WL 5 -> 6 MMMG

Home of groups, cadres, circles, teams, ...
Post Reply
candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

WL 5 -> 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

Target audience: WL 4 and 5 who want to get to WL 6.

I am not going for the canonical MMG group limit of 8, so it's a massive mastermind group.

Also part of this experiment is to keep as much of it as possible in this thread.
Last edited by candide on Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

First, open call... what are some good thread/journals from the past that were good examples of the move up to WL 6?

Second, are there people willing to identify as WL 4 or 5 and is interested in the process of getting to WL 6?
Chart:
https://earlyretirementextreme.com/wp-c ... evels2.jpg
Last edited by candide on Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OutOfTheBlue
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by OutOfTheBlue »

Yields and Flows - viewtopic.php?t=10897

Western Red Cedar
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by Western Red Cedar »

A couple of relevant journals off the top of my head that talk a lot about the WL 5-6 transition:

2birds1Stone: viewtopic.php?t=7586

Jin&Guice: viewtopic.php?t=10072

avalok
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:42 am
Location: West Midlands, UK; Walkscore 73

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by avalok »

I think this MMG could be incredibly useful for me. I'm not really sure which level I'm at, but I'd say I feel like I am mainly at 5, with some grasps of 6 (though not well enough to comfortably explain to anyone). I've been looking for support in progressing more to 6 without really knowing it.
Last edited by avalok on Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mathiverse
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:40 pm

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by mathiverse »

I'm WL4, WL5 on my best days (WL1 on my worst :-D). I'm trying to get to WL6 right now.

What do people see as the "work" to get to Wl6? Right now, I guess I see the "work" as getting a bunch of skills to the point they give me yields as shown in the graph at the 19:50 timestamp of Jacob's first Stoa talk.

Edit: To remove some info
Last edited by mathiverse on Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

avalok wrote:
Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:13 pm
I think this MMG could be incredibly useful for me. I'm not really sure which level I'm at, but I'd say I feel like I am mainly at 5, with some grasps of 6 (though not well enough to comfortably explain to anyone). I've been looking for support in progressing more to 6 without really knowing it.
As a follower of your journal, I think I can see that as well. You work on a wide range of skills, you have great curiosity, and you look for connections. I am quite confident you will level up before I, but I will enjoying learning from you and sharing along the way.

@mathiverse I will get caught up on your journal.

My guess at the work for 5 to 6 is get more compound actions in. I think it was in the book that Jacob had a maxim that you can never do only one thing. And so I think this step is to see more of those "other actions" you are doing, and building a bunch of different skills and connections that allow even greater efficiencies, but probably just as importantly, plug up financial leaks.

Above OutOfTheBlue recommended a thread on yields and flows. Going over that together might be a good pace-setting activity for this group.

Another structure could be seeking out, and creating on our own, case studies of how something could be done that looks very close to a WL-5 action, but then veers off.

Well, even if it is the just the three of us, I am really excited for this group. But I'm also happy to see who else comes aboard.

OutOfTheBlue
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by OutOfTheBlue »

The Yields and Flows thread discusses exactly that WL 5 > 6 transition. It has even made it to the Best of the ERE Forum thread, and I think it could be a great entry point for re-opening this discussion (along with gold mining into specific journals).

While not being too hang up on the Wheaton levels, I have thoroughly enjoyed related threads as a source of understanding and inspiration and acknowledge their usefulness for leveling-up purposes beyond being a communication tool (as originally intended).

I will be happy to follow along.

Colibri
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Northern Canada

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by Colibri »

As a self proclaimed WL 6 (and working towards WL7), I would be much interested to contribute in this MMMG as an available resource.

avalok
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:42 am
Location: West Midlands, UK; Walkscore 73

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by avalok »

mathiverse wrote:
Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:58 pm
What do people see as the "work" to get to Wl6? Right now, I guess I see the "work" as getting a bunch of skills to the point they give me yields as shown in the graph at the 19:50 timestamp of Jacob's first Stoa talk.
I think the qualitative leap required is the change in frame of mind from isolated end products, which are seen to fulfil a specific need, to "higher order" yields, which are now observed to meet more than one need. Things are no longer done for a single purpose, but a known multitude, and this is intentional. At lower levels, yields and flows are operational, but they are not seen by ≤WL5. This is a rehash of what Jacob says here.

