Mastermind Group #2: Electric Boogaloo

[sodatrain]

Right, knowing the next step and "trying real hard" doesn't cut it without having fully exhausted the current level. This is where the rule about not skipping steps and the warnings against trying to speed run levels come from, right? Hence my advice to "live where you are". I will say that knowing what is possible sure does help. I don't know that I would have ever gotten as far as I have without examples. Yeah, 100% sure I was not going to invent ERE or FIRE on my own.

How does one know when they have exhausted their current level? This seems to be predicated a clear understanding of which level one is on, right? I feel like most discussion I've seen on here people are rather fuzzy with their self assessment of their current level. Or say things like I'm WL5.5. The WL table are indications of level, not definitions right?

Since really starting this journey in Jan of 2023, my areas of focus have been 1) understanding and reducing my expenses 2) better understanding the concepts and principles (including better understanding the WL's) and 3) thinking about "when is enough $ in the bank to quit working".

As time has passed, I better understand the idea of Semi-ERE more and optimizing activities (WoG), and how that can lead to income (which means maybe one should quit working/work differently sooner). Am I doing those things well yet? No, but I'm working towards them. I have some life circumstances (eg child support / teenagers) that are priorities enough that keep certain pressures on my CoL. I've gotten more sophisticated in my tracking of expenses by adding ttCOL as an example. Adopting parts of @AH FU Stash model to structure my financial capital models. I feel like some of those behaviors are indicators of certain WL's, but that they still don't clearly place me in one particular level. It seems that ones mindset is what really determines your WL, right? Or your mindset and your ability/choice to comply with/prioritization of that mindset and behaviors.

So I'm happy to work with "live where you are, don't speed run, can't skip levels" as it sounds pretty concrete. I believe I'm "learning the map" above me and getting ready to explore those sections. But I don't feel like I have a good "you are here" indicator on the map of where I'm at so that I can ensure I've fully explored the current map before jumping to the next map.

[jacob]

How does one know when they have exhausted their current level? This seems to be predicated a clear understanding of which level one is on, right? I feel like most discussion I've seen on here people are rather fuzzy with their self assessment of their current level. Or say things like I'm WL5.5. The WL table are indications of level, not definitions right?

Read this: https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... ton_Levels

The map I referred to above is a literal map: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Controls#Mini-Map ... ( lets not confuse the two ) when advanced players talk about "reading the map" they mean paying attention to what the 23 other ships are doing and where you are in relation to them, possible island cover, and how the situation will likely develop over the next 2-3 minutes. I can tell from experience that rookies often forget to pay attention to the map because they're overwhelmed by all other things going on (shooting, being shot at, trying to avoid beaching the ship, ...) and as such may easily find themselves caught in an open position because the rest of the team started to turn back a minute ago. As one internalizes the basic mechanics, it frees the mind to pay more attention to the map. One begins to see patterns and so on. The problem is that good players are often "too good to know". The patterns are so complex that it's more a case of whether a situation feels right or not. Experience have taught them what they can get away with. Was it to be written as a list of "rules", it would be dozens and dozens of rules. Indeed, I have 1200+ games under my belt now. I started writing down suggestions for rules for each ship between games 500 and 1000. It helped somewhat but it also sometimes led to blowouts because rules obviously have exceptions. Now I don't really bother anymore.

Going back to ERE (or any skill), I'd strongly recommend reading this: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine ... -level.pdf (same thing, except chess instead of a battleship arena). Once you become familiar with all these models, you'll start seeing them everywhere and recognize them in your own learning process for whatever it is you're learning.

Going back to the game, this partially explains why watching god-tier players play is borderline useless for learning stuff unless you're a god yourself. They always seem to get away with things whereas when noob quickly get in trouble when they try the same thing. This is because the god-tier player might be correctly angled while about to slip behind island cover in 1.7 seconds, whereas the noob is 20 degrees off and 3 seconds away from cover. The noob doesn't know what to look for, so to the noob it looks the same. Whereas to the god-tier player, it's so obvious that they don't even mention it. It is likely they haven't even bothered to verbalize what they're actually doing. It just works.

