I started clicking on more links, and it’s No es buena mis amigas.
So there’s links to a happiness think tank, and a link to a UK government program for wellbeing.
It’s great and excellent that people are using wellbeing as metrics as part of complex interventions...which is normal and has been done for decades everywhere.
But:
These don’t “use this approach”. That these are used as metrics for healthcare work and other policy outcomes, is not at all sufficient evidence that we can focus on interventions solely targeted to these metrics of wellbeing.
Also, these links take time to get anywhere, this is not a good smell.
This isn’t dispositive, but there is a major presentation issue in how would-be authoritative content is being cited. What do we think this is, AI safety? There should be clearer standards of evidence and argument.
I started clicking on more links, and it’s No es buena mis amigas.
So there’s links to a happiness think tank, and a link to a UK government program for wellbeing.
It’s great and excellent that people are using wellbeing as metrics as part of complex interventions...which is normal and has been done for decades everywhere.
But:
These don’t “use this approach”. That these are used as metrics for healthcare work and other policy outcomes, is not at all sufficient evidence that we can focus on interventions solely targeted to these metrics of wellbeing.
Also, these links take time to get anywhere, this is not a good smell.
This isn’t dispositive, but there is a major presentation issue in how would-be authoritative content is being cited.
What do we think this is, AI safety?There should be clearer standards of evidence and argument.