One must transcend the internal dialogue I have this problem, what do I need to acquire to solve it?, to something like I have this problem, how can I combine these things to solve it?. By the end of WL5 the first question is optimized, and so a new question is required(*).

In Jacob's post I linked to, cooking with leftovers is given as an example. For eating, WL5 focuses on optimization: meals are planned, the best cost per weight of goods bought, perhaps no leftovers are created because everything is optimized. Components are isolated in the name of efficiency. WL6 realises that this is inflexible, limited. They keep much of the optimization, but begin to integrate: they facilitate leftovers because they can be used to create another meal the following day (flow); this saves time (yield) and the WL6 has created a new dish (yield). Beyond this, spoiled leftovers can later be composted (flow), the new dish can be shared with friends (flow), which strengthens connections (yield).

In short, I think it entails the first shift from goal-oriented thinking to process-oriented thinking.

(*) This makes we wonder if the WL5-6 barrier represents a particularly significant divide in the scale. As far as I can tell, everything ≥WL6 is process-oriented, everything ≤WL5 is goal oriented.

EDIT: recall I didn't feel I could comfortably explain WL6 to anyone, so this is mainly based on other threads and the glimpses I mentioned.

mathiverse
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:40 pm

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by mathiverse »

I agree that's the qualitative leap, but it seems like once you make that leap, there is still a huge barrier of getting to the point that you can implement the connections that you see. A given node in your WOG needs to yield something before you can connect the yield to another node.

For example, I know about all of those potential yields and flows you mentioned with respect to cooking and some were easy to implement (like getting a compost bin). However, cooking so you have leftovers that you can make into multiple different dishes is currently beyond my skill level, so even if I can see the potential flow, in practice, I probably need to increase my cooking skill level first before I have a yield of leftovers that can flow into other dishes.

My initial idea was that I should improve some skills to the point I can get more yields that can be used as flows and so I can implement some potential flows that I know are possible. The abstract thought part of noticing yields and flows is mostly there for me, but maybe I could do better there as well. There may be some opportunities for yields and flows that are possible at my current skill level which I can identify and implement now instead of later when I'm better at this or that.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

In permaculture, the analysis is more often objects or elements in space, rather than activities taking time/energy in lifestyle. So, there is needs-and-yield or niche analysis and also zone-and-sector analysis. I think it might be easier to think in terms of needs-and-yield rather than yields and flows, because flow is usually either yield or need over time/space.

For example, it's easier to think of the needs-and-yield of the object in your system which is a Car or Apple Tree than to consider the yields and flows of the activity in your system which is Driving or Harvesting.

avalok
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:42 am
Location: West Midlands, UK; Walkscore 73

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by avalok »

@mathiverse apologies, I think I better understand now what you were asking, and I don't feel I can answer how you get better at doing what you already know to do, other than the obvious.

I should add that I think this where the can be a conflation between WL6 and 7, and it is also where WL6 kind of sucks: the connection of flows to create further yields is not cohesive. There isn't really a strategy yet, so much as a collection of tactics. It is inelegant because it feels to me like one has to try and use yields whenever they notice them. I find the WoG exercise powerful to sit down and create, but I walk away and do not think from the framework I have drawn; instead I will happen to notice an opportunity to "catch" an extra yield as something flows through.

Regarding upskilling so as to acquire yields, I have a feeling that the major limiting factor is the nascent ability to notice non-primary yields, when they present themselves. The reverse fishbones exercise from the book demonstrates that you can never do one thing, but we tend to only notice one thing in the wild.

@7w5, interesting. I wonder if this ties in with the shift from goal/objected-oriented thinking, to process-oriented. Processes are time-based, which makes them much harder to reason with; they're not static.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by jacob »

FWIW, ERE WOG tends to be contingency based, so not time or goal based. It flows in compressed time rather than constant time. Compare it to investing in the market. Most of the time nothing happens, but then suddenly a lot of things happen. The more yield-factors you have in your arsenal and the more strategy you understand, the better you can respond or rather the better your strategy for responding is. This is a WL7 though. For WL5-6, the key is just to get out of the "I can always make more money more efficiently mindset and start including other capitals." IOW, chapter 4 of the ERE book. WL7/chapter 5 is transcending that.

