Bank into which you and your spouse make deposits. Reality being that if one spouse wins the Lotto or is blinded odds of divorce go WAAAAAAY up.

Also, since money is a form of social stock of value (of no value outside of interactions with other humans) , I think it is more accurate to speak of Alternate Valued Resource Trading Web. Sexual Resources are an easy or interesting example, (see "An Economist Walks Into a Brothel") because simultaneously very Primitive or Core human (as well as other species) trade, but also realm in which our society generally frowns upon overt exchange for money. Although, of course, this is primarily historical happenstance, because in other advanced societies such as Roman or Islamic, prostitution was rampant and/or bride price was overt. So, for instance, the creator of Primitive Technology might accept sex from a more nubile version of me in exchange for muscular protection from a horde of desperate contestants from Naked and Afraid.

That's one reason why I think it is very difficult to posit the transition out of the technological foundations of modernity as a gender neutral journey, and I think Ivan Illich, whom I will also nominate for Level 9 based on his creation of the concept of "tools of conviviality", would agree.

[nomadscientist]

For social capital to have meaning, there has to be "free" extractable value, but the meaning isn't tricking people into giving you stuff for free like a con-man. Social capital is the additional value that comes from people being connected together which, like financial capital, can be sustainably (or un-sustainably) withdrawn forever so long as the connections remain. In many ways ERE has developed (but isn't inherently so) as a way for salarymen to withdraw from undesirable social connections i.e. the American corporate system, which more than in many countries is based on constant renegotiation without enforceable bargains or clear expectations. But much less emphasis placed on how to build new more desirable ones.

[Jin+Guice]

My instincts align with Frita on the topic of social capital. It doesn't seem reliable, especially in the context of a doom-ridden future. It functions pretty well during crises bookended by benign spans, though. Day-to-day it's a good redundancy to cultivate and it doesn't magnify fragility so long as it's not counted on to maintain threshold resource needs with any sort of permanence.

I disagree. Financial capital is not all that safe. It can be devalued or stolen. I'm not sure if I think one is more secure than the other, all forms of capital are subject to risk and can fail.

I wonder sometimes how different money and social capital really are.

Money is a form of social capital where you coerce strangers to do things for your/ give you resources instead of people you know. It's actually kind of amazing and beautiful when you think about it on a certain individual level.

I agree. Modern humans often have naive concepts. For instance, imagining that your marriage has a Love Bank into which you and your spouse make deposits. Reality being that if one spouse wins the Lotto or is blinded odds of divorce go WAAAAAAY up.

Relying on marriage as your primary form of social capital is naive social capitalism, lentil baby is more advanced



@AH: I think we are mostly in agreement. I don't think social capital should be included in the table, but I do think that it is very valuable and lacking in the ERE ethos in general.

My initial inspiration for the longer post yesterday morning was thinking about some individuals in my own life I believe are higher Wheaton Level people. None of them quite fit the descriptions because none of them are explicitly trying to escape industrial consumerism. They've just sort of done it accidentally to varying degrees. They aren't that similar, but one thing they do all have in common is high levels of social (and other alternative) capital...

[7Wannabe5]

@nomadscientist:

So, you are saying that there is no inherent value in being clever and/or charming? What is capitalism without marketing? A system can only be "gamed" from a perspective outside of the system. Some notion of how it works must first be conceived. Therefore, "gaming" although not necessarily complex process in itself, points to greater complexity.

OTOH, I agree that beyond core primitive biology or one on one trade, it is the social web that holds the value. Obviously, the compounding mathematical benefits of sex (which were proven/demonstrated by human who also wrote a book about climate change, when I remember his name I will nominate for Level 8.5) are currently stored in various forms of innate value boundaried by multititude of human skin sacs.

[Western Red Cedar]

Well Said! +1

I'll add that social capital, at least as described and recently popularized by Putnam, exists on a pretty broad scale. It's possible that people are envisioning different kinds of relationships or interactions based on their understanding of the term. At the very lowest level, it's the loose recognition and acknowledgement of those in your neighborhood or immediate environment. The postal worker who you don't really know, but recognize and nod to on your way to work. The lady watering her lawn that you occasionally wave to when you're going to the grocery store. As time develops, those bonds become stronger. Urban design, the proliferation of large single-family homes/suburbs, and an auto-dependent society have all undermined those connections.

On another level, you have relationships established through, church, school, civic organizations, neighborhood groups, etc. This was the metric Putnam used to measure the decline in social capital in the US, and to develop the title "Bowling Alone." An increase in bowling but a decrease in bowling leagues. On another level, you have friends and acquaintances. Followed by very close friends and family (typically at least).

I think social capital has value at all levels, but is particularly important among stronger associations. I've watched at least a dozen friends from high school, without a lot of marketable skills, use social networks and social capital to develop strong careers in a variety of fields over the last decade. This ranges from construction, to corporate marketing and sales, to small business owners, to design companies. I used social capital I developed in grad school to get each of my professional jobs over the last nine years.

