Lessons from Nature

[lillo9546]

Imagine a single ejaculation: millions of sperm set out for a single egg.
Only one will succeed in reaching and fertilizing it.

Many of you in long-term relationships or marriages know you were chosen by your partner because you represent the best option (for them).
You "won" against other candidates thanks to your unique combination of qualities.


Life is a struggle to stand out and improve. We must face difficulties and challenges to become that "winning sperm" that makes its way through. So I thought there could be 2 approaches to ERE:
1 Some people choose ERE because they no longer want to compete. They prefer to complete the journey lightly, without the stress of being the best.
2 Others choose ERE because they want to be that "winning sperm." They seek financial independence, reduce unnecessary expenses, and live the life they consider a victory.

Now the competition can be on an international scale or limited to a local niche. Looking at the "winners" of our era—athletes, singers, actors—we can see a similarity to the struggle of sperm.
Nature offers us clues on how to improve and become the best. Even if we can't be the best among billions of people, we can learn to improve ourselves by knowing the right ways to do it.

So we can choose how to face this competition. Whether through continuous improvement or the pursuit of a lighter life.

I'm very curious about your POV on this "competition" and how do you visualize yourself in this, since social media made this thing an "international" battle, and no more a "national" one, like it was years before.

[jacob]

Competition is a win-lose perspective where one wins by being/having "more" than someone else. While many modernists believe it's the best way---arguing by "appealing to nature"---it does result in a lot of losing.

A tremendous amount of energy and resources are often wasted in this struggle to be the best. (The other 999,999 sperm cells die.) It's a highly inefficient form of organization that only works when resources and manpower is cheap because it's so easy to set up. Of course, some humans are smart enough to see through it when the exploitation-by-competition becomes too obvious. Consider the "design competitions" in which 20 designers compete with a winner-takes-all prize while the rest get nothing. Indeed, they get less than nothing because they basically lost the work they put in.

Collaboration beats competition. A human body is essentially one giant collaboration of different cells called an animal. The cells of animals are much more successful than single-celled bacteria are on their own. An organized phalanx beats a rabble of competing "heroes" any day.

I'd suggest reconsidering what all these "winners" have really won. Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Autobiograp ... 307388409/ to realize that the prize of winning is only fame and a trophy whereas the price of winning is giving up most everything else. You ask a lot of dating questions. I suggest that if you keep looking at it like a competition you'll only win the trophy but at the cost of giving up the collaboration that is the partnership or relationship or the vision for any shared goals you have. In other words, "winning a date" or "winning a sexual encounter" is an awful starting point for a longterm relationship. That's just my opinion but the divorce statistics supports that.

[7Wannabe5]

I think another way of looking at the competition in alignment with what Jacob communicated is that it really should not be the case that the "universe" is your sexual field. Since for humans status is always relative and ponds can be variously contrived, figuring out how to become a winner on your own terms is a better plan. For example, a phrase such as

collaboration that is the partnership or relationship or the vision for any shared goals you have.

might serve to boundary the pond in which you choose to compete. However, make no mistake, it definitely is a competition, and there is a phrase Hanzi Frienacht used to describe the sort of denial fallacy that might attempt to greenwash this reality. IOW, just because communicating that it is a collaboration more than a competition actually better serves you in the competition in some ponds at some level does not actually make it not a competition at the level at which it is necessarily a competition.

IOW, it's like thinking that because your goal is peace at Level Green, you don't need an army at Level Red. IOW, a species of Level Yellow male propaganda.

[7Wannabe5]

