EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
DavidNash2
0
0

Maybe that means there should be more focus on personal finance and working out how to be happier on less. It could also mean people are at the beginning of the careers and it will get much easier to give 10% after pay rises. Is there a question on the EA survey about if there is a change in the percentage/amount given between years?

Also it could be that people need to push themselves smarter rather than harder. Spending an extra ten hours in the office a week might not give the same return on spending those outside of work on other activities.

Not that people can't push themselves harder, but we need to think about what that entails.

Reply
See in context
by ricoh_aficio
2 min read 5

16

BurnoutSelf-care and wellbeing
Frontpage

I thought this article made some important points, so received Andrew Critch's permission to repost this on the Forum from his blog. You can find the original post at http://acritch.com/fun-does-not-preclude-burnout/.

 

As far as I can tell, I’ve never experienced burnout, but I think that’s only because I notice when I’m getting close. And in recent years, I’ve had a number of friends, especially those interested in Effective Altruism, make the mistake of burning out while having fun. So, I wanted to make a public service announcement: The fact that your work is fun does not mean that you can’t burn out.

I often hear something like

“Don’t worry about the crazy hours I’m working; I’m not using willpower to force myself to work, I’m really enjoying it!”

Aside from seeing this fail in a number of serious cases, it’s also a visibly invalid argument about how your mind works, especially in light of a specific mental pattern that blatantly violates it: addiction.

An addiction takes no willpower to indulge, but still happens at the expense of your other needs. It would sound absurd for a heroin addict to say “I’m really enjoying this heroin, so I definitely won’t blow all my money on it.” But somehow I think a lot of people fail to realize when their work turns into an addiction… something that part of them really enjoys and can do lots of, but which other parts of them sometimes need a break from, to put it mildly. “Workaholic” doesn’t mean “Masochist”… it means “addict”.

Now, it’s true that lack of fun can cause burnout. But fun isn’t the only thing you need! Some possible contenders for things you mind/body might “need” on a long-term basis:

  • sleep
  • nutrition
  • friendship
  • fun
  • love
  • sex
  • time with <specific person>
  • …

What does it mean for your mind to “need” something? Well, if your mind has some sub-process that will hijack the rest of it if you don’t get enough friendship, then for the time being, your mind “needs” friendship. Maybe there are some things you can do to be more or less needy, sure, and maybe some of that stuff is even a good idea. I’m just saying, don’t forget that you have needs just because one of your needs — fun — is getting a super-stimulus.

(Followed by Embracing boredom as exploratory overhead cost.)

16

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Michael_S14
0
0

I understand the importance of reducing burnout, but I wonder if, as a movement, we aren't placing too much emphasis on reducing burnout compared to pushing ourselves to do more. Anecdotally, I see more EA articles about self care than pushing oneself to do more. I can see why there are some publicity benefits of reducing burden when it comes to attracting new people to the movement, but when it comes to discussing within the community, my guess is the EV of pushing oneself to do more is positive for most people in the movement.

As an example how we may be doing too little on the average, only around 23% of those who revealed their donations in the 2014 EA survey. donated at least 10% of their income. Obviously there's more ways to be an EA than donating and many of these individuals are students, but it does suggest that many people can push themselves a lot harder. I would be surprised if most people needed more than 90% of their salaries for adequate self care. I think we need to strike a balance between self care/pushing ourselves harder, but my suspicions are that we should move in the latter direction. I would love to find more concrete evidence either way though.

Reply
DavidNash2
0
0

Maybe that means there should be more focus on personal finance and working out how to be happier on less. It could also mean people are at the beginning of the careers and it will get much easier to give 10% after pay rises. Is there a question on the EA survey about if there is a change in the percentage/amount given between years?

Also it could be that people need to push themselves smarter rather than harder. Spending an extra ten hours in the office a week might not give the same return on spending those outside of work on other activities.

Not that people can't push themselves harder, but we need to think about what that entails.

Reply
kbog1
0
0

Hit the nail on the head. Especially considering how tenuous the relation between money and happiness is. I have honestly not seen a single article or even social media post (by anyone except me) describing ways to improve your mental propensity to sacrifice wealth.