The reason for the difference is that we're talking about a [chaotic] problem where a small difference in the input makes a big difference in the output. The god-tier player thus doesn't play "better" than the "noob". They play differently.

A quick example from ERE world would be that typical noobs play the frugal game by either "sacrificing and doing without" or "finding the best deal that money can buy". Whereas from WL6+, the frugal game is played by skilled manipulation of stocks and flows.

Note, unlike Warships, ERE is not a chaotic game but a complex game, so the response function is different.

Add: So for each ERE level, people proceed according to Dreyfus, i.e. WL1-Dreyfus1, WL1-Dreyfus2, ... WL1-Dreyfus5, ... WL2-Dreyfus1, WL2-Dreyfus2, ... and so on. The WLs themselves aren't really Dreyfus stages as much as they are MHC stages.

[sodatrain]

Read this: https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... ton_Levels

ok, that was helpful. I always just refer to the table as it's so frequently referenced. The additional definition there is helpful in self-assessing a level. Reading that, I feel more comfortable saying I am WL5. I feel a little uncomfortable saying that. Like how the average person feels they are above average.

... Two things distinguish optimization from the previous levels: a producer mindset and low waste. This is really a generalization of the principles underlying the frugal practices usually presented as a list of tips. While others may DIY as a hobby, at this level building and fixing stuff is a way of life, making low expenses inevitable. Use of financial capital is Pareto-efficient. Uses budgets and bucket-systems as a retirement planning tool.

Specifically "producer mindset and low waste". "Uses budgets and bucket-systems as a retirement planning tool". I'm more in the producer mindset and aware of being mindful and efficient with waste. And looking for ways to optimize activities/interests (Grow jalapenos for making jalapeno cheddar sausages to 1) eat and 2) sell putting the waste back in as compost).

The map I referred to above is a literal map: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Controls#Mini-Map ... ( lets not confuse the two ) when advanced players talk about "reading the map" they mean paying attention to what the 23 other ships are doing and where you are in relation to them, possible island cover, and how the situation will likely develop over the next 2-3 minutes. I can tell from experience that rookies often forget to pay attention to the map because they're overwhelmed by all other things going on (shooting, being shot at, trying to avoid beaching the ship, ...) and as such may easily find themselves caught in an open position because the rest of the team started to turn back a minute ago. As one internalizes the basic mechanics, it frees the mind to pay more attention to the map. One begins to see patterns and so on. The problem is that good players are often "too good to know". The patterns are so complex that it's more a case of whether a situation feels right or not. Experience have taught them what they can get away with. Was it to be written as a list of "rules", it would be dozens and dozens of rules. Indeed, I have 1200+ games under my belt now. I started writing down suggestions for rules for each ship between games 500 and 1000. It helped somewhat but it also sometimes led to blowouts because rules obviously have exceptions. Now I don't really bother anymore.

Going back to ERE (or any skill), I'd strongly recommend reading this: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine ... -level.pdf (same thing, except chess instead of a battleship arena). Once you become familiar with all these models, you'll start seeing them everywhere and recognize them in your own learning process for whatever it is you're learning.

Got it - yes different idea of map that I had when replying. I was thinking of games where you roam around and the map is revealed as you explore new territory. Zelda? God of War. (I am not a gamer....).

The explanation makes sense and is explained very well in the Dreyfus Skill Level article you shared. Thank you. It was a great read and the driving and chess examples were very easy to understand. (bonus, I've been wanting to learn Chess so this helped frame 'how to learn to play chess' for me. I couldn't previously understand how one leveled up in Chess).

I found the related emotions to each level to be very interesting. Unexpected. But helpful and relatable.