I think my last post was likely clear as mud. It was based on my reaction/response to reading a few works on the topic of forming relationships on the basis of level of development in terms of Integral Theory or similar models. The vibe I got off these works, which were all written by Boomer men of an age to be within my usual dating realm, was sort of a condescending, "Surely, as a female who aspires to Tier 2 perspective, it is obvious to you that forming a long-term monogamous relationship with an Integral Thinking man such as I would be to your greatest advantage?!" And then maybe after reading the work, I look at the author photo or watch a video presentation by the author, and realize that maybe he doesn't seem attractive to me at that level which is more akin to Tinder or first coffee date level. So, then I'm thinking, why wouldn't it alternatively be in my best interest to choose to continue to practice polyamory, and include a variety such as Level Yellow Woody Allen type and Level Green Jimmy Smits type and Level Orange Boris Kodjoe types in my polyamorous circle? Would Level Yellow Woody Allen type likely reject my offer of polyamorous contract as not being in alignment with personal growth, and hold out for monogamous contract with a female more appreciative of specifically what he has on the offer? IOW, it seems to me that an insistence on monogamy by some of these male relationship gurus at Tier 2 is akin to forcing a female to choose between interesting intellectual dialogue vs. yummy guns. OTOH, I would give Level Turquoise relationship guru David Deida and Level Orange/Green/Yellow masculinism podcaster Scott Galloway a pass on this objection, because they obviously both work on being intellectually interesting, personal growth oriented, and self-aware projecting of vibe/physiology most likely to be sexually attractive to heterosexual females.

@lillo:

Ergo, my recommendation to you would be to check out some of the books and videos by David Deida and Scott Galloway in further exploration of this topic, because they seem the most "walk the talk" of the bunch that I've read/viewed so far.

[IlliniDave]

I think competition is the wrong framework for ere. I suppose it does entail an inner competition of sorts, overcoming impulses to be lazy or unimaginative or settle for a somewhat mindless adherence to a herd mentality. Insofar as other people are concerned, ere is generally collaborative, and insofar as you are seeking something, I would think you're looking for your own happy place, which is not something another can occupy instead of you unless your vision is narrow dominated by specific people and things that you might not be able to possess.

[7Wannabe5]

Insofar as other people are concerned, ere is generally collaborative

I disagree, because capitalism is inherent to ERE and capitalism is based on competition. People are still people even if they are anonymous and only encountered at the diversified edge of one's overall system. IOW, when I am out at a book sale, directly competing with other book dealers to get at the most valuable books first, I am clearly engaged in competition, and a similar process is necessarily going on in any business in which anybody might be investing their stored-life-energy capital and/or active life-energy.

You can't entirely skip over Level Orange financial competition to arrive at Level Yellow creative collaboration, and you can't skip over the initial hump of even Level Beige sexual survival to arrive at Level Yellow Collaborative Sexual Relationship. In simplest terms. even if you don't choose to, for instance, render yourself muscularly buff in order to attract female attention, you have to at least acknowledge and accept the reality that many women might find a muscular man sexually attractive. Otherwise, you are communicating that the pleasure that a woman might experience in embodied encounter with a muscular male is not of value and by encouraging her to behave in accordance with this untruth, you are blocking the potential for true intimacy in your relationship, and that isn't really a very high level way to proceed. I hope this makes some kind of sense, because comprehending this from the female perspective was a big "Ah-hah" for me.

In more general terms, one's level of intimacy in a monogamous relationship will be limited to the extent that one doesn't openly acknowledge that there are downsides to choosing to be in a monogamous relationship for both you and your partner. So, constantly pushing forward the notion that no other very good options exist might be comforting on some level, but also inhibiting of personal growth on another level. For example, the moment when your lover tells you that the sight of your breasts has become too familiar to him to provoke an erotic response may burn you up a bit with his truth, but the denial or suppression of such a truth is ultimately worse, because freedom only survives within the bounds of truth, and collaboration is only achieved within the infrastructure acquired through the gains of rude plunder and sharp merit.

[jacob]

I disagree, because capitalism is inherent to ERE and capitalism is based on competition.

No it is not. It's not based on growth either for that matter. These are better thought of as emergent add-ons subject to other human foibles. IOW, they're "neither sufficient nor required" for capitalism.

The one thing that is "required" for capitalism is "private ownership". The thing that is privately owned is the capital itself. People can then do what they want with that capital. They can grow it or build upon it to get more or they can take a day off. They can compete with others to get the cheapest price when buying or the richest price when selling or they can choose to trade at another price with a specific person at a price they think is more fair. They can do that because "private ownership". That's another way of saying that competition ONLY obtains because there are enough people who seeks to profit specifically from trading.

The idea that "you own your stuff" is pretty innate to ERE in the sense that it would be hard to operate as an individual in a world where 95%+ of everybody else disagree with the whole idea of living beyond planetary or personal means or that more stuff is better. "Private ownership" makes it possible to declare "this is all I need + I'm not going to work or make more stuff than I need".

