WL 5 -> 6 MMMG

Home of groups, cadres, circles, teams, ...
OutOfTheBlue
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by OutOfTheBlue »

I'm not sure the recipe example works well here.

In the online cooking school that I did, many modules revolved around ingredients (grain, pasta, eggs, poultry, etc.) and/or cooking methods (braising, pan frying, etc.), with the recipes given as practical assignments that incidentally produce a tasty result you can share with others. At one point, the plant-based course offered examples of how to go about substituting ingredients to convert certain non-vegan recipes. For instance, understanding why the eggs are used (as a binding agend, as a levening agend, etc.) helps decide which ingredients could make good candidates, if you can just omit the ingredient altogether (also an option) or if the eggs are so central (typically three eggs or more) that the recipe is not a good fit for conversion.

You can learn to perfect a recipe before branching out, but you can also learn the principles underlying the cooking process from the get go and then apply them to a broader array of situations.

---

Jacob in The ERE Wheaton scale thread wrote:In general, each new stage is expected to encompass everything from the previous stage, also known as the "no jumping rule". This should be respected more in spirit than in law though.

[…]

The table is not a map. It's more of a mapquest description of the landscape as one gets closer to the goal. There might be multiple goals.

However, the table is not entirely random either. Given how useful/accurate it is, it does describe one if not the most common approaches. Other tables could be made taking the workman quadrant as a starting point rather than the salaryman.
Coming from the working man quadrant, I have kept that point in mind, and I am fairly certain the same applies to someone who has already mastered permaculture or is already orbiting as a well balanced renaissance man.

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 »

For those who find these things helpful, this is the most abstract way of putting it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_ ... complexity

WL1 - MHC7
WL2 - MHC8
WL3 - MHC9
WL4 - MHC10
WL5 - MHC11
WL6 - MHC11.5
WL7 - MHC12
WL8 - MHC12.5
WL9 - MHC13

Traditional education at the college level is aimed at creating formal thinkers. Systems-thinking is a difference of kind. Since it's often misunderstood, systems-thinking does not mean thinking systematically as being stepwise or meticulous or as in having a system that organizes one's collection of dinner plates or financial accounts. It means thinking holistically about the whole set and all its interconnections at the same time.

Many people object to this hierarchy. First because "it's a hierarchy" and some consider that anathema. Second because people tend to presume that just because they can e.g. think formally, they do so everywhere. But lets be honest here. In many cases, formal thinking happens in specific contexts that often have lots of scaffolding. That is, people can think formally if someone else gives them a formal equation, like "2x+8=4y, please find y" and train them to do this. However, how many honestly do this spontaneously? I submit that this number is much smaller.

This is why the greater part of humanity operates at WL1-2 despite many being able to execute at MHC11 at their day-job.

The point here is that WLs measure how someone consistently executes outside of this scaffolding.

So basically, WL5 means that one is consistently applying formal thinking to "traditional home economics". Again, most people can barely figure out to use a budget. WL6 means beginning to pay attention to the whole home, not just the economics. WL7 is rewiring the home as a complete system.

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by Scott 2 »

ertyu wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:08 pm
deep down, 5 appears to require optimization in quantitative terms, and optimization in quantitative terms is BORING and UNENGAGING
I wonder if this highlights a misuse of quantitative optimization?

I see quantitative feedback as the lazy way forward. Instead of doing something for a month, I can try it for a day, then extrapolate from data. It saves wasted effort and lets me try more things. Short feedback loops focus my qualitative choices. If I track calories, I know the legume heavy diet is underfeeding me on day 1. Otherwise - it might take a month until a loose pair of pants tips me off.

When I'm struggling to affect change, I introduce a metric. When the metric stops informing change, I drop it. Quantification is only useful in that in raises assumptions or triggers conversations. The entire goal is qualitative action.

