Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Calling these "hacker-" whatever makes it sounds like we are trying to subvert the mainstream though? Are we allowed to filter out the Kegan 2 red meme people?

I get that this won't work for changing culture at large, but it might work if we are trying to get one community of 7 people off the ground first?

I think a lot of the problems of these communities come down to ownership. Is it possible to make someone responsible for each task or thing in a way that incentivizes them?

I think ownership/ need for a visionary is why the small dictatorship model works. The visionary owns everything and everyone else is along for their ride, but free to leave.

A friend of mine who ran a highly successful DIY art collective told me that the key to getting a bunch of 20-something yr old hipsters to make cool art projects for free was to meet them where they were at. Know what motivates each member and what each of them are capable of. That organization collapsed in less than a month when she left though... But she transitioned that experience into saving a failing museum using pretty much the same techniques with her staff of professionals.

I think a lot of the laziness and people doing the minimum that is in our culture is there by design. It's a break down of the control/ responsibility paradigm, where passing the buck is always covertly incentivized from school to jobs to pretty much everywhere.

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:39 am

Calling these "hacker-" whatever makes it sounds like we are trying to subvert the mainstream though?

Huh? It's an ancient term. It's even used as originally defined. See http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:39 am

Are we allowed to filter out the Kegan 2 red meme people?

It's a crude solution to simply exclude [net-negative] people, but even then a filtering mechanism is non-trivial. It's not like egocentric maturity is tattooed on someone's forehead. Indeed humans often seem biased towards presuming that everybody has the best intentions until it eventually becomes clear that 10-15% do not. Alternative solutions include making the environment unwelcoming to certain types or funnelling certain types into their right role---this being the most difficult of all the designs.

"Removing" people---examples include imprisonment, ostrazication, or banning---demonstrates a low social "Wheaton level". It's crude, but it does work and it's easy.

"Unwelcoming"---examples include tests on merit, age, or you must be this tall to ride this ride---are slightly more sophisticated. Setting a certain "tone" or code of behavior can work too. This is a slightly higher social Wheaton level but also requires more complexity and therefore energy to manage: Think rules, catching cheaters, enforcement.

"Funnelling" requires a high level of social development in order to work. Examples include giving people the option to "join the military" instead of going to prison. Also attempts to "(re)build character" instead of just sending people away. This is very expensive and may require having entire complex systems in place, ideally for the greater benefit for the whole. This tends to fail if those "complex systems" instead becomes a greater cost for the whole.

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:39 am

I get that this won't work for changing culture at large, but it might work if we are trying to get one community of 7 people off the ground first?

The way I think about it is to simultaneously pursue both the top-down and bottom-up. There needs to be a vision of where things could go, but there also needs to be actionable starting people that meet people where they currently are or more precisely: inspires people to become better versions of themselves at the WL+1 resonance point.

I think there are finally enough who grok ERE1 at the individualist level that the next level is now the "community of 7 people". What emerges there? The MMGs are the best manifestation of that so far. One aspect that has emerged is "greater rate of learning" and "social support and approval".

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:39 am

I think a lot of the problems of these communities come down to ownership. Is it possible to make someone responsible for each task or thing in a way that incentivizes them?

I think ownership/ need for a visionary is why the small dictatorship model works. The visionary owns everything and everyone else is along for their ride, but free to leave.

Ownership is just a special case of assigning consequences. "You break it you own it"-blabla. Methinks the biggest bug of the collectively-oriented is also the biggest attraction to some. Responsibility is dispersed. The creates a bunch of [social] problems such as the free-rider problem, where people take advantage of the community as individualists (Cipolli bandits). The community then needs to figure out how to defend against this. It needs an immune system rather than a dictator.

Jin+Guice wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:39 am

I think a lot of the laziness and people doing the minimum that is in our culture is there by design. It's a break down of the control/ responsibility paradigm, where passing the buck is always covertly incentivized from school to jobs to pretty much everywhere.

Or maybe it's innate and genetic? I can't think of any culture or all-inclusive community that doesn't include some humans who lie and cheat to gain a personal advantage. Again, this could be either a feature or a bug to humanity as such.

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:42 am

Green with Red is also called "Boomeritis", which Wilber ascribes to narcissism+postmodernism…

Ah, I incorrectly assumed that people could only be adjacent colors, Red-Blue or Orange-Green. Green with Red leaders can operate like whirling dervishes in an environment that at least pretends to function at a Green level.

jacob wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:42 am

I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me try to describe it w/o using the "dependence"-word…

This was surely the result of me not explaining well. SD is an integrative model toward balancing independence and interdependence. Balance can be healthy or unhealthy on a continuum.

Codependency would be unhealthy. A couple loose definitions with examples: 1) It could be doing things for others that they could do for themselves, creating unnecessary dependency. Say, a Blue Sunday school teacher copying down Bible verses for a kid who writes slowly but can do the work. The teacher can feel nice and helpful, but the kid misses out on the fine motor practice and self-confidence may decrease. 2) Another would be needing someone else to be unhealthy to create “cover” for one’s own dysfunction. An example would be a Red Central American gang member following orders to shoot shop owners in the leg if they don’t pay weekly kickbacks and excuses the behavior as following orders. The gang is swept up/“disappeared” but the member escapes. There is no longer someone ordering violence and other possible options. But instead they need to find another outlet to sublimate the rage and start jacking cars in a neighboring countries.

Thinking through this I realize that unhealthy behavior could appear at any level. That is where skillful flex/flow comes in at Tier 2. Granted, as you explained, Kegan 2 is more salient at Red than later.

And I imagine the opposite of codependency would be altruism and more common up spiral.