Positive and negative goals in a WOG

[AnalyticalEngine]

So I recently re-watched Jacob's STOA talk, and it made a lot more sense to me this time around. In particularly, I liked the advice about trying to do two things at once instead of only one thing at once, as that seemed like an actionable way to start implementing systems thinking.

But I had a question about if the goals you envision while doing things are positive or negative goals. Specifically, something like "save money" might be seen as a negative goal (you are avoiding a negative/loss aversion) whereas "make money" is a positive goal (adding something instead of avoiding a loss). So when you are trying to do two things at once, is it better to frame these as positive goals or are negative goals acceptable too?

Ie, exercise might be seen as "avoiding being unhealthy" or "becoming fit." I know Jacob has mentioned in the past that ERE has a loss aversion bias rather than a "high risk, high reward" bias, so I am trying to understand if it's worth drawing a distinction between positive (get gain) and negative goals (avoid loss) or not.

[jacob]

But I had a question about if the goals you envision while doing things are positive or negative goals. Specifically, something like "save money" might be seen as a negative goal (you are avoiding a negative/loss aversion) whereas "make money" is a positive goal (adding something instead of avoiding a loss). So when you are trying to do two things at once, is it better to frame these as positive goals or are negative goals acceptable too?

Ie, exercise might be seen as "avoiding being unhealthy" or "becoming fit." I know Jacob has mentioned in the past that ERE has a loss aversion bias rather than a "high risk, high reward" bias, so I am trying to understand if it's worth drawing a distinction between positive (get gain) and negative goals (avoid loss) or not.

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about something separate from WOG.

Lets consider the two goals of "not becoming unhealthy" and "becoming healthy". From a WOG perspective, these are both positive goals. However, they differ in whether the focus is offensive (winning) or defensive (not losing). People have different talents and biases in their preferences for either. For example, I lean defensive. This means that I miss out of opportunities, but it also means I don't suffer very many loses. Someone who leans offensive will lose more than I do but if we're equally skilled, they'll make up for their losses with their winnings---just like my average winnings move me forward as I almost never go backward. Read https://www.oaktreecapital.com/insights ... ly-matters or better read the whole book to include this vocabulary in your latticework. I forget which one it is... likely the market cycle book.

From a WOG perspective, a negative goal is a cost to you rather than a gain and vice versa. Whether you phrase it as "not becoming unhealthy" or "becoming healthy", neither of those can be described as a cost. Both would be something you'd want. The only difference is in whether you approach them offensively or defensively and the WOG doesn't really say anything about that.

The WOG exercise is mainly about figuring out whether you're working against yourself. Likely due to how people tend to compartmentalize their focus, most pursue things that turn out to be heterotelic. It's not like people literally decide to shoot themselves in the foot as much as just being temporarily blind to what's going on in the other boxes (the foot just happens to be in the way of the bullet). A consequence of this is that people will often "sacrifice" one goal for another goal rather than figure out solutions that can contribute to both.

In military terms, the WOG is asking whether your actions are furthering the objectives. There are likely a number of tactical and strategic objectives such as gain this position or destroy that target. The WOG ensures that the army is not actively working against itself on reaching any of these objectives, e.g. giving up a position to destroy a particular target or vice versa.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Thanks, that makes more sense. It seems like, then, the WOG is a specific tool for a specific problem (how to align actions to objectives inside a complex environment) and trying to apply it to unrelated paradigms just muddies the water. It's therefore less about capturing everything with the WOG and more about asking what the most useful level of abstraction is for the particular set of circumstances. That is, actually capturing what the objectives and actions even are in the first place and then removing dead wood by combing goals/removing as many negative flows as possible.

Whereas the offensive vs defensive paradigm is either for investing (which is much more easily quantifiable than the specific benefits of walking to the grocery store) or for personal temperament.

[7Wannabe5]

At the meta level one would also have to consider the positive and negative aspects of performing a WOG analysis, and then the positive and negative aspects of the meta-level consideration, etc. etc. infinite regress. This is why at this juncture in my life, I would seriously consider trading 10 IQ points for a great, bluesy singing voice.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Well the thing about this (and why it took me awhile to understand) is that it's not really that difficult at its core. This is just strategic thinking applied to how you live your life. It's not really any different than how many business or the military try to operate. I think the trap I've fallen into in the past with this is that the language around it can be pretty esoteric so it's easy to start thinking of it as some kind of Magical Fantasy Solution to all problems (without actually doing any work to implement it, as if just understanding it would be enough). Or, on the flip side, the esoteric language makes it easy to dismiss as "there go the nerds again."

