WL 5 -> 6 MMMG

[avalok]

@candide, thank you for getting this going.

I am going to start drawing reverse fishbones for as many activities as I can think of, likely posting them before my updated WoG.

[candide]

I would like to join and try my hand at a WoG too.

Consider yourself one of us.

@avalok
You're certainly welcome.

I say we amend WoG to WoGs and fishbones... Getting something up to help get the ball rolling will be of immense value.

@all
Let's get active making some products that have us reflect on extenalities and inter-connections.

[mountainFrugal]

Taking from candide's journal:

It really does put a lot of things into focus: things that should show up as negative externalizes on fishbone diagrams, the nature of fullest WL 5 optimization, how we can design our webs to make more serendipity possible, making the moves to WL 6+.

One thing I found helpful was randomizing connections between goals preemptively. Goal by goal comparison is relatively easy to do. It gets harder when combining 3 or more, so you can randomize connections between goals and think of projects/shared ideas between them:

1) Assign number to each goal
2) Write number on scrap of paper, put into hat
3) Sample 3 or more numbers from hat (without replacement), brainstorm project incorporating all goals selected
4) Repeat a number of times to actively search the combos
5) You will be more likely to recognize potential combos in the future if they do occur, even if not in the same ways

I found diminishing returns after combos of 5 or more. YMMV.

Examples from my goals that could be helpful: viewtopic.php?p=242959#p242959

[OutOfTheBlue]

So far, I've re-read the Yields and Flows thread, chapters 4-5 of the ERE book and the part of Stoa 1 regarding Deliberate consumers and Post-consumer systems.

Single-page threads with useful insights include:
How to explain WL6+ systems? - viewtopic.php?t=12288
Web of goals examples (in particular, Jacob's answer): viewtopic.php?p=206120#p206120
Strategies, Tactics, and Guiding Principles - viewtopic.php?t=11526

There is also the 14-pages long "Systems!- Level 6 towards 7", in the continuity of the thread on "Yields and Flows" - viewtopic.php?t=11933 (haven't got around to re-reading that one yet)

I think I've found the tool I'd like to use to create/visualize the nodes/connections/web, but still confused on the modules and connections/goals to include, and how to work this. Good examples are few and far between… Have you got any?

As for examples, yeah, that's tricky. Beyond the few examples in the ERE book, I've never bothered to write mine out explicitly in the fancy "Ti" diagrams or lists that some of you do. It's just Ni to me ... but before I set an official goal, I think hard and deep about whether actions are homeotelic with existing actions, etc.

This probably sounds like a bunch of woo-woo, but essentially, a web-of-goals is just a more explicit way of stating what what Ni does when engaging in planning that's optimized for efficiency and contingency, that is, minimum effort for maximum results with the least chance of drastic failure.

Re-reading all this stuff made me realize that I've internalized much of it (although I'm understanding some concepts/explanations better this time around, things which had gone over my head the first time, maybe some still do) and have been applying it at an intuitive level (Ni), Making it explicit as part of this exercise is a whole other can of worms…

Re reverse fishbones, these are supposed to prepare the ground towards building a web of goals/processes.

From the book:
Having thus whittled down the number of available behaviors to a number of strategies that have mostly--optimally, exclusively--positive benefits, at least to the first order (but feel free to continue the exercise to higher orders), it is possible to use a simple form of systems thinking to assemble modules for an overall strategy.

The design of a web of goals assumes one has already spotted and removed/addressed the modules/behaviors that have negative/heterotelic effects so as to create a cohesive web of synergistic connections. I know the two most damaging behaviors (addictions, really) alright, but, while I have progressed with homeotelic responses in other domains, I haven't been able to move away from them in a lasting fashion. This is yet another way to reinforce my motivation towards prioritizing this change.

Also, have you seen this?

I'm hoping that especially the WL5-6 and WL6-7 efforts will get some insight from this and realize that the reason one gets stuck is in thinking that the way forward is "more practice" if one is already practicing (a WL6-7 problem)---nope, it's time to start drawing reverse fishbone diagrams and WOGs. Alternatively believing the answer is "more theory" (like better spreadsheets or a good book) if one is already theorizing (a WL5-6 problem)---nope, it's time to pick up some practical skills.

[Quadalupe]

One example of imperfect/incorrect/incomplete WoGs by me and some discussion about them can be found in the 6 to 7 thread here: viewtopic.php?p=241462#p241462.

