Actualization!- Level 7 towards level 8

[Jin+Guice]

Woah! This thread is a pleasant surprise. I still feel like I'm WL6, but these are exactly the problems I'm struggling with.

I think it helps to view the WLs as sets of 3. 3-5 is about accepting and adopting FIRE. 6-8 is about life after FIRE*. As described in the WL theory, each stage naturally resolves a problem of the previous stage. I think the 5/6 transition is really fucking hard, not because it is in any way actually challenging but because it requires a rewriting of the ego narrative (described in the EDT stuff). In this way I got lucky. FIRE is not hugely commensurate with my ego narrative (and I discovered FIRE in econ grad school, when it was more commensurate with my ego narrative and stuff I was thinking about than it is now or was before grad school). It still took me a while to make the transition.

*I do not think you need to be FI to access 6-8. I am not FI.

It doesn't take very much skill learning to realize there are too many skills to learn and that you need some sort of system (WL6->WL7). It doesn't take very long after that to realize that optimizing such a system in the way one optimizes spending is very difficult and probably impossible. The "optimization" needs to be intuitive, i.e., you need to know what you want (WL7->WL8). Fuck!

The whole "needs" series I just wrote is about me trying to grapple with the very start of realizing this (on-going). I thought this was me grappling with some unique inner-personal problem, but apparently it was just me re-discovering the WL7-8 motivational tension.

I think it's possible and maybe even inevitable to work on all three WLs in a set simultaneously, as on is never truly one WL across all things anyway. I don't think I've acquired enough skills to get beyond WL6, but in terms of thinking I may be accessing WL7 and WL8? I dunno, it's not hugely important to me which WL I'm at, but I do like them as a guide because they keep being correct for me.




I think there is some tension in this thread between "navel-gazing" and action, planning and doing, fucking around and finding out. I don't think these are choices, but I think rather it is the tension between the two that lead towards self-actualization.




This thread is resolving some ideas I've had banging around in my head for awhile. I've found my journey into non-monogamy has been as life changing and roughly equal to my journey into ERE. I could never quite put my finger on why. But now I see both resolve an inner-tension of conventional lifestyle design and relationship models not working for me.

Perhaps more relevant to this crowd is that non-monogamy created much greater turmoil in my life (ERE has reduced turmoil) and this tension lead me towards a path of greater self-discovery. Most notably, going to a bunch of therapy which changed the way I thought about myself and the world. I don't know if ERE would've lead me into as much personal growth as quickly.

@jacob briefly notes this above, but I think one has to deal with their personal trauma to self-actualize. I think one of the true horrors/ delights of lurching towards post-conventional mindsets is realizing how much your inner demons are running the show.

My own personal struggle is currently giving myself permission to get up and do whatever I want everyday and realizing that I don't really know what I want to do. For me this means anxiety/ inner-tension. It does not mean sitting around in a pit of despair. I am trying a lot of stuff, finishing some stuff and my happiness levels are in general increasing with brief stints of being flattened by ego-death.

I am experiencing some semi-ERE woes as I still feel shackled to my highly paid, low effort, part-time, location dependent j*b. Of course these shackles exist only in my mind. I have multiple years of expenses saved up, multiple specialized employable skills, multiple degrees and could pay for current expenses working similar hours with almost any j*b. Would any amount of money be enough? Would I actually want a different j*b since this j*b is so flexible and low effort? Damn you to hell self-actualization, you slippery bastard!

[jacob]

I think it's possible and maybe even inevitable to work on all three WLs in a set simultaneously, as on is never truly one WL across all things anyway. I don't think I've acquired enough skills to get beyond WL6, but in terms of thinking I may be accessing WL7 and WL8? I dunno, it's not hugely important to me which WL I'm at, but I do like them as a guide because they keep being correct for me.

See (3): https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... re_&_Rules

I think there is some tension in this thread between "navel-gazing" and action, planning and doing, fucking around and finding out. I don't think these are choices, but I think rather it is the tension between the two that lead towards self-actualization.

