1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Ask your investment, budget, and other money related questions here
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 16995
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by jacob »

sky wrote:
Fri May 09, 2025 2:22 pm
The challenge that I see is that creating a regenerative lifestyle takes quite a bit of capital. At least, the way that I imagine a regenerative lifestyle includes a house with enough land for a garden in a location that does not require a fossil fuel vehicle. I'm sure there are ways to hack this concept, but when I look at my area, it requires an investment of about $200k.
Perhaps your area was not meant for the type of solution that focuses on "a regenerative lifestyle includes a house with enough land for a garden in a location that does not require a fossil fuel vehicle". Maybe imagine something else... or imagine a different area ... as long as it stays under budget.

I believe the biggest problem with all these idealistic/ideological/particularly specific proposals is that almost nobody ever does the math in terms of whether the planet can actually afford their proposed solution or whether there's even a realistic path from "here" to "there". I made it easy on myself by simply calculating the size of the budget but leaving it up to people to figure out what to spend it on in the world as it currently is.

I demonstrate an individual solution by personal example, but I've also left a manuscript, etc. with guidelines and principles for people to build different systems for themselves.

Morally speaking, at the end of the day (or century as it is) I simply want to known that at least some people knew and that at least some people walked their talk.

theanimal
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by theanimal »

A lot of this is very fuzzy math, especially when it comes to housing costs. For example, the one Jacob counts for 7000 annual expenses but does not factor in whether you’re doing that while owning a 100k/250k/500k etc house or even building a house on your own. Its just a guideline, and purchasing a home for 200k or greater does not prohibit someone from living close to that number if that’s their goal.

chenda
Posts: 3810
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by chenda »

theanimal wrote:
Fri May 09, 2025 3:53 pm
A lot of this is very fuzzy math, especially when it comes to housing costs. For example, the one Jacob counts for 7000 annual expenses but does not factor in whether you’re doing that while owning a 100k/250k/500k etc house or even building a house on your own. Its just a guideline, and purchasing a home for 200k or greater does not prohibit someone from living close to that number if that’s their goal.
This is actually factored in to the calculation, Jacob explained this on another thread:
viewtopic.php?p=291718#p291718

theanimal
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by theanimal »

For renting, yes. For ownership, no it’s not.
jacob wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2024 12:55 pm
Also keep in mind that once spending gets very low, the situation becomes rather idiosyncratic and dependent on particular living circumstances. For example, we (DW+jacob) own our house outright but don't count imputed rent in our budget. OTOH, we live in Cook county and thus 60% of our budget goes towards RE taxes (this expense could be reduced by a factor 5 by moving elsewhere). Also, DW is still working and so we are forced to accept corporate healthcare even if ACA would could cost us nearly zero if she stopped working. There are looooooong long threads debating this. Here's one: viewtopic.php?t=10316

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 16995
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by jacob »

It's frustrating how nitpicking so quickly turns these debates into a red herring fishing expedition. The point is that detailed calculations should not change the ~$7,000 target limit. The ~$7,000 is the guiding star under which decisions are made for a given place and year.

When we bought this house in 2014, the monthly mortgage would have been $315 IIRC. The RE tax was around $4000/year. Since then the house has appreciated significantly. The RE tax has gone up as well even if services haven't. No more resources have been used though. However, it would not be possible to replicate our particular house today with the current RE prices and mortgage rates.

There are still solutions around here but they involve renting. Because RE is currently overvalued. (It was the other way around when we bought.)

So no, the calculation does not allow for "creative" accounting to somehow get rid of the footprint. Nor does it treat renters differently than owners. I'll leave it up to people's sense of morals to argue their case. For example, I can respect the PPP-argument from a certain perspective but I also have reasons not to prefer it myself. However, arguing a claim that "I currently pay nothing for my phone line [because I paid for 10 years of service upfront]" is clearly not in the spirit of the calculation. It's also not what's going on ecologically.

The qualifying question is whether the "cost" reflects the rate of resource use. The accounting should reflect the situation. Here the accounting profession offers various ways to give a realistic picture of how and when money is spent---what the actual cost of doing business is. It can do the same for how resources or footprint-area are spent. I'd advise people to be realistic/not try to fool themselves... because ultimately the rubber does meet the road.

In particular---and this is the most important point---it is more important to do the right thing than to do things right. Worry about accuracy before worrying about precision. There are absolutely better ways to calculate one's exact footprint than the above equation as measured in dollars. The reason the simple dollar-equation is useful anyway is that most people are so far away from a sustainable solution that it makes no sense to even begin to nitpick the detailed calculation.

theanimal
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by theanimal »

sky wrote:
Fri May 09, 2025 2:22 pm
The challenge that I see is that creating a regenerative lifestyle takes quite a bit of capital. At least, the way that I imagine a regenerative lifestyle includes a house with enough land for a garden in a location that does not require a fossil fuel vehicle. I'm sure there are ways to hack this concept, but when I look at my area, it requires an investment of about $200k.
My statements were in response to this sentiment. IIRC Jacob, you paid $150k for your house to own it outright. I'm not saying anywhere here whether that's a bad/good thing, that one should "game" the system to achieve this metric, puts you outside your goals etc. That's left up to each individual as you say. I am saying that making a large investment in a property does not preclude one from reaching those goals.

ertyu
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by ertyu »

And meanwhile here I was just wondering what 18% of [median wage] would look like for my country of origin so i could run the private thought experiment of what it would take to live on it. Surprising no one: it would be tight and almost certainly can't be done in the bounds of "normie" behavior.

2Birds1Stone
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:20 am
Location: Earth

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by 2Birds1Stone »

Some countries allow for a lot of excess @ median earnings........others not so much....it's not an apples to apples comparison.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 16995
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by jacob »

Indeed. Back when I was mainly thinking about this in terms of ecological cost, 1jacob corresponded to the average consumer in Mexico. It was only a few years after "living at level Mexico" that I realized that I could invest all this unnecessary extra money (from my grad school stipend) and eventually stop working instead of spending a lifetime making more of it.

This is also why the pay-as-you-go is mentioned in the ERE book (chapter 7). One could in principle stick with just earning about $1500-2000/quarter. In the US this is also enough to qualify for eventual social security benefits. Look at e.g. 7wb5.

The whole concept/movement became someone muddled by getting so heavily entangled with FIRE but if you look at it, FIRE is actually not a very big part of the ERE book. Yet, it was probably a good choice [to go with the FIRE crowd] because they have been quite motivated to actually do something effective. The carrot [FIRE] has been better than the stick ["limits to growth"]. The way I saw/see it is that we have a good system [in capitalism]. We are just using it very stupidly.

In terms of "normie" behavior, notice how a lot of this "high savings"-behavior is demonstrated by immigrants living in a higher-than-home income countries. Turns out many people bring their [relative] level of frugality with them or at least don't instantly increase their spending to match their new higher income(*). The majority of the OGs in the FIRE movement were either immigrants or married to immigrants. Oftentimes, the natives conflate this appearance of immigrant excess money with how "they're making too much/taking our jobs/..." but what is actually happening is that they're just not used to spending all their earnings of what is often average incomes at best.

This effect is also mentioned in Stanley&Danko's millionaire next door. The effect is lost by the second generation. The hard part is not in living on 18% of the median. It's having to swim against the cultural pressure telling you to spend 95% of it.

(Alternatively, one of the "sayings" in the Danish FIRE community is "I lived like a student. I just kept living like a student." ... in my case, going from an undergraduate stipend to a graduate stipend was a massive (4x) income increase! IOW, people also have a chance to avoid committing to servitude in the cave right after they get out of school insofar they can avoid "upgrading" their lifestyle to their new salary and instead slowly upgrade their lifestyle according to their developing frugal muscles instead.)

