4th, 5th, 6th Person Perspective

[7Wannabe5]

I identify my culture as people who believe this:

So, Riggerjack's tribe is permaculturists, systems-thinkers, Level Yellow, ERE 6+ etc.

I must admit that my thought while reading RJTP 1-3 was "Is Riggerjack independently re-inventing permaculture (the philosophy/practice widely defined, as in not just "Let's make an herb spiral!")

There is a lot of good stuff on Nate Hagen's channel. It's kind of interesting how when you watch/read a lot of stuff on the topic of the meta-crisis, the generational and/or temperamental differences of those writing and speaking become more apparent.

[jacob]

[...] the generational and/or temperamental differences of those writing and speaking become more apparent.

Tell me more.

[Riggerjack]

So, Riggerjack's tribe

No. There is no tribe.

Yet.



But following those paths leads to the areas I'm trying to describe.

Watch the Daniel S. podcasts. All of them. I don't disagree with any of what he has to say. He just hasn't circled back yet, but he's making very good progress.

Not just Hagen's stuff. Hagen is definitely stuck in the hall of mirrors my culture uses to describe wicked problems. He's still in love with the tragedy.

Rather after one understands the world as Daniel presents it, after sitting with the tragedy long enough to be post-tragic; look again. Observe. Perceive. Suspend judgement long enough to find the small ways reality observably differs from the models. Ponder those small differences.

The Devil's in the details, as are the angels.

Looking at the simple systems that co-evolved to form the system of incentives that create wicked problems, in detail, provides other ways of understanding how those same simple systems can be combined in different ways, to create new patterns of incentives.

[chenda]

You are becoming very philosophical Rigger.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Well, off the top of my head, the humans who are old enough to have been engaged in the problem-scape since the early 70s are more likely to convey objective perspective of "humans are going to human." OTOH, some of the earlier writings of the older folk are more likely to come off as a bit elitist in perspective. This kind of overlaps with the tendency of some types (TJ?) to make "political" errors along the lines of Malthus on the poor or Hilary's mention of "deplorables."

Those who are more in the F, rather than T, camp temperamentally are more likely to quickly turn or return to religious, other spiritual, or therapy-like perspectives and perspectives, and this tends to overlap with younger Millenials and older Gen Z. Those who are more extroverted are more likely to seek community or top-down solutions, and this also overlaps with being a Boomer. Xers and older end of Millenials tend more towards individualistic and "interesting" solutions. Concrete and conservative minded will tend more towards practical prepping which would make them more like Depression Era/WW2 generation if any of them were still alive.

One thing I found interesting in the Daniel Schmachtenberger series with Nate Hagens which RJ linked was his take that any functional designed solution would have to go beyond calculations and be imbued with great empathy for all the sorts of humans engaged. IOW, I took him to be addressing how best to avoid the Malthus/Clinton error by imbuing more F throughout the process of design.

One thing I found interesting in the recent Bill Rees (inventor of ecological footprint concept) interview with Hagens was when he good-humoredly noted to Nate that neither of them had reduced their footprints to "do no harm" level. So, his take beyond "humans are going to human" tended just a bit more towards top-down, as in "Carbon tax with protection for very poor is good idea." However, since he is a sophisticated systems thinker, I'm sure he would agree that Carbon Tax with Protection for the Very Poor tends towards bringing into play most of the negatives associated with Socialism, and also the problem that providing protection for those who are only relatively poor in 1st World realms will create friction due to fact that poverty level in 1st world is higher than Do No Harm Global Footprint = 1 ecoJacob spending.*

One thing I found interesting in Margaret Atwood's "MadAddam" series was that she even went so far as to include the possibility of a mad scientist human genetically engineering a new humanoid species less likely to end up fouling the nest in the same manner as our species, and then reveals the downside of that. IOW, she kind of goes even one step beyond "humans are going to human."

*Which is why I am lately kind of in the mode of thinking that the audience of the "relatively poor" is where ERE ought to head next rather than trying to convince more of the affluent to give up their nice things/social status for free time, etc. What would it take to make your demonstration of how to achieve ERE on minimum wage income more than just a textbook example?

