"How to Drop Out"

[candide]

Axel,

I think spreading "hell yes or no" as advice to others performatively contradicts pretty hard with what Eisenstein is trying to say here.

If everyone only does what he or she is "hell yes" about, then I don't see any way for there to be deep or real community.

[classical_Liberal]

I believe this is true for everyone, not only those who retire before fifty. The only people who can completely drop out and do nothing for long without going insane are those who where already there.

This is true at 25, 55 or 95.

Perhaps my comments had some ageism that was not intended. My point was that in social groups of interdependence at age 70, retirement from a primary career is the norm. Certainly not true at 25 or 50. Generational differences matter, and to function in a group in ones own generation, its more important for younger people to have "work" to be more relatable. While volunteerism is the norm at 70 (and maybe 20), it isn't at the age where someone normally reached the height of their "career".

i wasn't speaking theoretically. I will never not be grateful that money allows me to separate from a deeply dysfunctional family of origin

While i am very sympathetic to this situation (also nontheoretical, experience). Creating FI or money as being the only way to escape is thinking in a narrow field. As pointed out by @jacob, there are plenty of other capital types that can help one escape.

A psychological problem of failed interdependence, doesn't mean the concept is invalid, nor does it mean that it a healthy environment of interdependence is required for humans to thrive. It's literally in our genes.

I'm certainly not all Kumbaya like @AH. Because there are places and time periods that encompass much of human history and current socio-economic-poltical areas where it is not possible to change the dysfunctional interdependent structure a person was born into (specifically today, right or left wing fascism that has taken hold in much of the world). I think those are failed human structures. However, believing financial capital as the only means to escape from failed interdependence, where it is possible, is also an extremely flawed concept. As a matter of fact, using financial capital to escape(or as a goal to escape) can have huge drawbacks, in the sense that it often draws one back in, and has the opposite situational impact predicted.

[AxelHeyst]

I'm certainly not all Kumbaya like @AH.

...what?

[guitarplayer]

Back to the OP, in the 2008 update Ran Prieur makes the first point of actually not dropping out. his TL;DR is

So: dropping out is not fun -- better not do it.

He presents it as a matter of preference, but it might just be that ultimately dropping out is not an option all together, if we decide to keep on playing an infinite game - maybe ultimately the only game in town that matters for one. Just keep on building lifeboats, hope to find some intelligent people on the way.

I am not sure there is a categorical difference between systemic dysfunctionality in different systems, be it a household, culture, economy, ecology. If that is the case and taking an individual-centred worldview, an individual is most likely in a dysfunctional arrangement on some level. Lest we take a view of individual catastrophe as functional, in somethingelse-centred worldview. Why would we do it though?

@AH - cynics would argue for poverty, but probably on different grounds ; also ERE in the US seem to argue for it, obvs with a different rationale.

[jacob]

It may be helpful to frame dropping out in terms of which kind of capital one drops.

Mark Boyle - Money
Rob Greenfield - Money, Stuff

And also if a capital is dropped outright or replaced with some other capital.

FIRE - Investments for job.

For FIRE, the transfer is literally in the acronym. We could literally name the transitions or the drops.

For example, the concern seems to be about FISI, that is, financial independence leading to social independence. Other combinations can be constructed.

[Sclass]

I got really tired of these social capital groups after I realized the ones I belonged to were only as strong as their members. I end of giving them a lot more than they give me. That is the problem when you have both money and time. People think they can use yours because they have access to you as a network member.

They expect a lot too. The worst are the “couch surfers” who like my homes because they’re close to Southern California amusement parks. Saving on a hotel is a big deal now that Disneyland passes have inflated up. I have to host them for free then wash their sheets when they leave. For what? A dinner? I can buy my own dinner. And their company sucks. They complain all night about how they cannot afford to live and how a bunch of rich people who don’t work are to blame.

I guess it would be a thing if their company was valuable to me but I’ve grown unused to it. I guess that’s lonely.

I haven’t found a network where I’m net zero or net positive in capital exchanges. So I’ve had to cut off the old ones in the meantime.

[AnalyticalEngine]

FISI reminds me of someone like Notch, who sold Minecraft to Microsoft for a ton of money, bought an expensive house, then proceeded to have his mental health spiral because he had no reason to do anything and all his relationships fell apart.

I'm also rewatching Awakening From The Meaning Crisis and rereading Plotkin, and a theme in both of these is engagement with the world. It's connection but not in the "traditional family" sense (which I agree a lot of abuse and inequity can happen in the 'traditional family'). Rather, it's engagement with the more than human world (to quote Plotkin). This is also what people report during mystical experiences when on psychedelics. The ego melts away and you become one with the universe. Hence wholeness/non-duality/etc.