Yes, this is much how the scientific process actually works in practice---like you just described (not the 1-2-3 steps they teach in high school---those only work for boring adding decimal point incremental-style research). Not as an engineering projects that can be chopped into milestones. The difference between the two is that when exploring unknown territory, one often needs to go back and try another path, retrench a position between the previous support was too weak (e.g. a beach head can only support 1000 troops and not the 2000 troops that our exploration revealed that we need).

This thread is resolving some ideas I've had banging around in my head for awhile. I've found my journey into non-monogamy has been as life changing and roughly equal to my journey into ERE. I could never quite put my finger on why. But now I see both resolve an inner-tension of conventional lifestyle design and relationship models not working for me.

Maybe what you learned can build some nuance into: viewtopic.php?t=13138

I'm mostly focused similarities because I have the [scientific] hypothesis, that all these semi-detailed tables ultimately follow EDT in some way. IOW, as adult egos mature, they tend to mature in more or less the same structural way even as they may focus on different things like sex or money or fabrication skills or ... OTOH, I'm pretty sure the hypothesis is correct, so I'm interested in the details of the more particular schedules as it would make it very easy to fit into existing general knowledge.

@jacob briefly notes this above, but I think one has to deal with their personal trauma to self-actualize. I think one of the true horrors/ delights of lurching towards post-conventional mindsets is realizing how much your inner demons are running the show.

It would be very interesting to add temperamental analysis to the various schedules. Enneagrams are probably the easiest one because there's only 9 of then. The way I'm building higher WLs is very much driven by being a type 5w5 ("independence based on knowledge and self-efficacy"). Compare to Vicki Robin who is a type 7w8 ("adventurous connector and promoter").

[Jin+Guice]

See (3): https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... re_&_Rules

Ah yes, my only add then is I think people are more likely to slosh around inside the categories where there is no moat... so center of gravity at WL5 is likely to exhibit much more 3 and 4 than 6 and 7 thinking.

Maybe what you learned can build some nuance into: viewtopic.php?t=13138

It's going to be difficult for me to do that and that's also not quite what I meant. The insights I've gained from non-monogamy have changed my sexuality* less than my relationship perspective. Although for both it was more like gaining language and an ethical framework for how I felt rather than self-discovery.

*Sexuality was much more greatly changed by discovering kink, but I still don't know if I can add much to the sex WL table.

Since we are talking convention, I think it's important to note that, imo, convention for men and women are different (adding some dimensionality to this you can add levels of homosexuality as well as asexuality, though I still think a lot can be gained from whether one feels their "center of gravity" is fem/masc as well as how one presents).

As a masculine person I feel I was socialized to pursue sex with multiple partners as a goal. I.e. no slut-shaming, slut-rewarding. Juxtaposed against this is the assumption that a more moral person would eventually choose one partner and marry, but maybe cheat and also maybe not. Boys will be bois.

Though I didn't experience it, my belief is that feminine people experience the opposite socialization. Slut shaming with emphasis on pursuit of relationships and eventually marriage. There is some light contradictory pressure to engage in sexual promiscuity when young.

The overriding expectation for both genders is that they will eventually end up in a monogamous marriage. As with most social convention, there are many contradictory messages running in the background.


The tl;dr for me is I find that way of living limiting, overly-simplistic and not well suited for me. I also think that masc people are socialized to prioritize thinking about work/ finances where fem people focus on relationships. Thus ERE which focused on work/ money was already within my domain of thinking, while relationships were not, thus non-mono had more potential for growth for me personally.

So for me it would be more interesting to make a romantic relationship WL tables as I've experienced more change in that realm. Is there a way to integrate these two?

It would be very interesting to add temperamental analysis to the various schedules. Enneagrams are probably the easiest one because there's only 9 of then. The way I'm building higher WLs is very much driven by being a type 5w5 ("independence based on knowledge and self-efficacy"). Compare to Vicki Robin who is a type 7w8 ("adventurous connector and promoter").

