Do you feel that existing data on subjective wellbeing is so compelling that it’s an indictment on EA for GiveWell/OpenPhil not to have funded more work in that area? (Founder’s Pledge released their report in early 2019 and was presumably working on it much earlier, so they wouldn’t seem to be blameworthy.)
I can’t say much more here without knowing the details of how Michael/others’ work was received when they presented it to funders. The situation I’ve outlined seems to be compatible both with “this work wasn’t taken seriously enough” and “this work was taken seriously, but seen as a weaker thing to fund than the things that were actually funded” (which is, in turn, compatible with “funders were correct in their assessment” and “funders were incorrect in their assessment”).
That Michael felt dismissed is moderate evidence for “not taken seriously enough”. That his work (and other work like it) got a bunch of engagement on the Forum is weak evidence for “taken seriously” (what the Forum cares about =/= what funders care about, but the correlation isn’t 0). I’m left feeling uncertain about this example, but it’s certainly reasonable to argue that mental health and/or SWB hasn’t gotten enough attention.
(Personally, I find the case for additional work on SWB more compelling than the case for additional work on mental health specifically, and I don’t know the extent to which HLI was trying to get funding for one vs. the other.)
Do you feel that existing data on subjective wellbeing is so compelling that it’s an indictment on EA for GiveWell/OpenPhil not to have funded more work in that area?
Tl;dr. Hard to judge. Maybe: Yes for GW. No for Open Phil. Mixed for EA community as a whole.
I think I will slightly dodge the question and answer the separate question – are these orgs doing enough exploratory type research. (I think this is a more pertinent question, and although I think subjective wellbeing is worth looking into as an example it is not clear it is at the very top of the list of things to look into more that might change how we think about doing good).
Firstly to give a massive caveat that I do not know for sure. It is hard to judge and knowing exactly how seriously various orgs have looked into topics is very hard to do from the outside. So take the below with a pinch of salt. That said:
OpenPhil – AOK.
OpenPhil (neartermists) generally seem good at exploring new areas and experimenting (and as Luke highlights, did look into this).
GiveWell – hmmm could do better.
GiveWell seem to have a pattern of saying they will do more exploratory research (e.g. into policy) and then not doing it (mentioned here, I think 2020 has seen some but minimal progress).
I am genuinely surprised GiveWell have not found things better than anti-malaria and deworming (sure, there are limits on how effective scalable charities can be but it seems odd our first guesses are still the top recommended).
There is limited catering to anyone who is not a classical utilitarian – for example if you care about wellbeing (e.g. years lived with disability) but not lives saved it is unclear where to give.
EA in general – so-so.
There has been interest from EAs (individuals, Charity Entrepreneurship, Founders Pledge, EAG) on the value of happiness and addressing mental health issues, etc.
It is not just Michael. I get the sense the folk working on Improving Institutional Decision Making (IIDM) have struggled to get traction and funding and support too. (Although maybe promoters of new causes areas within EA always feel their ideas are not taken seriously.)
The EA community (not just GiveWell) seems very bad at catering to folk who are not roughly classical (or negative leaning) utilitarians (a thing I struggled with when working as a community builder).
I do believe there is a lack of exploratory research happening given the potential benefits (see here and here). Maybe Rethink are changing this.
Not sure I really answered the question. And anyway none of those points are very strong evidence as much as me trying to explain my current intuitions. But maybe I said something of interest.
Do you feel that existing data on subjective wellbeing is so compelling that it’s an indictment on EA for GiveWell/OpenPhil not to have funded more work in that area? (Founder’s Pledge released their report in early 2019 and was presumably working on it much earlier, so they wouldn’t seem to be blameworthy.)
I can’t say much more here without knowing the details of how Michael/others’ work was received when they presented it to funders. The situation I’ve outlined seems to be compatible both with “this work wasn’t taken seriously enough” and “this work was taken seriously, but seen as a weaker thing to fund than the things that were actually funded” (which is, in turn, compatible with “funders were correct in their assessment” and “funders were incorrect in their assessment”).
That Michael felt dismissed is moderate evidence for “not taken seriously enough”. That his work (and other work like it) got a bunch of engagement on the Forum is weak evidence for “taken seriously” (what the Forum cares about =/= what funders care about, but the correlation isn’t 0). I’m left feeling uncertain about this example, but it’s certainly reasonable to argue that mental health and/or SWB hasn’t gotten enough attention.
(Personally, I find the case for additional work on SWB more compelling than the case for additional work on mental health specifically, and I don’t know the extent to which HLI was trying to get funding for one vs. the other.)
Tl;dr. Hard to judge. Maybe: Yes for GW. No for Open Phil. Mixed for EA community as a whole.
I think I will slightly dodge the question and answer the separate question – are these orgs doing enough exploratory type research. (I think this is a more pertinent question, and although I think subjective wellbeing is worth looking into as an example it is not clear it is at the very top of the list of things to look into more that might change how we think about doing good).
Firstly to give a massive caveat that I do not know for sure. It is hard to judge and knowing exactly how seriously various orgs have looked into topics is very hard to do from the outside. So take the below with a pinch of salt. That said:
OpenPhil – AOK.
OpenPhil (neartermists) generally seem good at exploring new areas and experimenting (and as Luke highlights, did look into this).
GiveWell – hmmm could do better.
GiveWell seem to have a pattern of saying they will do more exploratory research (e.g. into policy) and then not doing it (mentioned here, I think 2020 has seen some but minimal progress).
I am genuinely surprised GiveWell have not found things better than anti-malaria and deworming (sure, there are limits on how effective scalable charities can be but it seems odd our first guesses are still the top recommended).
There is limited catering to anyone who is not a classical utilitarian – for example if you care about wellbeing (e.g. years lived with disability) but not lives saved it is unclear where to give.
EA in general – so-so.
There has been interest from EAs (individuals, Charity Entrepreneurship, Founders Pledge, EAG) on the value of happiness and addressing mental health issues, etc.
It is not just Michael. I get the sense the folk working on Improving Institutional Decision Making (IIDM) have struggled to get traction and funding and support too. (Although maybe promoters of new causes areas within EA always feel their ideas are not taken seriously.)
The EA community (not just GiveWell) seems very bad at catering to folk who are not roughly classical (or negative leaning) utilitarians (a thing I struggled with when working as a community builder).
I do believe there is a lack of exploratory research happening given the potential benefits (see here and here). Maybe Rethink are changing this.
Not sure I really answered the question. And anyway none of those points are very strong evidence as much as me trying to explain my current intuitions. But maybe I said something of interest.