(*) I get a reminder of this when one of our higher spending forumites (lets say >$6,000/month) are kind enough to post details of their budget. Often I don't even know what on earth a given line item is or why/how it could possibly be worth buying. Yet, to those who pay for it, it's the most obvious thing to do. It's only when/if they stop buying it, they realize that it made absolute no difference in their quality of life. As someone who didn't grow up with [this culture], I simply lack the imagination to think of certain things as something one would or even could pay for. This is the difference between "having good knowledge" and "not having bad knowledge". Early on I was much more in the latter class.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10580
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think the immigrant model also applies to older humans generally being regarded as more frugal. For example, a lifelong shopaholic like my mother simply does not have the energy/ability to keep up with trends/formats well enough to shop quite as hard as she did in her 30s. Also, there are simply fewer life events that "require" a great deal of shopping as you grow older. For example, when she was 37, my mother had a brand new 2600 sq. ft. house to fill with purchases and decorate, but now she only has an 800 sq. ft. apartment. When you are young, it is fun to spend money on new clothes. When you are old, and limited to only wearing long, comfortable dresses you can easily put on with your arthritic hands, it's not so fun to shop for clothes. Although, I just did a quick count, and my mother currently owns at least 45 different long dresses, the vast majority of them ordered on the internet sometime in the last few years. Still, I believe she is spending significantly less on clothing than she did in 1979 (which was the year she spent $500 purchasing an entire Preppy Young Republican style high school wardrobe for me without consultation as to my preferred style.) I am actually wearing one of her discarded long dresses as I type this post, because "see above waste-streams of affluent."

Also, I think the reason why the "paid cash for house" vs. "renting" issue comes up so often is that there is a sort of continuing confusion in the breach where ERE solves for "resource conservation/flow" but does not solve for "poverty", and this is also complicated by the multiplicity of forms capital or "privilege" (here to be defined simply as whatever forms of capital mostly fell into your lap through luck) can take on. I mean, obviously, it will be somewhat easier to create a satisfactory lifestyle while only spending 1 Jacob/year if you inherit a cottage worth $250,000 from your great-aunt. However, it will also be easier to create a satisfactory lifestyle while only spending 1 Jacob/year if you are a good-looking gifted athlete or you have a 40,000 word working vocabulary or a naturally happy disposition or an emotionally supportive family or high level auto-mechanic and chef skills, or the wherewithal that allowed you to commence upon a graduate student lifestyle, etc. etc. Any or all of these may constitute the same sort of "prior investment" as a house purchased with cash, even if it was someone(s) further up the tree that made the investment on your behalf in terms of feeding you in infancy, supporting a public library system, or sexually selecting somebody with fine arm musculature.

One possible mechanism by which ERE could be modified to also become a solution for poverty might be if excess income (or time equivalent) over $7000/year/capita was invested in humans who actually or effectively currently benefit from less than $7000/year/ capita flow. I suggest "effectively" as well as "actually", because, for example, there are many kids in the U.S. who have greater than $7000/ year consumption on paper, but their lack of other capital resources previously invested, or their otherwise "bad luck", leaves them with lifestyles and lifestyle potentials that most of us would not deem satisfactory. However, I will leave the calculation of possible negative second order effects related to this suggestion to minds greater and/or more strategic than mine.

ertyu
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by ertyu »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat May 10, 2025 9:30 am
"privilege" (here to be defined simply as whatever forms of capital mostly fell into your lap through luck)
Not a good definition imo. Humans famously refuse to admit to themselves that it was luck. They think they worked hard for the 40k vocab when they only had the chance to do so by being relatively well-off enough to not have to take care of younger siblings in-between high school and their mcdonalds job. Corporate types and various business leaders typically believe they worked very hard, too. "I worked hard" would you have been able to work hard with different brain wiring, or with different level of access to adhd coaching and medication? Would you have been able to work your way up to CEO if your dad wasn't who he was? Etc.