Interesting, Enneagram classifications never stick in my mind. I wonder if the temperaments wouldn't suggest different routes rather than each route needing temperamental analysis? XwY expands the options! Iirc, MBTI can collapse broadly to NT, NF, SJ and SP?

[xmj]

I think there is some tension in this thread between "navel-gazing" and action, planning and doing, fucking around and finding out. I don't think these are choices, but I think rather it is the tension between the two that lead towards self-actualization.

In pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped.
Less and less do you need to force things,
until finally you arrive at non-action.
When nothing is done,
nothing is left undone.

[Jin+Guice]

Totally.

[jacob]

Hypothesis:
WL8 - Changing the system from within.
WL9 - Changing the system from without by connecting with other systems.

[7Wannabe5]

It's going to be difficult for me to do that and that's also not quite what I meant. The insights I've gained from non-monogamy have changed my sexuality* less than my relationship perspective. Although for both it was more like gaining language and an ethical framework for how I felt rather than self-discovery.

*Sexuality was much more greatly changed by discovering kink, but I still don't know if I can add much to the sex WL table.

Since we are talking convention, I think it's important to note that, imo, convention for men and women are different (adding some dimensionality to this you can add levels of homosexuality as well as asexuality, though I still think a lot can be gained from whether one feels their "center of gravity" is fem/masc as well as how one presents).

As a masculine person I feel I was socialized to pursue sex with multiple partners as a goal. I.e. no slut-shaming, slut-rewarding. Juxtaposed against this is the assumption that a more moral person would eventually choose one partner and marry, but maybe cheat and also maybe not. Boys will be bois.

Though I didn't experience it, my belief is that feminine people experience the opposite socialization. Slut shaming with emphasis on pursuit of relationships and eventually marriage. There is some light contradictory pressure to engage in sexual promiscuity when young.

The overriding expectation for both genders is that they will eventually end up in a monogamous marriage. As with most social convention, there are many contradictory messages running in the background.

Very similar to my take/experience. From the feminine human perspective I would add the note that I don't think, or it has not been my experience, that it is social mores alone compelling feminine-identified types towards wanting their sex mainly within relationships. That's what differentiates polyamory from promiscuity and makes the practice more attractive to feminine-identified humans. I am still engaged in some level of affectionate relationship with two poly-partners I met almost 10 years ago now! Once you get used to the practice of polyamory it seems kind of weird how humans have these rigid relationship boundary practices related to sexuality. OTOH, just getting old can kind of do that to you too, because nobody expects you to want to ride the conventional relationship elevator again after around age 50.

Sexuality also has to do with how you feel about dyad formation. I like to be primarily running my own life as an individual with dyad overlaps at the perimeter. I think it might have something to do with being a highly independent female ENTP (we only lead because we don't want to follow), but also primarily a romantic/sexual feminine submissive. So, I like to "visit" the Dominant PITA sexual partners I prefer, but I don't like to live/partner with them 24/7/forever.

[ertyu]

The "optimization" needs to be intuitive, i.e., you need to know what you want (WL7->WL8). Fuck!

Would you (as in, the plural you), argue this is counterproductive at earlier levels?

I'm sloshing around WL 4-ish doing "intuitive optimization:" low on spreadsheets and tracking, high on "doing the right things" (Western salary in LCOL country, free housing /water/electric, big city with well-developed public transportation - but I live on campus so I rarely take the bus), sometimes high on the wrong things too (eg. I'm not over experiences of food scarcity as a child so now I eat a kilo of strawberries at a sitting; I also spend too much time and money at cafes cause it's what my father used to do, and also, one of these days I really need to emdr myself about my fears re: investing, this is getting ridiculous).

Despite "the wrong things," "the right things" have me at an estimated savings rate of around 60% of income at my coasting job (I am at 15x median wage in my country of origin, 46x min wage, though this is unlikely to get me anywhere meaningful anywhere else in the world).

