I’m reflecting on how we’ve had a lot of outsider orgs join the Forum lately (ex. Sanku) and wondering if Marginal Funding Week might get quite crowded. It was pretty hard to get above the fold last year.
Perhaps maybe (1) a pre-agreed posting schedule and/or (2) spreading it over 2 weeks could be good? Very unsure, but it crossed my mind as worth raising
I’m generally pro-YODA (although I think the name is perhaps a little unserious?). I think it’s very legible to people who care about mental health, or wellbeing more generally, and I like that it’s on the same order of magnitude as a WELLBY so the conversions are easy to do in one’s head. I think DALYs are probably still going to be the only way people in EA global health will care about psychotherapy, however.
I think if anything, I’ve approached the Cuijpers paper from the mechanisms first. In my personal experience, I’ve used things I’ve learned in therapy over and over, (but I’m not chronically depressed). It seems like basic skills (boundary setting, emotional regulation, behavioural activation) could be like learning to ride a bicycle.
My mental model of severe mental illness is that you have little control (without pharmacology) over the weather in your mind, but you do have some ability to regulate your response to those feelings.
So to me the Cuijpers paper reads as not disconfirming the belief I already held
On treating the young: My best guess is this would make sense after a certain age, but it’s unclear what the age is. There’s decent evidence to suggest conventional psychotherapy doesn’t work on children, last I checked (memory may be completely off here).
I read through the paper and although they try some different fits for the cubic spline, they never explain this choice as opposed to other modelling methods
They did test regions, and found no effect. But the ‘Other’ region includes the Iran papers HLI have discussed at length before.
There’s no moderation for whether people pursued therapy after the trials. I guess, in fairness, this is more of a question of increasing costs in a CEA, since the continued care would be counterfactual.
Yeah, anyway, I think the paper basically raises the need to investigate further.
My sense is that cyclical data like this should come out in the wash, but just require more statistical power. It would depend on the amplitude of the menstrual cycles, if it’s only a couple of PHQ-9 points per person then it should be fine. I mean, there isn’t any evidence showing men and women have differential improvements from psychotherapy, which you’d expect if this was having a large impact.
Curious about how you built the profiles. For example, GiveWell is listed as ‘Can cover mental health’ even though they don’t and have never made any grants to mental health organisations. Not sure if that needs correcting or you know something I don’t :)
I know there’s a lot been said about inequality as a driver of wellbeing—but a thing that’s a bit less well understood is inequality on what scale? It’s plausible that inequality isn’t viewed on a country level (the usual case), but maybe within regions, classes of people, or internationally.
Perhaps this is a minor point, but to me it feels important for CEA’s article to mention that Will MacAskill handed legitimacy to the Future Fund by running it. At the time Will was considered the EA leader and had a much closer relationship with Sam than the article portrays, and I feel like the article could lead a reader to the misleading conclusion that Sam was a loose cannon, rather than someone held up and promoted at the very core of EA to be an exemplar.
If we fail to appreciate this as a movement, we fail to appreciate why everyone is so mad at us.
I’m reflecting on how we’ve had a lot of outsider orgs join the Forum lately (ex. Sanku) and wondering if Marginal Funding Week might get quite crowded. It was pretty hard to get above the fold last year.
Perhaps maybe (1) a pre-agreed posting schedule and/or (2) spreading it over 2 weeks could be good? Very unsure, but it crossed my mind as worth raising
Always welcome Joel!
Yeah, anyway, I think the paper basically raises the need to investigate further.
Thank you! I’ll get back to your email.
My sense is that cyclical data like this should come out in the wash, but just require more statistical power. It would depend on the amplitude of the menstrual cycles, if it’s only a couple of PHQ-9 points per person then it should be fine. I mean, there isn’t any evidence showing men and women have differential improvements from psychotherapy, which you’d expect if this was having a large impact.
No worries—it looks like a fantastic tool and I’m really excited about it! Thanks for all the thought and effort that went into it
Curious about how you built the profiles. For example, GiveWell is listed as ‘Can cover mental health’ even though they don’t and have never made any grants to mental health organisations. Not sure if that needs correcting or you know something I don’t :)
I know there’s a lot been said about inequality as a driver of wellbeing—but a thing that’s a bit less well understood is inequality on what scale? It’s plausible that inequality isn’t viewed on a country level (the usual case), but maybe within regions, classes of people, or internationally.
Perhaps this is a minor point, but to me it feels important for CEA’s article to mention that Will MacAskill handed legitimacy to the Future Fund by running it. At the time Will was considered the EA leader and had a much closer relationship with Sam than the article portrays, and I feel like the article could lead a reader to the misleading conclusion that Sam was a loose cannon, rather than someone held up and promoted at the very core of EA to be an exemplar.
If we fail to appreciate this as a movement, we fail to appreciate why everyone is so mad at us.
Oh, I do all those things you mentioned because I enjoy them, not because I think there will be some kind of distant outcome…
What’s the best model for the curve here? (Also, what the hell is going on?)
Grace this is huge! Congrats!