But like any business plan or research experiment, there's a level at which detail is not useful, and there is a level at which details are absolutely critical, and knowing this difference is extremely important. Also, I will add, another barrier with this is that it requires very clear goals, which means you need a fairly clear idea of what you're trying to do and an internal locus of control, which is already a minority of the population. Additionally, given strategic/systems thinking is applicable to any domain, one could hypothetically drop the collapse-aware/counterculture part of ERE (the "stigmatizing behavior" as Jacob says in the talk, which I think most people reflexively avoid) and use the framework toward some other goal, like how to obtain 57 Ferraris.

This is mostly just a reflection of my experience trying to understand this and trying to think of a way to explain it clearer to people unfamiliar with ERE. There are certain countercultural assumptions (like environmentalism) combined with business plan-like strategic thinking that seem to be a barrier to entry.

[AxelHeyst]

The notion of combining environmentalism/collapse-awareness with business and military strategic principles makes me think of The Antimemetics Division.

An antimeme is an idea with self-censoring properties; an idea which, by its intrinsic nature, discourages or prevents people from spreading it.

[jacob]

@AE - You got it!

It's basically a sense-making exercise for the meta-game. This becomes obvious in retrospect after understanding the language. The [new] language is exactly what makes it possible to make sense of it. [Language is basically a tool for that. It is not the only tool, but that's another issue ...] Without understanding that language explanations just sound as gobbledygook. In terms of "unfamiliars", it's best pursued one level at a time.

[loutfard]

Additionally, given strategic/systems thinking is applicable to any domain, one could hypothetically drop the collapse-aware/counterculture part of ERE (the "stigmatizing behavior" as Jacob says in the talk, which I think most people reflexively avoid) and use the framework toward some other goal, like how to obtain 57 Ferraris.

To me at least, "Fifty-seven Ferraris" expresses not-ERE and an associated feeling of alienation concisely and with supreme clarity. I love the absurdity and tragicomedy of it. I feel like trying it out in everyday situations, as an adverb, an adjective or -with some additional alliterative spicing- an expletive. "Fifty-seven flaming-red Ferraris!", not unlike Tintin's Captain Haddock and his famous "Billions of blue blistering barnacles!".

Real world application.

I just saw an Apple advertisement at the train station: "The latest iPhone 15 Plus, now for only 1129€!" Fifty-seven flaming-red Ferraris, 1129€! It made me anthropologically explore the Apple website. Turns out Apple sells the iPhone Pro Max 1Tb for 1989€. The AppleCare+ coverage on this is 229€, significantly more than the cost of my wife's smartphone. The accidental damage protection excess fee for glass damage is 29€, slightly cheaper than the 39€ I paid for my mobile phone. It made me feel a little like the Mexican fisherman in the story.

P.S. Sorry for derailing this thread.
P.P.S. Thank you for enriching my vocabulary.

[zbigi]

At the meta level one would also have to consider the positive and negative aspects of performing a WOG analysis, and then the positive and negative aspects of the meta-level consideration, etc. etc. infinite regress. This is why at this juncture in my life, I would seriously consider trading 10 IQ points for a great, bluesy singing voice.

I think I would trade 10 IQ points for a serious boost in energy levels. Intelligence paired with limited ability to execute can be quite frustrating.

[7Wannabe5]

I read somewhere that Rationals tend to visualize their life linearly. Creating a WOG (collection of vectors) is just doing an extremely good job of visualizing/projecting your life linearly. This forum would probably think it was cool if I made a Power BI report on my lifestyle over the last 59 years with 30 year forecast shadowing and AI factor analysis What if you instead conceived of your life as improv musical theater with the core challenge being creation and performance of a song appropriate for whatever happens next? What if you conceived of your life as a scratch and sniff book to be presented to an alien race of intelligent canines? What if you conceived of your life as a testament to your worship of the Warrior Thunder God? ((These are the sort of thoughts that occur to me after setting my pomodoro timer for 60 minutes in order to write an assigned essay on the topic of ethics in the realm of data analysis. At around 32:36, it was like my Internal Locus of Control broke my Meaning Maker, but my fingers kept on compulsively typing words into the expanding void.))

Fifty seven Ferraris does seem like an easier mix/sell when combined with the strategic framework; like 1.5 levels of abstraction up from the Wall Street Players plan I jokingly attempted. However, a search for "soulmate strategy" produced quite a few direct hits, so I would suggest that the incoherence of mixing strategic (or tips uplabeled as strategy) thinking with environmental awareness is not the problem. I think it's more that the goal of reducing spending to 1 jacob towards any other good (environment, FI, resilience, charitable giving) initially strikes most people as being akin to being told that they have to transform themselves into looking like a super-model in order to find their soulmate. It's kind of like inviting the guy who maintains his BMI at 16 in order to maximize his longevity to your potluck dinner party.