I found it very useful to go through the exercise of drawing a WoG and too much work to make a complete one of my life external (ie outside of my head). I suspect at some point you simply start thinking in terms of WoGs, homeotelicity and tensegrity so you can do online update of the graph mentally.

[candide]

One example of imperfect/incorrect/incomplete WoGs by me and some discussion about them can be found in the 6 to 7 thread here: viewtopic.php?p=241462#p241462.

I found it very useful to go through the exercise of drawing a WoG and too much work to make a complete one of my life external (ie outside of my head). I suspect at some point you simply start thinking in terms of WoGs, homeotelicity and tensegrity so you can do online update of the graph mentally.

Thanks Quadalupe. That is a great thread to highlight, and a well-selected place to enter it especially for what activities the group has voted on, and then a great point how you make a WoG to leave the WoG as habits develop.

[jacob]

Hmmm...

The title of the thread/MMG says 5->6 but focusing on WOGs and reverse fishbones is a 6->7 problem that presumes that one also has put in several hundred hours in a few of the categories described in chapter 4.

If it really is about 5->6 it makes more sense to decide on a form of capital e.g. physiological, intellectual, economic, emotional, social, technical, ecology from the book (possibly adding the bonus option of spiritual, which wasn't on my radar when I wrote the ERE book, if you're into that) that you're not familiar with already. Something that's not your day job or your hobby.

I propose cooking which is generally useful. And picking a type of dish that makes the entire CCCCCC chain available right up to creating your own recipes. Easy choices would be stir fry, sauces, soups, or bread. You can copy and compare recipes. Compile then. Then figure out what the ingredients do and ultimately create your own. This is harder to do with steak (I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just substantially more subtle.)

The purpose here is to understand whatever "module" you pick in sufficient detail to pick it apart into lego blocks as described in chapter 5 (modular design). You also need to "own" more than one module in order to combine it with other modules that have also been picked apart.

These are concrete examples which makes it a bit easier.

The reverse fishbones and WOGs are constructed out of those lego blocks whether it's concrete-type lego or contingency-type (effect mapping) lego.

OTOH, maybe you already have enough modules to get started. Salaried professionals straight from college rarely do. Whereas people with a broad resume of different jobs and hobbies generally do.

[candide]

Hmmm...

The title of the thread/MMG says 5->6 but focusing on WOGs and reverse fishbones is a 6->7 problem that presumes that one also has put in several hundred hours in a few of the categories described in chapter 4.

Avalok made a similar argument when were discussing. I was pretty sympathetic to it, but decided to abstain from the vote anyway, being transparent that I was doing so to try to build trust as an honest broker...

I was struck by something written in today's post on culture

My takeaway was that synchronous conversation would solve some snags (misunderstanding theory, for example) faster than long forum threads that where participants might miss 1/3 of the posts or get stuck in rhetoric or defensive postures. When people met face to face, there would be more trust and accountability too.

This group is an experiment in seeing what can be accomplished semi-synchronously, with the old technology of voting on motions as a way to synch, then having people move off individually to report back to the group. It may be the case that this experiment does not work. It may not build enough trust, or it may get bogged down in procrastination (my greater fear).

Video, Slack, Discord may all turn out to be just that much better mediums, with better implied messages. I am going to give this experiment at least until March to see how it goes. At the very least, it will be well documented to the forum as a whole.

Anyway, back to the points...

If it really is about 5->6 it makes more sense to decide on a form of capital e.g. physiological, intellectual, economic, emotional, social, technical, ecology from the book (possibly adding the bonus option of spiritual, which wasn't on my radar when I wrote the ERE book, if you're into that) that you're not familiar with already. Something that's not your day job or your hobby.

I propose cooking which is generally useful. And picking a type of dish that makes the entire CCCCCC chain available right up to creating your own recipes. Easy choices would be stir fry, sauces, soups, or bread. You can copy and compare recipes. Compile then. Then figure out what the ingredients do and ultimately create your own. This is harder to do with steak (I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just substantially more subtle.)

Agreed. And this really fleshes out how to do the "case study" model that a few of us were grasping towards in our discussion.

I think a fair compromise is to have people continue on with sample documents as drafts to look at later and then settle on a node to work on the way described. My vote will also be for food; I think I two other votes are already in that direction, if not more.

I am mentally pinning the quote. I think we will be referring back to it soon.

