I had a draft of this post sitting around since 2022 so I thought that it'd be best to post this during draft amnesty week instead of allowing another few years go by.
TLDR;
| Many EAs undervalue their own happiness because… | However… |
| Tradeoffs between happiness, success, and altruism exist | These tradeoffs are primarily present in the short term and don’t apply longer term |
| Unhappy people can be successful/altruistic | Happy people are likely more successful and altruistic in expectation |
| They want to signal that they are trying hard enough | Signaling that being happy while doing good is healthier and more effective |
| They use unhappiness as a motivator | Unhappiness is an inefficient motivator compared to intrinsic motivation |
| Don’t feel they deserve happiness | EA isn’t a competition where only the best EAs are allowed to be happy |
| Transitioning towards happiness is costly | Small steps to prioritizing happiness matter and accessible resources exist; even so, the investment is worth it |
Brief Personal account
For a long time, I didn’t think that my happiness mattered much. It’s not what society rewarded me for; I did well in school not by being happy, but by putting in the work. And it didn’t seem like it would make the world a better place; I did good not by making myself happy, but by preventing suffering in other people and making other people happy. Also, in the grand scheme of things, my happiness is just a drop in the ocean of conscious experience. So my happiness didn’t really matter. Or so I thought.
I suspect that this line of reasoning is not uncommon within the effective altruism community, which consists of people who tend to be both ambitious and altruistic. Both of these traits may lead to EAs underprioritizing their happiness.
Possible Reasons
Tradeoffs Between Happiness, Success, and Altruism Exist
First, I will loosely define happiness, success, and altruism. Happiness is having pleasant subjective feelings; these feelings include hedonic pleasure, feelings of purpose, and general satisfaction with life[1]. Success includes “conventional success” (wealth, popularity, prestige, job title) or “EA success” (amount donated, working in a EA org, EA forum karma, being effective at altruism); for the purposes of this post, happiness is not included as a metric of success.
Ambitious people may see happiness as only an instrumental goal to the ultimate goal of being successful. And in many cases, there is a direct tradeoff between happiness and success. For instance, it may mean that a student gives up doing a fun activity to study a subject they may not like to earn a good mark.
Similarly, altruistic people may care so much about the suffering and/or problems in the world that they think that their happiness is self-indulgent. For instance, the money spent on (vegan) ice cream could have been donated to the Against Malaria Foundation.
In many situations, there is a direct opportunity cost to doing a fun[2] activity or spending money on things that make you happy.
Caveats
Short term tradeoffs between happiness and success, and happiness and altruism tend to be the most salient tradeoffs. The longer term dynamics between happiness, success, and altruism are much more complicated. At the current margin, for many people, optimizing directly for happiness will also increase long-term effectiveness. In subsequent parts of the post, I use the term success to encompass both success and altruism.
Unhappy people can be successful/altruistic
Many successful people, including many in the effective altruism community, struggle with poor mental health. These people may include students at top universities, professors, leaders, and more. They seem to provide evidence that happiness isn’t necessary to be successful/altruistic, even in longer timeframes. Combined with an obvious short-term increase in productivity and altruism of neglecting happiness, it becomes easy to fall into the belief that your own happiness doesn’t matter to be effective. The converse of this is also true. There are many happy people who are not successful and altruistic.
Caveats
Many people have been able to be successful while having poor mental health for long periods of time, but they are likely anomalies among the groups of unhappy people and successful peopleConsider the following probabilities for someone under the same conditions in two different universes except for happiness levels.
P(successful and altruistic | happy) vs. P(successful and altruistic | unhappy)
P(not functional | happy) vs. P(not functional | unhappy)
Here, being not functional roughly means operating at a 20% or less of normal capacity. Some examples include being so anxious that there is no way to focus on most responsibilities or so depressed/burnt out that there is not enough energy to do much if anything at all.