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 »

It seems as though the shift towards systems thinking (WL6) requires a relaxation of the optimizations made in WL5, to afford the greater skill required by WL6+. It reminds me of a graph I saw AxelHeyst post, I found it in the chArt museum initially:
AxelHeyst wrote:
Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:18 am
Image
Notice that CoL must rise slightly for skill and quality of living to take off. This may not be the original point of the chart, but I think it can be taken to represent the final optimization by WL5 (the nadir of CoL) and the exponential increase in complexity of WL6 that Jacob mentioned. What the chart cannot explicitly show, perhaps, is how CoL is kept low by the increase in complexity, rather than further optimization. To me it is quite a motivating image.

It seems as though the big push then is in doing more and different things; "adding different boxes".
jacob wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:47 am
WL5 - Making your box as good as you can.
WL6 - Adding different boxes.
WL7 - Connecting different boxes with each.

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 »

avalok wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:18 pm
It seems as though the big push then is in doing more and different things; "adding different boxes".
Effectively, it means giving up watching TV/youtube.

guitarplayer
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by guitarplayer »

jacob wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:27 pm
Effectively, it means giving up watching TV/youtube.
Coincidentally today I had a lunch chat with work colleagues on one of those rare days when I went to the office. They were all chuffed about using Black Friday to optimize for purchases of 50 inches tv sets (that was one) and reclining sofas (another one).

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 »

guitarplayer wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:59 pm
They were all chuffed about using Black Friday to optimize for purchases of 50 inches tv sets (that was one) and reclining sofas (another one).
I suppose WL1 would take the "adding different boxes" to refer to televisions.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

mathiverse wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:46 am
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.
Having caught up on your journal, I can't imagine you're very far from being able to do this. You've read several books, cooked hundreds of meals, including several spurts of cooking 90%+ of the meals.

I really do think this is one of those things were you have 3 out of 4 of the right numbers dialed in, and you need just one more to open the lock -- metaphorically speaking.

Is one of the books you have read Bittman's How to Cook Everything? My library system has it both hard copy and on Hoopla, so I bet is pretty easy to find. Once you have a few base sauces down, you can gussy up a protein and then just add a side or two and then you can just bulk prepare parts of that.

These patterns have worked well enough to satisfy my wife, who is a notoriously picky eater. I'll try to write more about this on the weekend when I have some more time.
mathiverse wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:46 am
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.
This sounds reasonable to me.

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 »

mathiverse wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:46 am
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.
Throwing various leftovers into an omelet is a good start. Figure out what works together, almost everything does, except maybe soup :-P I recommend being somewhat systematic about it.

guitarplayer
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by guitarplayer »

Soup makes for a nice sauce, it normally thickens after a day or two.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

The concept of the Universal Recipe helps a great deal with using up leftovers. I used the Universal Muffin and Universal Casserole recipes from the Tightwad Gazette quite frequently when I was feeding family of four.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by Western Red Cedar »

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).

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)*.
You can't skip levels, but apparently you can enter through a side door on occasion ;)

I think @mooretrees is a good example of someone who spent very little time (if any) at the optimization stage and gravitated quickly towards the yields and flows stage. It seems like this is a much easier transition for those who are social and naturally look towards relationships to build resiliency:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:48 am
I think you skipped right over Optimizer and took much more social being than typical forum member detour to Stocks and Flows :lol:

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by mathiverse »

Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
candide wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:40 am
Is one of the books you have read Bittman's How to Cook Everything? My library system has it both hard copy and on Hoopla, so I bet is pretty easy to find. Once you have a few base sauces down, you can gussy up a protein and then just add a side or two and then you can just bulk prepare parts of that.
Someone lent me that book, but I haven't read it yet. I'll check out the sauces there! Dressing up proteins to be edible is definitely something I want to work on. Thanks for the recommendation.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts when you have time. :)

@7w5 - I'll check out those recipes. Thanks for the pointer!

