The Cost of Using Clearer Thinking's Decision Advisor to Make Life Easier

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

For the cash transfers we had outcome information on measures of happiness and of life satisfaction and standardized measures of mental health so things like depression question there. For the psychotherapy we actually didn't have direct subjective well-being measures but we did have standardized mental health questions. So what was meant is that we could just combine our results with these different things so we have a more kind of statistical power to do the analysis. In terms of the sort of the standard deviation improvement like how effective these interventions were for the cash transfers where we had this different information we found that it didn't really make much difference whether you were measuring it in terms of happiness or life satisfaction or standardized mental health if you did it

Read the full transcript here.

Researchers in the Effective Altruism movement often view their work through a utilitarian lens, so why haven't they traditionally paid much attention to the psychological research into subjective wellbeing (i.e., people's self-reported levels of happiness, life satisfaction, feelings of purpose and meaning in life, etc.)? Are such subjective measures reliable and accurate? Or rather, which such measures are the most reliable and accurate? What are the pros and cons of using QALYs and DALYs to quantify wellbeing? Why is there sometimes a disconnect between the projected level of subjective wellbeing of a health condition and its actual level (e.g., some people can learn to manage and cope with "major" diseases, but some people with "minor" conditions like depression or anxiety might be in a constant state of agony)? What are some new and promising approaches to quantifying wellbeing? The EA movement typically uses the criteria of scale, neglectedness, and tractability for prioritizing cause areas; is that framework still relevant and useful? How do those criteria apply on a personal level? And how do those criteria taken together differ conceptually from cost-effectiveness? How effective are psychological interventions at improving subjective wellbeing? How well do such interventions work in different cultures? How can subjective wellbeing measures be improved? How can philosophers help us do good better?

Michael Plant is the Founder and Director of the Happier Lives Institute, a non-profit research institute that searches for the most cost-effective ways to increase global well-being. Michael is also a Research Fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre, Oxford. He has a PhD in Philosophy from Oxford, and his thesis, entitled Doing Good Badly? Philosophical Issues Related to Effective Altruism, was supervised by Peter Singer and Hilary Greaves.

Staff