Dave Cortright

• Dave Cortright 16 Mar 2023 3:29 UTC

  25 points

  7 ∶ 10

  on: Time Ar­ti­cle Dis­cus­sion—“Effec­tive Altru­ist Lead­ers Were Re­peat­edly Warned About Sam Bankman-Fried Years Be­fore FTX Col­lapsed”

  I very much want this not to be true, but I suspect that if the Time editorial staff has done their due diligence, the odds of that are low. Thus it needs to be said:

  Anyone who was publicly proclaiming to care about long-termism but then secretly ignoring the broken step that was SBF—effectively trading ethics and morality for money and power—is not only a hypocrite but has done far more damage to EA than their lifetime contributions could ever offset.

  I have argued previously that conflating the actions of a person with the values of a group is a fallacy. However, when a subset of that group—especially ones in leadership roles—conspires to bury unseemly information, it starts to look like the whole group is specious, tainted, and untrustworthy.

  I look forward to the independent investigation report. But as resilient as I’ve been to the SBF implosion thus far, this is making me seriously reconsider how closely I want to associate with EA.

One EA’s Per­spec­tive on Depression

Com­bat­ing nar­cis­sis­tic poli­ti­ci­ans

Why ev­ery EA should work with a coach

• Dave Cortright 6 Apr 2022 23:04 UTC

  13 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Liars

  There’s a term I learned during the #MeToo revelations: broken step (or missing stair). Kelsey, I think you are right—people rationally look at the cost/​benefit of coming forward and conclude that the cost to them personally is too great for them to bear relative to the likely societal benefit.

  Anonymous review sites like GlassDoor and VC Guide could possibly be a model for exposing the truth in industries where speaking on the record could be a career-ending decision. And there are news sites like The Intercept that seem more willing to protect sources.
  
  Also, a shout-out to those courageous people who do the calculus and decide public interest outweighs potential personal backlash: Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Christine Blasey Ford, and Frances Haugen all come to mind ❤️

Aus­trian heiress Mar­lene En­gelhorn an­nounces plan for €25m giveaway

• Dave Cortright 3 May 2023 17:56 UTC

  11 points

  4 ∶ 0

  on: Story of a ca­reer/​men­tal health failure

  I see elements of a common story in EA: I’m ok at X and EA needs more X, so that’s what I’ll do, even thought I’m not super passionate about it. The value to the world will make up for my lack of enthusiasm. I will make a sacrifice for the greater good.

  This is a noble ideal, but in practice, I’ve never seen it sustained over the long term. There are a lot of ways to contribute to EA, and while some on paper might look more effective than others, intrinsic motivation dwarfs any of those differences. As long as you are choosing from the options within EA (or whatever you feel is effective), finalizing based on your internal compass is the way to go.

  Thanks for sharing your story. I’m confident it will help others “fail faster” and avoid spending too long on a path that doesn’t work for them.

• Dave Cortright 21 Feb 2023 22:37 UTC

  9 points

  3 ∶ 0

  on: Select Challenges with Crit­i­cism & Eval­u­a­tion Around EA

  1. Many People Hate Being Criticized

  ☝️ This is the foundational issue that needs to be addressed. We need to shift the attitude of the entire community to completely decouple criticism of an idea or action from criticism of the person. We must never criticize people. But we can (and as @Ozzie Gooen points out, we must) criticize an idea or action.

  This requires a shift on both sides. The criticizer needs to focus on the idea and even go as far as to validate the person for any positive attributes they are bringing to the situation (creativity, courage, grit…). But the person also needs to learn to not take criticism personally.

  I’d welcome any thoughts on how we as a community could foster such a change.

• Dave Cortright 17 Nov 2022 7:22 UTC

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: DaveC’s Shortform

  The Onion: What To Know About The Collapse Of FTX

  Q: What is the “effective altruism” philosophy Bankman-Fried practices?
  A: A movement to allocate one’s money to where it can do the most benefit for oneself.

• Dave Cortright 22 Mar 2024 0:13 UTC

  8 points

  3 ∶ 1

  on: On green

  For evidence-based personality tests, check out The Big Five (OCEAN) or its updated sibling, HEXACO.

• Dave Cortright 15 Feb 2024 17:44 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EAGxAustin Save the Date

  Applications are now open here:

  https://​​www.effectivealtruism.org/​​ea-global/​​events/​​eagxaustin-2024

• Dave Cortright 2 Apr 2023 1:52 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The Case for Earn­ing to Live

  This is objectively the best approach. If everyone just stepped up and put in the work to take care of themselves, we wouldn’t need charity at all. I shared the post with Hank Rearden and he’s 100% on board.

• Dave Cortright 18 May 2022 13:57 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: DaveC’s Shortform

  The Atlantic has a column called “Progress” by contributor Derek Thompson with the tag line: A special series focused on two big questions: How do you solve the world’s most important problems? And how do you inspire more people to believe that the most important problems can actually be solved?

  Sounds a lot like EA to me.

