It doesnât feel contradictory to me, but I think I see where youâre coming from. I hold the following two beliefs which may seem contradictory :
1. Many of the aforementioned blindspots seem like nonsense, and I would be surprised if extensive research in any would produce much of value. 2. At large, people should form and act on their own beliefs rather than differing to what is accepted by some authority.
Thereâs an endless number of things which could turn out to be important. All else equal, EAâs should prioritise researching the things which seem the most likely to turn out to be important.
This is why I am happy that the EA community is not spending time engaging with many of these research directions, as I think theyâre unlikely to bear fruit. That doesnât mean Iâm not willing to change my mind if I were presented a really good case for their importance!
If someone disagrees with my assessment then I would very much welcome research and write-ups, after which I would not be paying the cost of
âshould I (or someone else) prioritise researching psychedelics over this other really important thingâ
but rather
âshould I prioritise reading this paper/âwriteup, over the many other potentially less important papers?â
If everyone would refuse to engage with even a short writeup on the topic, I would agree that there was a problem and to be fair I think there are some issues with misprioritisation due to poor use of proxies such as âdoes the field sound too weirdâ or âis the author high statusâ. But I think in the far majority of cases, what happens is simply that the writeup wasnât sufficiently convincing to justify moving away resources from other important research fields to engage further. This will of course seem like a mistake to the people who are convinced of the topicâs importance, but like the correct action to those who arenât.
It doesnât feel contradictory to me, but I think I see where youâre coming from. I hold the following two beliefs which may seem contradictory :
1. Many of the aforementioned blindspots seem like nonsense, and I would be surprised if extensive research in any would produce much of value.
2. At large, people should form and act on their own beliefs rather than differing to what is accepted by some authority.
Thereâs an endless number of things which could turn out to be important. All else equal, EAâs should prioritise researching the things which seem the most likely to turn out to be important.
This is why I am happy that the EA community is not spending time engaging with many of these research directions, as I think theyâre unlikely to bear fruit. That doesnât mean Iâm not willing to change my mind if I were presented a really good case for their importance!
If someone disagrees with my assessment then I would very much welcome research and write-ups, after which I would not be paying the cost of
âshould I (or someone else) prioritise researching psychedelics over this other really important thingâ
but rather
âshould I prioritise reading this paper/âwriteup, over the many other potentially less important papers?â
If everyone would refuse to engage with even a short writeup on the topic, I would agree that there was a problem and to be fair I think there are some issues with misprioritisation due to poor use of proxies such as âdoes the field sound too weirdâ or âis the author high statusâ. But I think in the far majority of cases, what happens is simply that the writeup wasnât sufficiently convincing to justify moving away resources from other important research fields to engage further. This will of course seem like a mistake to the people who are convinced of the topicâs importance, but like the correct action to those who arenât.