[shaz]

I've been scribbling away at a WOG. Not sure yet how I will share it once I am happy with it.

When I was going through some old papers this week I came across a list of life goals that I made when I was 8 or 9. The list was: 1. Safe place to sleep; 2. Someone to love; 3. Horses. I have added a few major nodes in the years since, but also I was sort of amused to realize those are still some of my central values.

[ertyu]

Making attempts at a wog is beneficial regardless of whether it's the "correct" exercise for one's current level imo. Who cares if it's not the most correct one or if you can't really implement it yet, it's still useful to think through how the parts of one's life relate to one another -- or how they could relate to one another

@shaz those are excellent what else does a person need

[avalok]

@shaz that is amazing. If I had a list from age 8 or 9 it would be far more materialistic.

My concern with drawing WoGs is exactly because I think, for the WL5->6 barrier, there are better leverage points to work on. At the risk of overquoting this (emphasis mine):

I'm hoping that especially the WL5-6 and WL6-7 efforts will get some insight from this and realize that the reason one gets stuck is in thinking that the way forward is "more practice" if one is already practicing (a WL6-7 problem)---nope, it's time to start drawing reverse fishbone diagrams and WOGs. Alternatively believing the answer is "more theory" (like better spreadsheets or a good book) if one is already theorizing (a WL5-6 problem)---nope, it's time to pick up some practical skills.

It follows that drawing a WoG is not the most effective way to work towards WL6. Sure, it is going in the right direction, but the emphasis would be better placed on adding new modules, trying them out, and seeing what the effects are. Once one is very familiar with the effects of a set of modules I expect a picture will begin to form of how they do, and can, interact. This became quite obvious to me as I drew my reverse fishbones this week and a lot of my answers were: I'm not sure, more research required, i.e. I need to spend more time on this module before I know its effects. In this way the WoG will eventually emerge from the modules, but a good amount of time spent tinkering at the module level is required first.

As in a similar post on my journal: this isn't anti-web-of-goals. I'm still going to draw mine because that was the agreement, but I expect it will become outdated very quickly. In fact, I sort of hope it does because that will indicate lesson learnt from time spent in a module.

[candide]

We added a member last week, so...

Roll Call

Voting members, and a link to their respective journals.

avalok
viewtopic.php?t=11881

mathiverse
viewtopic.php?t=11038

candide
viewtopic.php?t=12483

ertyu
viewtopic.php?t=11044

shaz
viewtopic.php?t=12209

ben2000s
viewtopic.php?t=12590

OutOfTheBlue
viewtopic.php?t=12365

New members are welcome. Have a journal started, and post that you want to be in the group. Too low of a WL is okay; too high will be asked to give us guidance, but not become voting members.

All forum members are welcome -- and encouraged -- to participate in discussions.

[ertyu]

I would like to address a question to everyone who is now working on/has already figured out their web of goals:

What modules is Investing connected to for you, other than as a source of funding for other modules? What are some of the second order benefits of investing to you?

As I thought, I discovered that my thinking about investing as a wog element is very underdeveloped. I appear to view it in a very salaryman fashion, with a single linkage to all else: investment ---> funding for other modules that substitutes or supplements salary income. This strikes me as quite limited. How does investing feature in everyone else's web of goals? If you drew a fishbone diagram, what does it look like?

[OutOfTheBlue]

Investing implies you have something to invest in the first place.

Economic capital. This form of capital gives you options, resilience and security.

On top, instead of working for money, you let it work for you.

Which means that after "investing" time and effort to build both the capital and the investing skill, you can earn money on that capital plus hedge against inflation, with relatively low effort. In your sleep so to speak.

Money = time, life-energy.

An important x-order effect of investing being: it gives you back time/life-energy. Which in turn you can translate/invest in all the other cool things your WoG is about.

Finally, there are many advantages in having economic skills and being financially savvy (some are described in the book) when compared to economically illiterate folks, the least of which not being that it helps ensure responsible stewardship of your assets.

---

Btw:
-Thank you for the pointers Jacob, much appreciated!
-Cool diagrams, Quantalupe, they do help.
-And Avalok, your thoughts here and in your journal are much on point. Thanks for sharing.

[ertyu]

Re-reading Ch. 5 -- 5.1.1. notes with questions for discussion

1. Define your objective: what do you want to achieve?
2. Design a plan -- or better, a strategy: a web of actions (both the individual actions, or tactics, and their coordination matter)
3. Follow the plan/strtegy.

