All of Jodika's Comments + Replies

Jodika80

Judging by some of the attitudes I have heard from my friends about getting a flu jab (similar to Lumifer's comment), I have found that it is actually more effective to encourage people to get flu jabs for the benefit to others via herd immunity, rather than by emphasising the benefit to them.

I don't know if this is maybe some kind of ego-bias in that healthy people underestimate their chances of getting sick, or that doing something for you doesn't get you fuzzies, whereas doing it to help sick people and babies does.

Of course I am in a country that won't... (read more)

Jodika00

These days having few friends frequently signals maturity or coolness - someone who doesn't add everyone they've ever met to look like they have lots of friends.

I think the sweet spot is between 10 and 200 - go over that and people tend to imagine 'there's no way he could actually have that many friends, he just adds people at random and cares too much about popularity'.

Edit: Having said that, I just went back to my fb, which I no longer really use, and I'm on over 350. But largely that's because I've had it for a long time and not removed people I no longer see or have any real intention of seeing, so I don't only have actual friends as friends either.

Jodika10

The secret to that is clothes that are simple and fit well.

So well-fitted dark jeans with shirt, no tie or a nice sweater/cardigan is a good look. Even 'jeans and a t shirt' can be a really nice look if the jeans fit you well and the t shirt is something classic like plain white (this also works well with a shirt partly or wholly unbuttoned over the top). There's also chinos which can work (just don't get them in too light or bright a colour if you're not confident about pulling off that look). If you live somewhere cold, peacoats and longer, slightly fitt... (read more)

Jodika00

In ambiguous environments, it is best to determine ok-ness on the basis of the people.

Good situations: You are both doing the same thing - looking at the same genre of books in a bookstore, the same exhibit in a museum or zoo, both walking dogs in a park etc. This makes it easier to talk as you already have one thing in common and you can comment on that to see if they are receptive to conversation.

Something unusual happens - a delay on public transport, something wacky is going on in the quad etc

If you mean quad as in university, you already have a thing... (read more)

Jodika00

I don't think that's true? I think that, in practice, people value themselves more. But I think that it's a fairly common tenet of normal peoples' moralities that people are equal in value, and that if you asked random people, most of them would not say that they consider themselves to be more valuable or important than everyone else.

Which, yes, means that there's a discrepancy between what people say they believe and what their actions say they believe, but that's pretty normal too.

5Jiro
Most people don't analyze things much at all. It's possible to ask a random person and be told he values everyone equally, and that's in some literal sense not saying what he believes. But if you just rephrased the question as "do you care more about yourself than someone else--would you pay my mortgage as readily as your own", he would answer "oh, if that's what you mean, then of course I care about myself more". Technically he's inconsistent, but it's a very shallow sort of inconsistency based mostly on the fact that he doesn't analyze things much; it isn't some kind of hypocrisy or denial.
Jodika00

Thanks for the link and advice; I was basically looking for a review like that but lacking the studies-savvy to find it.

Jodika00

Yeah I had a quick look and that's about right for the price over here - certainly not doable for me, anyway.

Jodika00

I'm not sure it's possible to just get a blood panel on the NHS. My instinct is that I'd need to actually show symptoms of a vitamin deficiency.

Thanks anyway though.

3Lumifer
A basic blood panel is more or less the first thing doctors try when faced with uncertain symptoms. Go to your MD and complain about general weakness, random pains, strange headaches, and occasional fainting spells :-)
0RomeoStevens
They shouldn't be too expensive to have done privately. We were able to get a basic panel in the US for under $200.
Jodika10

It's really difficult to 'shut up and multiply' in some cases.

I mean, I'm going to get personal here because it feels like the best way to articulate my problems with mathematical utilitarianism. But right now, I don't produce anything like what I cost my society (in terms of socialized medicine, and support I receive from my parents).