@RJ: going to cross-post here. I was just ribbing you a bit with my use of the term "tribe." I did watch the series, and I'm not sure that Daniel managed to circle around to the extent that "I" would have preferred , but see my note above.

[Riggerjack]

@7,

Daniel S hasn't circled at all yet.

But watching the Hagen series, it's clear that Hagen is playing "infinity mirror" games in the hall of mirrors; and Daniel is talking about watching the floor and ceiling edges of the mirrors.

Wander a hall of mirrors, while watching the floor long enough, and finding the way out is nearly inevitable.

[Western Red Cedar]

Rather, I am trying to describe observable reality, so you can see how it differs from cultural reality.

I suppose I lean toward the postmodernists. Do you think there is risk in applying your own cultural lenses in the WWTP example you describe upthread?

[Riggerjack]

Well, I have considered many risks. But I find myself confused by the risk you raise.

...

Did you I ook up your own numbers? How do they compare?

Now how does your postmodern lens change this? What risk does it reveal?

[7Wannabe5]

"The numbers" are not a social construct (actually, the numbers are a social construct, but the shit is a physical reality, although the word "shit" does hold some cultural connotations, etc. etc.), but almost everything you think or feel about "the numbers" may be. That is the post-modern lens. The meta-modern lens would be more like "Okay, that's true. My perspective is also clearly biased, but that doesn't stop the shit from stinking, so what next?" IOW, you realize that you must also and always be in a house of mirrors yourself, but you keep on keepin' on anyhow.

Something like that...

That said, I don't entirely disagree with your take on Daniel S./Nate.H, but grain of salt for role of interviewer vs. interviewee.

[ffj]

@7

"*Which is why I am lately kind of in the mode of thinking that the audience of the "relatively poor" is where ERE ought to head next rather than trying to convince more of the affluent to give up their nice things/social status for free time, etc. What would it take to make your demonstration of how to achieve ERE on minimum wage income more than just a textbook example?"


Yes. For multiple reasons.

@rigger

Not much to add as I am firmly in the "humans will be humans" camp but I am finding your writings interesting, for what it's worth. If for no other reason that you showcase the obvious that most people ignore while they focus on the grandiose, while simultaneously ignoring basic human behavior.

[jacob]

*Which is why I am lately kind of in the mode of thinking that the audience of the "relatively poor" is where ERE ought to head next rather than trying to convince more of the affluent to give up their nice things/social status for free time, etc. What would it take to make your demonstration of how to achieve ERE on minimum wage income more than just a textbook example?

https://earlyretirementextreme.com/angr ... -poor.html

TL;DR - The problem [with ERE as a solution] is in convincing the various perspectives [held by the relatively poor and their environment] that the issue is not a lack of money but a lack of competence (or help from competent people who may even resist any change that would render their help unnecessary). It's the mirror-image of the comparative advantage problem except instead of using one's specialization to make more money, the belief is that more money should be given due to the lack of "good paying jobs".

[Riggerjack]

IOW, you realize that you must also and always be in a house of mirrors yourself, but you keep on keepin' on anyhow.

I think it's cute that you name your preferred mirrors. How does one then reference the outside of your hall of mirrors?

...

If one were speaking to monks during the Reformation, arguing about church doctrine, Lutheranism, and Calvanism. Trying to create models for how the world should be set up.

How does one explain to people who feel that the right way to identify a leader is thru the "Will of God", that maybe choosing leaders based on the stories they tell about the voices in their heads, may not get ideal results?

....

If one were speaking to Mesoamericans as the Conquistidors were doing their thing, how does one explain that cracking chests isn't part of the solution set to the challenges? That it doesn't matter how many times this has worked in the past.

The evidence is there. The temples stream blood. Still, the Conquistadors are doing what they do, unaffected.

How do I get someone to look at that?

If one were to adopt an anthropological frame, looking at the Mesoamericans at this time, how would one classify the set of knowledge that prevents them from understanding the threat on its own terms?

I think of this as priestly knowledge. The priests ran society, they were trained in the ways to assess the world, and how to respond to what they see.