My preferred definition for privilege is, "shit I don't have to deal with." I don't have to deal with the attitude people around me give to brown people because I am not brown: I have privilege. I don't have to deal with the hardship of having to look for work with shitty diplomas because I do have good degrees I've coasted on, and I have them because I was born with a particular type of brain at a particular place/time. Or, to pick up the house example, I don't have to deal with an additional layer of insecurity given I own shelter. Etc. Was it luck? Was it hard work? It's immaterial to the end result: there's a layer of bullshit others may have to deal with that will make life harder, and I don't. As a result, we would approach each new problem from a different starting point. And would have different outcomes.

zbigi
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by zbigi »

ertyu wrote:
Sat May 10, 2025 8:31 pm
Was it hard work? It's immaterial to the end result
Taken to the limi it does imply that, if we take two identical persons, and person A spends Monday slacking off while person B spends Monday mowing lawns and ends up with $100 in their pocket, then person B is privileged vs person A (because has more money as a result of hard work). Which is not how most people define privilege.

suomalainen
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by suomalainen »

Lot of cognitive biases at play there: survivorship, self-serving, attribution, etc. There is no answer to such biases. You will never be able to convince a person suffering from them to grant divinity any role for their "personal successes". C'est la vie.

zbigi
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by zbigi »

Ultimately it's about believeing in agency and free will. If one believes that, for successful people, success was just meant to happen and they worked hard only because of genes etc., that implies we live in fully deterministic universe with no free will. The problem with that belief is that, combined with people's striving towards equality, it leads straight to some variant of communism, where, because everybody deserve equally, everybody should have identical outcomes (as corrected by some central government body). And the problem with that is (apart from the fact it's only feasible in a totalitarian society), is that guaranteed outcome leads to people just putting in less efort, which was one of main reasons behind all communist countries' abysmal economic performance.
In other words, free will and meritocracy may well be illusions, but everybody's better off if a society behaves as if they were true.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6663
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by Ego »

ertyu wrote:
Sat May 10, 2025 8:31 pm
Was it luck? Was it hard work? It's immaterial to the end result: there's a layer of bullshit others may have to deal with that will make life harder, and I don't. As a result, we would approach each new problem from a different starting point. And would have different outcomes.
Even a hard determinist might contend that constantly reminding people of their lack of privilege, regardless of how true, is likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 16995
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by jacob »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat May 10, 2025 9:30 am
One possible mechanism by which ERE could be modified to also become a solution for poverty might be if excess income (or time equivalent) over $7000/year/capita was invested in humans who actually or effectively currently benefit from less than $7000/year/ capita flow. I suggest "effectively" as well as "actually", because, for example, there are many kids in the U.S. who have greater than $7000/ year consumption on paper, but their lack of other capital resources previously invested, or their otherwise "bad luck", leaves them with lifestyles and lifestyle potentials that most of us would not deem satisfactory. However, I will leave the calculation of possible negative second order effects related to this suggestion to minds greater and/or more strategic than mine.
(My bold)

The problem or should I say challenge with this is that ERE is about 10 Wheaton levels removed from the "philosophical framework of poverty"(*). We never did table up WL0 or WL-1, etc. but "poverty" could be described in a similar way to the WL table with corresponding habits, paradigms, goals, ...

(Of course, the ERE WL table suggests a one-dimensional progression whereas in reality, there are more than one way to get to Rome. However, it is unlikely there there exists a magical wormhole that connects poverty to far away ERE in any kind of effective way. Philosophically the two demographics have nothing in common.)

A WL7 could certainly spend their excess time, excess money, ... etc. helping out people at WL0 or WL2 or WLnegative3 or whatever should they so desire. However, and this is the important part, the ERE framework itself is very unlikely to be the best strategy for this kind of help. This is similar to how professorial experience in mathematical analys or differential geometry is not useful for teaching people who struggle with counting or addition. It's not even that it's not useful, it's that it's very well counterproductive.

