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.

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.

One common argument against veganism is that humans are carnivores. We aren’t. We are designed to eat cooked food.

Humans are cucinivores—the conjecture all vegans should know 

The crux: humans are a new and unique type of eater: cucinivores. We evolved to eat cooked food.

More on this here:

• Humans as cucinivores: comparisons with other species (2015)
• The Whippet #152: Omnivores vs Cucinivores (2022) [this is a friendlier write-up of the first paper]
• Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human (2009)

More people should know about this conjecture, and for anyone looking for a vegan-related research project, I believe the world would benefit from more research in this area (... (read more)

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

I wrote this post asking what success for sentience looks like. There's a good chance we humans are just another stepping stone on the path toward an even higher form of intelligence and sentience.

Applications are now open here:

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

Update Jan 4: Fixed, thanks! 🙏🏼

@Centre for Effective Altruism, is there a reason this video—From Bednets to Mindsets: The Case for Mental Health in Effective Altruism |  @Joy Bittner—is unlisted? 

I had watched it not long after it aired from a direct link in Vida Plena's newsletter. I was trying to find it again, but because it's unlisted it doesn't show up in YouTube search results. I feel all EAG talks like this should be public to give as much exposure to the ideas as possible.

Thanks!

We started a #role-coaches-and-therapists channel in the EA Everywhere Slack.

There will also be a meeting for coaches and therapists to talk about organizing and coordinating at the EASE monthly meeting on January 24, 2024. More details in the Slack.
 

This is mere speculation, but another group I'm on posited this might be part of it:
Sam Altman's sister, Annie Altman, claims Sam has severely abused her

There will be an EAG Coaching meetup during EAGxVirtual.
Feel free to join if you are a coach, therapist, or anyone in a related personal development field!

Saturday, November 18
8 PM UTC / 3 PM Eastern / 12 PM Pacific / 7 AM Sydney

https://meet.google.com/eas-pyaa-gxk

Or dial: ‪(US) +1 405-356-8141‬ PIN: ‪225 495 585‬#
More phone numbers: 
https://tel.meet/eas-pyaa-gxk?pin=9017005535543

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

I’m not affiliated with this, but I suspect it might be of interest to other folks 
https://www.humanflourishing.org/

Comedian Gary Gulman recommends GiveWell on Mike Birbiglia’s “Working It Out” podcast
 

That’s true but in my experience the two are related. Things you care about you’ll be better at and vice versa. The protagonist from Good Will Hunting is the exception, not the rule

Sure, I'm all for trial and error. But the key is to "fail fast." If you're white-knuckling it—or even just drifting along not really engaged—for months on end, it's time to make a change.

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... (read more)

Big Think just posted a video about improving leader selection by screening for psychopathy including narcissism… 

Seems like this is important, neglected, and possibly tractable. Is there anyone out there working on screening leaders for psychopathy?

I’ve been working on a logical, science-based definition of the arbitrary race labels^[1] we’ve assigned to humans. The most succinct definition I’ve come up with is evolutionary physiological acclimatization. Essentially, the bodies of the descendants of people living in an environment with specific climate attributes and trends will become more adapted to that environment. For example, the darker skin, larger noses, and bigger lips of people of African descent helped their ancestors survive in the intense sunlight and heat.^[2] Ironically, we hav... (read more)

Imposter syndrome is innately illogical. It presumes that everyone else either has poor judgment, or they see the truth but is going along with the deception that you aren’t capable of your current position. Poor judgment or “going along to get along” may be the case for any given individual, but when you add up all of the people in the group you interact with, it is statistically improbable, or it would require a Truman Show level of coordination to execute.

The antidote to imposter syndrome is trust. Trust in others to make fair and honest assessments of you and your capabilities. And trust in yourself and the objective successes you’ve achieved to reach your current place.

Thanks for the info! I fixed the broken link to Eric Barker's article on the Grant Study. Dr. Robert Waldinger—the current director of the study—just published a book called The Good Life, which I recommend if you want a deeper dive into the stories behind the data.

And here's an unpaywalled version Atlantic article from 2009 on the study.

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.

It could be helpful, but I think it's also important to have professionals involved too. I'm part of a Mastermind group, I have a coach, and I still go to support groups weekly. And on days I need some extra and I don't feel like my close friends are going to help, I use warmlines and hotlines like 7 Cups and 988.

Nobody says you should like everyone. No one says you should agree with everyone either, even those who are high-profile in the community. 

It sounds to me like this boils down to beware of logical fallacies, especially ad hominem. Don't criticize people; criticize ideas. Here are a couple of tactical things that have helped me:

• Pretend that a different person (e.g. one for whom you have positive regard) was making the same point.
• Distill their main points down to neutral tone language (I haven't tried it, but ChatGPT or other LLMs might be a good tool t

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. ... (read more)

Volunteers of America (VOA) Futures Fund Community Health Incubator

Accelerate your innovative business solution for community health disparities.

Volunteers of America (VOA), one of the nation's largest and most experienced nonprofit housing, health, and human service organizations, launched this first-of-its-kind Incubator to accelerate social enterprises that improve quality, equity, and access to care for Medicaid and at-risk populations. Sponsored by the Humana Foundation, the VOA Community Health Incubator powered by SEEP SPOT supports early-stage entr... (read more)

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: 

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older. It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not. The adage does not apply to questions that are more open-ended than strict yes–no questions.