I believe I know what I want. At this point, what I want is to continue slowly releasing the psychological gunk that makes doing the rest of the right things, like eating fruit in moderation, exercising enough, having a sane, balanced investment portfolio, and so forth, be psychologically congruent with me as opposed to be a constant struggle against my neuroses. In other words, I would like inner peace and physical health, in that order., with the first taking precedence as I've tried for a long time to force the opposite order only to fail in whatever effort I undertake in 2 weeks because I'm constantly white-knuckling it against some neurosis or another. I already have ample time at my low-demand job to learn useless things for the joy of it (I was reading about Jewish Messianic Movements last) and to travel during the summer/winter/fall and spring breaks I get alongside my students.

Unsure what WL this makes me, but I'd say 3.5-4 (I still have a single income source and operate v much within the consumer economy with the exception of minor household diy and repair and things like clipping my own hair). In my situation, however, someone who found it easier to brute-force it because he's less in touch with himself would probably be at a WL5.

[Western Red Cedar]

Hypothesis:
WL8 - Changing the system from within.
WL9 - Changing the system from without by connecting with other systems.

I spent some time rereading the discussions on ERE 1 vs. ERE 2 this morning.

viewtopic.php?p=265772#p265772

I've previously thought that what you are describing in WL9 here actually took place in the transition from WL6 to WL7. Possibly earlier at WL 3-5. @theanimal, @ego, and @C40 talk about this in the thread linked above, noting that some members have naturally focused on developing an integrated system and WOGs earlier in their journey. Do you think more socially-oriented personalities simply gravitate to this earlier?

As someone who has spent a lot of energy on building and maintaining relationships in my personal life, it seems very alien that I wouldn't actively connect with other systems to improve efficiency, optimize opportunities, or develop an interconnected set of systems. From the wiki on systems theory:

"Systems thinkers are able to see themselves and their environment as a set of interconnected systems and not a bunch of disconnected activities. The systems thinker applies this knowledge to derive needs and wants from the environment and their activities and goals through stable, self-sustaining systems of their own design. Realizing that waste from one process could be input to another, the systems thinker closes these loops to their advantage."

Why wouldn't a systems thinker naturally gravitate towards changing the system from without by connecting with other systems?

[jennypenny]

Is WL8 a kind of inner minimalism? I feel like trying to connect systems at WL9 would be impossible if you're dragging around 8 levels of accumulated intellectual detritus.

I don't know a good analogy. Maybe removing the scaffolding once the structure is built? Not sure.

[jacob]

I've previously thought that what you are describing in WL9 here actually took place in the transition from WL6 to WL7. Possibly earlier at WL 3-5. @theanimal, @ego, and @C40 talk about this in the thread linked above, noting that some members have naturally focused on developing an integrated system and WOGs earlier in their journey. Do you think more socially-oriented personalities simply gravitate to this earlier?

As someone who has spent a lot of energy on building and maintaining relationships in my personal life, it seems very alien that I wouldn't actively connect with other systems to improve efficiency, optimize opportunities, or develop an interconnected set of systems. From the wiki on systems theory:

"Systems thinkers are able to see themselves and their environment as a set of interconnected systems and not a bunch of disconnected activities. The systems thinker applies this knowledge to derive needs and wants from the environment and their activities and goals through stable, self-sustaining systems of their own design. Realizing that waste from one process could be input to another, the systems thinker closes these loops to their advantage."

Why wouldn't a systems thinker naturally gravitate towards changing the system from without by connecting with other systems?

Consider the difference between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. We'll use food as an example.

A multidisciplinary meal is a plate with a pile of beans, a pile of potatoes, and a pile of turkey, all separated, likely provided by different people. They may or may not have relationships, but in general they do not/do not need to understand each other's cooking methods as each person makes one ingredient each in a disconnected manner. One might say that the plate is the system that brings the ingredients together to a meal, but overall, the cooking or synthesis is not very deep. In a multidisciplinary mode, one only understands the interface of the other disciplines, but one has no deep understanding or experience in terms of how the other disciplines work internally.

