ERE forums are theory heavy, which is great. But it is easy to get so far up our theoretical-asses that we blind ourselves to how those theories are actually working out for us in the real world.
If you see me doing this, please post a link to this thread as a gentle encouragement to remove my head from my theoretical ass and take a look around at the real world as it is.
How's that working out for you?
Re: How's that working out for you?
If we bind ourselves too strongly to our interpretation of the real-world then how are we supposed to imagine the not-quite-real-world long enough for it actualize? 
-
Freedom_2018
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 am
Re: How's that working out for you?
+10 to this (the first para that is. I'm rarely on here anymore to be qualified to do para 2 
)
It might not look it from my postings here but the best outcomes I've had (in quantifiable goal oriented terms as well as mental equanimity and joy) is when I've been able to pull my theoretical head out of my theoretical ass and get my practical head on and get my ass to do what it does best (seriously though I think many underestimate/ignore the importance of good sleep, bowel movements and basic baseline metabolism/biochemistry).
Excessive, unproductive thinking is its own addiction and as insalubrious as other generally accepted forms of addiction. And the addict often as helpless and defiant.
)It might not look it from my postings here but the best outcomes I've had (in quantifiable goal oriented terms as well as mental equanimity and joy) is when I've been able to pull my theoretical head out of my theoretical ass and get my practical head on and get my ass to do what it does best
(seriously though I think many underestimate/ignore the importance of good sleep, bowel movements and basic baseline metabolism/biochemistry).Excessive, unproductive thinking is its own addiction and as insalubrious as other generally accepted forms of addiction. And the addict often as helpless and defiant.
Re: How's that working out for you?
I hear that practicality / productivity drug is fire. Where can I get me some of dat?
Re: How's that working out for you?
ekhm, journal section?
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16002
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: How's that working out for you?
Haha, personally it's working out very well for me. Theory explains facts and what makes it possible to see beyond what's right in front of me. Theory is a kind of structured or disciplined imagination that removes the blinders of the immediate senses. Without theory, I'd still be working a job and buying everything I need because that's 99% of what's in front of me.
Theory makes it possible to make accurate predictions of what will happen without having to try it out and learn the hard(er) way. IOW, theory makes it possible to see what usually goes unseen and what is yet to be seen. One thing that distinguishes a human tracker from a tracking dog is the ability to both create a story (a past-oriented kind of theory) based on tracks on the ground but also predict (a future-oriented kind of theory) what happens if those tracks are followed. This is a remarkable ability.
What it comes down to is that "theory" is necessary to lead or explore new territory.
Whereas it's less useful when following the tried and true (but possibly wrong) path.
Of course, as Mark Twain noted "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." It's therefore important to continually verify and validate that our theory is correct. When it comes down to it, this is pretty much what this forum is all about.
There's another saying that "Theory with practice is empty. Practice without theory is blind." See viewtopic.php?t=12598 for the relevance of doing both. I suspect most of these disagreements comes down to what the right balance between the two is. This in turn depends of what each and everyone of us is trying to do with our respective lives.
I think everybody has some kind of theory even if it is a simple one. Even those don't believe in theories or don't think they have one, have a way of understanding or framing their observations even if it's unconsciously limited to what's right in front of them at any given time. For example, the theory might be that it's better "to react instantly to the situation right in front of you rather than slow down and think about it". This "theory" often works better in situations like sports, warfare, and "the streets" than the intellectual approach. Another theory might be "this is how we always done it, so this is how we do it now and next time". This is the underpinning of traditionalism. It is stable and even includes firm beliefs like "it's not gonna happen, because it's never happened before". (I'm pretty convinced that DW operates under this kind of "theory".) It works well most of the time... until it doesn't and fails spectacularly. (Somewhat harder than if that theory had included exceptions to the general rule, anyway.) Not that one is universally better. I liken it to the stereotypical difference between German engineering and Russian engineering. The former is built for precision and works really well until it doesn't. The latter is expected to fail and thus engineered to be easy to fix.
So in defense of theory, it's useful to get you where you want to go without having to stumble through it. For example, you can become FI by following a plan that derives from theory. This is a far more robust approach than becoming FI by accident. Because theory explains how to become FI. And also what not to do. Similarly, when I DIY things, I do have a theory for what will work. Since I make almost everything by hand, remaking via "trial and error until it works" would be rather costly. I don't want to have to remake the same part several times in order to get it to work. This would take forever.
