Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta

[jacob]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... lish/event

[Ego]

I've noticed that once people no longer having to worry about food, security (or money), they change their focus into one---at most two---of the following: "people", "events/places", or "ideas" with much less interest in the other ones. This categorization is eminently stable and people rarely change. You can also see this effect in the journals.

Just as some believe God was invented to assuage the discomfort of the unknown, some invent simple categories as a way to create a sense of order and predictability in a complex world.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Well, one's own circulatory system seems too small to connote a broader interest in "people" and a simple metric is also far too small to connote an "idea", so having eliminated the impossible, I am left with only the possible, although archaic, definition of an event as "result or outcome." OTOH, you did qualify with "no longer having to worry about...security", so could also indicate a continuing highly individualistic focus on security(health/longevity) as opposed to security (money.)

[jacob]

True to form both of you

[Jin+Guice]

@Lemur: That's a great summary about what I've been trying to say up until this point. By creating the conditions to meet our physiological needs easily we've created a world where things don't quite make sense for us. Continually trying to find food and avoid death with the community you were de facto in from birth seems like pretty good conditions to live a purpose driven life and have an established place within a community. This can also be observed in present day groups like the Amish or as @Ego pointed out, in groups that return temporarily to lower value memes through war or disaster. However, as many others have pointed out, there are many costs and negative attributes to this way of life.

I haven't given fear of imminent death much thought, so it could be that I'm overlooking something with that fear. I do think that subconscious fear is one of the major motivators of human action after physiological and physiological safety needs are met.

@Ego: I agree there is no end state. Somewhere up there I have a technical note about how I think the hierarchy is only useful at the level of a "moment" or the smallest unit of human attention and that I don't think Maslow's "actualizers" were actualizing all of the time, but that they were likely experiencing "actualized" states above some certain threshold which made them appear different.

However, I don't think the goal is to concentrate on maximizing actualized moments, but rather to concentrate on the conditions that will lead to these moments. And so I agree with you that one must be constantly "tending the garden" so to speak, rather than assuming they have finished, because really every time you are hungry and it distracts you, you become un-actualized.

I also haven't gotten to the esteem/ social levels yet and my hunch is this is where a lot of people are stuck, so I'm in agreement with what I think your saying which is that "fostering interdependent community is really important and this takes continued work."

@jacob: Those *are* essentially the other levels of Maslow (using his extended form) if I assume "people" includes oneself and "events/ places" includes aesthetics. Why I like the needs hierarchy is less the hierarchy and more because I think he did a good job of capturing most human "needs"(=motivators of action).



A little more refinement on my question is: If our physiological and physiological safety needs are met, why do we live in a world of fear and anxiety? Why do we live in a world of people who don't act as though their needs are met and they are secure?

[jacob]

@jacob: Those *are* essentially the other levels of Maslow (using his extended form) if I assume "people" includes oneself and "events/ places" includes aesthetics. Why I like the needs hierarchy is less the hierarchy and more because I think he did a good job of capturing most human "needs"(=motivators of action).

I stole it straight out of

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

... but I don't like the suggested hierarchy either because it suggests that those higher up in the so-called hierarchy can easily handle the subjects lower in the hierarchy. It would be more accurate to say "few minds discuss ideas; some minds discuss events; most minds discuss people".

Most people are happy to talk about themselves when asked. They can also be pushed to talk outside their preference, but will generally not initiate.

What I'm aiming for is more about where someone's interest is when talking with other people and what gets them going? Basically, what someone likes to talk about and what someone likes to do. This is where their voluntary focus is. It's what they'll focus on when they don't have to worry about needs.

The people-focus is "how are you doing? what have you been up to? what are you doing later? how was your day today?" as well as "how is XYZ doing? how are the rest of the family? did you hear about ABC and XYZ?"...

The events/places-focus is usually about some object (rather than a human subject), e.g. people will talk about and ask other where they've been? What's happening on Saturday? Who is going? The party, the trip, etc. Do you want to see pictures? Also included here is something that just happened. Did you see the news? Did you watch the game? Have you seen the latest superhero movie?