An interdisciplinary meal is a plate in which the different cooks get together and talk about how meat goes well with potatoes but not with icecream. As such , the interdisciplinary perspective recognizes that there are some relevant interactions in the plate they're producing together. Whereas in the multidisciplinary approach, all the different contributions may appear almost randomly together. In short, the potato cook understands enough about meat, at least in terms of how it tastes, to realize that it goes well with potatoes. In other words, a multidisciplinary project can have random collection of cooks each doing their own thing, but in an interdisciplinary project the participants all need to have enough understanding of each others cooking to at least be able to talk to each other.

A transdisciplinary meal is a fully integrated recipe using the different ingredients above to make something new, like perhaps a stew. The idea of a stew does not appear just because people are social. It requires that people are familiar not only with other ingredients taste but also with how they are cooked so as to integrate them as the ingredients cook together. E.g. the potato chef needs to understand that the meat should not just be boiled in the same way as the potatoes. In order to do transdisciplinary work, the person needs a deep understanding of MORE THAN ONE system. That's a very big ask and that is why I don't think it's a socializer/non-socializer issue. Socializing with people from other systems is not enough because that merely brings you to multidisciplinary insight or interdisciplinary insight after a while.

ERE1 peaks out at transdisciplinary capacity for one person. ERE2 is interdisciplinary and possibly transdisciplinary work between transdisciplinary people.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

I think maybe you're pushing the university model a bit hard. For example, I just completed my first semi-independent project in data analysis on the topic of the relative long term financial value of choice of college major. Because I also know a little bit of math and a little bit of finance, I chose to integrate the model of future value of growth annuity into the analysis, producing results that were possibly unique, potentially useful to a decision maker, but also totally boring.

IMO, a human who for example, got their M.S. in mathematics, then got another M.S. in chemistry, then got a PhD in economics would be less dimensional in their systems development than a human who ran their own bakery business, then worked as a doula in Sub-Saharan Africa, and then got a PhD in urban development.

[jacob]

@7wb5 - I may be using academic metaphors---because I have an academic background, although in this case I was using a cooking metaphor. What I'm pushing is essentially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_ ... complexity ...

WL5 - MHC 11 (optimization is the peak of analytical thought)
WL6 - MHC 11.5
WL7 - MHC 12
WL8 - MHC 12.5
WL9 - MHC 13

In the linked table, I would pay a lot more attention to the "what they do" and the "how they do it" columns than the examples column. If there's any lessons to be gained from the ERE WL table, it's that specific examples are not to be used as a [concrete] key to gauge the relevant level of complexity. It's very easy to get lost in the vernacular. I recall shooting down claims of "thinking in systems" described as having "one system for organizing my socks", "another system for organizing my recipes", "a third system for ...".

A really great book explaining how system-theory actually approaches a problem is https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Gen ... 0932633498 ... Whereas typical accounts still suffer a bit from presenting a particular system as a given and then focusing more on generalized parts of it, e.g. leverage, feedback, ... The Weinberg book explains how to reduce meta-systems to systems. Whereas more popular books, like Meadows, explains different systems through analysis. If you want to go meta, you definitely want Weinberg.

[xmj]

Going back to the basics

The naming schemes for WL8, "Actualization", and WL9, "Autonomous", comes from a Post in the WL thread, The ERE Wheaton Scale AND Loevinger's stages of ego development from 2017.

Some more magic happens on pages 10 to 13, where the updated table is fleshed out. Until finally in this post here jacob spells out a few things we have successfully revisited in this thread, such that I shall quote it in full:

<snip>
At 7-8 the stocks and flows of all these resources are put into and consolidated in systems. For someone spending $15k the total market value of these stocks and flow systems might tally $60k, but the actual monetary part of these flows is 4x lower. This is why the ERE HQ looks like our very middle class (60k median house hold income) neighbors on "THE SURFACE".

Now, I'd grant that someone operating under the same stock/flow/system paradigm could tally $100k in annual spending but this would imply they're running an operation with an equivalent "level 1-3" spend of $400k in consumer-world ... and I just don't know what that looks like because I've never seen it. In short, I've never met/seen someone spending over 30k in dollars who also had an integrated understanding of household systems and beyond-money resources. (I mean in the "truly knows" (kennen) sense, not just "knows about" (wissen) sense).