This sentiment is best summarized by a doctrine I learned during the early days of my research career: "Never spend 30 days in the lab when you could have spent 1 hour in the library."
In conclusion, ERE tends to be theory-heavy because ERE is part of the explorative frontier [of culture] and theory is simply just a more efficient way to explore than "throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks". No two ways about that. Note how all the journals on the forum illustrate the practice of what is really a very general(ized) theory. Note how a lot of these practices would likely stop progressing insofar there wasn't a theory that suggested further/future possibilities beyond what was currently apparent.
Theory makes it possible to make accurate predictions of what will happen without having to try it out and learn the hard(er) way. IOW, theory makes it possible to see what usually goes unseen and what is yet to be seen. One thing that distinguishes a human tracker from a tracking dog is the ability to both create a story (a past-oriented kind of theory) based on tracks on the ground but also predict (a future-oriented kind of theory) what happens if those tracks are followed. This is a remarkable ability.
What it comes down to is that "theory" is necessary to lead or explore new territory.
Whereas it's less useful when following the tried and true (but possibly wrong) path.
Of course, as Mark Twain noted "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." It's therefore important to continually verify and validate that our theory is correct. When it comes down to it, this is pretty much what this forum is all about.
There's another saying that "Theory with practice is empty. Practice without theory is blind." See viewtopic.php?t=12598 for the relevance of doing both. I suspect most of these disagreements comes down to what the right balance between the two is. This in turn depends of what each and everyone of us is trying to do with our respective lives.
I think everybody has some kind of theory even if it is a simple one. Even those don't believe in theories or don't think they have one, have a way of understanding or framing their observations even if it's unconsciously limited to what's right in front of them at any given time. For example, the theory might be that it's better "to react instantly to the situation right in front of you rather than slow down and think about it". This "theory" often works better in situations like sports, warfare, and "the streets" than the intellectual approach. Another theory might be "this is how we always done it, so this is how we do it now and next time". This is the underpinning of traditionalism. It is stable and even includes firm beliefs like "it's not gonna happen, because it's never happened before". (I'm pretty convinced that DW operates under this kind of "theory".) It works well most of the time... until it doesn't and fails spectacularly. (Somewhat harder than if that theory had included exceptions to the general rule, anyway.) Not that one is universally better. I liken it to the stereotypical difference between German engineering and Russian engineering. The former is built for precision and works really well until it doesn't. The latter is expected to fail and thus engineered to be easy to fix.
So in defense of theory, it's useful to get you where you want to go without having to stumble through it. For example, you can become FI by following a plan that derives from theory. This is a far more robust approach than becoming FI by accident. Because theory explains how to become FI. And also what not to do. Similarly, when I DIY things, I do have a theory for what will work. Since I make almost everything by hand, remaking via "trial and error until it works" would be rather costly. I don't want to have to remake the same part several times in order to get it to work. This would take forever.
This sentiment is best summarized by a doctrine I learned during the early days of my research career: "Never spend 30 days in the lab when you could have spent 1 hour in the library."
In conclusion, ERE tends to be theory-heavy because ERE is part of the explorative frontier [of culture] and theory is simply just a more efficient way to explore than "throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks". No two ways about that. Note how all the journals on the forum illustrate the practice of what is really a very general(ized) theory. Note how a lot of these practices would likely stop progressing insofar there wasn't a theory that suggested further/future possibilities beyond what was currently apparent.
Re: How's that working out for you?
Well, I could argue that it might be best use of life energy to focus on that which human animals are especially good at, as opposed to the functions at which cheetahs, rabbits, beavers, ants, or calculators excel. OTOH, my honest answer to the meat of the OP question would be that for me it has varied HIGHLY. Sometimes it has been almost magical how I have gotten or produced exactly what I want in concrete/real world terms by applying novel or new-to-me theory, and other times I have failed spectacularly. There have been some instances in which my theory failed in application, because I didn't even get around to applying it, but more often my theory has failed in application because, unlike genius-level INTJs such as Jacob, I tend to more frequently come up with "exhuberant schemes" rather than "sober strategies." Like when I spent a summer month at age 9 trying to build a Go-Kart without having any concept of an axle (It's so difficult to get the wheels to rotate when you nail them right on to the box! 
)
)-
OutOfTheBlue
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:59 am
Re: How's that working out for you?
Some need to hear: "Don't just stand there. Do something", while others would benefit more from hearing: "Don't just do something. Stand there".