This all drives home the point in your post from the Theory vs Practice thread:

and

FWIW, I noticed that the ERE WLs actually posses much of this structure already in an extremely generalized form, so I conveniently labelled the diagram. Overall, even WLs require lots of practice, whereas odd WLs require lots of thinking. There you have it.

I'm hoping that especially the WL5-6 and WL6-7 efforts will get some insight from this and realize that the reason one gets stuck is in thinking that the way forward is "more practice" if one is already practicing (a WL6-7 problem)---nope, it's time to start drawing reverse fishbone diagrams and WOGs. Alternatively believing the answer is "more theory" (like better spreadsheets or a good book) if one is already theorizing (a WL5-6 problem)---nope, it's time to pick up some practical skills.

...

A quick example from ERE world would be that typical noobs play the frugal game by either "sacrificing and doing without" or "finding the best deal that money can buy". Whereas from WL6+, the frugal game is played by skilled manipulation of stocks and flows.

I can see some of the WL6 stuff coming. I think I'm heavy on theory practice right now - reading a ton on the forum, sleeping with the ERE Book under my pillow, etc. And I feel the excitement of change coming. Things seem to be clicking more. I feel on the verge of something changing.

Love the practical/actionable advice "Start drawing reverse fishbone diagrams and WOGs". Doing this is on my list of things to do as part of this phase. Next week or two.

Add: So for each ERE level, people proceed according to Dreyfus, i.e. WL1-Dreyfus1, WL1-Dreyfus2, ... WL1-Dreyfus5, ... WL2-Dreyfus1, WL2-Dreyfus2, ... and so on. The WLs themselves aren't really Dreyfus stages as much as they are MHC stages.

This also makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you for laying this all out - I found it very helpful. Hopefully others will too.

Last comment for now... and maybe this is a distraction, but in my reading the ERE WL Wiki Page, it feels like it contradicts some discussion on the Yields and Flows thread.

From the Construction, Structure & Rules section:

3. People will generally occupy a couple of adjacent stages, e.g. 3+4+5, but will have center of gravity that dominates their behavior and way of thinking, e.g. 4.

and this exchange between @jacob and @G+J, while not very explicit in its disagreement, seems to suggest some disagreement on whether or not people "generally occupy a couple of adjacent" levels or not.

There was some disagreement when constructing the initial Wheaton table with some saying that they were doing a little bit of each of the levels. To me that's like a karate-ka saying that they know some black-belt moves and some green-belt moves.. and various other graduations. There are different teaching philosophies as to how to go about it. Some martial arts will only teach you the next level once you're graduated from the current. Others will teach you everything. The risk in the latter approach is that "the understanding that levels cannot be skipped" is easily ignored.

...

and

@jacob: What "level someone is" almost has to be an average. Figuring out one's level requires a synthesis of the ideas presented in the tables columns, which wasn't happening for me until I read this discussion. Everyone will operate at a higher level in some dimension and lower levels in others.

There has been discussion about being a level N, and sometimes having behaviors of a lower level (N-1 or 2). It seems reasonable to say that someone can demonstrate some behaviors of N and N+1 also. Maybe the wiki bullet just needs updating to clarify that you are N at any given point and may have behaviors of + or - 1, but that you are N and can not skip levels etc?

[jacob]

The explanation makes sense and is explained very well in the Dreyfus Skill Level article you shared. Thank you. It was a great read and the driving and chess examples were very easy to understand. (bonus, I've been wanting to learn Chess so this helped frame 'how to learn to play chess' for me. I couldn't previously understand how one leveled up in Chess).

also this book:

I highly recommend reading this book: https://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-Mind-Tu ... 890085022/

This is a chess book about what goes inside the amateur's mind when they play the game and it's ranked by ELO levels. Players of different chess strengths have different thought processes which determine how they play. I think it's useful even for non-players just to recognize that what appears similar on the surface might be very different in people's heads. Indeed, I think many don't sufficiently appreciate the difference in thinking-levels and some aren't even aware they exist.