People often like to help, particularly when it is something as simple as an introduction or fills a need for two parties. Leveraging social capital can be very valuable in an ERE framework in my experience.

[nomadscientist]

@Jin+Guice

"My initial inspiration for the longer post yesterday morning was thinking about some individuals in my own life I believe are higher Wheaton Level people. None of them quite fit the descriptions because none of them are explicitly trying to escape industrial consumerism. They've just sort of done it accidentally to varying degrees. They aren't that similar, but one thing they do all have in common is high levels of social (and other alternative) capital..."


Can you describe how these people live?

[7Wannabe5]

@WRC:

On one end of the shelf you have “Bowling Alone”, but on the other end of the shelf you have “Peyton Place” or collected works of Sinclair Lewis.

[Western Red Cedar]

@7W5 - I think you've succinctly stated part of what I was getting at. People have vastly different ideas of what the term even means. I tend to defer to Putnam because he systematically evaluated and defined different features of the concept, and it really seemed to take off in modern discourse based on his work.

To bring it back to the WL Table and your personal project - you don't need to hire a carpenter if you have a good friend or family member with those skills. You also don't need to rent/buy your saws, sanders, etc. Building and maintaining networks and relationships can have immense value.

[Stasher]

3) Saving humanity from self-generated energy and climate crisis are not the only reasons to leave industrial consumer society. This is an assumed moral imperative imposed on the table from above (I think Jacob views this as his life work). Personally, the ecological imperative is strong for me, though I (again personally) doubt the feasibility and all-consuming moral imperative of avoiding climate and energy disaster.

*This could be used as an excuse. IF you agree that a primary reason for leaving industrial capitalism is to mitigate climate change I think driving personal expenditure as low as you can is very important. As has been pointed out several times, personal expenditure is a very good proxy for personal environmental impact.

@Jin+Guice these two comments are why I moved from the MMM to ERE lens of seeing the world in the last 5 years, heck ecological wisdom is the single greatest awakening that guides all I do. It is my new moral compass and is rooted in much of all the activities, groups and freelance work I am involved with currently.

[7Wannabe5]

@WRC:

I 100% agree. It is because it has been my experience that I can get ALL of my financial expenses covered with social capital/barter that I don’t want to do it anymore. It’s not a growth/learning experience for me to trade flattery and a tuna fish casserole like Mom used to make for carpentry. BTDT can recommend a few books to those who want to do it too. I even joked with my current-soon-to-be-ex grouchy old man that I was going to try my combo of barter to get a carpenter and he thought it was a good idea likely to succeed “even as old and fat as I am” ( my words.) IOW, scheme now rendered boring to me through repetition.

[jacob]

Actually, the table is more about how not to be a cog in the industrial system or a consumer of commercialized products. Certainly, there's the source (energy) and the sink (energy pollution) issues to consider too but the primary "thread" of the table is about unlocking human potential [by leaving Plato's Cave]. Now, it may be that Plato's Cave is just where the majority of humanity(*) actually thrives and being all you can be equals a 9-5 job with a an 800+ credit score, vinyl-sided house, and new Ikea furniture; and that is also fine. The table does presume that once one is fully settled outside, one turns towards good behavior outside the cave. However, this can take any form. It does not need to be some high-fallutin' solution for carbon emissions... WL9 is more about HOW than WHAT and WL10 is perhaps drifting into the WHY as an exploration of what the top-level actually means. I like ML's Laughing Buddha description.

(*) Which is also where the staging area (level 1) starts where it does.

Do consider the table to be primarily how to talk to those (most people) "who want out" and secondarily to give a hint about stage N+1 for those who have figured out if they fit at stage N but have come to feel like there's something missing. I do not think the desire to question oneself and "evolve" in such a way is all that common and that's fine too. However, insofar that is the case, the person to get inspired by or ask is someone at stage N+1 or N+1.5 ... not N+3 or N+8.

PS: All that talk about various "capitals" is very stage 6ish. (See "deliberate consumer slide" on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPvftqB-WXk ) I bet if this conversation were taking place amongst the forum's mechanically oriented geeks rather than its social players, people would be requesting a column describing their tool-shed or welding abilities, arguing that the ability to build and fix stuff is crucial for resilience, etc. The reason that money is a column is that it is the dominating column for most people by far even if it doesn't quite cover Uncle Cleetus and his valley-dwelling body-shop posse.

[nomadscientist]

@7w5

Prostitution is not what I mean by social capital. Prostitution is just a job.


@jacob

Granted re: Cleetus, but don't you think social capital once again becomes vital at the top? There are some really cool things you can do with $1mm with the right connections (and probably even keep the $1mm, but you've gotta have it), but spending it doesn't yield so much.

Perhaps it's the middle class that benefits least from social capital.