Human stuckness comes in various shapes and forms, and paths towards unstuckness are mysterious and equally varied.
Human stuckness comes in various shapes and forms, and paths towards unstuckness are mysterious and equally varied.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6858
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: How's that working out for you?
I hear you @Ego. A couple of years ago, I stopped the incessant naval-gazing and search for the perfect ERE lifestyle. I just dug in where I was, with the people already in my orbit, with the skills and $$ I already had, and gave it a go. I'm immensely happier. And healthier. And surprisingly much more productive.
There's a balance to be struck for sure. A good farmer spends the cold winter months analyzing the previous season and making adjustments for the coming season. They wouldn't know anything if they never broke ground but they wouldn't improve if they never stopped to analyze their results.
Still, I lean into practice more than theory now because I think it's not just about what works 'best' but about what works best for you. (see the endless diet arguments) For a few, knowing the best theory is the goal. For most though, the goal is to live their best life after figuring out the best plan. To hit that goal, you have to leave the classroom.
There's a balance to be struck for sure. A good farmer spends the cold winter months analyzing the previous season and making adjustments for the coming season. They wouldn't know anything if they never broke ground but they wouldn't improve if they never stopped to analyze their results.
Still, I lean into practice more than theory now because I think it's not just about what works 'best' but about what works best for you. (see the endless diet arguments) For a few, knowing the best theory is the goal. For most though, the goal is to live their best life after figuring out the best plan. To hit that goal, you have to leave the classroom.
Re: How's that working out for you?
Hmm... What brought this on, Ego? I haven't noticed any particular upspike in uncited jargon. Is this just something you've been stewing on for a while?
I've started to think about the differences in perspectives here on the forum differently. Rather than theory/practice, I see three groups
1) those wanting to maximize their own life happiness where they are at (I'm in this group, so I see the most nuance in this stance)
2) those aspiring to impact the crisis of our time (to the meta level)
3) those who are creating a party circuit with ERE friends.
There is a lot of overlap with group 2 and 3, and it looks like to me like group 2 needs to more of a conscious building toward a "vanguard of the revolution" complete with central committee work, real titles, responsibilities, and excommunications, etc if there is going to be a real chance anything of beating the machines (so I think a fun version of 3 is NOT going to get to 2 Edit... whereas there are many ways the fun version of 3 can help the individuals survive and thrive), but --and this is really crucial -- I'm not signing up for the project, so I am fine with either watching how it unfolds as outsider looking at one more interesting thing of many, or even ignoring many of the threads.
Another way to look at group (maybe system) 2 is that if there is ANY small chance of winning, they are pleased, as they are working on the BIGGEST PROBLEM. Small chance of infinite payoff, and all that. It's just a different perspective.
(Within the group 1 perceptive, there should be more concern about anti-work and dis-information -- particularly as a result from incentives of the agents, but... well, I don't know what. Looks to me like humans being human, even when they pretend they are metahuman).
===
Group 1 is not "cool" or "progressive" (ie, not in our frugality practice -- I am sure jenny and ego are plenty cool IRL). We are those who wish to thrive in the valley, and not climb the mountain. We function fine with the normies around us, and we are done with the false-consciousness that would give us a fear that we might secretly "just' be normies ourself.
Well, so what if I'm a normie? I'm trying to optimize my happiness inside of the body and brain I have been encased in. I have real loved ones in real space. Oh that's boring, yawn? Well, it's very pleasant on this end.
I've started to think about the differences in perspectives here on the forum differently. Rather than theory/practice, I see three groups
1) those wanting to maximize their own life happiness where they are at (I'm in this group, so I see the most nuance in this stance)
2) those aspiring to impact the crisis of our time (to the meta level)
3) those who are creating a party circuit with ERE friends.
There is a lot of overlap with group 2 and 3, and it looks like to me like group 2 needs to more of a conscious building toward a "vanguard of the revolution" complete with central committee work, real titles, responsibilities, and excommunications, etc if there is going to be a real chance anything of beating the machines (so I think a fun version of 3 is NOT going to get to 2 Edit... whereas there are many ways the fun version of 3 can help the individuals survive and thrive), but --and this is really crucial -- I'm not signing up for the project, so I am fine with either watching how it unfolds as outsider looking at one more interesting thing of many, or even ignoring many of the threads.
Another way to look at group (maybe system) 2 is that if there is ANY small chance of winning, they are pleased, as they are working on the BIGGEST PROBLEM. Small chance of infinite payoff, and all that. It's just a different perspective.