I think the same holds for what goes on inside people's mind when they think about personal finance. Players of different pf-strengths have different thought processes which determine how they play or see the game.

There has been discussion about being a level N, and sometimes having behaviors of a lower level (N-1 or 2). It seems reasonable to say that someone can demonstrate some behaviors of N and N+1 also. Maybe the wiki bullet just needs updating to clarify that you are N at any given point and may have behaviors of + or - 1, but that you are N and can not skip levels etc?

If the gravity is at N, then it makes sense that one is attempting some N+1 behavior in specific areas, for example, a WL6 person would be drawing WOG diagrams, yet not consistently thinking in terms of systems yet. Higher stages are almost always done using some kind of scaffolding, for example "drawing it out explicitly" or talking-about it, before it becomes internalized.

As a distraction, humans are also capable of operating at a much higher level if the situation/problem is well-defined, usually externally. For example, most humans are capable of thinking analytically when sitting in a math classroom with a teacher pointing out what to do. Ditto a job. However, this capability does not translate into other areas of life absent of scaffolding. The chess analogy would be that one might be able to think through a chess puzzle yet fail to think in the same way during an actual game.

[7Wannabe5]

Reading that, I feel more comfortable saying I am WL5. I feel a little uncomfortable saying that. Like how the average person feels they are above average.

Bear in mind that these are not linear scales. On the original Eco Wheaton Scale there are 6 billion humans at Level 0 and by the time you get to Level 5, only 100,000 humans who "qualify." The infographic is also pretty revelatory of why it is tough to answer your question about growing vegetables. You can see the beginning gardener at Level 2 has a couple small raised beds, and the expert at Level 7 also has some large raised beds, but in between there aren't any raised beds pictured. That's because the assumption would be that the beginner is using raised beds because they are easy, and the expert is using raised beds because they are appropriate, although all the other bedding options pictured in between would also be available at Level 7.

https://permies.com/t/scale

There has been discussion about being a level N, and sometimes having behaviors of a lower level (N-1 or 2). It seems reasonable to say that someone can demonstrate some behaviors of N and N+1 also. Maybe the wiki bullet just needs updating to clarify that you are N at any given point and may have behaviors of + or - 1, but that you are N and can not skip levels etc?

The particular behaviors and seemingly exact numbers attached to various levels of these Wheaton Scales can be idiosyncratic, not very meaningful outside of context, or simply out-of-date. For example, as Paul Wheaton notes at the top of his scale, this is the scale he made, and anybody else is welcome to make one too. One idiosyncracy attached to his scale would be that I don't think anybody else is as concerned with lightbulbs as a signal of leveling up in permaculture as Paul Wheaton. Obviously, the number of humans at each level and their average CO2 output can't be accurate, because it doesn't, for instance, reflect the fact that there are a billion humans who live on only $2/day. Like the ERE Scale, Level 0 is meant to reflect the functioning of average unaware affluent resident of developed realm. If ERE level was purely a function of spending per capita, all of us would be in the bottom 50% globally.

However, I would also note that although the details may be more distraction than sign post, after spending a bit of time challenging myself in moving back and forth between the ERE, Eco-Wheaton scales, and the MHC (math based similar scale), I actually think the description of the levels on the Wiki are quite valid. For example, the description of somebody who is at Autonomous level on the ERE Wiki fits Geoff Lawton at Level 9 on the Eco-Wheaton scale to a T, and also places him around Level 12.5 Metasystematic/Pardigmatic on the MHC scale. However, since Bill Mollison actually invented permaculture, I think he should be at least at the same level as Sepp Holzer. The fact that Holzer is at Level 10 by himself on Paul Wheaton's scale is IMO likely indicative of Wheaton's "Duke of Permaculture" personal preference for Practice over Theory. I also think it is not entirely appropriate that Jacob was designated as the Father of FIRE by the NYT, when he should be more like the Wizard of FIRE, more like the brilliant Masanobo Fukuoka with maybe a bit of Eric Toensmiller (author of the definitive two volume "Edible Forest Gardens") thrown in.