Moving onwards from WL7 to the new WS8, money is now "on tap" which means it fades into the background. It's there when you need it. You realize that your limits for self-actualizing in terms of "access, control, and optionality" are not what you can afford but what you bring to the table. Without those, you're stuck with "touristy"-entertainment like traveling, buying vehicles, "seeing" stuff, and paying for "experience-days".

However WS8 or the new WL8 is somewhat navel-gazing. You're just using your WL7 systems to "entertain" yourself. Basically, who you would be if money was not a problem. Someone who wins the lottery gets an instant chance at this. However, because they usually have zero skills, they'll be back at their old job soon enough. Having a very high-income (100k+) also affords such a lottery ticket resulting in the same story. After a couple of years of realizing the limits of personal skills---insofar the idea does not occur to develop them---it's back to the ole' career. OTOH, if you arrived at WL8 on the long way rather than the short cut, you might find yourself stuck "puttering around in your systems" after a while. There may (or may not) be a need to expand them which becomes possible once the other capital levels are high enough to gain access, control, and optionality to enter other spheres beyond the consistence of your beautiful systems. This sends you to WL9.

In some sense, this WL9 is the career equivalent of someone "who has made it" and who can largely write their own ticket. Except here they have options on all shelves of "being human" and not just within their career ("being a career specialist"). IOW, they can become anyone they want w/o being limited by money or personal skills. This is the "live player", who is no longer self-restrained by the need to be consistent with the systems they've designed. WL9 recreation also seeks to go beyond the self-indulgence that was the recreation of WL1-8---this is basically just opening up an entire new dimension to "play".

I'd say, I'm presently somewhere between 8 and 9, probably closer to 8 but definitely inspired by 9.

As always the last stage 10 is meant as a catch-all for everything beyond. So it's more like 10+. The hippie-talk descriptions are legit enough but represents more of a (my) guess at what a reality-based focus/orientation would be like. Many human development models venture into solving the dualism (body vs soul) problem here, but I see dualism of more of a special-interest (spiritual) problem than the general goal of transcendence... IOW it's a side-road dead-end. I might be wrong. I prefer to keep the descriptions directional (likely accurate) but vague (imprecise).

<snip>

Add: I didn't mean to be haughty. My point is that it's perfectly normal to be "stuck" or perhaps more accurately not see or realize the point of further development for long periods of time or even for the rest of one's life. For example, I sat around 7.5-8 for the better part of a decade and only recently grokked the possibility of breaking out. Certainly someone can reach WL5-6 and not feel any need or drive to break out---living out the rest of their natural life that way. In terms of the "2020 FIRE movement", I don't think I'm your huckleberry. For the most part, "FIRE" has just become the latest "cool" providing all the terminology but practically none of the spirit of the OG FIRE once it was discovered by the traditional high-income wannabe (multi-)millionaire consumer demographic that describes WL3. Also see https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths I don't think it can be "rescued" or "fixed". It just is. Live and let live.

<snip>

I updated the Wiki page later that year but I don't think I started to realize what it was all for. Now I do, I guess that's progress (or, aging.)

Have seen my own fair share of what's meant by "access, control, and optionality" -- and its absence. Also how growing networks will magically fix it.

[Jin+Guice]

@7: I have a response but it is way too long. I kind of agree, but also disagree with some parts.

The starting point of what I think is that relationship escalator monogamy is a specific set of assumptions bundled together about meeting a specific set of needs. This is similar to specialist careerism. There's really not much need to see this structure/ question it, unless you find it is not working that well for you...

@ertyu:

I don't think any self-development that leads towards greater self-knowledge is counterproductive at any time.

It seems like in the rest of your post you are asking if it's ok to do work that is not specifically financial before you figure out your finances? Not sure if I'm getting that right.

The answer to the question I think you are asking is also "yes."

It seems like you are also trying to say that you think doing this personal development work is slowing you down? But also that you aren't really able to laser focus on the one-dimensional goal of saving as much money as possible?

