I wanted to apply for the prize criticizing EA but unfortunately I’m too late. Here it is anyway.


 

EA is interested in big ideas but there are 8 billion people on this planet and you’ve got to bring them along with you - you can’t change the world for them, you have to encourage them to change the world with you.


 

So, encourage your followers: if someone self identifies as an EA supporter, acknowledge them. If you put your email address on the internet, you’ve got to expect people to write to you and you need to reply, partly because it’s polite and partly because you’re trying to build a community here.


 

You can have a standard reply that is both encouraging and yet non-committal.


 

Some of the ideas may sound strange- if you’re going to set yourselves up as idea specialists, you need to investigate new ideas.That takes time and has many blind alleys but occasionally you’re going to find gold. You can’t decide without doing some investigation or you could miss a big idea.


 

So here’s a new idea that I can’t get anyone in the EA community to investigate -a way to get rid of chronic pain.


 

It’s quick and free. According to EA guidelines, I need to give 3 reasons why this is a good idea- can you not kind of work it out for yourselves?


 

If not, let me fill in the blanks. First, it stops pain. By freeing people from pain, you allow them to live more productive lives. Second, you massively relieve health care burdens worldwide. Third, people can save a ton of money on painkillers and anti-inflammatories (not such good news for pharmaceutical companies but they will still be needed for acute pain.) Fourth, it should reduce the number of people getting addicted to opioids. Fifth, it could bring in a  new era where doctors try to treat the whole body, lifestyle, diet, exercise etc rather than just hand over a prescription. Fifth, you can retrain a whole bunch of back care surgeons to work on another area of the body.Sixth, you encourage people to believe that some problems do have a solution and that solution lies in their own hands.


 

How does it work? You write down your emotions on a piece of paper, rip it up and throw it away.

Full details here:https://stuartwiffin.substack.com/p/pain-and-what-to-do-about-it 

 

I’m sorry if this sets the wrong tone but when I saw what Dr David Hanscom had discovered, I couldn’t imagine why it’s not better known. I’m trying to spread his work and I’m tired of banging my head on closed doors.


 

-8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

As someone with chronic pain, this post infuriates me. I read the linked page. It basically says "chronic pain is caused by your neural pathways learning unwanted behaviour. Solution: this piece of paper trick!". It doesn't make any sense and doesn't link to any actual research.

In reality, I don't expect to have better treatment options in the coming decade or two. We're leagues away from understanding chronic pain mechanisms.

Hi Guy,  

Have you tried it? It only takes a few minutes- what I'm looking for here is anecdotal evidence- please post on my linked page WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS- I need data/anecdata

You also say I don't link to any research, but there are a few links on my post(which I'll repeat here)  which I think are interesting:

Why things hurt Lorimer Moseley

Dr Hanscom at google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5cwZ2iu8jU&t=2327s

Dr Howard Schubiner at google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VyH1laOd2M&t=1052s

2 articles in slate

https://slate.com/technology/2021/02/chronic-pain-neuroscience-education-running-joy.html?

https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/chronic-pain-identity-spoonies-support-recovery.html

Lorimer Moseley on pain https://trustmephysiotherapy.com/50-shades-of-pain-with-lorimer-moseley/

Another blistering talk on back pain here- how to understand and control your pain Dr Stuart McGill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLme5ybP9wY

and the history of expressive writing. James W Pennebaker talking to Jordan Peterson

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/episode-11/

 

I would say the evidence here is enough to justify spending money on a trial to get the research!

Anecdata in this case is worse than no data.

Hi Guy, 

Have you tried it? It would take a few minutes of your time and it's really a win-win- either it works (as it did for me) and your pain goes away or it fails and you get to call me out as a charlatan and a hoaxer with actual data rather than just a prejudice- hope to hear from you soon! Both here and on the substack.

ok but without anecdotes we can' t even try new things, which is the basic criticism of EA I was making in my post. There are many people (how many? who knows?) who have been helped by these methods, we're fairly sure our current ideas about pain are wrong.

https://trustmephysiotherapy.com/50-shades-of-pain-with-lorimer-moseley/ 

and yet we're unable to move forward and try something new.

Have a look at this man talking about his journey away from pain and then tell me it's not worth our time investigating. It's 6 minutes of your life, from 2.54 to 9.00

 

And, as I said before, please feel free to try the "method" and , if it really doesn't work for you, call me out and say it didn't work- but don't tell me it won't work before trying it because that's even worse than anecdata.

here's Richard Feynman explaining that you can't make assumptions about the world- you have to test them.  http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/607/2/Feynman.pdf 

I don't know if you've seen Peter Singer's thought experiment of the girl in China?

https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism 

Here's another thought experiment- imagine there's a way to cure millions of people of their pain for free but because it sounds a bit wacky you just refuse to try it- step over their bodies and carry on walking down the road. You wouldn't, would you?

It's optimistic to hope that chronic pain can be cured as easily as by writing problems on a piece of paper and ripping it up. This probably only works for some people, though, and for many others the suggestion to do this would come across as condescending and probably make matters worse.

This might be a useful tool in the chronic pain management arsenal, along with CBT (which is already a staple chronic pain treatment) and other mindset-based approaches like that of Dr John Sarno.

Yes, it might only work for some people- what I would like to know is whether those "some people" are 5%, 10%, 50% or 90%- that would tell us how many of the 65 million disability years could be saved.  And when I went to the doctor and physiotherapist, CBT  and mind-body wern't mentioned- just painkillers and anti- inflammatories- and lots of exercises, which I've detailed here: https://stuartwiffin.substack.com/p/fascia-and-lower-back?s=w 

So, data!  I posted this as a reply to another post:

Has anyone ever done a proper trial (with independent funding!)  of the methods proposed by James Pennebaker,  John Sarno, Howard Schubiner, Alan Gordon or (my personal favourite- it worked for me) David Hanscom?

I saw that Scott asked for volunteers for a trial here : https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/26/book-review-unlearn-your-pain/ 

"Part of me is tempted to recommend Unlearn Your Pain to my patients on the same principle. And if any readers of this blog have chronic pain and want to try  the month-long self-help therapy course in this book, I would be very interested in hearing back from you (please tell me before you start, so that there aren’t response biases).  "

But I don't know if anyone ever took him up on the offer. The actual treatment costs are virtually zero, so if these methods work (partially?) they could potentially save a large number of those 65 million disability years. It's the ultimate effective altruism project. Surely someone who reads this has the authority and cash to get a proper trial done?

 

As Guy points out, I don't link to any research because I can't find any- let's do some!

It's not a useful tool if noone has heard of it...

And it's not optimistic, it's factual, evidence based- I've done it now on 7 people and I've basically run out of people I know with pain- does anyone out there know anyone with chronic pain who would be willing to give this a try? If so, please get in touch so I can keep a tally of the results.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Confidence: Medium, underlying data is patchy and relies on a good amount of guesswork, data work involved a fair amount of vibecoding.  Intro:  Tom Davidson has an excellent post explaining the compute bottleneck objection to the software-only intelligence explosion.[1] The rough idea is that AI research requires two inputs: cognitive labor and research compute. If these two inputs are gross complements, then even if there is recursive self-improvement in the amount of cognitive labor directed towards AI research, this process will fizzle as you get bottlenecked by the amount of research compute.  The compute bottleneck objection to the software-only intelligence explosion crucially relies on compute and cognitive labor being gross complements; however, this fact is not at all obvious. You might think compute and cognitive labor are gross substitutes because more labor can substitute for a higher quantity of experiments via more careful experimental design or selection of experiments. Or you might indeed think they are gross complements because eventually, ideas need to be tested out in compute-intensive, experimental verification.  Ideally, we could use empirical evidence to get some clarity on whether compute and cognitive labor are gross complements; however, the existing empirical evidence is weak. The main empirical estimate that is discussed in Tom's article is Oberfield and Raval (2014), which estimates the elasticity of substitution (the standard measure of whether goods are complements or substitutes) between capital and labor in manufacturing plants. It is not clear how well we can extrapolate from manufacturing to AI research.  In this article, we will try to remedy this by estimating the elasticity of substitution between research compute and cognitive labor in frontier AI firms.  Model  Baseline CES in Compute To understand how we estimate the elasticity of substitution, it will be useful to set up a theoretical model of researching better alg
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for the 2023–2024 period. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and working sheet for this evaluation. We look forward to your questions and comments! This report estimates Giving What We Can’s (GWWC’s) impact over the 2023–2024 period, expressed in terms of our giving multiplier — the donations GWWC caused to go to highly effective charities per dollar we spent. We also estimate various inputs and related metrics, including the lifetime donations of an average 🔸10% pledger, and the current value attributable to GWWC and its partners for an average 🔸10% Pledge and 🔹Trial Pledge.  Our best-guess estimate of GWWC’s giving multiplier for 2023–2024 was 6x, implying that for the average $1 we spent on our operations, we caused $6 of value to go to highly effective charities or funds.  While this is arguably a strong multiplier, readers may wonder why this figure is substantially lower than the giving multiplier estimate in our 2020–2022 evaluation, which was 30x. In short, this mostly reflects slower pledge growth (~40% lower in annualised terms) and increased costs (~2.5x higher in annualised terms) in the 2023–2024 period. The increased costs — and the associated reduction in our giving multiplier — were partly due to one-off costs related to GWWC’s spin-out. They also reflect deliberate investments in growth and the diminishing marginal returns of this spending. We believe the slower pledge growth partly reflects slower growth in the broader effective altruism movement during this period, and in part that GWWC has only started shifting its strategy towards a focus on pledge growth since early 2024. We’ve started seeing some of this pay off in 2024 with about 900 new 🔸10% Pledges compared to about 600 in 2023.  All in all, as we ramp up our new strategy and our investments start to pay off, we aim and expect to sustain a strong (a
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
TLDR: This 6 million dollar Technical Support Unit grant doesn’t seem to fit GiveWell’s ethos and mission, and I don’t think the grant has high expected value. Disclaimer: Despite my concerns I still think this grant is likely better than 80% of Global Health grants out there. GiveWell are my favourite donor, and given how much thought, research, and passion goes into every grant they give, I’m quite likely to be wrong here!   What makes GiveWell Special? I love to tell people what makes GiveWell special. I giddily share how they rigorously select the most cost-effective charities with the best evidence-base. GiveWell charities almost certainly save lives at low cost – you can bank on it. There’s almost no other org in the world where you can be pretty sure every few thousand dollars donated be savin’ dem lives. So GiveWell Gives you certainty – at least as much as possible. However this grant supports a high-risk intervention with a poor evidence base. There are decent arguments for moonshot grants which try and shift the needle high up in a health system, but this “meta-level”, “weak evidence”, “hits-based” approach feels more Open-Phil than GiveWell[1]. If a friend asks me to justify the last 10 grants GiveWell made based on their mission and process, I’ll grin and gladly explain. I couldn’t explain this one. Although I prefer GiveWell’s “nearly sure” approach[2], it could be healthy to have two organisations with different roles in the EA global Health ecosystem. GiveWell backing sure things, and OpenPhil making bets.   GiveWell vs. OpenPhil Funding Approach What is the grant? The grant is a joint venture with OpenPhil[3] which gives 6 million dollars to two generalist “BINGOs”[4] (CHAI and PATH), to provide technical support to low-income African countries. This might help them shift their health budgets from less effective causes to more effective causes, and find efficient ways to cut costs without losing impact in these leaner times. Teams of 3-5