Anyways, it's clear to me that I should have done a bit more of this side by side examination before starting to construct the Sexuality Wheaton Level Table. Because, for example, it is now obvious to me that Bernard Schnarch should probably be designated the Duke of Sexuality for the same reasons that Paul Wheaton is the Duke of Permaculture, even though he is big on theory. I've never really hung out on his site, but it's also likely that Mr. Money Moustache should be designated the Duke of FIRE. I don't know who would be the Wizard of Sexuality, but I now realize the likely most fertile direction of research, while bearing in mind that the extent to which these hierarchal models also resemble relative rankings of nobility vs peasants during previous eras of human history might be regarded as more than a bit disturbing by many.

[sodatrain]

You can see the beginning gardener at Level 2 has a couple small raised beds, and the expert at Level 7 also has some large raised beds, but in between there aren't any raised beds pictured. That's because the assumption would be that the beginner is using raised beds because they are easy, and the expert is using raised beds because they are appropriate, although all the other bedding options pictured in between would also be available at Level 7.

https://permies.com/t/scale

Daannggg. You are super observant! Wow. And Daanng that graphic was made way more thoughtfully than I thought.

And how amazing that you just linked my recent ramblings about levels and about raised beds/veg gardens together!

One idiosyncracy attached to his scale would be that I don't think anybody else is as concerned with lightbulbs as a signal of leveling up in permaculture as Paul Wheaton.

Haha. One of, if not the first, vidoes I saw from Paul was about light-tbulbs and heating his feet.

Anyways, it's clear to me that I should have done a bit more of this side by side examination before starting to construct the Sexuality Wheaton Level Table. Because, for example, it is now obvious to me that Bernard Schnarch should probably be designated the Duke of Sexuality for the same reasons that Paul Wheaton is the Duke of Permaculture, even though he is big on theory. I've never really hung out on his site, but it's also likely that Mr. Money Moustache should be designated the Duke of FIRE. I don't know who would be the Wizard of Sexuality, but I now realize the likely most fertile direction of research, while bearing in mind that the extent to which these hierarchal models also resemble relative rankings of nobility vs peasants during previous eras of human history might be regarded as more than a bit disturbing by many.

I don't fully track this... I hope it means you found the discussion was at least somewhat meaningful to you!

[jacob]

Daannggg. You are super observant! Wow. And Daanng that graphic was made way more thoughtfully than I thought.

That's a good way to illustrate the differences plus a several other observations.

Any higher stage:

• sees more details (more subtlety)
• knows better which details to pay attention to (a wiser sorting mechanism)
• think about those observations differently (a different way of connecting those observations)

Two persons of different stages might see the same thing, but they experience it differently. From the bullet points it also becomes clear why a lack of balance between the three becomes a problem. A more sophisticated way of connecting observations doesn't work well without the ability to observe. Just observing doesn't work well without the experience to decide what's important. And that decision is very influenced by the connection structure).

Like with chess, create an experiment where you take a play in some sport and have it described by 1) a person not interested in the sport, 2) a fan, 3) an amateur player, 4) a professional player. Let them talk as long as they want describing everything they see and what they predict is going to happen. It's like they're watching four different games.

I think the problem with how we present these tables with numbers is that many correctly conclude that the higher numbers are better but then incorrectly conclude that the effort to learn them are them same so why not just jump directly to it. The sports example explains why that might not be the best idea. For example, while the professional player has the deepest understanding, most people wouldn't want to put in the effort to get there. Being a professional also has a risk of eliminating the fun of the lower stages. There's less to be discovered, surprises are fewer, many things will be avoided because one already knows what the outcome will be.

