How is the FIRE movement doing?

[Jin+Guice]

In my view, we live in such an egocentric culture and ERE, and to a lesser but still significant extent FIRE, questions that ego. I've never seen a movement that questions ego come to dominate.

We've had stoicism/ buddhism/ tons of other great philosophies for thousands of years, yet most of the problems they would solve persist.

People don't usually tend to appreciate if you come along and solve all or a lot of their problems for them.

As the FIRE moving was gaining traction it was getting significantly watered down. This is the ego of society fighting back.

If it had gotten big enough, I predict FIRE would've faced significant backlash from being started by a bunch of high-income earners. I think it's always been unpopular for your alt movement to be run by a bunch of rich people, but it is very unpopular right now to have an alt movement run by a bunch of high-income middle-aged (mostly) white (mostly) dudes.

The change that I've noted over the past ten years is not that young people have become dumber, but that they have become more tribal and more accepting of censorship based on the wrong tribal signals. At the present moment, I think this would confine FIRE to the high-earning salaryman fatFIRE prone segment.


The ERE book does include a long section which is a mathematical proof. It's possible to read the book and skip this part, but you have to have enough familiarity with things that have long mathematical proofs to know what you lose and what you don't if you skip the math.



If the goal as to grow into a mainstream movement then we either need to gain and publicly wield an extreme amount of power and/ or become sexy and fun. I don't think that's new.

[zbigi]

There are so many things wrong with this sentence.

Can you list at least some of them? I can't see where I might be wrong with this particular sentence. The stats don't lie - JP is a podcast and youtube-made phenomenon. He himself says that he recognized the trend early, and managed to capitalize on it.

[AnalyticalEngine]

That is ... unlike the "written culture" of 1985-2015, the "conversational culture" that replaced it basically leaves no trace.

Jacob, have you read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman? It was written in the 90s about television culture replacing print culture, but he makes a very similar argument to this. Basically, because reading evolved after oral culture, it forces people to slow down and think more carefully. Slipping back into television, and therefore the oral/image processing parts of the brain, in Postman's work, means being subsumed into images and losing coherence.

The change that I've noted over the past ten years is not that young people have become dumber, but that they have become more tribal and more accepting of censorship based on the wrong tribal signals. At the present moment, I think this would confine FIRE to the high-earning salaryman fatFIRE prone segment.

+1, I've noticed this too. What I think is going on here is that young people are very much desperate for solutions, but solutions need to be both actionable and relatable for younger people. Given that FIRE went mainstream and the public perception turned into high-earning, fatFIRE rich people, it's no longer relatable nor actionable for younger people without much money.

If we want to make something like ERE relatable for younger people, it needs to be demographically relatable, which means it needs to be more diverse (across all spectrums: age, race, gender, income, nationalities, whatever). Most unhappy younger people I talk to are very much want out of Plato's Cave, but the solution needs to be pitched in a way they understand.

[daylen]

I think video game skills translate quite well into real life skills once you build the bridge(s). Lots and lots of physical and mathematical intuition packed into a grand strategy game for instance (e.g. game theory, power laws, exponentials, linear models, probabilities). Hell, I have learned just as much about applied math from gaming as I did from my math degree. Though, I do agree some long-form book style studying is good for foundations.

[jacob]

[...] but the solution needs to be pitched in a way they understand.

Solutions are easy enough. The problem I run into over and over is that things have changed (perhaps thanks to the change in format from clinical writing to personable podcasts) so much that people now often care more about who the messenger is than what the message is. I've noticed situations where I said something that the group basically disregarded---then 5 minutes later, someone cooler and more popular says the same thing and everyone instantly thinks it's the smartest thing ever. Social power is a very real thing. For many people---I don't know if it's young people in particular or the change in culture in general---the messenger has become more important than the message. It matters more who says it than what is being said. Basically, rational argument no longer holds much authority---not to be confused with power---whereas social relations do.

If all the kids strongly believe that nobody over 30 should be trusted on principle, yet those over 30 have the solution, what's the strategy out of this pickle?

Consider:

Talking about charged topics:
Simple
Accurate
Well received
(Pick two)

Resolving this trilemma is pretty much the bane of my existence when it comes to engaging in other places [than the Accuracy-biased ERE forum]. It's hard for me to sacrifice Accurate, so elsewhere it always comes down to choosing between either pissing people off or sticking to simplistic platitudes.

Web1.0 prioritized the [inter]objective, but Web2.0 first made the switch to the subjective via personalized feeds and google-bubbles, and web3.0 is making the switch to the intersubjective, where tribe matters more than anything: "My tribe, right or wrong!". I think the FIRE movement---being mostly an internet phenomena(?)---has evolved concurrently along with this general evolution.

The FIRE movement might have failed because it never developed a tribal identity ... alternatively, failed because the tribal identity that became ascribed to it (tall, white, male, techy, 40+ ... the standard NASA geek) is currently anathema in popular culture and thus are barred from communicating solutions.

[7Wannabe5]

Can you list at least some of them?

Well, primarily the conjunction of "Peterson" , "validity", and "deep."