Now apply that same framework to our society.

Who are the priests? Where do they get their understandings of the world? What is their limiting knowledge set?

.....
I do not deny the complexity of wicked problems. Hell, that's what makes them fun.

I do deny that the set of knowledge that is used to describe these wicked problems is the complete set of knowledge. And learning to identify the knowledge outside the first set is crucial for understanding the solution set.

So how do I convince you to try just looking? To stop trying to squeeze what you see into your existing frameworks?

If your existing frameworks were up for the task, there wouldn't be a wicked problem.

[jacob]

If your existing frameworks were up for the task, there wouldn't be a wicked problem.

Hence the metacrisis. Meta in the sense that the problem is with the existing frameworks.

[Western Red Cedar]

Now how does your postmodern lens change this? What risk does it reveal?

@Riggerjack - 7wannabe5 responded with much more wit and eloquence than I probably would, so I''ll highlight her response again as it describes the point I was trying to get at (although maybe I'm more of a meta-modernist?):

"The numbers" are not a social construct (actually, the numbers are a social construct, but the shit is a physical reality, although the word "shit" does hold some cultural connotations, etc. etc.), but almost everything you think or feel about "the numbers" may be. That is the post-modern lens. The meta-modern lens would be more like "Okay, that's true. My perspective is also clearly biased, but that doesn't stop the shit from stinking, so what next?" IOW, you realize that you must also and always be in a house of mirrors yourself, but you keep on keepin' on anyhow.

I think the risk is believing one can describe "observable reality" in an example like this. A wicked problem by its very nature is complicated and interconnected. Wicked problems also tend to be in flux. There is merit in looking at individual parts of the problem, but acknowledging and understanding the political, legal, and historical factors that caused the water quality problem in the first place, and that continue to exacerbate the problem, is valuable in addressing that problem IMO.

This is why I was asking what geography or scale you are thinking about this from. The way I think about this depends on what scale or geography one is talking about. Solutions may be contextual as well.

*ETA - I just saw the posts above. I think this all may be too abstract for me, so I'll bow out of the conversation. I wanted to chime in though as I've spent the last 15+ years thinking about and working on these issues.

[jacob]

This is why I was asking what geography or scale you are thinking about this from. The way I think about this depends on what scale or geography one is talking about. Solutions may be contextual as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Integral-Ecology ... 1590307674 has a good discussion of using an integral approach to include all the perspectives of the various agents. The example in the book was even from the PNW although IIRC it was about logging.

[Western Red Cedar]

The example in the book was even from the PNW although IIRC it was about logging.

And if it is water quality we are talking about (I'm not sure that it is) there are certain watersheds on the Olympic peninsula where logging will have a bigger impact than human waste based on the natural environment and historical patterns of development. I'd think about the problem - water quality and ecological impacts, namely salmonid populations - differently.

Perhaps my problem is that I thought we were talking about impacting water quality and ecosystems

[Riggerjack]

Not much to add as I am firmly in the "humans will be humans" camp but I am finding your writings interesting, for what it's worth. If for no other reason that you showcase the obvious that most people ignore while they focus on the grandiose, while simultaneously ignoring basic human behavior.

I am also of the humans will human perspective. However, this is usually used to describe the ways humans won't do what I tell them to.

Whereas my perspective is more along the lines of humans will do what they perceive to be in their own interests. I may start by disagreeing with how they perceive their interests, but if I can't replicate their model, who failed?

IOW "they aren't even smart enough to vote in their own interests" is among the most spectacular self admissions of intentional idiocy I have ever heard. Odd how often I hear it, from people who would tell me they are thoughtful...

If I wished to change behavior at scale, it would be by helping people better understand their own interests, using their own terms.

Sometimes this problem is referred to as "herding cats". I propose that if one sees oneself as herding cats, one has set up the wrong relationship between oneself and the cats.

Are you herding cats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

or herding cats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYZnSXEla0

....

I wanted to chime in though as I've spent the last 15+ years thinking about and working on these issues.

15 years bumping around in the same hall of mirrors, and you aren't yet convinced the answers you are looking for aren't within your designated search area?