The ideas (and stuff) focuses on explanations in a way that's abstracted away from the people and places involved. What's the general principle? How can we understand this? What's another way of seeing this. This can be something entirely practical like which is the best reverse ratcheting router for stem bolt installation. It doesn't have to be high-falutin' philosophy.

Obviously (to me anyway), it's possible to ask questions in a way that covers all three, but it should quickly be clear (?) where someone's focus actually is by where the conversation is going. Do they want to know about the person, the event itself, or the idea that's associated with it. In my experience, it's very difficult to drag people out of their habitual comfort zones when it comes to these three choices. The preferences are basically between subject-oriented, object-oriented, or abstractions. In terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws ... individuals tend to consistently focus on the same W's and care [sometimes much] less for the other W's.

[Stasher]

I've noticed that once people no longer having to worry about food, security (or money), they change their focus into one---at most two---of the following: "people", "events/places", or "ideas" with much less interest in the other ones. This categorization is eminently stable and people rarely change. You can also see this effect in the journals.

I think those of us who have embraced MMM/ERE and the planning/budgeting/saving that accompanies it are very goal focused and optimizers. So 100% yes to what Jacob says. I can speak for myself and say that it is pretty unexciting now that my spending habits are engrained, my budget is optimized and I have reached FIRE. MMM was in full autopilot and now I'm back on ERE seeking that challenge and lifestyle optimization needed to get to ERE levels. I am using my journal to share the excitement of recently lowering my monhtly budget by $50, lol not very exciting in the big picture or MMM world but for me here it is meaningful.

Outside of that I could totally be chatting about my efforts to improve my running and cycling times

[7Wannabe5]

The ideas (and stuff)

Nice try. Nope, simple "stuff talk" (whether specific tools available with coupon at Harbor Freight or specific stock trade tip) goes right down there in the boring basement with "people gossip." You can see this is true because pretty much any department in a university could be filed under "ideas about people" and/or "ideas about stuff."

[jacob]

A little more refinement on my question is: If our physiological and physiological safety needs are met, why do we live in a world of fear and anxiety? Why do we live in a world of people who don't act as though their needs are met and they are secure?

Because the typical consumers only consider their physiological and psychological [safety] needs met as long as they're able to "keep up with the Joneses". This has resulted in a race to the bottom in which almost every penny is spent trying to keep up. The fear and anxiety obtains from the knowledge that this race could be lost if they lose their job. (The majority has no material savings or backup)

To put it more abstractedly, it's because "needs" are defined on an relative scale (also see "poverty level") rather than an objectively absolute scale. This changes the perceived problem/solution from "having enough" to "having less than my neighbor". As such, perceived needs can never be fully met because someone else will always have more. The lack of job security (at-will employment, etc.) then takes care of the subtle anxiety.

There are well-known but non-obvious solutions available but these are hard to see when one's identity is tied up in the rat race. Coming around often requires a full course of grieving the loss of the old identity such as e.g.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

Add: I should note that this is the Orange problem. The Green problem has more to do with the fact that while their material needs are met, their community/belonging needs are not. Green/Orange in particular get their belonging needs from the jobs. Failing that, I've noted that some turn back to organized religion (Blue) to get their belonging satisfied. Overall, you're looking at a nuanced set of people, but this should cover 90%+ of them.

[loutfard]

Because the typical consumers only consider their physiological and psychological [safety] needs met as long as they're able to "keep up with the Joneses". This has resulted in a race to the bottom in which almost every penny is spent trying to keep up. The fear and anxiety obtains from the knowledge that this race could be lost if they lose their job. (The majority has no material savings or backup)

To put it more abstractedly, it's because "needs" are defined on an relative scale (also see "poverty level") rather than an objectively absolute scale. This changes the perceived problem/solution from "having enough" to "having less than my neighbor". As such, perceived needs can never be fully met because someone else will always have more.

A tangentially related question. Is there a vocabulary that I'm not aware for the following?