Maybe the key to happiness is then not to focus on connections only to other people (debate on if SI is healthy or not) but find a way to be a part of the world beyond yourself in the way optimal for you. (Plotkin's spirit niche)

Thus the danger with FISI gone wrong is that you stop engaging generally because you no longer half to. I believe this is why Ran changed his essay to tell people not to drop out. FISI can bring you incredible opportunity but it can also be dangerous if you don't reengage with the world somewhere (aka find your spirit niche).

[candide]

Another good example of FISI gone very wrong is Tony Hsieh, who took his Zappos money and tried to build a happiness colony, using a synthesis on happiness research (which I respect and have written about in a journal before), but ended up in a bunch of bad relationships, drug use, and dying under tragic, mysterious circumstances.

@AE I believe it is you who have pointed out a few times recently how difficult it is to build this stuff -- ie systems that fulfill social, emotional, and meaning needs -- from scratch. I find the nature path hinted at here to be interesting. Also, I believe you are hinting, and I know that Ran comes out and says, that psychedelics are necessary for a large part of the population to get there.

In Big Five traits terms, people who are high on disgust, low on openess are unlikely to get to desire, see the point, or engage with Plotkin's spirit niche. (They may be deeply religious, but it is a dualistic rather than monistic experience). But, even one dose of LSD has shown some ability to change one's Big Five composition . . . toward what I'll term the monism cluster [1].

This could be a nexus point/battle ground for the future, as I'm not sure those with dualistic stances want their sensibilities to be changed.

ETA: Trying to be clearer here. Imagine some government program to change people's perception to nature using chemical treatments to alter consciousness. Or even imagine a bunch of celebrities and thought leaders trying to influence people to do it. . . I don't see that going over well.

[1] I've never done the stuff. But then, I'm wired for mystical feeling without it.

[AnalyticalEngine]

ETA: Trying to be clearer here. Imagine some government program to change people's perception to nature using chemical treatments to alter consciousness. Or even imagine a bunch of celebrities and thought leaders trying to influence people to do it. . . I don't see that going over well.

Actually this was a major component in the CIA's MK Ultra project back in the 50s and then the counterculture movement in the 60s. If you want to learn more about this piece of history, because it's absolutely fascinating, I suggest the book "Acid Dreams."

The tl;dr is that the context of a psychedelic experience is massively important to the effect it has on you. If you go into it with the right context, expecting a transformative mystical experience, that's what you get. If the CIA randomly spikes your coffee with acid, you tend to just develop paranoid psychosis.

[candide]

@AE

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll try to check it out some time.

. . . I was meaning more of a future program trying to use psychedelics for good instead of evil, especially if the stuff can be tailored to the individual using super science.

But, yeah, what if the framing is a key piece that cannot be plowed through bio-chemically? I don't want it to get lost that I am saying that many people who don't get to the spirit niche like it that way, and will try to head off at the pass any attempt to move them along the path.

[Ego]

Harmfully toxic people suck and it is good to rid them from our lives if possible. For some the ongoing desire to remove their poisonous influences can be an excellent motivator to stick with the goal of becoming financial independent. Once FI works to remove the harmfully toxic, it becomes tempting to use it to eliminate those who are non-toxic but inconvenient to deal with, and eventually to eliminate the need to interact with anyone who doesn't have the obvious potential to add significantly.

But is SI even possible?

[jacob]

The tl;dr is that the context of a psychedelic experience is massively important to the effect it has on you. If you go into it with the right context, expecting a transformative mystical experience, that's what you get. If the CIA randomly spikes your coffee with acid, you tend to just develop paranoid psychosis.

Like putting the God Helmet on random people.

But generalizing ... if you put the "FIRE helmet" on people who just want freedom-from, they're gonna get 6-12 months of streaming netflix before going back to the work-community. [Do I need to go on with examples?] IOW, one's current Wheaton level informs one's approach to the next WL.

One can make it a mission or purpose to facilitate these transitions. There are words for this in the Tier2 community like network facilitator.

[AnalyticalEngine]

But is SI even possible?

I would define mature SI as the ability to be dropped in a new environment and construct a desirable social network by yourself. At higher levels of mature FI, you become a leader or someone who defines the culture for a group.

Immature SI is the classic "rich billionaire with no friends." You are "independent" from other people but not in a healthy way.

Social dependence is relying on connection from family/spouse's network/work and being unable to maintain these outside of those contexts. (The reason that so many elderly people end up socially isolated is relying on these forms of social capital but being unable to replace them when taken out of the work/family context)

[jacob]

Sorry, but I object...