@gp - Hm, I guess I have done that with soup. Make the soup and eat it alone, over rice, or over greens over the next few days. I generally saw all those as the same thing with a new item on the side rather than a new dish. I haven't tried soup over other things though. Maybe soup over meat or soup in an omelet like jacob mentioned could taste good for some things.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

The Bittman book is great because it is organized by general principle, then specific examples as recipes.

I think one thing it can do is show where gaps are in your general game -- but again, it seems like you have a bunch of recipes and techniques. I think you are a lot closer than you think.

ETA

Found a version of Universal Casserole:


Makes 4 to 6 servings

1 cup main ingredient

1 cup second ingredient

1 to 2 cups starchy ingredient

1/2 to 1-1/2 cups binder

1/4 cup goodie

Seasoning

Topping

Main ingredient: Tuna, cubed chicken, turkey, ham, seafood, cooked ground beef, etc.

Second ingredient: Sliced celery, mushrooms, chopped hard-cooked eggs, green beans or other cooked vegetables, etc.

Starchy ingredient: Sliced potatoes, cooked noodles or rice, etc.

Binder: Cream sauce, sour cream, canned cream soup concentrate, shredded cheese, low-fat mayonnaise, beaten eggs, mashed beans, etc.

"Goodie": Pimento, olives, almonds, water chestnuts, etc.

Topping: Bread crumbs, shredded cheese, panko, sesame seeds, etc.

Directions: Combine all ingredients and cook on the stove until warmed all the way through, or layer in a 2-quart casserole dish coated with nonstick spray and bake at 350 degrees for 20-30 minutes, until it bubbles at the sides.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by ertyu »

Scott 2 wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:37 pm
I wonder if this highlights a misuse of quantitative optimization?
Excellent point. Thank you for pointing out this blind spot.

I also really appreciated Jacob's explanation of the way in which I'd misunderstood WL5. The lentil soup optimization example made it hit home.

I however found myself questioning this:
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.
There seems to be an implicit connection drawn between truly understanding a thing and optimizing it. It is true that one arrives at understanding as one optimizes, but that wasn't intuitive to me at all - I understand things by sitting with them rather than by optimizing.

I had, however, missed that later levels would circle back to this optimization and use it.

It seems to me that one can be a systems thinker without being an optimizer, however. What I mean by optimizer is, to a certain personality type, optimizing itself is inherently interesting and engaging, and a source of motivation and drive. The fact that something has been optimized feels in and of itself as a meaningful result. Whereas for me the process of optimizing and the fact that as a result, something will be optimized, do not generate intrinsic motivation and drive. There is a part of me that's attracted to optimizing, but it's attracted to it neurotically, as an obsessive abreaction to the living my life with a constant backdrop of anxiety and existential terror.* From that place, letting go of optimizing seems psychologically adaptive to me because I experience it as letting go of neurosis. I rather suspect this step might be necessary if I am to later circle back to optimization in a functional way. Being able to be pleased at a process or result that's been well-optimized seems like a good venue for happiness to attain.

(*)the difference between clean and disciplined eating and anorexia came to mind

Scott 2
Posts: 2824
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by Scott 2 »

ertyu wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:53 am
I understand things by sitting with them rather than by optimizing.

I had, however, missed that later levels would circle back to this optimization and use it.

It seems to me that one can be a systems thinker without being an optimizer, however.
How do you confirm that you've sat with something long enough to understand it? What's your test? The feedback loop is the tool.

I don't think a numerical test is required. Good management is the art of working with uncertainty. Make your metric as coarse as possible, while continuing to yield corrective action. Reduce or automate the collection effort. Reduce the polling interval. Automate or delegate the corrective action.

The only necessary change effort, is that which elevates the constraint within your system. Everything else is busy work.


As you point out - there's an opportunity cost to living in the details. Insistence upon understanding them all constrains growth. This is a mistake I'm prone to. The hard part of letting the disordered behavior go, is it is locally effective. Continued growth requires giving up that something good.