I claim
P(successful and altruistic | happy) > P(successful and altruistic | unhappy)
P(not functional | happy) << P(not functional | unhappy)
Therefore, E(positive impact | happy) > E(positive impact | unhappy)
And it seems like the research supports this as well.[3]
Therefore, being happy is more likely to lead to being more successful and altruistic, and being unhappy is much more likely to become “not functional”. Even if it is slightly more likely to be successful and altruistic while being unhappy, the expected value of being happy is higher due to the significant difference between the likelihood of not being functional.
Signaling
When someone is visibly happy or doesn’t seem stressed, some people may think that they aren’t trying hard enough, that they have more bandwidth to do more or to make personal sacrifices. In some workplaces, this indeed is the reality.
Some people often feel that their most important relationships professionally or in the EA community are contingent on perceived effectiveness. Combined with the above signaling effect, this creates a direct social incentive to burn your spare resources, including at times when saving them up is the optimal strategy. I hypothesize that this might be more relevant to people who might feel like their social connections in EA and work relationships are unstable and thus need to signal how hardworking or altruistic they are.
Caveats
The signaling argument assumes that doing good requires great sacrifice. Many people do not automatically think that being happy implies not trying hard enough, and ultimately, what matters is the work output rather than the amount of personal sacrifice. Environments where people look down on those who are visibly happy are unhealthy.[4]
There are other ways to signal that you care about doing good, such as being excited and intrinsically motivated to make a positive impact. Seeing others who are happy and making a positive impact can motivate others to make a positive impact and become more excited about doing good. Hence, being successful, altruistic, and happy is a positive signal!
Unhappiness as a Motivator
Sometimes it’s easy for someone to be afraid that happiness and self-compassion can lead to complacency, and therefore lose motivation to become better or do more good.
Caveats
When unhappiness becomes the motivator to “do good” or “be successful,” the underlying motivator is often feeling ”not good enough” either about oneself or society. Hence, the feeling of “not good enough” becomes a proxy measure of success or how much good has been done, and the subconscious focus becomes disproving the feelings of “not good enough” rather than doing things that will actually make a positive difference. As a result, maladaptive behavior patterns can arise such as ruminating about being “not good enough,” avoiding constructive feedback or facts about the world because it means being “not good enough,” and falling into resignation or burnout because things will never be good enough. None of these behavioral patterns help with doing good or becoming a better person, and I wouldn’t be surprised if these behavior patterns are fairly common among people who are driven by unhappiness as the primary motivator.
An alternative does in fact exist, and I’ve met people who are intrinsically motivated to do good and grow as a person so that it becomes a fun process. Having a direct intrinsic motivation to doing good and growing eliminates the inefficiencies of using the indirect mechanism of motivation from “not good enough.”
Feelings of Not Deserving Happiness
People may feel like they are a “bad EA” for a variety of reasons, and they may self-inflict some suffering as a punishment for being “bad[5].” In theory, negative reinforcement should prevent people from doing things that would make them a “bad EA.” In some cases, “bad” may be worse than someone else in the EA community. The rationale for this may also be similar to that of signaling.
In addition, a lot of the arguments above treat happiness as instrumental to being a “good EA,” whatever that means. Under certain philosophical frameworks, personal happiness might seem to not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Caveats
EA is a team sport, not a competition where only the best EAs are allowed to be happy.
Some questions worth considering:
- Given that you likely care about the happiness of people in the global south you don’t know, people who don’t exist yet, and/or animals suffering in factory farms, why is it that you don’t deserve happiness?
- Is happiness something to be earned when you attain some level of success? What kind of society would we live in if only the most successful people were allowed to be happy?
- Do you judge others as harshly as you do yourself?
And as discussed in “Unhappiness as a Motivator,” using negative reinforcement is less efficient to getting positive outcomes.