With public ownership, one would very much be subject to working for stuff that one doesn't need simply because the 95%+ who want more have decided that we should work harder to increase everyone's share. In that case, insofar one still owns one's labor, one can choose to be lazy ("Don't become known as the only guy who knows how to fix the printer"). Insofar one does not own one's labor, one is a slave.

You can join a few of us at PrUn where there are people experimenting with different kinds of economic behavior. Turns out people get pretty flexible in their assumptions/axioms when the stakes are low; like when money is like #tapwater.

Put it another way ... ERE+"private ownership" means that one needs a lot fewer people and most interactions can be done at so-called arms-length. Whereas ERE+"public ownership" needs a lot more people at least some of whom have to be productive in the form of stuff so it can make its way back to the eremite.

The difference between the two is that "private ownership" allows decisions to become highly decentralized as long as "private ownership" is respected. You can essentially do what you want with your stuff because it's yours. That's not the case with public ownership.

For an example of capitalism that has neither competition (it's just one person) and can be executed in a steady-state (no growth) form, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe_economy

[7Wannabe5]

a world where 95%+ of everybody else disagree with the whole idea of living beyond planetary or personal means or that more stuff is better.

I don't think that we are actually in disagreement, because really what I am trying to convey is that in a world where other people suck and the barrier to entry to your private island is not the whole of the ocean, you will have to engage in competition to get and keep your stuff. And it's not just other humans against whom you will have to compete. For instance, if you had the bad luck to land on island with banana tree rather than coconut tree, good luck with storing the fruits of your labor against competition with microbes long enough to enjoy much of a retirement.

Consider a very simple model such as Paul Wheaton's suggestion of Gertie the Self-Sufficient Permaculturist. Even if we imagine that Gertie has a stash of cash stuffed in the ticking of her mattress adequate to secure the boundaries of her private property by covering her property tax for the next 30 years, thereby sparing her of the need to intermittently engage in competition at the Farmer's Market selling some of her produce, we can see that she has limited ability to protect herself against boundary competition in the form of either the relative decay or gentrification of the community surrounding her property. For example, during the Covid lock-down, the police force in the depressed realm where I recently lived at one point announced that they were unable to respond to crimes against property. At the other end of the spectrum, when I was renting some warehouse space for my business, the entrepreneur next door who was selling pot-growing supplies was more successful than me, so he offered the landlord more money if he could take over some of my space. This is what would likely happen to Gertie in terms of continuing to be able to afford her property tax bill in a situation of gentrification, unless she was operating in a realm with some socialistic protections built into the property tax structure.

Another thing that bothered me about the Gertie model as described by Paul Wheaton was that she was apparently resigned to a life of celibacy. Even if we imagine that her stash of cash eliminates her need to intermittently compete with the other sellers and/or Big Grocery down at the Farmer's Market hawking her produce, she is going to have to occasionally venture out from her private property in order to get laid. Let's assume she is an old-fashioned gal, so she chooses to pull a few bucks out of her mattress, hike down to the local tavern, invest in a beer to pay price of occupying a stool, and check out the local flannel-shirted rough trade available. Since we are already assuming a towards Libertarian economic setting, it is also a given the Gertie and any other occupants of the tavern hold their erotic capital in private ownership. If there are only two occupants of the bar then offer of trade, contract, or collaboration may occur, and there may also a degree of competition, but only at the level of maybe attention alternatively invested in the game on the TV in the corner. If there are at least 3 occupants of the tavern, then things might get more interesting in terms of the level and forms of competition. And the reality is that we live in a world where there are always at least 3 humans in the tavern prior to the juncture where offer of trade, contract, or collaboration in the realm of privately held erotic capital may take place.

