Daystar Eld

459Joined Jun 2021


Thanks to both of you for writing this! Very valuable resource to have on hand, and a great review of different aspects of therapeutic modes of thought/self-help processes.

Great breakdown of the skills and concrete steps,  thanks for writing this! I can already tell I'll be linking people to this fairly often :)

I've been speaking to a number of people in university organizing groups who have been aware of these issues, and almost across the board the major issue they feel is that it seems too conflict-generating/bad/guilt-inducing to essentially tell their friends and peers in their or other universities something like "Hey, I think the thing you're doing is actually causing a lot of harm, actually."

I would be very in favor of helping find ways to facilitate better communication between these groups that specifically targets ways they can improve in non-blaming, pro-social and supportive ways.

This is an enormously valuable project, thank you and the others so much for continuing to work on making sure it can meet the community's needs!

Gavin covers the rest of it, so to talk about the "parts" thing; in this context I'm using it more as a semantic handle on what it means to have internal conflict, and not explicitly as an IFS thing. Psychotherapists have been talking about individuals as being made up of "parts" from the very beginning (Freud's Id, Ego, Superego) and  with all due respect to our mutual CFAR friend, if there's any other way to describe and interface with the experience of internal conflict as well, I have yet to hear it :) 

In other words, I've written "a signal from one or more of your parts" as basically equivalent to "a signal that you aren't fully convinced." I think the latter is lower-resolution way of saying the former, but could be convinced it's better if people largely expect the coaching to center around IFS-type things.

As for "shoulds," I think we can get rid of the way they exist as harmful things without eliminating what you call "moral obligations,"  which I agree are good things (and sort of important to the "Altruist" part of Effective Altruism!). Basically I consider the two phrases to be pointing at very different phenomena in general; I think "shoulds" comes from an external source, even if it's been internalized, while moral obligations are the result of internal generators, and aren't the sort of thing that would respond to the sorts of questions and interventions that  tend to dissolve shoulds.

Agreed, more public figures of people who found something meaningful and impactful that wasn't what they initially thought they would/should work on would help with that :)

This is great to hear and an interesting read, thank you for sharing!

Load More