Transitioning Towards Happiness is Costly
Perhaps it is possible to realize happiness does matter either instrumentally or intrinsically, but prioritizing it can be extremely difficult. Good therapy and psychiatric care can be incredibly expensive. Often, the transition to happiness involves cutting some slack in certain areas of life to be able to learn how to be happy rather than resort to overcommiting and using stress to get things done.
Caveats
I won’t deny that it is hard to change decades-old patterns of deprioritizing your happiness, and every step towards prioritizing it contributes to a habit of prioritizing happiness over time.
There are resources that are more accessible. The EA Mental Health navigator lists apps, books, workshops, online communities, and lower cost programs including those from outside of the EA community.
Even if it does take a lot of effort to invest in your happiness, I argue it is an investment with high returns. Not only will you do good sustainably, but you will also show others that you can do good and live a good life.
Recap (TLDR copy pasta)
| Many EAs undervalue their own happiness because… | However… |
| Tradeoffs between happiness, success, and altruism exist | These tradeoffs are primarily present in the short term and don’t apply longer term |
| Unhappy people can be successful/altruistic | Happy people are likely more successful and altruistic in expectation |
| They want to signal that they are trying hard enough | Signaling that being happy while doing good is healthier and more effective |
| They use unhappiness as a motivator | Unhappiness is an inefficient motivator compared to intrinsic motivation |
| Don’t feel they deserve happiness | EA isn’t a competition where only the best EAs are allowed to be happy |
| Transitioning towards happiness is costly | Small steps to prioritizing happiness matter and accessible resources exist; even so, the investment is worth it |
Acknowledgments
I appreciate Alex, Aron, Jalex, Juan, Kathryn, Mathias, Patrick, Sev, Sofie, Tara, and Tazik reviewing a draft of this post, providing feedback, and encouraging me to post it. I take responsibility for all errors in this document.
And thank you for taking your time to read the post! I’d love to hear from you in the comments or DMs. :)
- ^
I realize I am defining happiness broadly here. From a draft commenter: These components differ quite a bit and there is a substantial philosophical debate to be had about which of them matter for making a life good. I suspect most EAs do quite well on feelings of purpose even if they are unhappy by the standards of pleasure/suffering or overall life satisfaction.
- ^
Friend recommended book: The Power of Fun by Catherine Price
- ^
One of my draft readers linked a bunch of research supporting my argument that happiness is good for productivity:
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/35451/1/522164196.pdfhttps://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/77864/8/MPRA_paper_77864.pdf
And happiness is good for altruism:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28837957/https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-11018-015
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354635655_Subjective_Well-Being_and_Prosociality_Around_the_Globe_Happy_People_Give_More_of_Their_Time_and_Money_to_Others
- ^
From a draft commenter: I strongly believe that it's pretty off-putting to people outside the inner circle of the cult if every dedicated EA (hyperbolically) is a cranky burnt-out adderall zombie who lives exclusively off astronaut food.Personally, I tend to intuitively avoid the hardest-working EAs because they are not very pleasant company. Some of them tend to believe I'm a hedonistic slacker who's dangerous to the culture though.
- ^
From a draft commenter: in therapy, there is a notion that when we feel guilty, we seek punishment. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=guilty+seeking+punishment&btnG=
I think self neglect is a common theme in EA, comparing individual stakes to whatever big problem of choice can make it easy to try to do too much and pursue impact in an unsustainable way.
Agree that taking care of oneself is probably instrumentally good in the long run.
I remember someone arguing that they tried to balance their altruistic motivation with their other values (a healthy view in my opinion), and someone pushed back along the lines of "you should only care about yourself instrumentally, you should value all sentient beings equally".
(I wanted to quote it but I can't find it)
And this idea of impartiality, "valuing all sentient beings equally", is part of the cultural canon of EA, early in the introductory program, and the reason why I don't feel comfortable identifying as part of the movement.
I'm curious about what is the consensus (if any) on how far should the idea of impartiality taken. Do the people in charge really mean it when they posit impartiality as a core EA value?
