Hmm, not sure you’ve spotted the tension. The tension arises from recognising that X is a problem in your social world, but not then incorporating that thought into your cause prioritisation thinking. This is the puzzling phenomenon I’ve observed re mental health.
Of course, if someone has—as you have—both recognised the problem in their social world, and then also considered whether it is a global priority, then they’ve connected their thinking in the way I hope they would!
FWIW, I think improving the mental health of EAs is plausibly very sensible purely on productivity grounds, but I wasn’t making a claim here about that either way.
I think the point Caleb is making is that your EAG London story doesn’t necessarily show the tension that you think it does. And for what it’s worth I’m sceptical this tension is very widespread.
Like IanDavidMoss says, I think the more interesting phenomenon you mention is the sudden and unnoticed switch to skeptical mode:
I then told them about my work at the Happier Lives Institute comparing the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers to treating depression and how we’d found the latter was about 10x better (original analysis, updated analysis). They suddenly switched to sceptical mode, saying they didn’t believe you could really measure people’s mental health or feelings and that, even if you could, targeting poverty must still be better.
After a couple of minutes of this, I suddenly clocked how weirdly disconnected the first and second parts of the conversation were. I asked them how they could be so sceptical of mental health as a global priority when they had literally just been talking to me about it as a very serious issue for EAs. They looked puzzled—the tension seemed never to have occurred to them—and, to their credit, they replied “oh, yeah, hmm, that is weird”.
Hmm, not sure you’ve spotted the tension. The tension arises from recognising that X is a problem in your social world, but not then incorporating that thought into your cause prioritisation thinking. This is the puzzling phenomenon I’ve observed re mental health.
Of course, if someone has—as you have—both recognised the problem in their social world, and then also considered whether it is a global priority, then they’ve connected their thinking in the way I hope they would!
FWIW, I think improving the mental health of EAs is plausibly very sensible purely on productivity grounds, but I wasn’t making a claim here about that either way.
I think the point Caleb is making is that your EAG London story doesn’t necessarily show the tension that you think it does. And for what it’s worth I’m sceptical this tension is very widespread.
Like IanDavidMoss says, I think the more interesting phenomenon you mention is the sudden and unnoticed switch to skeptical mode: