Some random thoughts on psychology and EA. We need to make some distinctions.
On the one hand you have a theory about suffering. CBT doesn't have a clear fixed theory, it updates given the evidence. Most refer to these evolutions as first wave (behaviorism) vs second wave (revolution of cognitions, Beck, 'typical' CBT) and third wave (mindfulness-based (MBCT) & value-based (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, ACT, a contextual behavioral science). The discussion continues.
Psychoanalytical and psychodynamisch therapies have different theories about suffering as well, but have some fixed ideas on the importance of early experiences.
There shoud be a difference between evidence based vs science based. Psycho-analytical (Freud, Lacan) theories aren't science based, although some interventions might be evidence based.
The dodo-bird effect is overrated and mostly people with different agenda's (promoting non science based interventions) misuse it to make their point. Be careful. Different forms of interventions do matter.
But psychology is a young science and a lot of things need to be fixed, updated and worked upon. Hope EA will contribute to this by taking a decent theory on psychological suffering into account. Before looking at evidence of different interventions. Contextual behavioral science might be a great place to start.
It seems to me there are lots of people who live below median wage with high life satisfaction and that increasing earnings could result in a smaller increase in happiness than helping inform people about the best ways to lead a satisfying life.
Do you think their is potential for more focus on how people can spend/save their money to maximise their well being? Or maybe more restrictions on advertisements and the tools they can use to promote spending?
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
This post is part of the Rethink Priorities Cross-Cause Fund (CCF) series on how to allocate funding across causes when it is uncertain what matters most.
...
Thanks to Bruce Friedrich, Seth Ariel Green, Tobias Leenaert, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Martine van Haperen, Herman Rohrbach, Chris Popa and Elizabeth Alvarez for comments. Claude helped structure the text. Ideas and mistakes are my own. I currently work with ProVeg International. The prize I propose would be defined and judged by an independent committee, and its money would fund scaling the winning solution(s), not ProVeg or the winner.
TL/DR
* EA could d...
Some random thoughts on psychology and EA. We need to make some distinctions.
On the one hand you have a theory about suffering. CBT doesn't have a clear fixed theory, it updates given the evidence. Most refer to these evolutions as first wave (behaviorism) vs second wave (revolution of cognitions, Beck, 'typical' CBT) and third wave (mindfulness-based (MBCT) & value-based (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, ACT, a contextual behavioral science). The discussion continues.
Psychoanalytical and psychodynamisch therapies have different theories about suffering as well, but have some fixed ideas on the importance of early experiences.
There shoud be a difference between evidence based vs science based. Psycho-analytical (Freud, Lacan) theories aren't science based, although some interventions might be evidence based.
The dodo-bird effect is overrated and mostly people with different agenda's (promoting non science based interventions) misuse it to make their point. Be careful. Different forms of interventions do matter.
But psychology is a young science and a lot of things need to be fixed, updated and worked upon. Hope EA will contribute to this by taking a decent theory on psychological suffering into account. Before looking at evidence of different interventions. Contextual behavioral science might be a great place to start.