You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

tut comments on Open thread, Feb. 01 - Feb. 07, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 01 February 2016 08:24AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (177)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: tut 06 February 2016 11:52:14AM 0 points [-]

Would you mind summarizing the point. Because I don't get it.

Comment author: Clarity 07 February 2016 08:13:23AM *  0 points [-]

Instead, I will elaborate on my interpretation of it and the meaning that I attribute to it:

Seligman briefly mentions that 'PERMA' can be the foundation for a new value-model in politics in a video by the channel: 'happy and well'. This suggests that comparisons of wellbeing above '1', on say a QALY scale are useful. By convention, people are '1' when well, and less than 1 depending on the degree of disease (mental or physical) as it affects their quality of life. The reddit point highlights for me that we may find it effective to improve the happiness of a banker who's stressing himself out making money and blowing it on hookers than someone in ill health in the developing world.

Seligman also describes research that shows people who have experienced all 3 of the 'worst' traumatic experiences tend to experience 'post traumatic growth', more so than those with 2 or one of these experiences: rape, torture and capture. With a bit of Googling I can't find the literature. This makes me less confident in his position but none-the-less hopeful that I've stumbled upon an important line of research for EA's to pursue. Discussing positive things is probably good for the EA diaspora anyway, since doom and gloom talk is rather unpleasant IMO.

Comment author: tut 07 February 2016 08:57:52AM 1 point [-]

If there was anything useful the banker could get for $5 then he would buy it himself. The argument for giving to the poorest people is not that they are the most deserving, or even that they are suffering the most, but rather that they are the cheapest to help.

Comment author: Clarity 08 February 2016 02:35:13AM *  -2 points [-]

he would

No, he could. Whether he would do it is another issue.

Moreover, the relationship between money and happiness is weak.