Early Retirement Extreme Forums

JamesR wrote:I think one of the core classes in all grades of school should be something that covers financial literacy, peer pressure, understanding marketing & political lies, looking under the under. Other core classes should be math, rhetoric, exercise, etc.

That would be the end of society as we know it.

BRUTE wrote:

jennypenny wrote:What I'm really struck by in all of these stories is the helplessness. Why can't people learn this for themselves?

brute believes that human free will and agency is greatly overrated. it functions a bit like that physics example of an extra dimension when pushing a marble through a garden hose. the marble is in 3 dimensional space, yet cannot move freely in all 3 dimensions. brute imagines this is what human free will is like to a degree.

if one had a look at most humans and if they ever exercise free will beyond picking from a few suggested options, one would likely conclude there is no free will in any of them.

Tyler thinks Brute makes a great point. He has also thought of it in terms of giving a child the illusion of choice between a hot dog and a hamburger. This illusion pleases the child even though the choices are actually severely limited. Many adults are similarly pleased by their own illusion of choice, although many of their limits are often due to their own ignorance and lack of curiosity.

@Dragline -- thanks for the book recommendation. It's going on the list.

jacob wrote:

Ego wrote:How does one know to look beyond the menu?

Step 1: Realize that the menu/box is not all there is.

suppose brute emailed and otherwise delivered a link to the ERE website or a copy of the ERE book to all Americans. what percentage would jacob expect to actually implement any of the suggested changes? what if brute made those humans read the book?

when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. brute's point being that humans need to somehow be ready to even start looking to improve in certain situations. what exactly it is, brute is not sure. it's probably a combination of many things.

brute shall call this propensity to actually search for and implement ERE (or any) strategies "trait x". people who sign up for this forum or implement ERE strategies on their own probably have trait x, or a lot of trait x (if it is a scale).

clearly, not all humans have trait x. some humans will never get it (nature), whereas others could get it, but never will, or never have (nurture).

BRUTE wrote:
clearly, not all humans have trait x. some humans will never get it (nature), whereas others could get it, but never will, or never have (nurture).

And we might never really know why some do and some don't. Still one of the great mysteries. At 1:50: https://youtu.be/OK5GK50-whU?t=109

jacob wrote:

Ego wrote: How does one know to look beyond the menu?

Step 1: Realize that the menu/box is not all there is.

..... This is the scientific process as it is defined and it is trainable. ...
.... When it comes to the real world, the only people I've consistently seen who isn't particularly attached to any kind of conclusion are good traders. I'm frankly amazed at just how good some of them are. The very best are down to hacking/reprogramming their personal psychology if their current one is losing money.


Step 2: ...Ahh, Renaissance man.

Right, but if a person has never learned to look beyond the menu then expecting them to do so is tantamount to expecting a bee to be a butterfly.

I am not saying that we are necessarily responsible for that ignorance. I am saying that from a free-will perspective it is naive to think that someone who is incapable of seeing off-menu could ever become a Renaissance man. In other words, they cannot use their (non-existent) free-will to see an option they are blind to seeing. It really is no different from expecting a blind person to see.

Consequences are important because (much like satire and ridicule) they cause the person suffering consequences to become curious about why they never seem to have the option of off-menu items. When we shelter people from incremental consequences we stifle what would have been induced-curiosity and allow them to continue down the wrong path. The consequences compound and create large vulnerabilities in much the same way that fire suppression has created forests vulnerable to total destruction.

ignoring who's at fault for a microsecond, what are the implications for politics? brute thinks it explains a lot of the trump/bernie voters. if a much larger percentage of humans than previously thought are in economic distress, wouldn't it explain why the vote for those that argue that the system is rigged and want to change it, rather than just tweak the dials a little?

another thought: what about the concept of binding debt, anyway? if there is billions of dollars being lent to humans that cannot and will never pay for it, why are they being forced to pay it back? somebody made the decision to loan to a human who won't pay it back. that's a risk, and the interest is the reward for that risk. lenders gambled and they lost. poof.

if defaulting on debt was easier, debtors would have to do actual due diligence on whom to loan to, or their money would just be gone. mayhaps humans have inadvertently created a moral hazard by incentivizing lenders to lend to anyone, especially to those they know won't be able to pay them back, then relying on public infrastructure (courts, police, debtor protection) to get their money back including fines and fees.