Does most people here adhere to it, or is it just something that is directionally agreed on to different degrees, but it is still expected that we (as individuals) matter more to ourselves than other beings?
Some thoughts this comment sparked for me:
There's inherent tension and logistical tradeoffs of having multiple values and acting in accordance with all of those values with your finite time/energy/resources/abilities/etc. I think most about this whenever I see organizations (esp. businesses) that list ~10 values they operate under, and it just feels ridiculously inaccurate to me. Like, sure I'm sure the org. wants to value all of those things, but you just literally can't act in entirely in accordance with all of those values at all times since there are many situations that inherently require you to choose between two directly conflicting values that are both important. I find thinking about values in terms of "this before that" much more helpful, e.g. a real life example for me related to this would be: I value sentient beings equally(1), and I value the natural order of the food chain. Because of the first value, I'm plant-based and don't eat animal products. In everyday life, this doesn't conflict with seeing value in the food chain because, even if it's sometimes a bit inconvenient, I am able to eat plant-based.
But let's say I was in some kind of a deserted island situation for a long enough time that it was a choice between catching/eating some fish and dying. Now, would catching and eating fish be my first choice? No, because I have both values. Would I do it if I had to? Yes, because when the two directly conflict, I value the natural food chain over valuing sentient beings equally. Would I feel bad about it? Yes, because eating fish would still be against my values and just because this situation brought about a conflict that required me to act out of alignment with my values as a last resort for survival, doesn't mean that I have entirely discarded the value. But I wouldn't feel so bad that I'd beat myself up about it because I hold that value of the food chain as more important.
And therefore, when the situation changes and I'm off the deserted island, I can realign my behavior with my values and no longer eat fish because the two things are no longer in conflict. Because of the "this before that" thinking, I'll also avoid the mindset of "I did ultimately eat fish, so I guess I might not actually value sentient beings equally." Instead the mindset would be more like "I always valued sentient beings equally even when I ate the fish, and now that I'm out of that situation, I'm relieved to be able to return to acting in alignment with both values"
So, in a rambley way, I guess what I'm really saying here is that I think awareness and intentionality around the tradeoffs/conflicts can help square the fact that we as humans value multiple things and the fact that it's not always possible to act in accordance with all of those values. And being really honest with yourself about those "this before that"s is crucial and doing so with the tone/energy of "it's just a fact right now that my behavior is saying that value x over y, and maybe I feel like I want my behavior to be saying I value y over x" without shame and with an eye to the why is helpful, e.g. when I was still eating meat despite understanding they were living beings, I came to recognize that I was valuing eating meat over valuing non-human lives. And, at the same time, I also valued not killing living beings. Clearly, those values directly conflict, but there was definitely cognitive dissonance. Interestingly, what got me from being vegetarian was valuing the environment/ecosystem and not because I was resolving this cognitive dissonance or conflict yet, so my mindset became more like "I value the ecosystem more than I value eating meat." And when I came to recognize these conflicts/cognitive dissonances at various stages, the recognizing alone didn't radically change my behavior immediately, but the conflicting decisions did become active choices that I was aware I was making (2) which has led me to now acting more intentionally aligned with my values than I feel I ever have been in my past (3).
All to say, I think there's a lot of power in shedding light on these conflicts and cognitive dissonances through active thinking/awareness of what our behavior is saying we value vs what we think we do and why that tradeoff is happening and whether or not that tradeoff is one we're willing to make at this time
(1) setting aside certainties about which beings are sentient for this and just going with this general blanket statement, though for the sake of full disclosure, I'm mentioning that I'm not sure this statement is fully accurate without more caveating, nuance, thinking, etc.