Maybe we need to reconsider how we engage using other concepts beyond whatever approach ends in *dependence. The stock-flow construct of physical limits drives *-dependence. But that *-dependence optimizes for winners because stock-flow is zero-sum. However, there are other solutions ...

What if dropping out means going negative-sum flow to go over the hump?
What if dropping out means accumulating stock to dominate the next evolution?

[guitarplayer]

It appears to me that when zooming out enough there is convergence of capitals. For example

* the concept of money in based on trust.
* social relations are transactional.
* placebo contributes to physical health.
* daily exercising routine mitigates certain mental health risks.
* knowledge lifts all the boats.

I appreciate the exercise to go analytical in distinguishing the types but feel the need is also not to forget that ultimately all is entangled.

[xmj]

Amusingly, there's also a convergence of these capitals to what makes for a flourishing family -- such that there's ample literature coming from the Family Office crowd (for families w/ assets exceeding $100mln), that originated with James Hughes' Family Wealth.

See e.g. this excellent summary by UBS, this other article by First Republic and last but not least, by The James Hughes Foundation.

What's also consistent is looking at how legacy family members go about it -- many vitas / life histories aren't exactly "dropping out" in the sense of dumpster diving and related fringes, but rather tending to beautiful (trustee in art museum as the OG legacy career) or generally useful (public service, perhaps) things far off the rat race.

Byron Tully pulls a few threads together in his article Why Are Old Money Guys & Gals So Frugal? and goes into some reasons how the convergence in approaches might occur. It would turn out living off one form of irreplenishable capital might just do that to you.

[Ego]

Byron Tully pulls a few threads together in his article Why Are Old Money Guys & Gals So Frugal? and goes into some reasons how the convergence in approaches might occur. It would turn out living off one form of irreplenishable capital might just do that to you.

I recognized three people in my immediate vicinity in that article, and from the outside those people certainly resemble frugal drop-outs. I could imagine the wealth generators looking up from their graves and wondering if their progeny would have been better off without the trusts.

If a trustfunder finds real frugality, like ERE, then it becomes impossible for a wealthy ancestor to set an amount that satisfies both of Buffett's conditions of inheritance. "Leave the children enough so that they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing,” For the truly frugal, enough to do anything is enough to do nothing. While these frugals are not squandering the wealth, they don't really appear - at least from the outside - to be doing much of anything at all. The temptation to do nothing, it seems, is stronger than the desire to do anything.

A life spent not squandering a trust does not even remotely resemble a life well lived.

[xmj]

A strong focus on privacy means you won't know if the outer life actually matches the inner life, or if they're just tightwads making bank on the side

Most OMG examples I'm aware off and acquainted to do something productive with their lives, whether remunerated or not -- that is not quite the most interesting question here (and, alas, none of my business )

Another interesting part about "How to Drop Out" was this framing in the latest comment on top:

"If you have the mental focus and self-discipline to be successful in the dominant society, but you don't like it, here's how you can change your value system to reduce your need for money and status, and gain some benefits of industrial civilization without being in a position of forced obedience."

[chenda]

...I know a few trust fund kids, one in her late 30's now, the other two in their early 50's. And they are all great people. I don't know anything about their "work ethic", but who cares? They don't need one. They live fulfilling, interesting lives enjoying their hobbies and friends. One's an artist with a following, the other does real estate development for fun, and the other just seems to always be fiddling with his antique furniture collection most days. Though the high-profile, stereotype trust fund kid is Paris Hilton and drug addicts, I doubt it's the norm.

[mathiverse]

A one dimensional life spent only maintaining a trust doesn't sound great and I agree with you, Ego, that if that's all they do, it's sad. However, that wasn't the point of the article.

The article doesn't answer the question of how these people spend their free time and their life in general. It spoke about how having a trust promotes long term thinking and prioritizing value and what that might look like in practice *when it comes to financial assets*.

Those two principles that result in sustained assets are pretty fundamental to becoming FI or ERE for many people. For example, YMOYL was particularly focused on teaching people to understand value vs cost. One of the prerequisites of reaching FI (early and/or at non-ridiculous income levels) is lowering your discount rate (= thinking long term).

If those two principles result in an unfulfilling life in general, then what are we all doing here?

I think that those two principles promote good financial positions and good decisions in multiple areas of life (eg health, fitness, knowledge, etc). Generally, you can apply the principles in the financial realm without that resulting in stagnation in other parts of your life. Probably getting to the systems thinking level is the way to prevent the problems resulting from being too cheap. Noticing that something that is good value for you in one dimension is low value for you in the big picture (eg because it alienates your social network or will result in long term health consequences, etc) is something that is important to learn to do.