This might be alright. See these guidelines though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
Lila
Karma: 400
You should probably explain what SODIS is.
Do you have plans to publish summaries of the research you do, e.g. on Wikipedia
Wikipedia’s policies forbid original research. Publishing the research on the organization’s website and then citing it on Wikipedia would also be discouraged, because of exclusive reliance on primary sources. (And the close connection to the subject would raise eyebrows.)
I think this is worth mentioning because I’ve seen some embarrassing violations of Wikipedia policy on EA-related articles recently.
It feels like telling two rival universities to cut their football programs and donate the savings to AMF. “Everyone wins!”
Anyway, two billion dollars isn’t that much in the scheme of things. I remember reading somewhere that Americans spend more money on Halloween candy than politics.
My point was that opiates are extremely pleasurable but I wouldn’t want to experience them all the time, even with no consequences. Just sometimes.
“Reducing “existential risk” will of course increase wild animal suffering as well as factory farming, and future equivalents.”
Yes, this isn’t a novel claim. This is why people who care a lot about wild animal suffering are less likely to work on reducing x risk.
I’ve had vicodin and china white and sometimes indulge in an oxy. They’re quite good, but it hasn’t really changed my views on morality. Despite my opiate experience, I’m much less utilitarian than the typical EA.
I agree that points 1 and 2 are unrelated, but I think most people outside EA would agree that a universe of happy bricks is bad. (As I argued in a previous post, it’s pretty indistinguishable from a universe of paperclips.) This is one problem that I (and possibly others) have with EA.
I’d be happy if the EA movement became interested in this, just as I’d be happy if the Democratic Party did. But my point was, the label EA means nothing to me. I follow my own views, and it doesn’t matter to me what this community thinks of it. Just as you’re free to follow your own views, regardless of EA.
Yeah it’s confusing because the general description is very vague: do the most good in the world. EAs are often reluctant to be more specific than that. But in practice EAs tend to make arguments from a utilitarian perspective, and the cause areas have been well-defined for a long time: GiveWell recommended charities (typically global health), existential risk (particularly AI), factory farming, and self-improvement (e.g. CFAR). There’s nothing terribly wrong with these causes, but I’ve become interested in violence and poor governance in the developing world. EA just doesn’t have much to offer there.
The OP itself is confusing, but I agree that EA is very focused on a narrow interpretation of utilitarianism. I used to think that EA should change this, but then I realized that I was fighting a losing battle. There’s nothing inherently valuable about the name “effective altruism”. It’s whatever people define it to be. When I stopped thinking of myself as part of this community, it was a great weight off my shoulders.
The thing that rubs me the wrong way is that it feels like a motte-bailey. “Effective altruism” is vague and appears self-evidently good, but in reality EAs are pushing for a very specific agenda and have very specific values. It would be better if they were more up-front about this.
I’m not sure in what context they could be given. Unsolicited is weird. In the context of an expected gift (like a wedding), it would make you seem oblivious or even rude. I think Giving Games work better for this purpose because it’s a social event.
I think the claim that depression “is probably worse that many, if not all, other forms of suffering in terms of happiness” is far too strong and you haven’t provided sufficient evidence for it. As you said, you’re not a psychiatrist, and I think you’re relying too much on a priori (and somewhat tautological) reasoning, evidence from self-reporting of questionable validity, and outdated research on adaptation (see the meta-analysis that I linked in another comment). There’s a case to be made for your position, but it needs to be strengthened to justify your sweeping statements.
The reason I brought up schizophrenia is because it felt like you were moving the goalposts, not because I expected you to have a solution. You brought up aggregate mental illness statistics but then only discussed depression. But thank you for admitting the mistake.
I feel like this is a motte-bailey argument. Sure, in some trivial sense “depression” is what everyone cares about, in that everyone wants to prevent suffering. A chicken on a factory farm is “depressed”. An acid attack victim is “depressed”. But it seems like when you say depression, what you really mean is “feelings of lethargy, apathy, and discouragement that afflict many people (particularly Westerners) at some point during their lives”—this is what most people understand depression to mean. It’s certainly arguable whether this is worse than many other forms of suffering, and it feels a bit arrogant to glibly dismiss other experiences.
Furthermore, you continue to use “mental health disorder” as synonymous with “depression”. As I asked before, where’s your solution for schizophrenia?
A meta-analysis seems to contradict that (as well as claims in the OP): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/
Where do non-depressive mental illnesses such as schizophrenia fit in here?
First of all, let me say that I agree that mental health is very important. But I think you’re approaching this in a culturally insensitive way that excludes the experiences of many people.
“’mental health is really bad, even worse than poverty” Yeah that’s the type of statement that sounds super cringey (though I assume you mean mental illness, not mental health). When I saw your post, I was like, “Oh I’ll bet anything this is based on his own experiences with depression.” The link to your app confirmed this. While your experience was unfortunate, it can blind you to the reality of other people’s suffering.
I’m very skeptical of the cross-cultural validity of depression diagnosis, particularly when it involves self-reporting.
Violence and disempowerment is not only a problem of failed states—it’s a nearly universal experience for the poor. You might also want to read A Plague of Locusts which describes the everyday violent crime experienced by the poor, even in “middle-income” countries such as Peru, which has one of the highest rates of sexual violence in the world. The book also presents more statistical evidence for how widespread mental health problems are among crime victims in the developing world.
The idea that people in the developing world are mentally unaffected by everything from police abuse to unprosecuted rape and murder (when we know that these are traumatizing to people in the developed world) has unfortunate echoes of old racist stereotypes. Nineteenth century explorers were often surprised to see indigenous people crying: whites had assumed that non-white races were more resilient and less emotional. (Think of the “stoic Native American” stereotype.)
“[The intervention] will attempt to encourage cash transfer recipients to reconsider fundamental aspects of themselves, their surroundings, and their future by showing them a brief video and providing interaction with a coach.”
Ouch, hope that’s not as patronizing as it sounds, though it might be worth testing at a small scale.
“hedonic adaptation applies to severe pain”
I find this implausible. Where’s the citation?
One of the few things I remember about EA Global, through my haze of jet lag, was how much your baby screamed during the talks.