(2) though perhaps I was not as explicitly formal in this as this description might be making it seem haha
(3) an ongoing process that'll never really be finished :p
PS: this comment got away from me and became more like some thinking out loud self-reflection sparked by your words than an actual response to you, so whoops but also thanks for the spark :)
Hey, great post! I also find the relationship between these three factors of success, altruism, and happiness fascinating. On P(successful | happy) vs P(successful | unhappy), I mostly think this is a wash - examples come to mind easily in both camps. I do think though that the people in the successful and unhappy camp really grips our minds, perhaps because of how counterintuitive it is. Also, a person who is really successful and unhappy can be a wild card and court a lot of drama/controversy and attention (media and interpersonally) making a person of that combination seem more common through availability heuristic. But if I actually start listing out hyper-successful people as an exercise and ballpark their happiness, I think most aren't at least particularly unhappy.
Even so, there are clear examples of P(successful | unhappy) along with mechanisms that seem plausible - insecurity and feelings of not being good enough that drive both the unhappiness and success. But I think the majority of ambition and desire to effect change in the world is almost always something other than unhappiness. Sometimes unhappiness adds a little to it or can be believed to be the fuel, but personally, as I've become more accepting of myself, I haven't lost any ambition; I've just had more degrees of freedom and agency to exercise it.
I think this holds true for other people who are successful and unhappy. Ambition seems almost genetic, some people just have that engine and work ethic. I'd suspect that even if you removed the unhappiness, most of their work ethic would persist, and thus their success would persist. Not only that, as you stated in the article, you can replace the ways of motivating yourself that make you unhappy with intrinsic motivation and love for your work.
Additionally, there are huge negative effects of having unhappiness drive your success: anxious short-sighted decision making, inefficient energy use from stress, and sometimes burnout that completely capsizes a person. Some people succeed despite these costs, but they might be more successful if they resolved those psychological issues. They can maintain their drive through intrinsic motivation instead and let go of the downsides.
If we add altruism into the equation though, P(success and altruism | happy) vs P(success and altruism | unhappy), I think it becomes a clear win for the happiness camp. This is especially true for the vast majority of people who don't have philosophical commitments to altruism. The natural orientation of someone who is mentally unwell and unhappy is to tend to those wounds first (and often hurt other people in the process - “hurt people hurt people”). Also, I think the sentiment, "you can't pour from an empty cup" is true. On the other hand, when I'm happy (and I think this generalizes) it's natural to have the desire and energy reserves to make others happy too.
>> Signaling
Beyond the caveats you made, I think there's another insightful question: do I want to be perceived as doing good, or actually do good? Even if it were true that people perceive you as lazier when you're happy (which I strongly believe to not be true for most people), if the above premise holds that probability of higher success and altruism are higher given happiness, then we ought to prioritize actually being effective by being happy.
>> Feelings of Not Deserving Happiness
To be honest, I think this is really the meat of the article. Everything else I wrote seems like a fun intellectual exercise in comparison. I suspect this is what's really driving this conversation in the first place, that is the base feeling of "not deserving happiness" gives rise to discourse that serves to intellectualize our way out of it. But as they say, you can't reason yourself out of a position you didn't reason yourself into in the first place. It's trying to solve the problem at the wrong level.
You sort of expose the illusion of "deserve" with the questions you pose in this section. They all kind of show how ridiculous the question of "deserving" is. Like, is there some sort of success and contribution to society to happiness conversion rate I'm not aware of? This idea of deserving or not deserving happiness has no rational basis. These are feelings. How could a statement like that ever be true or untrue? I think we ought to want happiness for everybody!
Perhaps most convincing though is this bold claim: life is better when you're happy. So uh, why not be happy?
Additionally, I think figuring out how to make people happy is an extremely important problem, and to help our loved ones and strangers, the experience and wisdom gained from getting to that happy place in our own lives is crucial.
Again though, these are all intellectual lines of reasoning, when at the end of the day, I think strong feelings of not deserving happiness will prevent any of them from landing. The emotion should be dealt with more directly on an emotional level.
I would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts!
All of this shows that much more can be done to increase the number of altruistic people, because, after all, if happiness is a motivation... happiness is something that, in general terms, we give to each other.