I'm not a very keeping-up-with-the-Jonesy person and rather into ERE. Still, I have to sometimes consciously make more effort in terms of money/ERE education/finding ERE alternatives when joining activities with friends depending on the context. This is not about me keeping up with the Joneses or anyone comparing themselves, let alone judging, but about differences in a subconscious layer of expectations.

When I'm in western Europe for example, some of my upper middle class/gentry friends will not think twice about proposing to meet at a restaurant by default. They're usually happy and flexible enough to answer very positively to me proposing to cook mussles with fries (jummy, one of my only non-vegan dishes a few times a year, but I digress). They'd also be happy to hear me declare I'm in a period of intermittent fasting and I will not eat. They don't want me to spend neither explicitly nor explicitly, but there is this subconscious cultural layer by default, without judgement or comparison.

When visiting friends in the Baltics, that cultural layer is different and generally demanding less compliance. This subconscious layer of expectations contains more awareness in some areas and less in others. People will understand that most pensioners in particular have no money (lowest pensions in the EU). Meeting in the park. A wedding under an oak tree in a field. Thinking twice how people without a car will get to a remote place. People freeing up their only bedroom and going to sleep in the living room on the couch so they can host you as their guest. I'm not trying to idealise this. There certainly are parts of this subconscious cultural cake that put up more barriers rather than less than my western European circles, but I'm sure you get the gist...

[7Wannabe5]

Because the typical consumers only consider their physiological and psychological [safety] needs met as long as they're able to "keep up with the Joneses"

Yes, but I think that this concept of the centrist consumer has now become out of date, was much more accurate during my childhood than it is now. Fully 50% of consumption in the U.S. is now performed by the top 10%, and the factor most correlated with financial success is financial success of one’s parents, so many at the bottom have given up on playing this game by the rules currently contrived. For better or worse, their means of exiting the cave are likely to be less conscientious, tipping of hat at exit, than ERE. And it is also the case that the boundary line defending the elite has become a more ruthless realm. IOW, the situation is less a matter of competing to move one rung up the ladder, it’s more that you are either on the party yacht or you are endlessly treading or bailing water. There is no way in hell that the tired grandma pushing the children of her opioid addicted child down the aisle of Dollar Tree is primarily concerned with keeping up with the Jones.

[jacob]

@loutfard - I understand the experiences with the two groups, but I'm not sure what you're asking for in terms of vocabulary. As a somewhat public figure I can tell you that you're seeing a different picture and having a different experience as a friend (in-group) than as an outsider as-seen-on-TV or social media (out-group). People will accommodate friends but judge others. Try posting your alternative ideas on facebook where people don't know you and see what the response is

There are some "deeper" theories for why people "keep up with the joneses". Note that few do this explicitly. Most are unaware and just do it because "it's what one does". It's in the water... not related to specific fish. One theoretical framework is that of "mimetic desire" in which one desires stuff simply because someone else desires it. Obviously people can come up with all kinds of rationalizations why they desire something (beyond just wanting it because someone else wants it), but these rationalizations don't explain why e.g. restaurants are then more popular in one country than in another. If mimetic desire takes hold in enough people, you get the "bandwagon effect". Suddenly the default becomes "going out" to meet and eat instead of doing so at home.

If you're the one person without sufficient smartphone capacity to keep up with the app that your group is using, you quickly become "that guy", the one for which exceptions have to be made. They might remember to loop you in via email but the general conversation happens on FancyChat and they might also just forget. As such, a newish smartphone becomes a "need" without anyone really planning for it. Ditto in terms of how many sqft/person one "needs" when it comes to housing. What kind of food one eats. Very few humans have what it takes to be "that guy", but ...