It's situational, but I don't think that saving to reach traditional FI is necessarily even a good goal (for everyone). I don't think you need to be FI to get to WL5. WL5 is about optimizing financial capital, which it doesn't sound like you've done. I don't think your personal development/ emotional work is getting in your way (if this is even what you are asking?), if anything I think it might be necessary to work through some stuff for you to optimize your finances?




@everyone:

Imagine a WL 1-5 chart of everyone capital. Our WL chart is about financial capital. I think the underlying assumption is that you are optimizing financial capital to meet your economic needs.

I agree with @jacob that, we live in a finacialized society, so financial capital dominates all other capitals for the majority of people. I take this to mean, financialized capital dominates all other capitals for the majority of people, when it comes to meeting their economic needs. Financial capital, imo, also mentally dominates. It's become a weird religion that generates its own purpose.

Being that financial capital is dominant and culturally prescient, I get why many want to optimize for that capital. I think it is totally possible to ascend the WL table in any other capital. The asterisk is that, ascending in say, emotional capital, is unlikely to meet your economic needs in the same way that ascending in personal capital = repairing/ making stuff will. This does not make it unimportant, it's just not all capitals are equally good at meeting your goods/ service needs.

Once you get to WL6, having developed other capitals is going to make your life easier. If you are 1 year away from being able to meet your needs in 4 different ways, then you will spend less time at WL6 than someone who is starting from 0 in all capitals aside from money.

You won't get to WL 6 faster, unless you can optimize a different capital to meet your economic needs. But you will get through WL6 faster.

Similarly, if you have already done the inner work of knowing who you are and intuitively knowing what you want with little inner conflict or turmoil, optimizing your capital flows (which requires knowing what you actually want to do when you get up, both without doubt or being implicitly or explicitly told what to do) will mean you are fast-tracked at WL7. It will not fast-track you to WL7 though.



eta: great post @xmj. I find myself both learning and agreeing!

[mountainFrugal]

@J+G this is why I used the analogy of the arrow shooting through multiple capital stacks. If you only developed the money (economic stack) you can shoot arrows through it all day. If you align other capitals for you WOG then you can start shooting through those capitals at the same time. Someone can prioritize other capitals (other than money/economic capital, this will show up as a different capital stack), but it will limit your growth later on if one of them is very underdeveloped. Liebig's law of the minimum strikes again! Developing all the capitals to a level where you can easily shoot through all of them with each of your individual actions that on the fly take in information about the internal and external environment can be thought of as the ultimate meta-goal.

[xmj]

@everyone:

Imagine a WL 1-5 chart of everyone capital. Our WL chart is about financial capital. I think the underlying assumption is that you are optimizing financial capital to meet your economic needs.

I agree with @jacob that, we live in a finacialized society, so financial capital dominates all other capitals for the majority of people. I take this to mean, financialized capital dominates all other capitals for the majority of people, when it comes to meeting their economic needs. Financial capital, imo, also mentally dominates. It's become a weird religion that generates its own purpose.

Being that financial capital is dominant and culturally prescient, I get why many want to optimize for that capital. I think it is totally possible to ascend the WL table in any other capital. The asterisk is that, ascending in say, emotional capital, is unlikely to meet your economic needs in the same way that ascending in personal capital = repairing/ making stuff will. This does not make it unimportant, it's just not all capitals are equally good at meeting your goods/ service needs.

Once you get to WL6, having developed other capitals is going to make your life easier. If you are 1 year away from being able to meet your needs in 4 different ways, then you will spend less time at WL6 than someone who is starting from 0 in all capitals aside from money.

You won't get to WL 6 faster, unless you can optimize a different capital to meet your economic needs. But you will get through WL6 faster.

Similarly, if you have already done the inner work of knowing who you are and intuitively knowing what you want with little inner conflict or turmoil, optimizing your capital flows (which requires knowing what you actually want to do when you get up, both without doubt or being implicitly or explicitly told what to do) will mean you are fast-tracked at WL7. It will not fast-track you to WL7 though.



eta: great post @xmj. I find myself both learning and agreeing!