The environmental piece is associated with Ethics, and I am not one likely to offer great suggestions/insight since Fi is in almost dead last position for an eNTP like me, but I know that my tertiary Fe is not my strong suit, so I assume the same holds true for Ethics for an INTJ. IOW, maybe an INTJ solving an Ethical problem with a strategic approach to a simple metric like 1 Jacob is like an ENTP solving an Emotional problem with hugs and cookies. OTOH, an Idealist human with primary Fi might just say something like "Humans suck. We deserve to go extinct. This dark symphony I composed is reflective of my take on the problem.", and that isn't exactly super-helpful either.

[jacob]

I read somewhere that Rationals tend to visualize their life linearly. Creating a WOG (collection of vectors) is just doing an extremely good job of visualizing/projecting your life linearly.

The WOG method is just a way to get people out of the "optimized box"-thinking that dominates WL4--WL6 and into the systems-thinking of WL7-8. It's deliberately made to be simple because accuracy (doing the right thing) is much more important than precision (doing things right) when it comes to strategy. Basically, it's as complicated as it needs to be in order to reveal [certain non-linear or counterproductive effects] but not needlessly complicated which would obscure and drown the fundamental principles in technicalities.

There are certainly other ways of dealing with strategy. One that always amused me is the "Jack Reacher"-strategy of taking tactics to the extreme (he can get away with that because he wins any fight he gets into). In the Reacher-world, all probabilities are 50/50: Either it happens or it doesn't. It's Bayesian analysis taken to the a priori probability limit. Reacher would obviously gain an efficiency advantage by adjusting his probabilities, but the gimmick of the character is that he doesn't need to because he always comes out on top.

The WOG would be useful to any value system, because it's not contingent on what the values or goals are but rather how they are expressed.

The environmental piece is associated with Ethics, and I am not one likely to offer great suggestions/insight since Fi is in almost dead last position for an eNTP like me, but I know that my tertiary Fe is not my strong suit, so I assume the same holds true for Ethics for an INTJ. IOW, maybe an INTJ solving an Ethical problem with a strategic approach to a simple metric like 1 Jacob is like an ENTP solving an Emotional problem with hugs and cookies. OTOH, an Idealist human with primary Fi might just say something like "Humans suck. We deserve to go extinct. This dark symphony I composed is reflective of my take on the problem.", and that isn't exactly super-helpful either.

Self-consistency (walking the talk) is king when it comes to INTJ morality, but the particular choice of self-consistent ethics is almost arbitrary. Fi is about being authentic to your own values. IOW, it's about being true to your principles. The more developed the Fi is, the more sophisticated (egocentric->worldcentric) those values will be. For the average INTJ, Fi is the 10-year old in the CAR model. Relatively speaking, this is pretty high---most people don't even care at all---but it is less important than it is to an INFP or ISFP (where it's the driver and thus defines their entire life).

[Henry]

I always pictured reaching financial independence as a candle with a burning wick at each end - one wick is not spending and one wick is earning. They are not opposed and they are not dichotomous. Negative/positive or stick/carrot or defense/offense are just two sides of the same coin that eventually one will throw into the asscracks of the bloated corpses of gym teachers lying at the bottom of the deep still waters of The River Fuckyou.

[7Wannabe5]

The WOG method is just a way to get people out of the "optimized box"-thinking that dominates WL4--WL6 and into the systems-thinking of WL7-8...Self-consistency (walking the talk) is king when it comes to INTJ morality

Gotcha. I think, for better or worse, eNTPs are too impulsive to ever find themselves fully trapped in the sort of compulsive optimized thinking or practice that WOG addresses, although it can be amusing to make the calculations. With Fi in 6th position, the eNTP take on Values is more exploratory/experimental and in need of periodic clarification. IOW, if/when I find myself not walking the talk (not an infrequent occurrence), I will consider the possibility that either my Values have shifted and/or I lacked full self-awareness of true Values. If I track my kilocalorie intake/outflow for a month, my objective take might move Eating Cookies to higher Value than Being Not Fat with little moral judgment, but with rational recognition that this ordering could change in the future due to changing Field/circumstances. Language comes into play here also. For example, I recently decided that I value Liberty more than Freedom.

