An underrated and little understood virtue in our culture.
And a nice summary with many good, non-obvious and practical points. I’ve done a lot of what you describe in the section on process, and can testify to its effectiveness.
I’d be curious to hear any examples you have of integrity-maintaining examples of playing a role (which are non-obvious, and where a more simple high integrity approach might naively think one simply shouldn’t play the role).
I’m curious, what countries have and haven’t seen substantial focus on hand hygiene?
We have that here in Canada.
Also I somehow keep not giving holidays proper respect.
I thought you were an advocate of the Sabbath? 😉
“Free Day”, while perhaps not the best option overall, has the merit that these days involving freeing the part of you that communicatess through your gut (and through what you feel like doing). During much of our working (and non-working) week, that part is overridden by our mind’s sense of what we have to do.
By contrast, in OP’s Recovery Days this part is either:
(a) doing the most basic recharging before it can do things it positively feels like and enjoys, or
(b) overridden or hijacked by addictive behaviours that it doesn’t find as roundly rewarding as Free Day activities.
Addiction can also be seen as a lack of freedom.
I agree about the names. ‘Rest’ days are particularly confusing, since recovery days involve a lot of rest. A main characteristic of ‘rest’ days instead seems to doing what you feel like and following your gut.
Yes, it seems more reasonable to treat it as evidence of upper bound. Still weak evidence IMO, due to the self-reporting of perceived symptoms.
They say they haven’t accounted for sampling bias, though, which makes me doubt the methodology overall, as sampling bias could be huge over 90 day timespans.
Yes, the article doesn’t describe the exact methodology, but they could be well deriving the percentages from people who choose to self-report how they’re doing after 30 and 90 days. These would be far more likely to be people who still feel unwell.
As a separate point, and I’m skirting around using the word “hypochondria” here, asking people is they still feel unwell or have symptoms a month or three after first contracting covid is going to get some fairly subjective answers. All in all I don’t think this particular study tells us much about the likelihood of covid causing permanent damage.
That plus it’s a more intelligent than average community with shared knowledge and norms of rationality. This is why I personally value LessWrong and am glad it’s making something of a comeback.
These aren’t letters from charities, asking for your money for themselves (even if they then spend some or most or all of it on others). If you get a stock letter signed by the president of Charity X, who you don’t know, saying they hope your family is well, that’s quite different.
Yep—we were thinking Dec 31st, but we’ve now decided to make it Jan 31st as some student EA groups have said they’d like to share it in their newsletters after students return from the holidays.
I think it’s possible to send versions of these emails which aren’t annoying. I’ve sent a bunch myself and people haven’t seemed to find them annoying.
I disagree—I know Peter was genuinely interested in hearing back from people.
For reference, here are the results from last year’s survey, along with Peter’s analysis of them. This includes a link to a Github repository including the raw data, with names and email addresses removed.
Notable findings included:
The top three sources people in our sample first heard about EA from were LessWrong, friends, or Giving What We Can. LessWrong, GiveWell, and personal contact were cited as the top three reasons people continued to get more involved in EA. (Keep in mind that EAs in our sample might not mean all EAs overall, as discussed in .)
66.9% of the EAs in our sample were from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, but we have EAs in many countries. You can see the public location responses visualized on the Map of EAs!
The Bay Area had the most EAs in our sample, followed by London and then Oxford. New York and Washington DC have surprisingly many EAs and may have flown under the radar.
The EAs in our sample in total donated over $5.23 million in 2013. The median donation size was $450 in 2013 donations.
238 EAs in our sample donated 1% of their income or more, and 84 EAs in our sample give 10% of their income. You can see the past and planned donations that people have chosen to made public on the EA Donation Registry.
The top three charities donated to by EAs in our sample were GiveWell’s three picks for 2013 AMF, SCI, and GiveDirectly. MIRI was the fourth largest donation target, followed by unrestricted donations to GiveWell.
Poverty was the most popular cause among EAs in our sample, followed by metacharity and then rationality.
33.1% of EAs in our sample were either vegan or vegetarian.
34.1% of EAs in our sample who indicated a career indicated that they were aiming to earn to give.
Here’s drawing your attention to this year’s Effective Altruism Survey, which was recently released and which Peter Hurford linked to in LessWrong Main. As he says there:
This is a survey of all EAs to learn about the movement and how it can improve. The data collected in the survey is used to help EA groups improve and grow EA. Data is also used to populate the map of EAs, create new EA meetup groups, and create EA Profiles and the EA Donation Registry.
If you are an EA or otherwise familiar with the community, we hope you will take it using this link. All results will be anonymised and made publicly available to members of the EA community. As an added bonus, one random survey taker will be selected to win a $250 donation to their favorite charity.
For reference, here are the results from last year’s survey, along with Peter’s analysis of them. This includes a link to a Github repository including the raw data, with names and email addresses removed.
Notable findings included:
The top three sources people in our sample first heard about EA from were LessWrong, friends, or Giving What We Can. LessWrong, GiveWell, and personal contact were cited as the top three reasons people continued to get more involved in EA. (Keep in mind that EAs in our sample might not mean all EAs overall, as discussed in .)
66.9% of the EAs in our sample were from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, but we have EAs in many countries. You can see the public location responses visualized on the Map of EAs!
The Bay Area had the most EAs in our sample, followed by London and then Oxford. New York and Washington DC have surprisingly many EAs and may have flown under the radar.
The EAs in our sample in total donated over $5.23 million in 2013. The median donation size was $450 in 2013 donations.
238 EAs in our sample donated 1% of their income or more, and 84 EAs in our sample give 10% of their income. You can see the past and planned donations that people have chosen to made public on the EA Donation Registry.
The top three charities donated to by EAs in our sample were GiveWell’s three picks for 2013 AMF, SCI, and GiveDirectly. MIRI was the fourth largest donation target, followed by unrestricted donations to GiveWell.
Poverty was the most popular cause among EAs in our sample, followed by metacharity and then rationality.
33.1% of EAs in our sample were either vegan or vegetarian.
34.1% of EAs in our sample who indicated a career indicated that they were aiming to earn to give.
You’re conflating something here. The statement only refers to “what is true”, not your situation; each pronoun refers only to “what is true”
In that case saying “Owning up to the truth doesn’t make the truth any worse” is correct, but doesn’t settle the issue at hand as much as people tend to think it does. We don’t just care about whether someone owning up to the truth makes the truth itself worse, which it obviously doesn’t. We also care about whether it makes their or other people’s situation worse, which it sometimes does.
To me this seems like a much less natural interpretation than the following:
Agent A was thinking that completing the other agent B’s task would free up time for agent B (or other agents working on said task)
Agent B (or the other agents) might use this freed-up time to yield a generic route which would help agent A’s task.
What’s your alternative interpretation of “if someone frees time”?