For these reasons, and a few more, I am pretty certain that ERE could NOT be modified to become a solution to poverty. The solution go from e.g. WL-1 to WL0 to WL1 has very little in common with the solution to go from WL5 to WL6 to WL7. Also see Stoa2 talk towards the end.

(*) Yeah, there is every indication that there is such a framework just like there is a framework for every other WL. In a tragic-comical way, the decision matrix for WL<0 reliably leads to making the opposite choice compared to the decision matrix for WL7+. I know a couple of [poor] people ... so I hear the stories about what they do. Turns out, I can fairly accurately predict the choices they make simply based on considering what I would do in their situation and then predicting they will do the complete opposite regardless of how "crazy" such a choice seems to me. If there was a betting market for this, I'd be rich. (At a larger scale, this is probably how certain people are able to reliably prey on the poor.)

One of my dreams (feverish fantasies, really) is how some day there will be "professors of stupidity". There's so little research and study done when it comes to bad thinking that even simple stuff like behavioral economics wins Nobel prizes. ERE is not rocket science per se. What makes it difficult though is that it typically happens in an environment where everyone else (family friends) as well as culture and society goes against it. This is why it requires a strong foundation in philosophy. The average human generally do not know or care to know why they make choices. They just do what everybody else around them are doing. They'll do alright if "everybody else" is generally doing the right thing. They'll struggle if "everybody else" is generally doing the wrong thing. Trying to help someone in the right direction if they're surrounded by a memetic soup that continuously points them in the wrong direction is an uphill battle.

It is not difficult to explain ERE. What makes it hard is that practically everyone you run into is already convinced they know otherwise and so will proceed to argue against having to change their mind ... all ... the ... way.

As an exercise for the reader, read a book like Demon Copperhead and then 1) write out a few instances, where ERE principles could have helped Demon or could have made a difference in his life; and then more importantly 2) write out the teaching strategy for explaining these principles to Demon in a way he would have understood AND acted on them.

Laura Ingalls
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:13 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by Laura Ingalls »

jacob wrote:
Sun May 11, 2025 7:42 am
One of my dreams (feverish fantasies, really) is how some day there will be "professors of stupidity". There's so little research and study done when it comes to bad thinking that even simple stuff like behavioral economics wins Nobel prizes. ERE is not rocket science per se. What makes it difficult though is that it typically happens in an environment where everyone else (family friends) as well as culture and society goes against it. This is why it requires a strong foundation in philosophy. The average human generally do not know or care to know why they make choices. They just do what everybody else around them are doing. They'll do alright if "everybody else" is generally doing the right thing. They'll struggle if "everybody else" is generally doing the wrong thing. Trying to help someone in the right direction if they're surrounded by a memetic soup that continuously points them in the wrong direction is an uphill battle.
This is a great paragraph. Simple is not easy. If you do the simple thing successfully; then live a good life with no visible job or criminal activity it looks sorcery to the least disciplined or most envious.

Other people who are living their best life that is not as ERE compliant just keep trucking. They just keep hiking their own hike and maybe learn some from you and vice versa. I like this cohort better.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6663
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by Ego »

jacob wrote:
Sun May 11, 2025 7:42 am
One of my dreams (feverish fantasies, really) is how some day there will be "professors of stupidity".
...
The average human generally do not know or care to know why they make choices. They just do what everybody else around them are doing. ...
Trying to help someone in the right direction if they're surrounded by a memetic soup that continuously points them in the wrong direction is an uphill battle.
Just this morning I ran into a friend who would be a case study for the professor of stupidity. He is know for making phenomenally stupid decisions. I hadn't seen him for more than a year, but he followed our trip from the few postings we made on social media. For years, he has seen first hand how frugal we are. Today, he mentioned that he remembered me talking about how we "bought our freedom" by being frugal and how cool it was that we are free.