Okay, now we get to the point where much debate may ensue. A number of years ago, a gentleman with whom I was in relationship contract negotiation said to me, "If a man ever offers you a 50/50 contract, he is trying to rip you off." And the reason why this is believed to be true is that in a situation where all other things are equal, the total demand for sexual encounters in the aggregate male population will be higher than the total demand for sexual encounters in the aggregate female population. IOW, our common sense leads us to suppose that a randomly chosen tavern is likely to contain more human males on the make than human females available for the take that evening. This is why frugal gal Gertie might likely not even have to take some dollars out of her mattress to rent a stool if she hiked to the tavern on their promotional Beer on Tap for Ladies Night. In fact, the situation may only achieve equilibrium absent Ladies Night enticements if Zack shows up at the tavern every Saturday and Gertie and Alice show up on alternate Saturdays, but then as soon as Big Mike rolls back into town, competition will again ensue. Ergo, in addition to the property tax stash Zach has in his mattress, if he also wants to sometimes get laid, he will also likely need some sort of stash to spend at the tavern, because the tavern does not ever hold a promotional Gentleman's Night, and Big Mike is pretty big. And if you don't grok this, it might be because you are Big Mike.

[IlliniDave]

I disagree ...

Of course. You disagree with everything I say.

Yes, competition exists in the world, but I reject it's primacy as a framework by which to measure or pursue "ere", which for me is an anti-competitive alternative to keeping up with the Joneses. It's stepping out of the rat race rather than burning the candle from both sides and the middle in an attempt to win it. I suppose there are some people whose only path to contentedness comes through "defeating" every other human their lives intersect with, but is that really the premise of ere? If so, I'm in the wrong place. Insofar as transactional dynamics are part of life, there's a lot of room for them to be mutually beneficial. I don't see oppressor-victim as the primary dynamic that drives human interaction.

That's not to say there's no place for friendly competition--that kind of stuff can be fun, but as the measure of a life it feels pretty hollow to me. When I get together with my Minnesota neighbors to play cards or dominoes, it's just a means to enjoy companionship. We do have one guy who is hyper competitive, and he goes home grumpy 80% of the time when he doesn't "win", but the rest of us couldn't care less about the score. We actually make him keep score because it's a chore that the rest of us think is superfluous.

You are right, how shamefully thoughtless of an old dude to grok the correlation between strength/lean body mass and healthy aging while having no sympathy for masses of female humanity he's treating with such dastardly misogynistic oppression.

[Henry]

Yes, competition exists in the world, but I reject it's primacy as a framework by which to measure or pursue "ere",

I won't argue on primacy, but competition has a significant role within the framework. There are two threads in the community category that are "challenges" and both were started by the teacher. Not to mention the SWR thread. The most competitive environment I ever witnessed was a Children's Sunday School class with little Christian kids trying to cover each other's mouths in order that it was their voice first heard shouting "Jesus" when the teacher asked why we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

[jacob]

The most competitive environment I ever witnessed was a Children's Sunday School class with little Christian kids trying to cover each other's mouths in order that it was their voice first heard shouting "Jesus" when the teacher asked why we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

In my opinion, that does not imply that Christianity is innately competitive, though. Rather, it's that some humans are competitive and they'll use whatever system/framework/institution to compete with others or themselves.

(The only way I'll agree that capitalism is innate competitive is if you guys can show that competition is always the dominant strategy. For example, the person who offers to work for the lowest salary will ALWAYS be the one hired. Or shoppers ALWAYS buy the cheapest product. I do not think this is the case at all.)

[7Wannabe5]

@IlliniDave:

The irony being that I am more frequently the individual arguing the more "communitarian" take on this here forum. Obviously, one of my uses of the concept of "erotic capital" in my fun-for-me-hobby-of-debate* is that it often defines the limit at which those who otherwise profess to Libertarian philosophy offer protest related to the "public good" or the life benefits that can only or best be mutually derived within close human relationships.

Obviously, as humans we have both socially competitive and collaborative tendencies and capabilities, and these are both healthy when appropriately expressed in alignment with level of complexity encountered. The perspective of "private property/transactional" vs. "public good/collaborative" can be applied at any level of relationship or community, but many whose belief structure is towards Neoliberal tend to place it right around the boundary of primary relationship and/or household. IOW, the monthly meeting you have to discuss financial matters or your sex life with your spouse is an example of central planning inclusive of all of the downsides of central planning, but few recognize it as such. However, it becomes easier to see that this is true if you define more private property within the relationships. For simple example, a couple that has separate financial accounts and separate bedroom and office spaces vs. one that doesn't.