One of my most influential relationships was with a Jack Reacher (ISTP- The Virtuoso/Mechanic) type, and I can kind of see how INTJ/ENTP/ISTP functioning might form a triangle or 3 quadrants of 4 quadrants in relationship to Bayesian analysis/strategy/skills. My ISTP BF thought he could win at craps through controlled throwing. I thought if anybody could win craps through controlled throwing it would be him, because super-disciplined and highly physically skilled/gifted, but still calculated it as highly unlikely while in curious observation mode munching on free shrimp at the casino. ENTPs tend to go to the other extreme in terms of preparation/practice, because we rely too heavily on our ability to improvise based on most recent update. Like how Tyrion Lannister in "Game of Thrones" just keeps drinking and having sex until the probability of something totally fucked up happening meter hits 97% and then he comes up with a plan based on the latest information. This sort of behavior is also a form of optimization, but maybe not the type most directly addressed through WOG analysis?

Anyways, I'm almost certainly not connecting the dots very well here, but my intuition is that the very few ENFPs (The Inspirer) who somehow made their way to this forum might hold the most valuable insight on the "anti-meme" issue.

[grundomatic]

Anyways, I'm almost certainly not connecting the dots very well here, but my intuition is that the very few ENFPs (The Inspirer) who somehow made their way to this forum might hold the most valuable insight on the "anti-meme" issue.

Was this a summons? I know nothing of anti-memes.

Fi is about being authentic to your own values.

This tracks with my experience. It's why I've been trying to sort out my values for years now, documented in my journal. How the hell am I supposed to figure out what to do (say, in a WOG), without first figuring out what I value? It's also why blowing up the old value system without being ready to dive head first into a new one is a serious problem (for me). Since it's internally directed, that may also be why I've been preoccupied with sorting "my" values from "external" ones.

I think the trap I've fallen into in the past with this is that the language around it can be pretty esoteric so it's easy to start thinking of it as some kind of Magical Fantasy Solution to all problems (without actually doing any work to implement it, as if just understanding it would be enough).

Also guilty.

[7Wannabe5]

Was this a summons? I know nothing of anti-memes.

Maybe not, but you know of your own path to ERE as somebody who likely identifies as a people-person. I identify primarily as an idea-person, particularly a book-person, so I can directly trace my path to ERE through books I previously read which also overlaps quite a bit with shared bibliography with Jacob at that juncture. I'm interested in what motivated anybody who landed here through word-of-mouth and/or social influence.

I've been trying to sort out my values for years now, documented in my journal. How the hell am I supposed to figure out what to do (say, in a WOG), without first figuring out what I value?

Interesting. So, the difference between primary Ne, secondary Fi (ENFP-you) and primary Ne, secondary Ti (eNTP-me) is that you are always value-sorting in the background while I am always logic/sense- sorting in the background.

Somebody in my social circle who is probably an ENFJ (hometown Oprah type) recently asked me for advice about finances/retirement. I happened to be reading yet another book on the topic of the collapse of societies due to lack of enough energy ("Immoderate Greatness"- Ophuls) when I took her call. I joke about trying to help other people with "hugs and cookies" with my tertiary Fe, but it allows me to hold a good deal of empathy/compassion for other humans who aren't Individualists. A functional ENFJ female in her mid 50s will have developed layers and layers of social functioning which it is her identity to maintain. With my tertiary Fe, I can visualize this as quantum levels of structured warm energy around her. It's not at all like giving financial/retirement advice to, for instance, a 22 year old INTJ kid with virtually no responsibilities and a minimalist web of social relationships. We're all complex adaptive systems, but the means by which we may maintain ourselves/our lifestyles may vary enormously. In simpler terms, I am thinking that maybe a 55 year old ENFJ woman should spend more money than a 22 year old INTJ kid, or even a 55 year old ENTP woman, because she inherently represents a different sort of complex adaptive system. IOW, the 1 jacob/human spending rule of thumb, although mathematically/scientifically accurate, ecologically ethical, and simplistically "fair" is unlikely to maximize Human Flourishing over the field. IOW, a consumer is somebody who tends towards spending money to solve problems, but some humans are more engaged in solving more problems, so they inherently ought to be afforded a larger "budget" than somebody likely to spend excess on 57th Ferrari.

[grundomatic]

Maybe not, but you know of your own path to ERE as somebody who likely identifies as a people-person. I identify primarily as an idea-person, particularly a book-person, so I can directly trace my path to ERE through books I previously read which also overlaps quite a bit with shared bibliography with Jacob at that juncture. I'm interested in what motivated anybody who landed here through word-of-mouth and/or social influence.

Sorry to disappoint, but I ended up here through a link from some stock broker's blog, I think. Newly free from a spendy ex, and bringing in salaryman money for the first time ever, I knew I had to invest to get ahead. I think the only commonality I had with the ERE bibliography was Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I do have a few converts to ERE/MMM that I am responsible for, though I don't think they are active here or even read the forum much. Conversion rate to TrustedHousesitters has been much higher.