I feel very strongly that I shouldn't value myself more than a random African. But there are charities that claim I could save at least one life with what I spend on prescription fees every month. In terms of pure utilitarian... (read more)

1Jiro
Maybe this means your feelings are wrong, and you should value yourself more than a random African. If you go outside LW and EA, the idea that anyone values themselves only as much as a random other person would be considered bizarre.
2DanielLC
That is sort of what I meant by it being the "logical thing". I don't expect many people to actually manage it. You have to work around your emotions. But it's still a useful first approximation for what you should be doing.
Jodika30

I don't know how many people here have medical or nutritional expertise, but for those who do, I have a question.

The benefits and risks of multivitamins have been discussed a little in the media, but as a layperson I find it difficult to look at the conflicting studies online and come to any particular conclusion as to what I should do.

Specifically, I am looking at this as a person with a chronic illness who finds it difficult to feed myself a diet as healthy as I would like due to money and time/energy constraints. I am therefore looking at supplementing ... (read more)

0ChristianKl
As far as understand the situation is as follows: If you are a vegetarian, then you have to supplement B12. There inconclusive evidence on whether supplementing Vitamin D3 is helpful. Human's don't have Vitamin D2 naturally, so taking it instead of D3 is a bad idea. I personally think that supplementing it helps for people who are mostly indoors and don't get their needs meet by synthesizing it while being outdoors. At the moment there a randomized control trial underway that will gives us more information in a few years. There no evidence that the average person benefits on an average day from taking multivitamins. Any decision to take them should be made on an individual basis. If you don't have a well trained sense of listening to your body that means going to the doctor and getting blood test. If you do have a chronic illness you should discuss questions like this with the doctor responsible for treating you for that chronic illness. He might know specific things that apply to you based on your illness. What you can do for your health is getting 3 times per week 30 minutes of exercise that get's your pulse up. There are also various things with can be experimented with to see whether they reduce the symptoms of your chronic illness.
2hyporational
A basic blood panel is unlikely to tell you much about your micronutritional status if your diet is even remotely normal and you don't have problems with absorption i.e. gastrointestinal disease. The only vitamins they might sample would be vitamins D, B5 and perhaps B12 and folate. I don't think these are even part of any basic health check at least for younger people. However if there are gross deviations in a basic blood panel then nutrition is probably the least of your problems. Just thoughts of an MD from Finland, I'm not much of an expert on nutrition. I don't eat extremely healthily myself and based on this literature review I don't bother supplementing anything else than vitamin D, which I consume 50 ug a day. I wouldn't be scared of multivitamins either, while relative risks might look scary, the absolute risks involved are miniscule.
3RomeoStevens
The average person should get a blood panel if they want to know what's going on with their body, and that goes double for a person with a chronic illness. With a bit of effort you can probably figure out a combination of cheap foods and supplementation that you feel good about. WRT multivitamins specifically, the effect on your stress level dominates the negative impact on your health in all likelihood.
Jodika50

People, however, (as shminux said) do try kink all the time. It would not be unethical to do a study on people who are already kinky and see if they get kinkier over time.

Anecdotally, they start doing kink, they either decide it isn't for them and stop, or they do get kinkier for a while - because they're exploring what they like and it makes sense to start at the less extreme end of things.

Then they figure out what they like, which is often a range of things at differing levels of 'kinkiness/extremeness', and do that.

I mean, it's almost trivially obvious... (read more)

Jodika20

Thanks for the link; very helpful and interesting.

Jodika50

It's a straightforward question about personal values. Do you think it's a good idea to have experts in EA or economics tell you what your values should be?

No, but they might know things like the scale of diminishing returns in terms of spending money on yourself, or at what minimum level of wealth do an acceptable majority of people (in x culture or x country) report being satisfied with their lives?

They might have a personal anecdote about how they earn a million dollars a year and live in a ditch and have never been happier, and they might know the psy... (read more)

Jodika10

But I'll hazard a guess that the amount you need to spend to make it rather unlikely that you lose a lot of income >because of ill health isn't terribly large.