I think it's fair to question - Is a specific personality type prone to the over-optimization error? Do others (under represented here) have the opposite problem? I bet they do.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

Roll Call

When I started this experiment, I wasn't seeing it as just a thread on how to go from levels 4/5 to 6, but as a place for the 4/5s in question to gather. Like the "study buddy" concept Jacob mentioned in the darknetting thread.

So here's who'd I call members of that group, and their respective journals, so far:


Avalok
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.
Journal:
viewtopic.php?t=11881

Mathiverse
mathiverse wrote:
Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:58 pm
I'm WL4, WL5 on my best days (WL1 on my worst :-D). I'm trying to get to WL6 right now.
Journal:
viewtopic.php?t=11038

Me, Candide

Journal:
viewtopic.php?t=12483

And then I wasn't quite as sure about ertyu
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).

...

Anyway, I might need to do more thinking about what is the best, sustainable bc internally congruent, way to progress for me.
Are you wanting in the group? Just let me know here if you do.

So my idea is that there are 3, perhaps 4, current voting members of the group. (.. And yes, I'm open to more!) One member of the group can pitch an idea, and then the other members can vote on it.

I think to really be an MMG, we should have some activities that are structured both in action and in time.

Here's some ideas:

-- a group study on the yields and flows thread.
-- start case studies on what we want to work on (I'm down for food costs).
-- form a email chain just with members, then report back to the wider group

In my opinion, the last one is to be a last option as this whole thread/group was started in the wake of the bigger problems with darknetting our lovely forum. But it should be considered if there is a feeling of embarrassment about sharing too many details.

And as I believe we all work, I don't think anything should be expected to be more frequent than once a week -- including the response to this meta-motion on how we will do motions.
Last edited by candide on Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shaz
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:05 pm
Location: Colorado, US

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by shaz »

I'm sort of tentatively in. My hesitancy is because any involvement on my part will be sporadic due to the nature of my relationship with electronic media. Outside of work, I will go for days or weeks at a time without using my phone or tablet. But I would like to chime in when I am online and I will be reading with great interest.

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by ertyu »

I am very interested in the discussion, the posts here have highlighted several misconceptions and blind spots of mine. But I am not sure if WL6 isn't jumping too far ahead for me? I'd like to tentatively try and see how it goes but it's possible I'm shooting beyond my skill level

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

Re: WL 5 > 6 MMMG

Post by candide »

shaz wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:13 pm
I'm sort of tentatively in. My hesitancy is because any involvement on my part will be sporadic due to the nature of my relationship with electronic media. Outside of work, I will go for days or weeks at a time without using my phone or tablet. But I would like to chime in when I am online and I will be reading with great interest.
I can relate. I am working hard on my information diet myself. I am on a YouTube fast until a date in February -- and that was my last internet time drain I felt bad about.

I'm putting you in as a voting member. And that means you don't vote when items are put on the table, no biggie.
ertyu wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:46 pm
But I am not sure if WL6 isn't jumping too far ahead for me? I'd like to tentatively try and see how it goes but it's possible I'm shooting beyond my skill level
I would have let it go at that, but then I saw your mini goal of getting deeper stores of food ready. That's enough for me to extend you voting privileges... I'm not an expert in what makes someone WL 6+ (which is why I am a member of the this group), but to me preparing shows a real attempt to move past the market as the only solution to your problems. Maybe you can't always earn/throw more money.

. . .

I'd like to facilitate rather than direct for a while. In particular, I am entering a difficult week of work-- where all my time I would in other weeks get through my to-do list is going to get gobbled up in b.s. -- but two weeks from now, I'll be on holiday break.

But if nothing else, I think the minimum commitment of being in this group should be reading the other members' new journal entries when you see them.

avalok
mathiverse
candide
shaz
ertyu

It's kind of like the web rings of old.

Post Reply