(Within the group 1 perceptive, there should be more concern about anti-work and dis-information -- particularly as a result from incentives of the agents, but... well, I don't know what. Looks to me like humans being human, even when they pretend they are metahuman).
===
Group 1 is not "cool" or "progressive" (ie, not in our frugality practice -- I am sure jenny and ego are plenty cool IRL). We are those who wish to thrive in the valley, and not climb the mountain. We function fine with the normies around us, and we are done with the false-consciousness that would give us a fear that we might secretly "just' be normies ourself.
Well, so what if I'm a normie? I'm trying to optimize my happiness inside of the body and brain I have been encased in. I have real loved ones in real space. Oh that's boring, yawn? Well, it's very pleasant on this end.
Re: How's that working out for you?
This place has always been extremely theory heavy with exquisite models explained in incredible detail to define basically not spending money, haha. Pick your philosophy behind it, which is also explained in infinite detail. Whereas the more crass among us just think " they're just living like Grandma and Grandpa, right?"
I'm having a laugh here but if you are a doer, meaning you just like to get in there and fuck things up, learn, and adjust course, it can be frustrating on the constant discussion in theory when you just want to see a proof of concept in real time. I like to watch permaculture videos and if I had a nickel for every time someone made a video on the start of their journey, again, pick your methodology, I would have much more money than I do now. Great, you are putting in swales, or doing companion planting, or breeding goats. Show me what success looks like in ten years, not you picking up your goats for the first time and releasing them into your field.
But I understand some people thrive in those environments and more power to them; this is a wonderful place for people with such predilection. There is enough variety here that there is something for everyone.
I'm probably missing the point of OP so feel free to ignore the above.
I'm having a laugh here but if you are a doer, meaning you just like to get in there and fuck things up, learn, and adjust course, it can be frustrating on the constant discussion in theory when you just want to see a proof of concept in real time. I like to watch permaculture videos and if I had a nickel for every time someone made a video on the start of their journey, again, pick your methodology, I would have much more money than I do now. Great, you are putting in swales, or doing companion planting, or breeding goats. Show me what success looks like in ten years, not you picking up your goats for the first time and releasing them into your field.
But I understand some people thrive in those environments and more power to them; this is a wonderful place for people with such predilection. There is enough variety here that there is something for everyone.
I'm probably missing the point of OP so feel free to ignore the above.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6858
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: How's that working out for you?
I can't say that I feel like I'm part of group 1 unless I'm misunderstanding the categories. What I meant by digging in 'where I am' is more directed at ERE2 efforts, not a description of my ERE1 success (achieved long ago).candide wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 10:35 amI've started to think about the differences in perspectives here on the forum differently. Rather than theory/practice, I see three groups
1) those wanting to maximize their own life happiness where they are at (I'm in this group, so I see the most nuance in this stance)
2) those aspiring to impact the crisis of our time (to the meta level)
3) those who are creating a party circuit with ERE friends.
I sometimes think the theory vs. practice friction could better be described as emergence vs. design. There's a lot of design discussion about what ERE2 could look like. I find it interesting to be sure. My gut tells me, however, that success is more likely to come from an emergent community vs. one that is meticulously designed. I could be dead wrong, or maybe both have an equal chance at success. I really have no idea, but I decided to start building with the lego I had instead of waiting for the 'right' pieces, that's all.
I guess I'll be the prototype for a duct-taped misfit toys community and others here can be the prototype for a well-designed and modeled community. Hopefully we'll all succeed.
Re: How's that working out for you?
This. Especially if you're not already playing on the frontier. It's too easy to hide in ideas. Periodically, I'll even put a moratorium on books. Do the thing.jennypenny wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:58 amsuccess is more likely to come from an emergent community
Re: How's that working out for you?
I think another difference will be how many non-ERE people are in the various communities. At request, I'll wade back through ERE 2.0 material to try to find where I got the impression that non-ERE aren't supposed to be part of the process, but that's kind of where is stands with who I am putting in groups 2 and 3.jennypenny wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:58 amI guess I'll be the prototype for a duct-taped misfit toys community and others here can be the prototype for a well-designed and modeled community. Hopefully we'll all succeed.
Maybe my grouping doesn't do anything to help move understanding along. But assuming there is some merit in it, I'll add that group 1 is the minority of theorizers here, but the majority of forum participants.
Re: How's that working out for you?