[7Wannabe5]

Being a professional also has a risk of eliminating the fun of the lower stages. There's less to be discovered, surprises are fewer, many things will be avoided because one already knows what the outcome will be.

Yes, and a pre-trans fallacy might be equating this with hedonistic adaptation. For example, the difference between wanting to experience a threesome vs. choosing to practice polyamory after experiencing two very different marriages and a number/variety of other relationships. You can't make yourself unsee Base 10.

I think that one thing that has been needlessly bothering me with the theory/practice distinction can be assigned to the difference or intersection of Level of Practice vs Level of Maintenance of Performance vs. Level of Overall Functioning. This distinction is maybe especially obvious in the realm of sports since youthful vigor is a critical factor in performance. So, for example, an 80 year old former professional player will only currently be able to exhibit performance equivalent to a wheelchair-bound former expert permaculturist having to implement raised beds and wide walkways in her design. An expert in the realm of finance may find himself broke after succumbing to a bad bout of active bi-polar disease. A fashionista may spend a year in scummy sweat-suits after giving birth to triplets. So, although practice is needful to advance theory initially, current level of practice may not reflect achieved level of theory.

It also sometimes happens that performance will regress as one integrates a new level of functioning, because doing the things that you already know how to do aren't regarded as crucial uses of life energy in the moment. For example, your annual yield of edibles may temporarily go down as you move from intensive vegetable gardening towards permaculture. Also, ones skills or even theory in any given field may become more than a bit rusty and/or out-of-date with disuse, and the rusty and crusty may not be evenly dispersed in exact reversal of the hierarchy. Even in a field such as mathematics.

[grundomatic]

Opened up our summer book club to the forum, and had one forum member join 2 MMG members for that discussion. We met in September without an agenda other than to reconnect and talk about what we did over the summer. Met in October and had a discussion about transportation, both short and long distance. Then I failed to put together a final meeting for the year.

Meeting attendance has been dwindling and I'm wondering if the group has run it's course. Maybe we've run out of things to talk about? Maybe people are just busier with in-person stuff than when we started? At the improv theater I'm a part of, for the new year things are being shaken up--some teams are being sunset, new teams are forming with new ideas/formats, and all the players are being shuffled. Maybe that's what needs to happen here? I'm open to input from group members and the forum at large. I like all my MMG friends and meeting up with each other, but I'd rather make an intentional decision about our group rather than let it just fade away, or have it be the forum's token extravert dragging people to meetings they don't derive value from anymore.

[jacob]

Meeting attendance has been dwindling and I'm wondering if the group has run it's course. Maybe we've run out of things to talk about? Maybe people are just busier with in-person stuff than when we started? At the improv theater I'm a part of, for the new year things are being shaken up--some teams are being sunset, new teams are forming with new ideas/formats, and all the players are being shuffled. Maybe that's what needs to happen here? I'm open to input from group members and the forum at large. I like all my MMG friends and meeting up with each other, but I'd rather make an intentional decision about our group rather than let it just fade away, or have it be the forum's token extravert dragging people to meetings they don't derive value from anymore.

People come and go, panta rhei. It's the same with the forum itself. Most just appear briefly before they vanish. Many participate for a few years before they fade away. Some stick around forever and in turn become the in-crowd. Strategically, the MMGs ought to be handled differently.

While recruiting 1 new member at a time would work to keep the MMG culture (if such thing exists) alive---this would basically be a smaller version of how the ERE forum works---I don't think a sudden call to replace half the members would be optimal. There would definitely be an old vs new situation. OTOH, I also don't think closing the MMG is good, because you guys still know each other and might want to meet again some time, like some kind of anniversary deal.

I think the better way is to simply start a new MMG (#3) open to new people, while retaining MMG#2. This would create a new culture from scratch allowing for different meeting formats with nobody feeling like the newbie. The only risk here is essentially "darknetting" the previous MMG/not bringing up conversations is MMG-ABC because they already happened in MMG-XYZ.