  Derek is holding virtual office hours on June 14

  https://​​www.theatlantic.com/​​progress/​​

• Dave Cortright 28 Apr 2022 13:54 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: On the fence about ap­ply­ing to EAG or EAGx? Talk to some­one (me?) who went!

  I’m willing to speak to people about my experiences at EAGx Boston 2022 and EAG London 2022. I’m already signed up for EAG San Francisco 2022, so clearly I think it’s a great use of time and resources.

  The number one reason to go is to connect with other EAs in person. I embraced the 1:1 philosophy and had about 50–60 1:1s combined over the two conferences. I am mid-career and knew only a handful of people from the online community. But people are friendly, want to connect, and want to help so it was super easy (barely an inconvenience) to schedule 1:1s and talk with folks. Even at meals, it’s not hard to just sit down at a table and strike up a convo with whoever is there.

  I’ve had follow-up conversations online, and it really helps to have established that in-person, face-to-face connection first.

  If you are worried about the expense, then apply for funding to go. CEA has been very generous with grants since they know fostering deeper connections in the EA community is one of the best ways to spend money.

  The one caveat is you should absolutely have at least a solid understanding of the EA philosophy and an earnest desire to contribute in some tangible way.

  You don’t need to be perfect to attend. I believe the EA movement benefits from having a more welcoming, “big tent” approach. So if you’re not fully vegan, don’t give 10% of your income to effective causes, or aren’t currently working in EA, that’s ok. I think we benefit from having as many people as possible “kick the tires”. Yes, that means some won’t go any further than that, but even for them, the seeds are planted and they may talk about EA with others in their lives. If we treat browsers with respect, they can be marketing allies to help spread the word.

JAMA: mas­sive study finds plant pro­tein healthier than an­i­mal protein

• Dave Cortright 9 Apr 2024 21:27 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An overview of promis­ing men­tal health interventions

  Great report, Stan! I’ve subscribed to follow your posts. I appreciate you collating all the evidence and conclusions of the data in the mental health space.

  Regarding alcoholism, I’m a fan of Johann Hari’s conclusion that “the opposite of addiction is [positive human] connection.” Stanford research supports this with their meta-analysis of alcohol treatment programs, finding the peer-support system in 12-step programs to be most effective.

• Dave Cortright 9 Apr 2024 20:14 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Men­tal Health Re­port (CEARCH) [Ex­ec­u­tive Sum­mary]

  I echo what John Salter said: this is great and it’s important to have more of reports like this to elevate the mental health cause area.

  Regarding health burden, what’s shown here is a significant underreporting. There is strong evidence that poor mental health leads to increased physical health problems. Some sources to consider are the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) study by the American CDC ( ACEs Aware is a good resource, too), The Loneliness and Isolation report by the US Surgeon General, The Harvard Grant Study, and the Rosteo Study.

• Dave Cortright 25 Oct 2023 21:58 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Should we in­vest more in sup­port­ing al­tru­ists to be at their best? (Men­tal health + pro­duc­tivity)

  Thanks for putting this together @SebastianSchmidt and @Amine. I appreciate you being conservative with your conclusions. However, my takeaway is that—even at their lowest ROI, it is still worthwhile for orgs to invest in the mental health and productivity of their staff, at least on a trial basis so they can determine through their own research how impactful the program is.

  A couple of more considerations:

  1. It may be more worthwhile for investment from EA umbrella funders that don’t care if the person moves to a different org but stays within EA.

  2. I personally believe that these sorts of investments early in someone’s career (the first 5–10 years) have compounding returns as that person grows their scope and impact.

  Certainly, there’s much worth additional follow-up, but overall this is a great result that will hopefully encourage HR and managers to feel more comfortable making investments here. If anyone wants to have a conversation around what that might look like, please do reach out to @SebastianSchmidt, @Inga, or myself (@Dave Cortright) who are passionate about making this happen.

• Dave Cortright 16 Dec 2018 1:17 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A Hap­piness Man­i­festo: Why and How Effec­tive Altru­ism Should Re­think its Ap­proach to Max­imis­ing Hu­man Welfare

  Great topic, and hopefully I’m not coming off as pedantic when I say that we really need to make a distinction between happiness (which I argue is one of the fleeting emotions no different than fear or anger or embarrassment) and fulfillment (aka serenity, inner peace, contentment). People who are fulfilled embrace all of their emotions (including happiness) without judgement or an attempt to control, and they process them by connecting with themselves and others in healthy ways, which further leads to fulfillment. We are social, emotional apes, and all of the higher order emotions exist in order to bring the social group closer together.

  So when it comes to measuring good, we should be measuring fulfillment, which itself is just a proxy for healthy emotional connections with other people. See the Harvard Longitudinal Study, Blue Zones, and Awakened Ape and even what it means to be a prosocial ape as some sources that point towards this theory.

• Dave Cortright 24 Mar 2022 17:43 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: saulius’s comment on: saulius’s Shortform

  Check out #33 on the Future Fund list of project ideas:

  https://​​ftxfuturefund.org/​​projects/​​