There is no polite way to put this, but since Peterson claims that “If you worry about hurting people’s feelings and disturbing the social structure, you’re not going to put your ideas forward,” I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found—he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.

https://macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-p ... rt-person/

IOW, humans who don't read books believe that Peterson is a valid representation of a deep intellectual, because they don't read books. Peterson is more like a valid representation of a character from a Sinclair Lewis novel slightly updated/upscaled with iron-on-elbow-patches for the internet age. The first season of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (and I am being dead serious with this statement) contains more intellectual depth than a collection of Peterson video lectures.

[Jin+Guice]

I don't think needing a charismatic leader to popularize your message is a new thing.

I don't think interpersonal power dynamics and popularity are new.

MMM was/is the salesperson bc he was/ is popular. His blog was attractive and he wrote in a character format that was/ is engaging.

People will always be people and it's always going to be hard to sell your big theory of everything idea to Joe Everybody.

When a new idea comes bouncing along, I think it's a human trait to look for reasons to reject that idea, especially if that idea is different than your current worldview. While I do think the average person is boring and uninteresting and kind of dumb, I don't think this is why they reject great ideas. It's bc we all need some perception of a relatively consistent reality or we would cease to be able to function.

As such, if you want to get your idea out there you need to get them past the filters. You need to catch people's attention and then hold their interest. This is effectively what popularity is.




I do believe that there has been a shift from a text based internet to a podcast/ video based internet and that this is good for some and bad for others. I also imagine the internet has gotten dumber, but the old internet had some barriers to entry so it filtered for a certain type of person.




Coming up with a solution off of the top of my head, we want an attractive, articulate and good at internet video stuff person to regurgitate the material covered in the book in video format.

I would also suggest breaking down ERE into component parts. It's very powerful together, but one does not need to save 33x expenses to learn how to make household cleaner out of stuff they already have. Remember how the voluntary simplicity people don't like the finance bros and vice versa? How do you sell to each tribe, bc trying to appeal to all of them at once will not work, but there are still many hooks inside of ERE. Finance and chill is not the only one. It is a comprehensive lifestyle philosophy with something for almost everyone.

[guitarplayer]

Are we already an underground movement again?

I hope so!

[7Wannabe5]

While I do think the average person is boring and uninteresting and kind of dumb, I don't think this is why they reject great ideas. It's bc we all need some perception of a relatively consistent reality or we would cease to be able to function.

I would argue that the facility to hold multiple models of reality is a hallmark of intelligence. A simple example highly relevant to "ERE" would be the insight I gained by exploring the storm drains underneath the suburban subdivisions when I was a 12/13 year old girl in upper-middle-middle-class American society. IOW, I lived in a reality that included a social caste system in which income/square footage of home/designer-label-on-teenage-girl's jeans was strongly correlated, yet I also lived in a reality in which the flow of water didn't give a fuck about your social caste membership.

My point here being that instead of toadying to the reality that assigns importance to designer label differences, maybe making videos highlighting the "storm drain" reality would better serve the core purposes of "ERE"? And I don't mean to imply that vibing "doomer" is the way to go. I am suggesting that the way to go is showing how "exploring storm drains" is way more fun/interesting than "shopping for designer label jeans."

[jacob]

@7wb5 - In my experience, even the simplest practical suggestions are easily overrriden by ideological and tribal determinations about what's impossible and thus not even worth trying. It's pretty hard to apply the "show, don't tell" approach approach to an audience who insists on closing their ears and going lalala whenever suggestions don't confirm their preconceptions.

(Perhaps this is only happening because this resistance is still happening from [their] position of comfort.)

[jacob]

Consider a situation where the cultural API has come to a point where it only interfaces with "friends, family, and pop-culture icons" or some other narrow restrictions in terms of who someone is willing to accept input from. Where does that leave us relative to Web1.0 where anyone on it were willing to connect with anyone as long as they made rational sense.

[daylen]

Seems very plausible to me though I imagine there being some cultural fluidity in the form of continuous or semi-continuous travel that links various Dunbar level communities together (nomadism, augmented gaming, socialization, etc.). With perhaps much of the digital compute offloaded to more niche and energy efficient analog and quantum architectures. Presuming of course that we manage to build the sustainable energy infrastructure required to maintain at least a barebones digital infrastructure in the long run (i.e. several hundred years or more). Possibly outsourcing some automated manufacturing into space to reduce emissions and reach higher precision. Probably using more geothermal heat pumps and other more localized energy sources approaching something like a type 1 civilization and maybe a type 2 further out. There are many hoops to jump though, but I think it helps to speculate about the bigger picture even if we cannot predict the exact path we will take.

[jacob]

I've been positively encouraged by this reddit thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/PovertyFIRE/co ... t_extreme/ #anewhope

[AxelHeyst]

I liked this in particular:

Yeah I wish I found it sooner. I thought FIRE was for tech bros with big salaries only. I found it funnily enough through Paul Wheaton and permaculture.