[dustBowl]

I do think MMG2 has mostly run its course at this point. There have only been a few core members who consistently make all the meetings for a while, and even that's been falling off recently.

Speaking just for myself, I don't have much interest in discussing ERE theory any more. I've been visiting the forum daily for about five years, and at this point the bits of ERE that I find most relevant have been integrated into my life to the degree that they're more or less unconscious. The majority of what I think about these days has nothing to do with ERE, except in the sense that all lifestyle design decisions can be evaluated using the ERE framework.

I think Jacob's idea of starting a new MMG is a good one, assuming there's interest.

(Hopefully this doesn't come across as too negative - discovering ERE has been a massive boon for my life. I just don't have much to say about it at this point.)

[AxelHeyst]

tl;dr of the below: I perceive a difference between idea/topic discussion groups and mastermind groups where the focus is to help individuals with their progress on projects. They are different kinds of things. I think expecting continuity and attendance loyalty out of a discussion group is unrealistic, wheras I think it's an emergent property of a 'real' MMG (focused on individuals and their projects). I suggest that discussion groups call themselves discussion groups and plan for short time horizons. If the properties of an MMG is desired, focus on the member's stories and challenges instead of topics.

I don't have much interest in discussing ERE theory any more.

It seemed to me that mmg2 was (or evolved to be) more of an idea-discussion group centered around discussing certain topics, rather than an actual 'mastermind' group centered around discussing/supporting individual people's projects and problems, and your comment DustBowl makes me think I'm right about that. If so, I have a couple thoughts and suggestions.

I think discussion groups are great! I've been mid envious that I wasn't in on some of the topics I've seen debriefs on coming out of this group. However, I don't think the idea-discussion format lends itself to continuity or attendance-loyalty. What you 'get' from a discussion group is a deeper understanding of the topic and perhaps new insights. Which, again, is great, but if a certain topic doesn't appeal, it's easy to see not much point in attending.

Additionally there's little sense of group identity - it's just a handful of people who talk about ideas along a certain theme.

If the primary focus of the group is individual's projects, struggles, challenges (one might say their "stories"), however, there's actually a lot of reason for continuity and attendance. There's a few reasons for this that I'm aware of:

1) When you're in the hot seat, you get value from everyone else's input. It doesn't take a social genius to figure out that if you want to *get* good feedback, you gotta show up and *give* good feedback when other people are in the hot seat. There's an obvious reciprocal relationship built in to the format of personal project/story/problem development.

2) If you want to get good feedback on projects, you've got to open up and share at least some of your internal motivations, struggles, mental state, etc. You've got to be vulnerable, in other words. This helps draw the members into each other's stories and feel invested -- like a good novel, you want to find out what happens next. But, as a member of an MMG, you get to play an advisor role so you have some sense of emotional investment in that person's success or failure as well. To put it bluntly, you wind up caring about these other humans due in no small part to being privy to their humanness - their weaknesses and foibles.

3) Because you actually care about the other humans, the reason you show up regularly is no longer primarily about what you are getting, it's due in large part to what you're giving and participating in. I think there's a stronger sense of "us" in the MMG format, rather than "group of people" (a heap to a holon, in nerd terms). You no longer show up because of the benefit, you show up because it just becomes part of your identity and it feels good. That being said, if any kind of benefit stopped flowing (if you started getting bad feedback, for example), you'd stop going because there's got to be some value other than "I like talking to people on my computer". My point is just that there are much stronger bonds when the format is people working on their projects--on themselves.

Based on that, my recommendation (generally, to the forum) based on this experience:

• If you want to discuss ideas or topics, do a group discussion (standalone meeting or series, if your topic of interest will take more than one session). In other words, make it finite. "Let's do a session to talk about EREWL6>7" or "Hey I want to dig into Nassim Taleb's Antifragile ideas wrt lifestyle design, anyone else in? Let's do something like 3 or 4 calls, every two weeks, and then end it when we feel "complete" on the discussion?"
  If you're interested in joining or becoming part of an ERE cohort, a small group of people who you'll get to know well and you can ask questions and get feedback on parts of your life that you aren't comfortable putting on the clearnet, consider starting or joining an MMG.