I think the risk is believing one can describe "observable reality" in an example like this. A wicked problem by its very nature is complicated and interconnected. Wicked problems also tend to be in flux. There is merit in looking at individual parts of the problem, but acknowledging and understanding the political, legal, and historical factors that caused the water quality problem in the first place, and that continue to exacerbate the problem, is valuable in addressing that problem IMO.

This is why I was asking what geography or scale you are thinking about this from. The way I think about this depends on what scale or geography one is talking about. Solutions may be contextual as well.

Again, if your framework were sufficient, there wouldn't be a wicked problem.

There are no solutions in the larger scales, or grandiose ideas. My culture loves these frameworks, this fruit has been harvested. But after one has exhausted these options, and sits with that reality long enough, going back to simple systems and looking at how they could have been used in different combinations begins to hint at possibilities outside your previous framework.

So I told a story about poo. So people could look at the problem, the cultural solutions and technical possibilities, and note the differences.

Have you done this? Or are you merely justifying your previous path to yourself?

Perhaps my problem is that I thought we were talking about impacting water quality and ecosystems

Maybe rereading this thread and asking yourself what I am talking about could be helpful?

This thread isn't about answers, it's about questions. Specifically, the questions we aren't asking.

[7Wannabe5]

The problem is in convincing the various perspectives [held by the relatively poor and their environment] that the issue is not a lack of money but a lack of competence (or help from competent people who may even resist any change that would render their help unnecessary). It's the mirror-image of the comparative advantage problem except instead of using one's specialization to make more money, the belief is that more money should be given due to the lack of "good paying jobs".

Yes, I agree. That is why I think "solving" the wicked problem of the relatively poor is the best unpossible way to solve the wicked problem of resistance to change at Level Green. However, I must admit that this is mostly a matter of intution on my part based on a couple heated discussions I've had with Towards Green Warrior types in my social circle. Something kind of clicked with me when one of them used the word "ease" rather than "privilege" in constructing argument, but difficult for me to verbalize. I should note that during this same discussion, I was asked "If making more money is so easy, why haven't you been able to do it?" , and I had to admit "Well, I've never really tried very hard." It's hard to get a firm grip on how much social injustice or unequal playing field there really is out there when you are a slacker who is lacking in competive-drive and/or ambition and/or FITB.

I think it's cute that you name your preferred mirrors. How does one then reference the outside of your hall of mirrors?

Well, I rarely consume alcohol, so occasionally getting myself very drunk can work to push the reset button for me

Seriously, I am only 50% likely to be found walking about in a cloud of abstraction. What works for me is to interact with all sorts of people and put myself into all sorts of situations and relative roles (not always on purpose.) For instance, in this past week I was in a setting where great cheers went up for an anti-gun violence speaker and the next night I was helping a friend use his collection of weapons to destroy a bunch of cardboard boxes.

Here's an overly simplistic example of a sort of hierarchy of comprehension. Some people have been cheated on in a monogamous relationship. Other people have cheated while in a monogamous relationship. The person who has been both cheater and cheated upon might form a higher level comprehension of the entire landscape than somebody who has only experienced one or the other. Think about the person (I am sure you know at least one) who isn't able to "gain perspective" even having been through both experiences.

[Riggerjack]

I was helping a friend use his collection of weapons to destroy a bunch of cardboard boxes.

Sometimes boxes must die, so others can live.

[ffj]

@jacob

I just read your old blog post and I don't see why the blog contributions couldn't become a primer, if edited well, to your ERE book. It's logical, consistent, and actionable, which is what financially illiterate people need. It is so much more conversational than the green book and the points are succinctly made with examples of real life. Bonus that each "story" is a page long.

It's much more easy to make your point about lack of competence, or as Scott Adams says "building a talent stack" if it's wrapped in a relatable life experience.

@rigger

I gave up on herding cats long ago. People act on self-interest. End of story. If you want to move the needle, then you align their self-interest with your goal. Even then there will be people that just want to fuck with you because whatever. And people will sell their soul for a T-shirt. That is why you guys are still dumping your shit into the sea.