The experiential perspective advantage I might have is that if you date a good deal at mid-life, you will encounter all sorts of variations on these boundary forms which are usually otherwise default related to whether the relationship is formed by humans functioning at Traditional/Modern/Post-Modern level. For example, for a couple years in my mid-40s, I was in romantic relationship with a much older man who was divorced, but his ex-wife with whom his relationship was now platonic still lived with him in the winter when her house on a mountain in another state became snowed in, and they also still managed a large family trust fund together. So, on one occasion, because he felt it was his loving-duty-as-BF and or towards paying PoP to help me maintain my dilapidated Mazda, and it was his preference to throw money at this problem rather than continue to intermittently work on it in his garage, he said to me, "I am going to talk to Susan (his ex and co-executor) about buying you a new car.", and then I felt like I wanted to stab him in the hand with my dinner fork. So, my current enlightened and/or jaded perspective is due to having at this juncture gone through the process of solving a fairly wide variety of complex relationship story problems such as this towards the goal of not eventually finding myself imprisoned for the crime of actually fork-stabbing a grouchy old man.


*Theoretically, one of my primary current goals is to become more of a "Yes, and..." communicator, but pretty much a hard fail so far. There's a level on which I believe non-violent-communication was invented as a means of achieving exclusion of most ENTPs (and all lawyers) from various social scenes.

[Henry]

In my opinion, that does not imply that Christianity is innately competitive, though. Rather, it's that some humans are competitive and they'll use whatever system/framework/institution to compete with others or themselves.

I'm not saying it is either. I'm saying people are innately competitive and it's unavoidable that it will be expressed in any system. Some Christians compete on who's the most selfless. Some Pastors compete on the size of their church because it's big, some compete because it's small. Some ERE's compete on who spends the least. If I need to get a job or I'm going to starve, I will take less than the other guy to get it. Walmart and Target fight over who sells the cheapest clothing. Some people compete that they spent more for clothing, some people that they spend more. Or a Casino comp. I got this room for free because I lose more money than everyone else. Some people compete they spent less on something. Or on both: I paid $5M for this house because I bought BRK.B when it was $25. It's all competition. It just depends on what side of the string you're pulling. Sometimes it's both.

And I'd add this, we are all competing on narrative.

[IlliniDave]

I won't argue on primacy, but competition has a significant role within the framework. There are two threads in the community category that are "challenges" and both were started by the teacher. Not to mention the SWR thread. The most competitive environment I ever witnessed was a Children's Sunday School class with little Christian kids trying to cover each other's mouths in order that it was their voice first heard shouting "Jesus" when the teacher asked why we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

Then I'll repeat my oft uttered observation that I am a bad ere-er. I take challenges as just that, a challenge, and if the threads are the ones I'm thinking of I took them to be challenges of seeing options to ingrained habits rather than the sort of challenge where one forumite wins the prize for shedding the most stuff, or buying the least stuff, and everyone else loses. I'm sure some people approach it as a competition, and that's fine if it motivates a subset of the group, but jacob's got great command of diction and I don't think it was carelessness that led to the choice of the word "challenge" over "competition".

It sort of goes back to the OP example we were asked to comment on, where in that biological event there is one winner among the horde of male-produced zygotes and all others are effectively losers (save a few relatively uncommon edge cases). I don't think that is the scoring that would most accurately reflect the philosophy of ere. I've never spent a second thinking about how I can beat you or anyone else to claim a prize for myself. I, and most people I've noticed, in things like the SWR thread are careful to include caveats like "what works best for me is ... but you have to figure out what works best for your temperament and circumstances." That's actually my whole philosophy when it comes to investing, withdrawing, or even retiring. Look internally to figure out what is the best approach for you among all the options presented. There's no one size fits all template. Therefore all "winning" is relative, And person A "winning" and person B "winning" are not mutually exclusive outcomes.

[7Wannabe5]

I was recently amused to note that the results of my DNA traits analysis indicated that I was likely to be highly competitive, but absent any tendency for ambition or leadership. I think the desire to WIN (or cause others to LOSE) falls somewhere in between and likely below both competitiveness and ambition. I enjoy verbal debate in the same way many humans enjoy playing a competitive sport like tennis. I truly do not care about the trophy or even winning. I actually prefer to lose if that means that the game was more engaging and towards a higher dopamine shooting learning curve. And I would say that one of the reasons why I kind of suck at some aspects of ERE is that I am lacking in ambition; the stereotypical gifted underachiever or dopamine driven dilettante. I don't have that core desire to "level up" that underpins ambition for an achiever.