(If it isn't clear, the MMG I'm a part of almost never discusses ideas or topics on calls. We've done maybe 3 topic-centered calls in the 4 years we've been meeting, otherwise it's individual deep dives. We tried doing a couple book club style formats, and it just didn't work for us. Felt flat/off, nobody actually read the book, etc. Every once in a while we get into it on ERE Theory in our signal chat, mostly to argue about stuff that'd be radioactive if posted on the main forum, but that's also pretty rare and very much not the focus of the group.)

[sodatrain]

I'm down for keeping it up, or evolving it, or participating in a new one. For me, the summer hiatus got me one click away from keeping it more top of mind and then I was working on changing up my notifications/launcher (loving the Before Launcher!) combined with some discord weirdness I fell off the radar completely.

I'll go read what @AH said more when I'm not t-minus 2 hours to a dinner party!

I enjoy both ideas - discussions (when it's interesting to me) and the more structured MMG like AH describes.

My theory is that the variety of levels in our journey with a little bit of time zone challenges made it harder? But...I'm still FNG so I don't really know.

It's important for me to stay plugged in and involved with the community here! It's been life changing already. I think finding a regular group you be involved with would be great. So... I think some change is reasonable. To what... Not sure! I guess step one is me upping my forum participation.

I feel very fortunate to be member of the forum, to know some of you online and even a handful of y'all offline.

[AnalyticalEngine]

I'd +1 what @AH said. I think if MMG2 is to continue, it should change to where we discuss our projects and what we're trying to implement in our lives, otherwise I think theory discussions have run their course. That said, I'm also fine if we want to sunset the group and just make time for social calls when desired because I think otherwise the group has finished what it set out to do. I know for me personally, I am less interested in discussing theory these days and more interested in implementation.

[grundomatic]

Thanks for the input, everybody. Given what has been said, I think a good solution might be to discontinue frequent meetings for MMG2, and we maybe just try to get together once in the spring and once in the fall to catch up and stay in touch.

I’m about 80% certain I’d be willing to join MMG3 run as @AxelHeyst suggests, but maybe it’s worth figuring out why we couldn’t make it work with MMG2…we started out trying to do it that way, then tried again at another point, but it just didn’t stick.

[Cam]

I don't know how I have missed this thread for so long.

I will give my perspective on things. First off, Discord is horrible at notifying me when I receive messages. I specifically have notifications on (while with most apps on my phone notifications are turned off by default) but it still never lets me know when messages are received. I also am not in the habit of checking Discord. It is something I need to think about doing (can you see where this is going).

So I'd miss group messages. I'd realize that it had been a month or more since I checked Discord. I'd feel guilty. I'd hop in, and see that I'd missed a meeting. I'd feel guilty and apologize. If the date and time for the next meeting were set, I'd put it in my google calendar. If not, restart the cycle of missed messages

In addition, in the time since joining the MMG I have moved in with my girlfriend. Lots of fun and I love the independence, but it has taught me that full-time work + keeping up with chores is simply too much for little old me, at least with my current energy levels. As a result, other things get dropped.

None if this is said to excuse me missing meetings, and I apologize for my frankly bad communication with the group.

Reading over what @AH said, a couple of these points could have been discussions instead of bouncing around in my head and affecting my attendance.

[berrytwo]

I appreciate you Grundo, both for bringing this to the forum and for being the facilitator. I noticed what you described as well. I really enjoy discussions and meeting with everyone in our group. I like the idea of meeting again in the Spring. I could imagine rejoining a group #3 at some point as well. I will be pretty busy for the next several months, but I find a lot of value in it. I think it could be valuable to do a meeting format less discussion more formated like AH suggested.