On the one hand, I understand your point that preparing for breakdown of the economy may be more important if the likelihood of disasters in general increases; even though the most catastrophic AI scenarios would not leave a space to flee to, maybe the likelihood of more mundane disasters also increases? However, it is also possible that the marginal expected value of investing time in such skills goes down. After all, in a more technological society, learning technology skills may be more important than before, so the opportunity cost goes up.

So that is not related to AI, right?

About your "prepper" points, it would be helpful to know the scenario you have in mind here.

2. AGI will more significantly disrupt white-collar job markets than blue collar job markets( with a few exceptions). Consequently, you might help your children develop some hard skills (eg. how to repair an appliance, build something with wood, patch clothing, change your car oil, an Arduino project etc.) 

If we really see AI radically changing everything, why should this assessment still be correct in 10 years? I assume that 30 years ago, people thought the opposite was true. It seems hard to be sure about what to teach children. I do not really see what the uniquely usefull skills of a human will be in 2040 or 2050. Nonetheless, developing these skills as a hobby, without really expecting that to teach something specific as a basic job skill, may be a good idea, also for your point 3.

I said Estevéz because he is the less famous aspect of the person, not because I super-finetuned the analogy.

Updating the trust into your therapist seems to be a legitimate interest even if he is not famous for his psychiatric theory or practice. Suppose for example that an influential and controversial (e.g. White-supremacist) politician spent half his week being a psychiatrist and the other half doing politics, but somehow doing the former anymously. I think patients might legitimately want to know that their psychiatrist is this person. This might even be true if the psychiatrist is only locally active, like the head of a KKK chapter. And journalists might then find it inappropriate to treat the two identities as completely separate.

I assume there are reasons for publishing the name and reasons against. It is not clear that being a psychiatrist is always an argument against.

Part of the reason is, possibly, that patients often cannot directly judge the quality of therapy. Therapy is a credence good and therapists may influence you in ways that are independent of your depression or anorexia. So having more information about your psychiatrist may be helpful. At the same time, psychiatrists try to keep their private life out of the therapy, for very good reasons. It is not completely obvious to me where journalists should draw the line.

Estevéz. If I recall this correctly, Scott thought that potential or actual patients could be influenced in their therapy by knowing his public writings. (But I may mistemember that.)

Suppose Carlos Irwin Estévez worked as a therapist part-time, and he kept his identities separate such that his patients could not use his publicly known behavior as Sheen in order to update about whether they should believe his methods work. Should journalists writing about the famous Estevéz method of therapy keep his name out of the article to support him?

What is that reason you are referring to?

Thanks for giving a useful example. 

For most people I guess it would be better to delete the phrase "I'm such a fool" from the evaluation, in order to avoid self-blame that becomes a self-image.

The "Snake cult of consciousness" theory sounds extremely fascinating. Qt the same time, it also sounds like the explanations why the pyramids were built by aliens. For laypeople, it is hard to distinguish between Important insights and clever nonsense.