I would, btw, self-identify as a people person. A decade ago my motivation was freedom from the grind. If I remember right, I joined the forum three years ago when I realized we were trying to save the world, and that my contribution might matter. Before I realized that, starting a journal to talk about myself seemed odd and self-absorbed to me. I mean, I gave up talking about myself on Facebook years before that, so why would I do the same thing here with strangers?

Interesting. So, the difference between primary Ne, secondary Fi (ENFP-you) and primary Ne, secondary Ti (eNTP-me) is that you are always value-sorting in the background while I am always logic/sense- sorting in the background.

I hadn't thought about it like that, but yes, that's a pretty accurate description. It might also explain my fascination with Spiral Dynamics--all the values: categorized, color-coded, and explained.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I'm ok with an asymmetric distribution of resources, now and in the future. When I look at someone with a high-paying career now, I think "that's fair, because that job seems horrible". In the future, if Mother Hubbard gets to rock it out in a SFH with central heating while I'm in my camping trailer and refridgerwear, but it's because she's caring for 9 refugee orphans, it'll be the same thing.

I do think about my future "job", or what I can do for the movement. I'm not the know-it-all that'll write the books, nor am I the one to comfort the dying or take care of the orphans (we are expecting more of both, no?) IRL, my archetype is probably best described as a "rally the troops leader", or in less serious situations, "the fun uncle". No troops to lead around here, just cats to herd. And fun uncles are less valued than elsewhere, it seems.

[7Wannabe5]

I ended up here through a link from some stock broker's blog, I think. Newly free from a spendy ex, and bringing in salaryman money for the first time ever, I knew I had to invest to get ahead.

Interesting. Very much like IllinDave (INFJ)s path. You were likely very much in your masculine energy in the moment, because ending things with a spendy ex requires cold "killer" functioning. Actually, according to Deida, anybody has to be in their masculine killer energy to end a significant relationship, because the feminine is like a clam or a blossom that just opens and closes in the presence/lack of love, but never ends things.

I joined the forum three years ago when I realized we were trying to save the world, and that my contribution might matter. Before I realized that, starting a journal to talk about myself seemed odd and self-absorbed to me.

I noted the "save the world" subtext when I first read "ERE", but I was just getting into systems theory through permaculture. I think maybe because my T is only moderately dominant over my F, so my Fe/Fi is also a bit blurred, I kind of function (or dysfunction) as though my long-term intended audience for both of these is some theoretical great-grand-daughter. She will either survive through the benefit of my permaculture project and/or she will be amused by the AI compilation of my written contributions to Ye Olde Internet Forums.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I'm ok with an asymmetric distribution of resources, now and in the future. When I look at someone with a high-paying career now, I think "that's fair, because that job seems horrible". In the future, if Mother Hubbard gets to rock it out in a SFH with central heating while I'm in my camping trailer and refridgerwear, but it's because she's caring for 9 refugee orphans, it'll be the same thing.

Yes, I feel the same. However, I have noticed that some humans who are very good at making too much money often aren't very good at giving it away when they get to that point in their path. For example, my multi-millionaire friend's charitable foundation was a dysfunctional after-thought which he left in the hands of his highest ranking employee who had too much other stuff on her plate and zero experience with administering a charitable foundation. When he was literally on his death bed, he started funding mini stock accounts through his broker for an assortment of aides who were caring for him on the night shift. It was like a mass-market Dickens novel with the last 3 chapters ripped off.

OTOH, those who are reasonably and broadly functional in inter-subjective mode early on their path, like my ENFJ friend, often run their life-style like a dispersed non-profit. So, the thought that occured to me after posting the above is that everybody could probably benefit from also tracking/improving inter-subjective functioning from the get-go. For example, in basic example Budget format, this might look like the rule of thumb of 2 days work for money, 2 days community service, 2 days work for art/actualization, 1 day sleep on the beach.

I do think about my future "job", or what I can do for the movement. I'm not the know-it-all that'll write the books, nor am I the one to comfort the dying or take care of the orphans (we are expecting more of both, no?) IRL, my archetype is probably best described as a "rally the troops leader", or in less serious situations, "the fun uncle". No troops to lead around here, just cats to herd. And fun uncles are less valued than elsewhere, it seems.

Oh, it seems to me like you have a lot more than "fun uncle" going on (not that there's anything wrong with "fun uncle." I often fulfill the "fun Mom" role myself. ) For one thing, you are creating a great model of an alternate path to ERE.