I write this post to continue the journey of thought exercises that I believe are excellent tools to enable beginners to gauge priorities and thus to serve as strategic assets in the process of leveling up.
However, this post differs from its predecessors in that it considers differing perspectives to the concept of money itself.
It is immensely useful to read a multitude of writings theorizing about money from a variety of authors and time periods. The FDS handbook has an excellent beginning list to serve your immediate goals.
However, it is also useful for other reasons. For the purpose of this post, it is helpful to glean what authors of these texts believe about the purpose of money and its intended function. Discerning these beliefs can further assist you strategically in your journey to level up.
While it is true that generalizations of this nature can detrimentally remove outliers from one’s consideration in specific implementations of analytical exercises, please remember that this is an example
of a thought exercise, not commandments carved into stone.
As one reads through a multitude of books over years of effort, belief patterns do emerge.
For female authors and advisors, the existence of money is implicitly tied to the security necessary to guarantee autonomy.
For male authors and advisors, the existence of money is explicitly tied to one’s privilege to have positively consequential speech.
This male monetary belief exists, primarily because many men consider verbal expressiveness to be gauche to say the least, and thus tend to not to be eloquent speakers in comparison to women who hold similar professions, etc.
So how do men live without saying much in a world where communication is expected 24/7?
By the belief that the more money one has, the more things that can be said (and had). Also the more that it is possible to delegate verbal obligations to experts, i.e. Women.
For example, consider the idea of corporate personhood; as in the US, where corporations can legally donate money to political entities as expressions of speech, despite historical precedent in the form of campaign finance laws prohibiting this practice.
Such macro-scale buffoonery may perhaps inspire one to wonder,
how do men express what their priorities are if verbal means are out?
As the FDS Handbook sayeth, actions.
But specifically, look for actions that indicate where and what men spend their money on.
There exists no other equivalent way to gain quantitative insight as to what men actually value.
Find out if he donates to political causes or charities. Find out the recipient, quantity, frequency, & timing of these donations.
This information can help immensely when gauging if this person is a worthy expenditure of your time and effort.
Also on a related note, a guy describing himself as “socially liberal and fiscally conservative“ should always be designated as a block and delete automatically because it is sheer laziness at best and malicious incompetence at worst.