So, maybe we can agree that what ERE requires is more like personal ambition than interpersonal competitiveness. And I would further note that humans who enjoy the fun of a competitive activity will usually prefer that the competition is not "personal" or primarily about who wins or who loses, because that is towards poor sportsmanship. I think it is important and beneficial for me to accept the competitive aspects of my personality, because I too often suppress these tendencies with my tertiary Fe desire for social harmony, because I don't want to make other people feel butt-hurt. For example, throughout my life I have at times purposefully lost at competitions in order to not have to deal with other humans bad reactions to losing, and I find myself not infrequently squeaking my way out of relationship with variation on "It's not you, it's me." There are a lot of poor sports out there, but I don't think that it is long run functional to completely avoid competition in order to tamp down the reactivity of others or avoid this form of conflict. One of the reasons why I like hanging out here is that almost everybody is such a good sport because in possession of strong core confidence.

[Henry]

but jacob's got great command of diction and I don't think it was carelessness that led to the choice of the word "challenge" over "competition".

I think that's kind of a utopia-ish view of humanity as well as the self itself. You want to run a marathon. Just to finish it. So you have to train. Now you're competing with other commitments and most likely, parts of you that don't want to run a marathon. But you train and run the marathon and you finish but you finish dead last behind the wheel chairs, the guy dressed as the Statue of Liberty, the 90 year old man wearing diapers, the father pushing his leukemia kid in the hospital bed and the one legged dwarf. I mean you cross the finish line after the entire fucking Fellini crowd is back home safe and crazy under the circus tent. So yeah, you finished, good on you, but someone's going to say, "Really, you couldn't beat the leukemia kid?" And you're going to say, no, and that's perfectly OK because I just wanted to finish the marathon. I don't know. Not saying I don't believe you and I'm not judging. I guess someone's got to be last in the ERE class. Actually, I'm glad you're ok with it because otherwise I'm thinking it might be me.

[IlliniDave]

I think that's kind of a utopia-ish view of humanity as well as the self itself. You want to run a marathon. Just to finish it. So you have to train. Now you're competing with other commitments and most likely, parts of you that don't want to run a marathon. But you train and run the marathon and you finish but you finish dead last behind the wheel chairs, the guy dressed as the Statue of Liberty, the 90 year old man wearing diapers, the father pushing his leukemia kid in the hospital bed and the one legged dwarf. I mean you cross the finish line after the entire fucking Fellini crowd is back home safe and crazy under the circus tent. So yeah, you finished, good on you, but someone's going to say, "Really, you couldn't beat the leukemia kid?" And you're going to say, no, and that's perfectly OK because I just wanted to finish the marathon. I don't know. Not saying I don't believe you and I'm not judging. I guess someone's got to be last in the ERE class. Actually, I'm glad you're ok with it because otherwise I'm thinking it might be me.

I said that in my first post in this discussion--that there's an element of internally competing with one's self to overcome doing the easy thing at every juncture. It's maybe more like running 24.2 miles one day by yourself instead of entering a 24.2 mile race with 1,000 other runners. If you or lillo9546 achieve your ere goals in a way that couldn't possibly be better, it doesn't affect whether I can achieve my ere goals, nor how well I can achieve them, is all I'm saying. I'll happily accept the dunce cap from jacob, especially if it makes other people happy to see me wearing it. I've crossed my finish line, and now only train for my health (and as 7Wb5 pointed out, to thoughtlessly torment hapless females).

[IlliniDave]

... And I would further note that humans who enjoy the fun of a competitive activity will usually prefer that the competition is not "personal" or primarily about who wins or who loses, because that is towards poor sportsmanship...

I remember once long ago throwing darts one evening with a woman I was involved with. After one of the games she asked me if I was trying to beat her. I said, "No," which made her angry, thinking I was trying to "let her win" (despite that fact that I'd won the particular round). I told her, "Every time I play I try to throw the best match I've ever thrown, and if you throw better I'm happy for you." She was still pissed at me because for her beating someone was more important than realizing improvement in her skill, and I didn't share that value hierarchy. So I can agree with the quoted sentiment.

[Jean]

In college, it was fun to have better grades than the competitive kid, while ostensibly not trying to have better grade than him.