The most common crit in that thread is 'oh that worked for him because he got his house pre-housing crisis, can't do it now'. Which I suppose is why the journals section here is so great, if people make their way to it.

[Jin+Guice]

I think it's hard to sell ERE as a wholesale theory. A few people will get it, most will not.

@7w5: I'm not sure what your storm drain metaphor is getting at? Where my mind goes is that storm drains were a source of intrigue and wonder available to all, where as designer jeans are not?


ERE could help you:

Gain access to designer jeans by reducing all other expenses.
Learn how to buy better quality jeans.
Learn how to repair existing designer jeans for a longer life span.
Learn how to dumpster dive jeans.
Learn how to make your own jeans in the style of the designer jeans and also mimic the label.


Hopefully somewhere in that journey most of the designer jean people realize that there is more to life than consuming designer jeans. Whether they do or don't, they are better off by their own definition. That is the brilliance of ERE.


I could provide equal options for the storm drain path, if I knew what the goal was...


Which is what I'm proposing. A sales pitch for everyone's point of entry, bc since ERE is so comprehensive, it would make almost everyone better at almost everything. Rather than sell it to everyone as a comprehensive theory with FIRE as the starting point, sell it to everyone at their own comfort level and then hope they are interested enough to investigate the rest*.

*This is what happened to me. FIRE just happened to work as the entry point when I found it. The first time I read the book I thought it was too extreme. I thought Jacob was bitter about earning what a tollbooth operator earned when he had a science PhD. I only returned to ERE bc I was starting to doubt index investing and the ERE blog was the only place I remembered a FIRE person not being absolutely in love with index investing. Then I discovered an active and small forum...

[Slevin]

@jacob semi-related from reading the reddit thread, but now that you are at 160x or whatever, would you consider spinning up the book into a series of blog posts (1 per chapter or something) on the ERE website / etc so that it is easier for people to access? Or does that pass an ethical line for you?

Obviously that book is worth >> $20 to anyone who reads and implements it (I've purchased 3 or 4 copies over the years as I give mine away fairly often), but I have to wonder if public availability and search-ability would increase uptake and awareness of the ERE flavor.

[zbigi]

Well, primarily the conjunction of "Peterson" , "validity", and "deep."

I still don't understand. Let's try breaking it down:
1. "Validity". I wrote that "The huge popularity of Jordan Peterson among younger audiences is a testiment to the validity of video lectures". Surely, that can't be a controversial statement? The guy has hundreds of thousand or even millions of younger people listening to his philosophical lectures. Whereas, before getting on YouTube, almost no one read his philosophical opus magnum "Maps of Meaning". People much prefer the lecture format to book format, which was my point.
2. "Deep". I was replying to @jacob, who was lamenting that young post-COVID people are only interested in consuming 30 second TikTok drivel. Compared to that, a two hour long YouTube video of Peterson having a discussion with say Richard Dawkins clearly and uncontroversially counts as "deep".

[theanimal]

@zbgi- You're overthinking it. She doesn't like Jordan Peterson and doesn't think anything he says is deep (as in particularly meaningful) or correct.

[zbigi]

If all the kids strongly believe that nobody over 30 should be trusted on principle, yet those over 30 have the solution, what's the strategy out of this pickle?

Wait a couple of years for the "kids" to grow a bit older, wiser and more mature? They will automatically stop believing that people over 30 cannot be trusted once they themselves turn 30. For most of them, it should happen a lot sooner.

The FIRE movement might have failed because it never developed a tribal identity ... alternatively, failed because the tribal identity that became ascribed to it (tall, white, male, techy, 40+ ... the standard NASA geek) is currently anathema in popular culture and thus are barred from communicating solutions.

Or, possibly, regular people belive that a solution that worked for "smart" people will not work for them, because it's difficult and they'll fumble along the way. For example, you can't expect your average grocery store cashier will keep an active portoflio and successfully manage to get above-average market returns with his stash, like you advise in your blog. Your blog and book are IMO clearly written for someone like you, and not for general audience. Hence. the forum is like 80%+ INTJ/INTPs, and probably 70%+ college degree STEM people? On the other hand, I can't really see how it would be easy (or even possible) to communicate your ideas to people who have the STEM framework available to them already.

[theanimal]

@jacob semi-related from reading the reddit thread, but now that you are at 160x or whatever, would you consider spinning up the book into a series of blog posts (1 per chapter or something) on the ERE website / etc so that it is easier for people to access? Or does that pass an ethical line for you?

Obviously that book is worth >> $20 to anyone who reads and implements it (I've purchased 3 or 4 copies over the years as I give mine away fairly often), but I have to wonder if public availability and search-ability would increase uptake and awareness of the ERE flavor.

Or just offering a free PDF copy of the book. I know of a few authors who do it, some have sold million plus copies of their books and their free PDFs on their own personal sites have had 3-4x that number in downloads. The idea behind it is if you really want to get your message out there, to eliminate any possible barriers. The people who are going to buy your book are still going to do so and a portion of those who download it for free will likely do so as well, it doesn't seem to have a negative impact on sales at least in the small sample size I've heard of.