There's also the reverse bandwagon effect in which if something becomes too popular, some people will start doing the reverse to stand out. Perhaps this is the origin of ERE? This is called the "snob effect". You see this a lot in higher education/academia, for example. They can't afford the big luxuries like fancy cars and mansions on a government salary, so instead they pour money into mundane things like upgrading the kitchen ("constructed by real artisans") that they never use because they go out all the time to "sample" foods (of course "using only locally sourced ingredients") for their refined palates. This is how you get statements like "I buy delicious food made out of high quality ingredients grown by local farmers", because they certainly don't want to be identified with cooking their own "lentil soup" with ingredients from Aldi. They've substituted driving a $250,000 Maybach, which they can't afford, for eating $15 sprouts, which they can afford, giving reasons that are anything but the fact that they can't afford the former. I suspect that success as a snob is contingent of having at least one thing that the monied class does not and secretly envy. (Examples: a big degree, artistic ability, ...)

FIRE or at least the FI part has also become a "positional good" as FIRE has gone mainstream. A positional good is something that's desirable simply because it's more expensive than something else. It's the relative position (price) that gives it value. So, now we have a lot of people who don't care about any of the actual FIRE lessons or results. They just want the FI label because it sounds cool. Instead of walking around and saying they're a dollar millionaire (soooo yesterday), the current fashion is to be "FI".

In wider circles, one of the most common objections I get with ERE is how one can't afford restaurants, cafes, movies, travel on an ERE budget. Other flak has been received for not conforming to keeping up with the conformal dress code and DIY'ing alternative solutions. (If you ever want to get people riled up, start questioning the way they do their laundry ). Friends might understand your quirks, but to the public at large, alternative behavior is a disturbance on their world-order that they must distance themself from immediately. One particular aspect ("lentil soup", "using a clothesline", ...) serve to eliminate the entire intruding framework and restore mimetic order. It's a lot easier to declare someone a radical lunatic than having to think that they might just have a point. If they can declare you to be a freak, they can avoid considering that they might be the freaks.

[7Wannabe5]

I suspect that success as a snob is contingent of having at least one thing that the monied class does not and secretly envy. (Examples: a big degree, artistic ability, ...)

Yes, 40 or 50 years ago the joke about the people who inhabit the realm where I currently reside was that they drove broken down Subarus, Volvos or Volkswagen with bumper stickers proclaiming the elite schools to which their children had gained admittance. This joke is no longer as funny, because this aspiration has since become much more popularized. IOW, we are now in a place of much greater "elite overproduction." And as Peter Turchin outlines in "End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration", it is the combination of growing inequality and elite class conflict due to elite-seat scarcity which usually presages the collapse of civilizations. This is why those nearer to the top, such as the well-educated Level Green/Yellow friends of Hanzi, are suffering from growing rate of deaths of despair as much as the opioid-addicted insecure generationally drifting down towards Level Red masses.

Most members of this forum already possess at least one snob-signal prior to entering upon ERE path, so it might more properly be considered a second-order positional good. The $10,000 grad student lifestyle is much different than the $10,000 gas station attendant lifestyle, unless the gas station attendant held the grad school option and self-aware chose to pass on it. There can also be a sort of infinite regress in which these positional goods can be obtained more or less frugally. I think of Chris Guillebeau's ("Art of Non-Conformity") list of things you can do to accumulate the functional cultural equivalent of a grad degree without having to actually pay for a grad degree. My most blatant counter-positioning move ever was the time I showed up in upper-middle-middle-class suburban careerist social setting with 6'5" very fit man who used to tour playing bass for Parliament as my date, thereby totally obliterating the one-ups-woman-ship on kitchen renovation paradigm. Of course, that was way back circa 2005, and the sort of behavior that would be frowned upon these days, because too much like something one of the old ladies featured in the "Sex and the City" sequel might do.

[loutfard]

@loutfard - I understand the experiences with the two groups, but I'm not sure what you're asking for in terms of vocabulary.

I picked up "mimetic desire", "bandwagon effect", "snob effect" and "positional good". Thank you. I'll read up on them.

Let me try to step back, rephrase and add a few observations. There's an off chance there might be something of value somewhere.