This is more adjacent than relevant, but the sentiment reminded me of this bit of wisdom…

Don't scar on the first cut

from Rework by Jason Fried

The second something goes wrong, the natural tendency is to create a policy. "Someone's wearing shorts!? We need a dress code!" No, you don't. You just need to tell John not to wear shorts again.

Policies are organizational scar tissue. They are codified overreactions to situations that are unlikely to happen again. They are collective punishments for the misdeeds of an individual.

This is how bureaucracies are born. N

FWIW, I've been shopping around a "peer support group" (PSG) program pilot for the past year that I think will address depression, anxiety and lonliness. I've been talking to Roscoe from StrongMinds, who says they are planning a trial of a modified version of their current group interpersonal therapy (IPT-G) intervention. If anyone wants to talk further about this, please DM me. davecort@pm.me

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... (read more)

Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We can't go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesn't take ownership, doesn't make amends… then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.

So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.

Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, Toby. The problem with judgment in this scenario is that it presumes complete knowledge of all the factors at play in that situation. There are a lot of scenarios that could account for what was seen. Perhaps that person…

• doesn't know how to swim and doesn't know the pond is shallow and of no risk.
• once saw their sibling drown when they were a child and is frozen reliving the trauma of that incident.
• is impaired—sight, hearing, developmentally…—in a way where they cannot fully grasp the nature of the situation.
• chose to ca

Correct, which is why the phrase “any more” is key in that sentence.

I think you and I have different interpretations of the word “legitimate.” Oxford says “conforming to the law or to rules; … able to be defended with logic or justification.” I guess it is technically true if you are allowing for the possibility of fallacious logic.

Yes, people make faulty logical conclusions all the time. I’m not saying those people are bad or internally inconsistent. But if such a stance drives someone away from a cause area in which they could have had a tangible positive impact, that is a suboptimal outcome.

Alice: I get upset when people criticize EA on Twitter and in my life, and I feel the need to defend it.

☝️ That is the crux of what Alice needs to explore. Is Alice upset by criticism of EA (the principles),  or by criticism of someone’s actions who is—in some way—associated with EA? The two are very different.

Here's my experience donating bone marrow in the USA. I recommend all EAs in the USA sign up for the registry at Be The Match. You can decide whether or not to do it if you are asked. The odds of getting asked are 1 in 430.

I joined the registry in August 2012. I was asked to donate in April 2020 and did the donation in November 2020. Since I was already a registered organ donor (which should be opt-out, not opt-in… but I digress) it felt like the next logical step. Just a step up from giving blood.

I was actually surprised to be called upon, given the low odds of a match (1/430). And at one point in the process, it felt onerous and I nearly pulled out. But after thinking about how I would feel if I needed a transplant to possibly save my life, I went ahead with it.

The extract... (read more)

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.

Perhaps a poll would be useful to determine what sort of support the community needs and would engage in

• This likely means there will be a lot fewer assets for effective causes

It depends on where you set the baseline. Before FTX existed there were a lot LOT fewer assets for effective causes. Sure this will take the number down from some theoretical maximum, but the net is that if FTX doesn't generate another dollar for EA, it has already made a large, positive difference. 
🪙🪙

I'm a big proponent of Universal Basic Income. If people don't have to spend a significant amount of time worrying about satisfying their bottom two levels in the Maslow Hierarchy, it frees them up to do some pretty amazing things

Ryuji Chua advocates for the suffering of fish

Loved Ryuji’s interview on The Daily Show. His nonjudgmental attitude towards those who still eat animals is a wonderful way to keep the conversation open and welcoming. A true embodiment of the "big tent" approach that benefits EA expansion.

I also watched his documentary How Conscious Can A Fish Be? It’s always hard for me to see animals suffering, but I also know I need to keep renewing that emotional connection to the cause so I don't drift towards apathy.

Allow me to pitch the Maslow Hypothesis: money matters insofar as it addresses the bottom two levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: food, clean air & water, shelter, clothing, health care, safety & security… That's the rounding-off point of ~$75k in Figures 1 & 2. After that, Grant’s Razor kicks in, and the only thing that matters at that point are relationships.

This is why smaller, self-contained communities (Blue Zones, Amish/Mennonite communities, indigenous tribes…)—even without modern comforts and technology— are happier and live longer t... (read more)

Here's a framework I use for A or B decisions. There are 3 scenarios:

1. One is clearly better than the other.
2. They are both about the same
3. I'm not sure; more data is needed.

1 & 2 are easy. In the first case, choose the better one. In the second, choose the one that in your gut you like better (or use the "flip a coin" trick, and notice if you have any resistance to the "winner". That's a great reason to go with the "loser").

It's the third case that's hard. It requires more research or more analysis. But here's the thing: there are costs to doing this work. ... (read more)

FWIW:

“Although plant foods are generally lower in choline than animal foods, it’s found in small amounts in a wide range of plant foods. A vegan diet that emphasizes whole foods can provide enough choline.”

https://veganhealth.org/choline-updated/