Fair point, I think you might be on the cusp of new insights into the HOWLIE generating process !!

Imagine a spider chart showing the Five Capitals per Hughes

You may easily be able to create "passive income" in non-financial capital that benefits you just as well as financial capital would. Common examples would be any profession that has a "higher calling" component -- max out spiritual capital and become a priest to a well-endowed Church, monk in an abbey with a large domain, upper tier member in the Church of Scientology, etc.

The reason we focus so much on financial capital is because it is fungible and solves the double coincidence of wants. But if you're specializing in Social Capital, you can bank favors like I bank Swiss franks -- and withdraw them as needed; they will likely be more liquid than Credit Suisse.

The one problem is that non-financial capitals do not yield to cardinal measuring systems. Human Capital through Education can be ranked to some degree. A PhD in physics from the same university is provably more educated than a MSc from that university. How about a PhD in social work vs a BSc in Maths?

Anyway, it's probably a good idea to develop one factor really really well in the WL1-5 stages, before then branching out to get the others up to snuff in the WL6-10 stages. And it stands to reason that many of the HOWLIEs have done *exactly that*, just... not by focusing on financial capital like many of us here as the first one. Carrot, meet donkey...

@J+G this is why I used the analogy of the arrow shooting through multiple capital stacks. If you only developed the money (economic stack) you can shoot arrows through it all day. If you align other capitals for you WOG then you can start shooting through those capitals at the same time. Someone can prioritize other capitals (other than money/economic capital, this will show up as a different capital stack), but it will limit your growth later on if one of them is very underdeveloped. Liebig's law of the minimum strikes again! Developing all the capitals to a level where you can easily shoot through all of them with each of your individual actions that on the fly take in information about the internal and external environment can be thought of as the ultimate meta-goal.

I like to think of this less as 'shooting through' and more of irrigation systems with a number of wells, a number of storage basins with inflows from multiple wells, and a number of fields all desiring irrigation.

[mountainFrugal]

Indeed. Shooting through is an extension of the the arrow of time. The collapsing into the rolling human experience window of -3 seconds, now, +3 seconds. All of the storage basins are connected not just by pipes, but by a variance/covariance matrix that sits on top. That is what is being updated (not consciously), by a highly developed system of systems that can quickly and fluidly move resources between fields (or convert between capitals) based on interacting with the internal and external world.

[Jin+Guice]

Anyway, it's probably a good idea to develop one factor really really well in the WL1-5 stages, before then branching out to get the others up to snuff in the WL6-10 stages.

@xmj: I very much like your post and chart!

I disagree with this though. I don't think optimizing for one capital source is better than exploring multiple. This is why I made semi-ERE, though I did eventually optimize financial capital.

Of course "better" implies a goal or orientation. It's better if you want complete freedom-to or to climb the WL tables faster. My goal is to live a fun an interesting life, where I am aligned with myself and the world I live in. I started working on social and emotional skills before I had totally optimized for finances and have no regrets. But I'm still not FI so...

[xmj]

@xmj: I very much like your post and chart!

I disagree with this though. I don't think optimizing for one capital source is better than exploring multiple. This is why I made semi-ERE, though I did eventually optimize financial capital.

Of course "better" implies a goal or orientation. It's better if you want complete freedom-to or to climb the WL tables faster. My goal is to live a fun an interesting life, where I am aligned with myself and the world I live in. I started working on social and emotional skills before I had totally optimized for finances and have no regrets. But I'm still not FI so...

I understand where you're coming from. To fit personal development with the existing WL table, you need to develop one factor well and ... feel stuck for the 5->6 shift (or, desire to transition) to obtain.

If you do manage to keep all factors in balance as you grow in each of them, you do not end up in a "stuck" position that leads you to internet forums where growing more of them in concert after having optimized one is discussed.

Almost tautological that someone who does end up on a phpBB board focused on self development would have areas that are under-developed