- Part of my question was an intellectually bland, emotional "But this is not about me trying to keep up with the Joneses!". "Keeping up with the Joneses" I understand as jealousy and unhealthy comparison of material possessions and wealth.
- I care very little about the Joneses in the jealousy sense, but I do care a lot about keeping some people close. I like to see the two disentangled.
- I was partly looking for awareness and recognition of implied relationship affordability/accessibility barriers, without jealousy/unhealthy comparison even coming into play.
- I've observed interesting variability in this implied/unspoken/subconscious cake of barriers. Some people/groups are very motivated to do away with those, but still don't manage. They're too many worlds away, just like a difference in ERE levels. Our relationship becomes high maintenance/high friction despite their honest efforts to avoid that.
- With my conscious choice of ERE values, avoiding social media and more, I increase the friction/maintenance with many.

As a somewhat public figure I can tell you that you're seeing a different picture and having a different experience as a friend (in-group) than as an outsider as-seen-on-TV or social media (out-group). People will accommodate friends but judge others. Try posting your alternative ideas on facebook where people don't know you and see what the response is

I understand what you mean better than you might imagine. My computer might not be connected to the virtual sewage system, but as a board member of a very visible non-profit, I am regularly forced to deal with virtual fecal matter regardless.

Friends might understand your quirks, but to the public at large, alternative behavior is a disturbance on their world-order that they must distance themself from immediately. One particular aspect ("lentil soup", "using a clothesline", ...) serve to eliminate the entire intruding framework and restore mimetic order.

Not only do most friends and family understand and often even appreciate my quirks. I seem to also have intuitively picked professional environments where colleagues and clients can smile at my quirkiness and see value in it.

[ertyu]

Try posting your alternative ideas on facebook where people don't know you and see what the response is

"But don't you feel miserable living weirdly"
"Plus he [JLF] bases it on Rich Dad Poor Dad and that's been shown to be a scam" (no I don't know how they came up with that either)

[7Wannabe5]

I was partly looking for awareness and recognition of implied relationship affordability/accessibility barriers, without jealousy/unhealthy comparison even coming into play.

Yes, what you are describing does exist. I recall a recent novel which featured representatively "ethical/concerned independently wealthy" characters, and one scene in which the very nice, very wealthy protagonist was guiltily thinking to herself what a relief it was to interact with her friends who were also quite wealthy, because she never had to consider affordability when making plans. IOW, there is a difference between the financial freedom which is money on tap to do pretty much whatever you want at whatever level vs. the financial freedom which is money on tap to live a happy, frugal lifestyle without having to 9-5.

The opposite can also occur. I know quite a few grouchy old men who have more money than they can ever spend, because they don't know how to spend more money. IOW, there might be ways they could improve their quality of life or their social positioning by spending more or by spending differently, but they don't know how to do that. Kind of like a kid who can't imagine past ordering everything he wants at McDonalds and the shiniest toy race car available at the local mall for the best birthday ever.

[jacob]

Yes, what you are describing does exist. I recall a recent novel which featured representatively "ethical/concerned independently wealthy" characters, and one scene in which the very nice, very wealthy protagonist was guiltily thinking to herself what a relief it was to interact with her friends who were also quite wealthy, because she never had to consider affordability when making plans. IOW, there is a difference between the financial freedom which is money on tap to do pretty much whatever you want at whatever level vs. the financial freedom which is money on tap to live a happy, frugal lifestyle without having to 9-5.

I don't know what that effect is called, but it's definitely a thing. I don't feel "guilt" as much as "relief" though. It's not just wealth but also other forms of capital. It's not difficult to end up in such a situation either. Consumers might naturally outspend an EREmite, but the more well-rounded EREmite naturally outdoes the consumer in most other dimensions.

For example, one of the many reasons I started added weights to my backpack was to slow down my natural pace so I wouldn't always outpace DW or my regular walking group as this would cause some social tension because it would also put pressure on them to keep up, alternatively pressure on me to stay relatively slow. In conversation with "average intellects", one constantly has to consider all the concepts they don't know or the logical leaps they might not make. It is nice to "run free" or perhaps more accurately to operate at maximum capacity without having to be constantly conscious of dialing it back.

