Well, weigh a throwaway comment by Scott against the consensus of dermatologists and skin cancer specialists.
remizidae
Karma: 475
No, that’s not what social proof means. I’m saying a throwaway comment by a non-expert has very little probative value. Now, I’d give it more weight if Scott were actually to write a post about this topic concluding that we should all stop wearing sunscreen, because knowing him there probably would be some serious thought and research put into that. But the post you linked to basically says “it’s more complicated than you might think, but the consensus is still wear sunscreen.”
This would make a lot more sense with some examples of what it means to fail to “mark most significant personal information about others as salient, unless I’m explicitly told to keep it in mind.”
Food is satisficing too. I found it liberating to realize I don’t need to come up with a new meal every day. Food doesn’t have to be exciting or novel or an amazing taste sensation most of the time.
Minor point of disagreement: unless you are actively working to build muscle, you don’t have to worry about protein. The vast majority of people in Western societies already get more than enough protein. Perhaps this is different for vegans, but I’ll let them weigh in if they choose.
What feels most important to me:
1) Having everything I need to remember in one place, not in my brain
2) Being cued to check and add to my system regularly
3) To-do lists consisting of small, actionable steps, not big, diffuse, intimidating tasks
My system is about ten years old; it was inspired by Getting Things Done. I basically write everything down in a notebook. I have weekly, daily, monthly and long-term sections.
Advantages of using paper are that I don’t need to make any conscious effort to check the notebook; having the physical object triggers me to check it regularly. Also, I can use the notebook at times when I don’t want to be distracted by a phone or computer. Disadvantages are that I need to carry more objects, and if I lose the notebook, there is no real backup.
Secondhand smoke is mostly not harmful.
Why does it matter that “i am sensitive to others’ needs”? If I’m happy being selfish, that shouldn’t matter.
Most vaccines are made without (or can be made without) thimerosal. In addition, thimerosal is safe.
Explain how this would be better than having the effective altruist himself or herself fund an emergency fund before they start donating to charity.
I understand you are saying that pooling the money could mean less money is kept in the fund and more can be donated, but I’m not sure that benefit outweighs the cost. While the amount of an emergency fund is the subject of some debate, IMO $10,000 per person is a decent ballpark. Say you could get that result with only $5000 per person with your proposed pool. Then does that $5000 difference outweigh 1) administrative costs, 2) cost of litigation over payouts, and 3) cost to the altruist of losing the ability to decide how much money is set aside and what happens to it?
The “tick the box” approach would lead to quickly depleting the fund. Instead, you’d have to set limits on what counts as an “emergency,” and expect a whole lot of debate (and litigation) over that. A medical procedure, new car, home repair, or adopting a child are all examples of things where people might or might not consider “emergencies,” depending on their personal philosophies and circumstances.
Or those who don’t itemize deductions (most non-homeowners).
It’s looking at accomplished women dropping out of demanding careers to raise kids as sexism. Could it be that someone may prefer to raise a family to grinding 70 hours a week at the office once they don’t need to worry about money? I certainly would! But if the only thing you count is personal status[2] then it would seem to you that these women are being cheated out of something by the evil patriarchy.
This is a remarkably shallow way of looking at the issue. The fact that some 95%+ of people who drop out of the workforce to raise children are women should put paid to the idea that the patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Sure, work can be stressful—but men feel stress too, and somehow men don’t make this same destructive “choice” to drop out of the workforce in favor of total dependence on their spouses.
One estimation is based on the straight extrapolation of the exponential growth of the infected people number, which doubles every two days. This implies that the whole population of Earth will be ill in March. Another view takes into account that many mild cases are not included in the stat, so lethality is small and probably not everybody will be ill at all. We just don’t know yet.
Both of these estimates wildly exaggerate the risk. Why in the world would we expect exponential growth to continue? Rather than “probably not everybody will be ill,” our baseline should be “a few people will be ill,” because that’s what has been the case with almost all other epidemics.
If you don’t live in China and are not planning to go to China soon, the appropriate course of action is to do nothing.
Great article! But don’t read the comments on putanumonit, yeesh.
I think this example is misleading; I could fill a water glass by myself one drop at a time, although it would take a long time. But, with many large problems such as pandemics and climate change, there is no feasible scenario where one person’s action makes a difference. Perhaps an example where I try to fill a swimming pool one drop at a time, while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom.
Thank you, this is a high-quality contribution. I’m curious if you know how a workshop would be designed to less often trigger mania.
People should be aware that formal treatment for an alcohol problem (or any substance use problem) is risky. It can make it harder to get a job of high public trust (with the government or military, or as a lawyer or doctor). It also means that if future doctors see medical records revealing you have a substance problem, you can have a harder time getting painkillers or other needed drugs. Do your own cost-benefit analysis; but my personal conclusion is that it’s always better to attempt to deal with these problems on your own before getting involved in the system. Many people have gotten to abstinence or harm reduction by themselves—Moderation Management is a book that helped me.
On the other hand, if you’re willing to get involved in the system, I’ve seen some great reviews for the Sinclair method (i.e., naltrexone). It’s harder to find that other approaches, but, if it works, it allows people to break the conditioned connection between alcohol and the pleasure/relaxation/anxiety relief or whatever you get from drinking.
Every stranger on the Internet with a graph and a theory suddenly feels entitled to tell me what to do. I think I’ll pay more attention to what actual public health authorities advise than to rando fearmongers, thank you.
Author’s partial conclusions to save you a click:
Somewhere between many and most dog breeds should only be owned in ideal settings – farms, ranches, wilderness, etc. Owning the dogs outside of these circumstances is likely cruel.
Most dog owners should buy small-to-mid sized breeds with a long genetic history of high sociability and little-to-no history of work. Such dogs are the most well-suited to modern ownership. Cockapoos are actually a really good choice by these standards.
Unless you have a really good reason to get a thoroughbred, you should probably rescue a mutt from a dog shelter instead. Mutts are healthier, don’t contribute to the continued genetic deformity of purebreds, and can be rescued from misery and/or death in shelters.
Unless you have the resources to pay for a doggy-day-care where the dog spends all days with other dogs, you probably shouldn’t own a dog if you have a full time job.
This is a case of “are you asking the right question” for me. If the question is “are you giving your dog its best life,” most dog owners will have to say no. If the question is “are you giving your dog a better life than it would have if you did not acquire the dog,” most people who get dogs from shelters can honestly say yes. Living in a shelter or being euthanized seems clearly worse than a penned-in, neutered life as a coddled pet.
I definitely agree with point 1. We have this Enlightenment-era ideal that relationships should be egalitarian, but in fact, that is the exception, not the rule. And I could probably make an argument that no relationship is truly 100% egalitarian.
If you’re worried about Vitamin D deficiency, it’s quite easy to supplement. Why not do that (IF you’re deficient) and wear sunscreen?
As someone who actually tries to follow dermatological recommendations for sunscreen use, it’s pretty hard. You have to remember it every time you leave the house, be motivated enough to go through a tedious and bad-smelling task, cover *all* the exposed skin. If you’re outside for a significant time, you have to remember to bring the sunscreen and reapply every hour. So, it’s hard to believe that most people who spend time outside and wear sunscreen are actually doing it enough to avoid D exposure.
My read of the research is that the controllable risk factors for D deficiency are never going outside + poor diet + not supplementing, rather than overzealous sunscreen use.