I would like to think that our example slightly altered the mimetic soup in which he swims.

suomalainen
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by suomalainen »

zbigi wrote:
Sun May 11, 2025 6:30 am
that implies we live in fully deterministic universe with no free will. The problem with that belief is …
In other words, free will and meritocracy may well be illusions, but everybody's better off if a society behaves as if they were true.
But if it’s deterministic, there is no problem. It just is as it must be. People striving towards equality can’t help it. Communism as a certain result (if said causality holds) likewise can’t be helped. People putting in effort (or not) likewise can’t be helped. People behaving “as if” also can’t be helped. In other words, there’s nothing to debate because there’s no chance at change. The river will always flow the way it’s going to flow.

At the same time, the debate can’t be avoided as the debaters can only do what they’re gonna do as well. Just as I point and laugh at the debaters / commentators, so another can point and laugh at me. It’s absurdity all the way down.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10580
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: 1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“ertyu” wrote: My preferred definition for privilege is, "shit I don't have to deal with."
Yes, or even something like “currently occupying preferable position in current field.” The “currently”s making clear that change in personal and underlying “game” conditions may also occur.
“Ego” wrote: constantly reminding people of their lack of privilege, regardless of how true, is likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, but it is also true that there can be huge risks or costs associated with belief in agency in a situation where “occupying preferred position in current field at start of play” was more contributive to current position if/when field changes and scaffolding crumbles.
“jacob” wrote: A WL7 could certainly spend their excess time, excess money, ... etc. helping out people at WL0 or WL2 or WLnegative3 or whatever should they so desire. However, and this is the important part, the ERE framework itself is very unlikely to be the best strategy for this kind of help. This is similar to how professorial experience in mathematical analys or differential geometry is not useful for teaching people who struggle with counting or addition. It's not even that it's not useful, it's that it's very well counterproductive.
Well, I certainly agree with this in the sense that I did not mean to imply that WL7s should venture out as if missionaries to impoverished realms with backpacks full of The Book to distribute or read aloud from on soapbox in public square.

However I disagree that achieving Level Yellow perspective is inherently counterproductive in terms of communicating with humans functioning at any other level. In fact, because Level Yellow is inherent of comprehending the existence of different philosophical outlooks, there must be some ways in which it should form a more productive perspective. IOW, I think there are simultaneously ways in which it is better, worse, and essentially equally fitted for approaching tasks at the level of teaching basic arithmetic.

For example, if you are a Level Yellow school administrator dealing with a primarily Level Red student body, you will recognize that you will need staff who able to function at Level Blue OR as if at Level Blue to instill a level of order. Obviously, the only humans who can self-aware behave “as if” Level Blue would be at Level Yellow (or above.) Similarly, if you are multi-tasking as a solo human at Level Yellow, there is no reason why you couldn’t behave “as if” Level Blue when warranted.

IOW, the collection of developmental fields themselves, particularly in applied form, would constitute the Mastery required in addition to the Mastery of ERE or FITB. IOW, “what it is like to not know how to multiply” is something you can learn how to remember, and so on and so forth.

Another exercise would be to consider how you might make decisions under unexpected change that dramatically alters your immediate field. For example, everybody not born in U.S. is now being deported, or your dear wife suddenly goes literally insane, or you have a major house fire. What if all three happened at the same time? This is the kind of field that is informing the philosophy of many poor kids in the U.S. It’s much more difficult to make good long term decisions when you constantly experience a good deal of underlying chaos. So, the first thing a WL7 could provide for a kid in such a position, such as Demon Copperhead, would be a degree of simple stability or consistency. Demon Copperhead is actually a good example of what I am attempting to convey, because at various junctions in his life, adults functioning at various Levels attempted to help him with varying degrees of success, but the lack of consistency at all these levels was the greatest problem.

Post Reply