I like the multiplayer methaphor. Games don't have to have fixed objectives, nor do they need to have shared objectives. Sandbox-type games like Europa Universalis or Minecraft allow each player to set or change their own objectives. The OS metaphor is also useful in that an OS is essentially a philosophy that runs on a given hardware platform (the paradigm). In that regard, ERE1 is a philosophy, whereas ERE2 would be a new paradigm.Fish wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:30 amBased on that explanation, "multiplayer ERE" is one way to characterize ERE2. However, the multiplayer concept seems limiting because ERE1 doesn't have a fixed objective like a game. Because objectives vary between individuals, it may be more useful to think of ERE1 as an operating system that supports a wide variety of software. (ERE1's web of goals also allows for efficient multitasking.)
Right, and what's interesting is that 15 years ago, these numbers were much smaller than they are here. If we go by the 90-9-1 rule, the "FIRE movement" had only a handful of creators and a few dozen contributors.Fish wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:30 amSomewhat related, compare the size of a community to the goal complexity of a representative member. I made this graph for illustrative purposes, using personal finance examples since this is a PF forum. While "mainstream PF" and "FIRE movement" are composed of a number of individual communities, they are grouped as such because the aggregate size of these movements is also the effective network size. Their members' goals and values wrt PF are similar/compatible, and the communities are aware of each other.
Larger scale and more complexity in connections is certainly a goal. Beyond the jargon-issue, I think that's also where some of the conflict between ERE1 and ERE2 stems from. Some are fine being FI and living within the existing societal structures, that is, arms-length transactions in the market place, membership of traditional institutions, and roles and job descriptions. Others see that as still being in Plato's Cave albeit with the chains off. FI and ERE1 creates a few more possibilities than job-career, but because FI/ERE1 has to interact with the job-career world, the possibilities are limited.Fish wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:30 amAlthough it has been stated that ERE2 doesn't have a specific goal, I can't help but imagine that ERE2 aspires to operate at a larger scale and/or at a higher average complexity than existing structures. Because it's not worth the extra effort to connect with other ERE1 when the existing structure satisfies the need.
I haven't thought of a good way to explain it yet, but it's like
conventional person surrounded by conventional people ~ 1 x 1 = 1 possibilities
ERE1 person surrounded by conventional people ~ 10 x 1 = 10 possibilities
ERE1 person surrounded by ERE1 people ~ 10 x 10 = 100 possibilities.
ADD: Okay, here's a better way using your LAN party description. At LAN parties, the problem was usually to find others who were into the same games as you. This was fine if you were into Quake, because everybody liked Quake. However, if you were into flight sims, the struggle was real. A conventional LAN party full of conventional people would play 1x1=1 games. An ERE1 person would like to play 10 different games, but in order to do so, he would have to find 10 different conventional LAN parties: The Quake party, The flightsim party, ... Whereas a LAN party with mostly ERE1 types would have exponentially more options to form teams.