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

Colibri wrote:
Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:30 pm
As a self proclaimed WL 6 (and working towards WL7), I would be much interested to contribute in this MMMG as an available resource.
Thanks for coming in. Do you remember the times you would have felt you were WL 5, and what the process was like to get to WL 6? By this I am trying to get at mathiverse's question about what you think the work is to be done to get to the next level.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by AxelHeyst »

I feel like I made the 5>6 transition within the last couple years. A couple reflections:
.I think of 5 as having figured out how to optimize the yield of money specifically. How to get the most of it for the least effort, how to get nice things by spending the least of it, etc.
.6 is becoming aware of and beginning to work with yields other than money. Getting really curious about what it is I'm actually after, and how I can best optimize for those various things.

For example, at 5, I worked on the practice of how to mountain bike as frugally as possible. What's the most money efficient way to mountain bike.

At 6, I said: wait a minute, why am I mountain biking? What is it I'm after with MTB? I dug in to what I got out of it. My answers to that question was exercise, thrills, camraderie, risk, etc. I also thought about the nonfinancial costs. Gas, parts, hospital bills.

For me, the practice that guided me from 5 to 6 was doing a bunch of reverse wishbone diagrams for as many of the things I did in my life as possible. I made dozens. It helped me to see that $ was one dimension among many, and trained me to see the 'hidden' costs and benefits of various actions. It decentralized money. Ah, right: for me, a simple way of describing 5>6 is that money decentralized in my perspective. Sketching all the pos and neg effects for each node in my life was the work. For me.

ertyu
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by ertyu »

This discussion is very interesting to me because it makes me realize that one of the reasons why I am stuck at a lower WL -- I am currently (maybe) a 4 at most? -- is that deep down, 5 appears to require optimization in quantitative terms, and optimization in quantitative terms is BORING and UNENGAGING (this holds across different areas of life, e.g. I dislike keeping a record of my spending, CICO and keeping track of food/activity levels, "cost per calorie"/"cost per kwh" and related optimizations).

WL 6 as described, though? I can get behind that because I can frame it as navel-gazing. For some reason I never thought of a wishbone diagram as applied navel-gazing but it is exactly that, isn't it? "What you get out of it" -- the overall sum of yelds -- is about self-knowledge and emotions. This, now, feels meaningful and motivating in a way that optimizing protein sources according to cost per gram does not.

I think the "you can't jump levels" dictum has served as a subconscious deterrent for me. Going WL4 to WL5 seems intensely boring and like it will require work that would be decidedly unfun to do and stick with, and people at WL 6+ say you can't get there unless you first optimize 5, so lizard brain goes, "oh well, I guess we're not going there, then, who wants to live like that?" ("like that" = WL5 -- not the frugality or low consumerism of it, which is fine and congruent with my values, but the dreary focus on constant optimization according to quantitative metrics, which is not)*.

(*) for those wondering, but how can you optimize without measuring: e.g. "minimize kwh per week" and "live without a refrigerator or ac" are both goals that will result in low energy consumption. Maybe "live without a refrigerator" and the like will not result in the most numerically optimal outcome but it will still get you a long way towards an overall goal of lean/minimalist/resource-unintensive/low-cost living. The food equivalent of this would probably be, "CICO and cost of gram of protein" vs. "just eat a plant-based legume-heavy diet and the cico and cost per gram will roughly take care of themselves"

In general, this makes me think that I need to re-think this entire project. There is a more or less standard "ERE path" that emerges on the forum. There's surely self-selection involved: those more suited to the quantitative/engineering approach vibe with it intuitively and stay, while those who intuitively sense that the engineers think of them as less-than go elsewhere**.

(**) there's a link here to "how do we avoid dark-netting/make the place more newcomer-friendly"

Anyway, I might need to do more thinking about what is the best, sustainable bc internally congruent, way to progress for me.

candide
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 pm
Location: red state America
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

@ertyu

That seems to me to be a promising series of epiphanies.