My personal opinion is that you have to learn to say no, both to yourself and others. I find that paying for example for a wedding is crazy if you have to withdraw retirement savings. The persons getting married should pay for it themselves and do it in a way that they can afford.

Many people also say: "I can't save money". It usually seem to mean: "I don't want to think. I am not prepared to do anything to solve my problems with expenses."

I watched on TV here in Sweden some old and retired guy with about $2000 to live on each month. He was angry that the banks refused to loan him money on his conditions. He had a huge house worth $600000 and another house worth $200000. He was not renting out any of the houses. He wanted to borrow money, invest in something giving a higher yield than the loan. Basically he was only looking for a solution that included a more affluent lifestyle and still having two houses for himself. He thought that the investment would magically give him money without him having to consume the capital of his houses. My general take is, that most people look for solutions that doesn't include doing things better and different. They want to win on the lottery, get a raise or do some financial hack that get them instant rich without risk.

BRUTE wrote:another thought: what about the concept of binding debt, anyway? if there is billions of dollars being lent to humans that cannot and will never pay for it, why are they being forced to pay it back? somebody made the decision to loan to a human who won't pay it back. that's a risk, and the interest is the reward for that risk. lenders gambled and they lost. poof.

if defaulting on debt was easier, debtors would have to do actual due diligence on whom to loan to, or their money would just be gone. mayhaps humans have inadvertently created a moral hazard by incentivizing lenders to lend to anyone, especially to those they know won't be able to pay them back, then relying on public infrastructure (courts, police, debtor protection) to get their money back including fines and fees.

But that would mean two things:

- a sizeable portion of the population would not be able to participate in what everybody does (borrow for college, borrow for a house, borrow for consumption). These people would feel left out and dissatisfied
- people wouldn't be bound in "perpetual debt servitude"

I heard this guy interviewed on the radio one day last week. He didn't express quite as much victimhood as the article. Sounds like he's done enough to be financially successful, but more-or-less squandered it all.

In a similar vein, I was talking to an acquaintance last night about my cabin and plans to make lengthy use of it once I hit ER. For a time she kept steering the conversation (back) to how lucky I am. That's one of my pet peeves. I admit to being fortunate in that, aside from a divorce, I have not been visited with too many catastrophes; but that's about the extent of my luck. When I explained it was actually much more mundane than that, how I made a plan ~8 years ago to act on a lifelong dream, changed my behavior, said, "No," to myself much more often, and quit wasting money on stupid $hit, etc., her response was, "Wow ... you're so lucky." For some reason people don't believe they are in control of themselves. Leaves the door open for things like abdicating and allowing/expecting gov't to take care of things I guess. She's older than the typical Bernie demographic, but I definitely get the sense she supports him.

IlliniDave wrote:I heard this guy interviewed on the radio one day last week. He didn't express quite as much victimhood as the article. Sounds like he's done enough to be financially successful, but more-or-less squandered it all.

In a similar vein, I was talking to an acquaintance last night about my cabin and plans to make lengthy use of it once I hit ER. For a time she kept steering the conversation (back) to how lucky I am. That's one of my pet peeves. I admit to being fortunate in that, aside from a divorce, I have not been visited with too many catastrophes; but that's about the extent of my luck. When I explained it was actually much more mundane than that, how I made a plan ~8 years ago to act on a lifelong dream, changed my behavior, said, "No," to myself much more often, and quit wasting money on stupid $hit, etc., her response was, "Wow ... you're so lucky." For some reason people don't believe they are in control of themselves. Leaves the door open for things like abdicating and allowing/expecting gov't to take care of things I guess. She's older than the typical Bernie demographic, but I definitely get the sense she supports him.

IlliniDave is lucky to be born with a strong work ethic!