I guess it's a form of "masking" that is performed for the sake of social harmony. I've also noticed that this [tension] is mainly an issue when the capability difference is 200-300%. Perhaps a difference in kind. A difference of 20--30% (difference of degree) is not even noticeable, at least not from above.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

[7Wannabe5]

It's not just wealth but also other forms of capital. It's not difficult to end up in such a situation either. Consumers might naturally outspend an EREmite, but the more well-rounded EREmite naturally outdoes the consumer in most other dimensions.

Well, I would say that SD, MBTI, MHC, age/experience, and also the tendency for our culture to produce specialists would also come into play here. For simple example, your tracking ability would likely be inferior compared to that of any member of a hunter-gatherer tribe, and my meditation state achievement is quite weak relative to most in the transcendental community/level. Another example would be that one of my partners and I likely have similar IQ, but he has PhD in Mechanical Engineering brain more than generalist-book-brain, so we can't always track together in conversation. IOW, it is not the case that everybody shares the same topographical map when determining "outdoing" or "underdoing", so others may be adjusting themselves in other ways in order to make up for what they perceive to be your short-falls. This becomes quite obvious if you frequently engage in activities such as dating, where the task of judging overall "equality" is apparent and limited to a two-body problem.

[Jin+Guice]

This discussion is basically the contents of my next two posts which are titled "Mimetic Desire and Identity" and "Status and Esteem."

It's tempting to comment on this discussion from the idea I've developed, but I don't want to do that before I've laid it out.

Y'all are having the discussion and asking the questions that I asked as well. i don't know if I've found "the answer" but I found an answer that makes sense to me.

Here's my addition to the discussion for now (I'll post my next post after this comment): I think both mimetic desire and status play a huge role in shaping human behavior after physiological needs are met. I think mimetic desire and status are intrinsic to humans such that everyone is heavily influenced by them. However, people are influenced differently by different mimetic desire and status.



I think it's appropriate to drop a reminder that my initial reason for exploring this pathway was progressing along the WL journey. As I went from WL6 to WL7 with an eye towards WL8, I realized I didn't have a strong reason for doing what I was dong. Yet I had a strong inclination of what I wanted to do. But whenever I questioned these inclinations, they disintegrated. I had no real reason for doing X instead of Y. So the question I had to answer before attempting to build a system out of what I was doing is why am I doing any of it and why am I doing anything?

[Jin+Guice]

Mimetic Desire and Identity

Mimetic desire is an idea put forth by historian Rene Girard. It posits that, aside from physiological desires, human desires are not spontaneous but mimetic or learned from others. Desire is a social process. Girard uses this theory to build a theory of social conflict and theological resolution. What interests me about mimetic desire is that it implies that all desire beyond the physiological is socially constructed.

Viewed in a certain light, this is an explanation for social and cultural learning. It explains how out of a diverse range of possibilities, people from the same time and place seem to desire mostly the same things.

From a needs perspective, this idea implies that all non-physiological needs are social. We first form desires by seeing what others desire and imitating them.

If we assume that this theory of mimetic desire is correct, that all desire is socially constructed, then, I suggest, that identity is the product of iterative mimetic desire.

Here's how I think it works: We learn what to assign value to and desire from our families and peers as well as our cultural heroes and role models. When we see them desire something, we assess it as having value and imitate that desire*. At this point, it enters our internal reward and emotional system.

*This mechanism can work in various ways including wanting the opposite of what someone else wants. Mimetic desire is in play as long as our desire is initially shaped in response to another's desire.

Once the initial desire is formed, it has the potential to become part of our emotional circuitry and identity. I am guessing whether or not this happens depends on the strength of the mimetic desire, our own neurochemistry, our own innate and learned talents and the identity we've already formed from past mimetic desires.

This identity component feels like it arose in us spontaneously. It's "who we are." Yet mimetic desire suggests that "who we are" does not only come from us, but is a constant interaction of our past experience and current social suggestion. As we develop this identity, it shapes who we believe we are, which shapes who we interact with and which mimetic desires we will possess in the future, creating a feedback loop of identity and mimetic desire.