I was looking at the yields and flows thread, and so I am reminded of this post by Jacob:
viewtopic.php?p=197332#p197332

In particular I am drawn to the chess analogy. Beginners only see moves. Middle-level players see on level of patterns, and higher level players see even higher patterns and balances still...

Well, let's see if we can't get more juice out of the analogy and tie it in with what you are saying. To play chess at the highest levels, you are going to have to do a ton of calculations (even if you wanted to make it "just about patterns," you are playing a zero-sum game, so if someone else sees has learned the same pattern, you're going to need to get an edge somewhere). Some people find that kind of calculation fun, and they may see the draw to chess. But the thing is, you can't just calculate in chess, at least not in a timed game (and unless you are immortal all games are essentially timed [1] ). So even if you are a calculating type, you have to learn the patterns so you can free up time and mental energy for the places in the game where you need to calculate.

Jacob, ibid:
jacob wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:12 pm
I should make it clear that thanks to math, it's easy enough to process/grasp all levels in an abstract manner. However, this is useless in terms of applying it ... application really requires there to be meat on the bones all the way up to the desired level. There's no faking it until you make it.
So, ertyu, I think you're on to something here. The patterns are more interesting to many of us than the optimizations. (And the optimizations need to move to patterns, which is what the second part of your post had examples of).

This thread/MMMG is just about moving to WL 6. But it looks like WL 6 is a worthy place to be -- interesting, beautiful, elegant. I think it can be of such value that if the fundamentals of 4/5 was the hang up, it can make the process worth it.

[1] Also, let's not forget the wolf strategy of taking so long that your opponent gives up -- talk about gaming the game.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by jacob »

ertyu wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:08 pm
This discussion is very interesting to me because it makes me realize that one of the reasons why I am stuck at a lower WL -- I am currently (maybe) a 4 at most? -- is that deep down, 5 appears to require optimization in quantitative terms, and optimization in quantitative terms is BORING and UNENGAGING (this holds across different areas of life, e.g. I dislike keeping a record of my spending, CICO and keeping track of food/activity levels, "cost per calorie"/"cost per kwh" and related optimizations).
People optimize in quantitative terms because 90%+ of WL1-4 are 100% focused on the financial aspect which happens to be quantitative. Most human learning theories show the same pattern. I know because I've looked at every one I could get my hands on. Part of ERE2 is to consider people coming in with focuses that are different from the finance variable. The people-oriented community-people are particularly interesting in that regard. I note that they too come to a point where they start optimizing who and how many they keep in touch with.

To give a parallel, the equivalent of WL4-5 is the point where the specialized expert focuses on becoming a better expert in order to grow their career. WL5 is still a one-trick pony but it's the best one-trick pony it can be. If ERE1 was a cooking school, WL5 cooks would focus on getting the best out of the recipe they were given using the best ingredients, frying them exactly right, ... Here's WL5 optimizing lentil soup: https://earlyretirementextreme.com/cook ... han-4.html There's nothing quantitative there but there's lots of chess-style calculation.

WL5 is useful/required for understanding the recipe one is given and making the best of it. At WL6 one begins to become interested in different recipes. There are different recipes than lentil soup. Even if they are not as efficient compared to smashing up the lentil soup, they provide variation. Resilience. The ability to cook from someone else than lentils, canned tomato, and onions.

The world opens.

Does one really need WL5 to get to WL6. Can't you just open a recipe book and cook whatever even if it isn't optimized? Yes, you can!

However, not understanding the recipe from WL5 makes it really difficult to get creative at WL7 when you start to make your own recipes. You can think of WL7 as the manager-level. WL6 as the broadly skilled expert. And WL5 as the specialist. It's difficult to manage something one doesn't really understand.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by jacob »

Here's another way:

WL1 - Looking for a box.
WL2 - Building a box.
WL3 - Making your box bigger.
WL4 - Making your box nicer.
WL5 - Making your box as good as you can.
WL6 - Adding different boxes.
WL7 - Connecting different boxes with each.
WL8 - So they all work seamless together.
WL9 - Connecting your set of boxes with other people's sets of boxes.

Torturing the metaphor here and maybe needs some rewarding. However, do note that there's a qualitative shift from WL5-6 and this is why WL5-6 is the hardest transition to make. Also that complexity goes up exponentially starting with WL6.

Post Reply