Designing a strategy:

1. Doing the right thing > doing things right
2. The strategy should be consistent
3. Failure is often due to poor strategy rather than poor plans

Best practices:

1. Insource skills to reduce dependence of a single source of income and on store services
> begin learning them on a need-to-know basis
> consumer deprivation vs. producer manifestation
> do not specialize in one skill: ping-back to doing the right things vs. doing things right.
> produce rather than destroy value: avoid the trap where diy is just consumerism, one step removed (e.g. instead of buying the product, buy 15 useless tools and gadgets). Instead focus on projects which use what you already have and return yields in terms of money, skill, connections, etc.

The goal: to save money while eventually generating several diverse streams of cash or other yields (e.g. wide social network)

Q: What skills have you already insourced? In what way do your projects embody the above -- are not money sinks, result in multiple yields? What are those yields?

2. Each project is a holon, such that within the project, there is tight coupling, whereas between projects coupling is loose so that cutting out any one holon doesn't threaten the overall stability of the system. No single module dominates.

3. Aim for small, slow, and simple modules.
> simple and small: avoid tightly coupled complexity, examples that embody this: printer, investments that are too much of a pita tax-wise
> slow: delay gratification - wait: for bargains, for the right investment opportunity, etc.

Q: what does a simple, small, and slow module look like in real life? who has examples?

4. Modules:

> should produce value
> should not consume the value generated by another project
> self-sufficient but aligned to a common goal: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts

Personal weakness: while I understand the theory as theory, I am weak at translating it to practice. What are some applications? Personal examples welcome.

[ertyu]

These notes + @OOtB's example imply that investing is one module that should be possible to cut out without destabilizing the system. This blows my mind a bit and is scary.

[shaz]

@ertyu I see investing very much the same way you do. If there were a way to have my savings generate income without investing, that would be equally good for me. I don't even include investing in my WOG in much the same way I don't put breathing in my WOG.

[jacob]

I don't even include investing in my WOG in much the same way I don't put breathing in my WOG.

Which is to say that you're either completely independent of it (people living paycheck to paycheck) or completely dependent on it (water to fish). To be fair, I don't include oxygen in my WOG even as the O2 atmosphere concentration is slowly declining and will at some point reach a point where supplemental oxygen will become a thing for everybody and not just COPD patients. Hopefully after I'm dead anyway.

Since it might be helpful to you guys, a deep dive into investing was one of my early modules along with cooking, walking, and carry-on living, an incomplete list of reverse fishboning was

• SWAN for my own portfolio management (I know what I'm doing now)
• Added mental models for my lattice work that wasn't part of physics or computer science (e.g. learning options terminology is super useful for an INTJ type contingency planner to "mastermind" or know how to draw the outcome space)
• Understanding the connection between the markets, the economy, and politics.
• Being able to have interesting conversations with professional investors --- the last [non-specialized] liberal art in the world
• Getting a job on "Wall Street"

Before anyone concludes that they better add an investment module ASAP, I think adding modules should follow the same prescription as choosing careers. Ask not whether "I'm passionate about it" or "Does it make a lot of money". Instead, when deciding on learning a new module, filter according to talent, usefulness, passion or interest in that order.

[jacob]

usefulness

I forget whether this was described in chap4 or 5...

A better term for "usefulness" is relevance!

First, is it part of my budget already? If you're paying for a budget item, it's currently relevant. You can even rank "relevance" by expenditure. I suggest starting at the biggest items. This is why my initial list concentrated on food, transportation, and investment income. Yours may be different.

A simplistic strategy might be to try to "sacrifice it" by simply removing it. However, simplistically sacrificing everything is not what ERE is about. Instead, the question is whether it's possible to increase one's skill level according to

• Do I still have to pay that much for this if I become less helpless?
• Can I become so good that I'm no longer depending on buying or hiring?
• Can I get even better so people will ask/pay me to help with their problems?

Answer would be a solid yes with e.g cooking. When it comes to RE taxes, there's not much you can do other than moving.

So I recommend focusing on "modules" that are big and relevant and have enough potential for traction.

[avalok]

Whether coincidental or not, ranking the modules by expenditure and focusing on those will probably keep the inner WL5 onside in the early stages in case it protests against the reduced focus on optimization.