Well another complicating factor - in my particular case - is that with chronic and especially mental health conditions, it's actually very difficult to separate 'preventative healthcare' from frivolous spending. A lot of the things someone with my mental health might buy and do to keep them sane doesn't look like healthcare spending at all. A lot of things that it is considered normal and even... (read more)

0gjm
Oh, if you have an already-existing condition -- whether "physical" or "mental", whether obvious at a glance or subtle and hidden -- then of course it's far more likely that there's stuff you need to spend to keep yourself functioning well. I don't think any reasonable person, inside or outside the EA movement, would have any objection to that. Even from a pure bullet-biting maximize-cash-flow-to-Africa perspective, you almost certainly do better to keep yourself functioning rather than giving everything you can in the short term and collapsing in a heap. [EDITED to add: If whoever downvoted this is reading, I'd be interested to know why. I'm wondering whether I accidentally said something terribly insensitive or something.]
Jodika10

Is this a thing we should be asking if someone who is an expert on Effective Altruism and economics and similar could have a go at answering?

1Lumifer
You can ask, but why the answer would be anything else other than someone's personal opinion? It's a straightforward question about personal values. Do you think it's a good idea to have experts in EA or economics tell you what your values should be?
Jodika10

Do you have a link? I'm just not sure that it's that obvious that pumping my (hypothetical) money overseas is a utilitarian good if I end up costing my own society more than I give away (which is pretty likely - to use a US example, hypothetical-me might end up costing orders of magnitude more to treat in an emergency room when I get sick because I didn't spend my own money on preventative healthcare).

Obviously the money hypothetical-I save the government isn't automatically going to go to good causes, but by doing my bit to make the society poorer, am I reducing people's overall tendency to have extra money to give away?

I dunno, probably need an economist and a lot of time to properly answer that question...

6gjm
Nope. Just a lot of handwaving. Sorry. But, e.g., if you get old and sick and it costs $100k to cure you in the USA, then the utilitarian optimum is probably to let you die and send the money to save 20 or more lives in sub-Saharan Africa. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that you should endorse that policy; but if you bite the bullet that says you should send all your spare money to Oxfam or GiveDirectly or whoever, then I think you should probably also be biting the bullet that says you should be prepared to give up and die if you get sick and curing you would be too expensive. On the other hand, if you're young and get similarly sick, it might (on the same assumptions) be worth curing you so that you can carry on earning money and pumping it to the desperately needy. In which case it might indeed be worth spending some money first to stop that happening. But I'll hazard a guess that the amount you need to spend to make it rather unlikely that you lose a lot of income because of ill health isn't terribly large. I suggest that unless you're seriously inclined to really heroic charitable giving, you would do better not to worry about such things, and take decent care of yourself as I'm sure you would rather do, and give generously without impoverishing yourself. Especially at present -- if you don't have a lot of money, the difference between heroism and ordinary giving is going to be pretty small. Once you're in a better situation financially, you can reconsider how much of a hero you want to be.
Jodika20

Thanks gjm, that's a really helpful comment. (And yes, quotation marks indicate 'this is the word I can think of but it is not necessarily the right word.)

I think points number 1 and 3 are especially relevant for me right now, and I have found talking it through on here to be very helpful in defeating an entirely non-useful lingering sense of guilt for not giving more when I really can't afford to, yet.

Jodika00

4 and 5 are anecdotally true for me, as a trained practitioner of two artforms (music and theatre); I often find that I can appreciate something greatly for its technical expertise and novelty of style or content at the same time as acknowledging that some things that achieve greatly in those areas actually fail at being accessibly entertaining.