Why not do all three?candide wrote:1) those wanting to maximize their own life happiness where they are at (I'm in this group, so I see the most nuance in this stance)
2) those aspiring to impact the crisis of our time (to the meta level)
3) those who are creating a party circuit with ERE friends.
This dichotomy forms a bit of a Catch-22 for me, because the real life people I love in real space are not "normies." I just made a quick list and 14 out of the 16 humans to whom I am most closely related by the primitive bonds of biology or the traditional bonds of marriage are more "progressive" and at least 8 of them are significantly more "weird-nutz-Bohemian" than the median member of this forum. Some of the men I cuddle with in meat-space do kind of resemble straight-edge FATFire stereotype, but that's just because I am sometimes guilty of moral-misdemeanor sexual-banditry (mooching a degree of financial or practical support off of good-looking men who are more socially conservative than me.) I just spent an hour excitedly brainstorming via text with my three younger sisters (who are "totally down with it") about my ecosexual commitment ceremony to Lake Huron on the summer solstice. When I first read "ERE", my thought was that it could have been written by the high IQ younger brother I never had who by some lucky happenstance got none of the cuckoo-bananas genes. Like a gender-reversed Lily on the Munsters.Group 1 is not "cool" or "progressive" (ie, not in our frugality practice -- I am sure jenny and ego are plenty cool IRL). We are those who wish to thrive in the valley, and not climb the mountain. We function fine with the normies around us, and we are done with the false-consciousness that would give us a fear that we might secretly "just' be normies ourself.
Well, so what if I'm a normie? I'm trying to optimize my happiness inside of the body and brain I have been encased in. I have real loved ones in real space. Oh that's boring, yawn? Well, it's very pleasant on this end.
Re: How's that working out for you?
Yes, that's true. Maybe I should not have mentioned theory at all.
"How's that working out for you?", is a question we might all benefit from asking ourselves before posting. My hope is that if I am tempted to post a wall of words answering a particular topic, and I have a track-record of failure in that area, then asking myself, "How's that working out for you?", will prompt me to think about it a little harder before hitting submit.
But then again, maybe I should have asked myself, "How's that working out for you?", before posting this topic.
Re: How's that working out for you?
Great point. I read permaculture books much more frequently than I watch videos, but here are 10 years later videos from 3 urban permaculturalists I find inspirational.ffj wrote:Show me what success looks like in ten years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7en75xeiXFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ZukMyejLk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEVKH6IyMEA
Oh, gotcha! You just meant that, for example, chubby divorced humans should not offer advice about marriage or fitnessEgo wrote:"How's that working out for you?", is a question we might all benefit from asking ourselves before posting. My hope is that if I am tempted to post a wall of words answering a particular topic, and I have a track-record of failure in that area, then asking myself, "How's that working out for you?", will prompt me to think about it a little harder before hitting submit.
Re: How's that working out for you?
I think you can. I wasn't trying to be prescriptive with the 3-part division, but rather descriptive. And part of why category three came to my mind is that this group is very much doing stuff, so theory/practice doesn't seem like such a good cleavage there.
Re: How's that working out for you?
In Daniel Quinn's book, The Story of B, the character B asserts this theory building quality in reference to tracking as essentially what makes humans human.jacob wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 10:47 am
One thing that distinguishes a human tracker from a tracking dog is the ability to both create a story (a past-oriented kind of theory) based on tracks on the ground but also predict (a future-oriented kind of theory) what happens if those tracks are followed. This is a remarkable ability.
Re: How's that working out for you?
This thread is pretty theoretical
Like others said above, it's all about balance. Sometimes you need more theory, sometimes you need more practice.
I like the quote Jacob wrote "Never spend 30 days in the lab when you could have spent 1 hour in the library." as it makes perfect sense on many occasions.
But on the other hand, certain skills required more practice than theory, like being able to throw a basketball from far away through the basket, shoot a ball exactly in the right upper corner of the goal etc. Yes, theory is needed, will help, but the majority is practice.
Like others said above, it's all about balance. Sometimes you need more theory, sometimes you need more practice.
I like the quote Jacob wrote "Never spend 30 days in the lab when you could have spent 1 hour in the library." as it makes perfect sense on many occasions.
But on the other hand, certain skills required more practice than theory, like being able to throw a basketball from far away through the basket, shoot a ball exactly in the right upper corner of the goal etc. Yes, theory is needed, will help, but the majority is practice.