SilverElephant wrote: But that would mean two things:

- a sizeable portion of the population would not be able to participate in what everybody does (borrow for college, borrow for a house, borrow for consumption). These people would feel left out and dissatisfied
- people wouldn't be bound in "perpetual debt servitude"

oh no

But aren't most people happy with what''s on the menu?
Why care about their (non)choices?

IlliniDave wrote: That's one of my pet peeves. I admit to being fortunate in that, aside from a divorce, I have not been visited with too many catastrophes; but that's about the extent of my luck. When I explained it was actually much more mundane than that, how I made a plan ~8 years ago to act on a lifelong dream, changed my behavior, said, "No," to myself much more often, and quit wasting money on stupid $hit, etc., her response was, "Wow ... you're so lucky."

How did you become the person who learned to say "No"? What mechanism within your brain allowed you to change your behavior and quit spending money on stupid shit?

When I look back at any pivotal point in my life I ask those questions and then begin to trace backward for the sprouting of a particular skill, characteristic or mindset, I find the following:

-I didn't control the genes I inherited at birth.
-I didn't control the nourishment I received in the womb.
-I didn't control the love, food, stimulation, and the myriad of environmental influences I experienced from birth until the moment I made my first decision in life.

So that first decision in life (d1) was purely the result of environment. My second decision (d2) was the result of (d1) + environment. And so on.

I am unable to see where anything other than luck enters the equation.

The problem is, this conflicts with so many important things. The belief in agency is hugely influential in future success. So I operate as if I have agency and try to avoid getting tunnel vision while looking at the menu.

These are two massively conflicting ideas. I try to keep them both in my head without allowing it to explode.

@Ego - Is this some kind of free will issue? Easily solved. Will is a matter of degree, say from 0% to 100%. One way is to think about it as temperamental dimension ala MBTI in which some have a preference/ability for agency and others do not---just like intro/extraversion or thinking/feeling.

I'm not sure this is purely about free will; yes, that decision is yours alone, but to be able to perceive all the possible choices is largely a matter of information (not solely). If everyone you've ever interacted with (that you don't consider a crazy outlier) has two cars and a morgage, that's basically your cone of light in which you're going to be looking for your keys.

(i.e. see what Ego said).

The cone of light problem is not inherent to the brain. It's similar to critical thinking ability which could be learned even if it currently isn't.

jacob wrote:Will is a matter of degree, say from 0% to 100%.

How did I get to the point where this morning I woke up, stood on my bathroom-will-scale and weighed an 89% or a 24%?

@Ego - It's like deciphering one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoregre ... ng_average

How did I get to the point where I prefer Thinking over Feeling? I probably started out being born being less sensitive to whatever comes out of my limbic system ... then this sensitivity increasingly atrophied while I became better at logic, and so on. Ditto free will which follows from observing and understanding to which degree personal action influences cause and effect. Without sufficient consideration, I will not see the connection and thus I will believe in luck (randomness). Conversely, if I believe there's no such thing as randomness I might be led to having to invent various explanations for events that become stranger and stranger in direct proportion to the belief that everything has a cause that's directly related to me, e.g. synchronicity.

Ego wrote:How did I get to the point where this morning I woke up, stood on my bathroom-will-scale and weighed an 89% or a 24%?

Does this matter, though, other than for the assignment of blame for ongoing negative choices? It doesn't help make better ones, IMO. Once you have new information, it's 100% on you to use it. Or not. It's like the climate change debate. Are we going to stand around blamestorming and eschatologizing, or are we going to do things differently now that we know better?

Ego wrote:
...

How did you become the person who learned to say "No"? What mechanism within your brain allowed you to change your behavior and quit spending money on stupid shit?

...

I am unable to see where anything other than luck enters the equation.

Learning to defer gratitude is one of the early steps of typical human development/maturity. It just happens later in some of us later than in others.

But if you want to take the point of view that the world and everything in it is completely random and that nothing exists aside from luck then it does no good to have a random conversation about it here. In the context of the conversation I referred to, her point was that somehow I had luck and she did not which is not possible under the everything is luck hypothesis unless you allow for the possibility that I levered my "luck" to accomplish a specific goal over the course of several decades where she did not.

In my view, much of what people attribute to "luck" is simply being aware and willing to act when preparation and opportunity meet.