Thanks a bunch for this article. It has inspired some useful thoughts for me. I relate to some of your considerations regarding philosophy (although I personally don’t consider my philosophical education to be a mistake), programming, medical school, and law.
You wrote about doctors being “to a large extent replaceable,” and taking this consideration at face-value in the past has made me give less consideration to the possibility of becoming a doctor. However, if you were a doctor, presumably you could be an earning-to-give doctor?
Also, just focus on what you’re good at. Don’t think so much in terms of what you want to do.
I like this suggestion if it’s construed abstractly (e.g., I’ve come to a point where I see thoughts of the form “I am good at , so I could do ” as potentially better than “I happen to be good at , so I should try to do ”). I think reading about effective altruism might also sometimes lend a sense of urgency to EAs that may hamper their long-term development. An example of this sense: “So, a lot of bad things seem to be happening, and I need to employ my current skillset ASAP to help ameliorate them.” This sort of thinking might constrain the possibilities that someone might think of.
You also can’t get too hung up on comparing yourselves to other people. When I was in high school, I was super good at math. I went to national-level math meets. But then I got to these meets and saw people who were even better than I was. Then I’m like, “Oh, man!” It’s really discouraging.
I have been discouraged at times as well and probably underestimated my abilities because I was often reading things from high-ability types. So, regarding writings, there was sort of a selection effect in that I was comparing myself to people who, by virtue of the process of seeking out their thoughts, were more developed than me in various ways. I raise this consideration so that others might recognize this component in their own self-assessments and persist in their development.
You wrote about doctors being “to a large extent replaceable,” and taking this consideration at face-value in the past has made me give less consideration to this possibility. However, if you were a doctor, presumably you could be an earning-to-give doctor?
Yes. Greg Lewis, a British doctor, estimates that earning to give in medicine beats direct medical work by a considerable margin. As he put it in an interview I had with him recently, “the chequebook can likely beat the stethoscope.” He also believes medicine is a reasonably good earning to give career, though probably not as good as other lucrative careers prospective doctors can pursue instead.
Yes, based on Greg’s analyses, this seems pretty clearly true for most developed world medicine.
However, it’s worth noting that Greg’s work is mostly about average marginal cases, and it’s mostly about the developed world. Circumstances could conspire to make the direct impact win in a few cases. If your top priority cause is developing world health, and you are prepared to practice medicine in a developing nation, then I might lean toward direct action. If you’re particularly talented in a highly leveraged area like public health medicine or cost-effectiveness research, then you could make a case either way. We might be able to have a better discussion about this after Greg publishes more on the topic.
Thanks a bunch for this article. It has inspired some useful thoughts for me. I relate to some of your considerations regarding philosophy (although I personally don’t consider my philosophical education to be a mistake), programming, medical school, and law.
You wrote about doctors being “to a large extent replaceable,” and taking this consideration at face-value in the past has made me give less consideration to the possibility of becoming a doctor. However, if you were a doctor, presumably you could be an earning-to-give doctor?
I like this suggestion if it’s construed abstractly (e.g., I’ve come to a point where I see thoughts of the form “I am good at , so I could do ” as potentially better than “I happen to be good at , so I should try to do ”). I think reading about effective altruism might also sometimes lend a sense of urgency to EAs that may hamper their long-term development. An example of this sense: “So, a lot of bad things seem to be happening, and I need to employ my current skillset ASAP to help ameliorate them.” This sort of thinking might constrain the possibilities that someone might think of.
I have been discouraged at times as well and probably underestimated my abilities because I was often reading things from high-ability types. So, regarding writings, there was sort of a selection effect in that I was comparing myself to people who, by virtue of the process of seeking out their thoughts, were more developed than me in various ways. I raise this consideration so that others might recognize this component in their own self-assessments and persist in their development.
Yes. Greg Lewis, a British doctor, estimates that earning to give in medicine beats direct medical work by a considerable margin. As he put it in an interview I had with him recently, “the chequebook can likely beat the stethoscope.” He also believes medicine is a reasonably good earning to give career, though probably not as good as other lucrative careers prospective doctors can pursue instead.
Yes, based on Greg’s analyses, this seems pretty clearly true for most developed world medicine.
However, it’s worth noting that Greg’s work is mostly about average marginal cases, and it’s mostly about the developed world. Circumstances could conspire to make the direct impact win in a few cases. If your top priority cause is developing world health, and you are prepared to practice medicine in a developing nation, then I might lean toward direct action. If you’re particularly talented in a highly leveraged area like public health medicine or cost-effectiveness research, then you could make a case either way. We might be able to have a better discussion about this after Greg publishes more on the topic.