Reply
LarissaHeskethRowe0
0
0

I think you're probably right on this when it comes to donations as it's less likely that less money would necessarily mean less sleep or time with friends. However, the article seems to be talking more about working, whether that means in a high paid job with long hours, volunteering in all of your spare time or working long hours in an EA role you love. You're still probably right that many people can push themselves more than they currently are. Any suggestions on how to identify where the line is for an individual would be really interesting to discuss.

Reply
kbog0
0
0

I think the right way to do it is to try things out and see what you can do. It's well known that we can't easily predict the careers we'll enjoy or the way our interests will change in the future. The same thing applies when thinking about what would be too demanding.

Reply
More from ricoh_aficio
31
Use "care" with care.
ricoh_aficio
· · 4m read
9
9
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing? In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.  Why?  Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.    That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus. The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too. The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.  (“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.) The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.  Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century.  Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Introduction Although there has been an increase over the last few years in EA work for aquatic animals, there are still significant gaps and challenges in this space. We believe there is a misconception that the existence of new organisations means that the area is 'covered'.  Our purpose in this post is to highlight the gaps and challenges in aquatic animal welfare. We argue that an ecosystem of multiple charities and approaches in the space is needed (including overlapping work on species, countries, and/or interventions). We will also explore some of the challenges that currently hinder the development of this field and offer recommendations within the 'white space' of aquatic animal welfare. Our goal is to initiate a dialogue that will lead to more robust and varied approaches. Why we need more groups working in the aquatic animal space There are not that many people working in this space Animal welfare programs have traditionally been focused on terrestrial species. However, recent years have witnessed a burgeoning interest in aquatic animal welfare within the Effective Altruism community. This could raise the question as to whether we need more charities focusing on aquatic animals, to which we want to argue that we do. Aquatic animals encompass a wide range of species from fish to crustaceans, and are subjects of increasing concern in welfare discussions. Initiatives by various organisations, including our own (Fish Welfare Initiative and Shrimp Welfare Project), have started to address their needs. However, these efforts represent only the tip of the iceberg.  The depth and breadth of aquatic animal welfare are vast, and current interventions barely scratch the surface. For example, while there is growing awareness and some actions by various charities towards the welfare of farmed fishes, the welfare needs and work on invertebrates like shrimps are still in nascent stages. Situations are vastly different between regions, species, and intervention
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
This is a crosspost from my new Substack Power and Priorities where I’ll be posting about power grabs, AI governance strategy, and prioritization, as well as some more general thoughts on doing useful things.  Tl;dr I argue that maintaining nonpartisan norms on the EA Forum, in public communications by influential community members, and in funding decisions may be more costly than people realize. Lack of discussion in public means that people don’t take political issues as seriously as they should, research which depends on understanding the political situation doesn’t get done, and the community moves forward with a poor model of probably the most consequential actor in the world for any given cause area - the US government. Importantly, I don’t mean to say most community members shouldn’t maintain studious nonpartisanship! I merely want to argue that we should be aware of the downsides and do what we can to mitigate them.    Why nonpartisan norms in EA are a big deal Individual politicians (not naming names) are likely the most important single actors affecting the governance of AI. The same goes for most of the cause areas EAs care about. While many prominent EAs think political issues may be a top priority, and politics is discussed somewhat behind closed doors, there is almost no public discussion of politics. I argue the community’s lack of a public conversation about the likely impacts of these political actors and what to do in response to them creates large costs for how the community thinks about and addresses important issues (i.e. self-censorship matters actually). Some of these costs include:  * Perceived unimportance: I suspect a common, often subconscious, thought is, 'no prominent EAs are talking about politics publicly so it's probably not as big of a deal as it seems'. Lack of public conversation means social permission is never granted to discuss the issue as a top priority, it means the topic comes up less & so is thought about less, and i
Relevant opportunities
79
High-impact & urgent funding opportunity - Rodent fertility control
Nitin Sekar
· · 4m read
5
5
58
UK Mass Lobby Day to End Cages on the 21st October
eleanor mcaree
· · 1m read
0
0
43
The NAO is Hiring for Partnerships, Response, Virology, and Wet Lab Management
Jeff Kaufman 🔸, SecureBio
· · 2m read
0
0
View more