I also definitely think 2 and 3 come into play a lot, especially when it comes to considering the monetary difference people are willing to pay artists (in terms of the price of paintings/sculptures, ticket prices, ... (read more)

Jodika10

That's it, basically; it's about how much of a buffer I'm 'allowed' to give myself on 'reasonably comfortable'; I'm supporting myself and full-time student partner and not in permanent full-time employment so my instinct whenever I have a sniff of an excess is to hoard it against a bad month for getting work rather than do anything charitable with it (or it all goes on things we've put off replacing for monetary reasons, like shoes that are still wearable but worn out enough to no longer be waterproof).

I think Lumifer articulated better than I could what I... (read more)

There are two questions here. The first is how you trade off the value you place on your own welfare vs the value you place on the welfare of distant others. And the second is how having extra cash will benefit your mental health, energy levels, free time, etc. and whether by improving those attributes of yours you'll increase the odds of doing more good for the world in the future.

I consider myself a pretty hardcore EA; I gave $20K to charity last year. But this year I'm saving all my money so my earning-to-give startup will have a bigger cash buffer. ... (read more)

2gjm
I don't think "allowed" is the right way to think about it (and your quotation marks suggest that probably you don't either). If you mean something like "what position do other reasonable people take?" or "what is the range of options that won't make other people who think of themselves as EAs disapprove of me?", I have no information on anyone else's positions but my own is something like this: * If you are having difficulty feeding yourself healthily, paying for somewhere to live that isn't falling down, etc., then feel free not to give anything. * Otherwise, I think it's psychologically valuable to keep up the habit of giving something, even if it's very little. * If you expect to be substantially better off in the future than you are now, there's a lot to be said for optimizing lifetime income and aiming to give some fraction of that rather than feeling guilty about not giving a lot now. If hoarding some for now gives you more stability later, that's probably better for everyone. * Once you're reasonably comfortable financially, I think the traditional figure of 10% is a reasonable benchmark; you can answer the question "10% of what?" in various different ways, all somewhat defensible and leading to substantially varying levels of giving. * There are people who give quite a lot more. No one will think ill of you for not being one of them.
Jodika70

I have yet to find any thoughts on Effective Altruism that do not assume vast amounts of disposable income on the part of the reader. What I am currently trying to determine are things like 'at what point does it make sense to give away some of your income versus the utility of having decent quality of life yourself and insuring against the risk that you end up consuming charitable resources because something happened and you didn't have an emergency fund'. Does anyone know of any posts or similar that tackle the effective utilitarian use of resources when you don't have a lot of resources to begin with?

2ChristianKl
Putting money into an emergency fund here it can gather interest doesn't mean that you can't donate the same money 10 years from now.
2dspeyer
I don't have a link, but I suspect cutting this fine is not very valuable. That last $10k would be a lot to you, but that wouldn't make it more than any other $10k to a charity. Instead, ask how you could come to have a vast amount of disposable income. Including whether it makes sense to spend some money toward that end. You may be able to get a very high rate of return investing in yourself.
1drethelin
to me EA is more about how to answer the question "how should I be charitable?" than "Should I be charitable and to what extent?"
1gjm
Most of the EA stuff I've seen doesn't appear to me to assume vast amounts of disposable income; merely enough to be willing to give some away. Then EA is about what to do with your charity budget, whether it's large or small. How you prioritize helping others versus helping yourself (and your family, if any) is a more or less orthogonal question. (I might suggest, snarkily, that for someone who requires "vast amounts of disposable income" before being willing to give any away no term with "altruism" in it is very appropriate. But that wouldn't be fair because e.g. your intention might be to secure yourself a reasonably comfortable life and then give away every penny you can earn beyond that, or something.)
6Lumifer
I don't think there is a general answer to the question "How much should I consume?"
Jodika40

I fail to see from this review how the idea that raising kids effectively is less difficult than commonly assumed (or at least that many of the stressful and time-consuming things parents do are less effective than assumed) necessarily leads to the conclusion that one should have more kids. Surely the conclusion ought to be 'you should have more kids if you want to have more kids'.