Contents
Startup idea: subcupids
First published: . Last nontrivial update: .
Reddit can be thought of as an instantaneous forum generator. If you want to create a new forum for some topic, you don't have to buy a domain, get hosting, install forum software, and keep it updated; Reddit does everything for you. Individual users don't have to create a new username and password for the forum; they use their existing Reddit account.
The trend for individual forums to be replaced by subreddits (as well as Facebook groups, Slack channels, etc) doesn't seem to have happened for dating sites. My impression is that each new niche dating site starts its own platform from scratch: Christian Mingle, Farmers Only, CFdating (for childfree people), Veggly (for veg people), The Right Stuff (for conservatives), and so on. Why isn't there yet a platform like Reddit that these communities can use to create niche dating sites effortlessly? (Maybe there is such a platform that I haven't heard of.) These niche dating communities could be called "subcupids", similar to "subreddits".
Some effective altruists (EAs) have considered making their own EA dating site, and there are already some small projects in that direction like reciprocity.io and dateme.directory . It would be much easier if there were already a site with as much polish as Tinder or OkCupid that could be customized for a particular group of people. I think a lot of the appeal of so-called "date me" docs in the EA community is not their low-tech, text-heavy format per se but just the fact that they're shared among other members of the community, where people are on average vastly more compatible than general members of the public on a dating site are. But the same effect could be achieved with an EA subcupid.
The ease of joining a subreddit can mean that lots of random people join, diluting its quality. I've noticed that the r/EffectiveAltruism subreddit tends to have a somewhat less good level of discussion than the standalone Effective Altruism Forum does. Presumably a main reason for this is that it's easy for anyone to join the EA subreddit, while you have to be more dedicated to create a new account on the EA Forum. In the case of subcupids, presumably this dilution problem could be addressed in various ways, such as by charging a small fee for each subcupid that you join or by requiring a referral or application to join.
Sleep quality seems proportional to dreaming
First published: . Last nontrivial update: .
My sleep varies in quality in terms of how rested and alert I feel the following day. I've noticed that apart from sleep length, one of the best predictors of how rested I'll feel is how many dreams I had during the night and how "intense" they were. I assume this is because dreams correlate with REM sleep. On some nights it feels like I'm dreaming repeatedly, while on other nights I dream relatively little (unless I do dream but have no memory of it).
In 2010 I was feeling weird/bad on a regular basis and saw a psychiatrist. We first tried a regular SSRI without any noticeable effects. After a few months, we discontinued the SSRI and switched to lamotrigine. The first night after taking it, I had unusually strong dreams. These continued for a while. On , I wrote the following note about my experiences:
The lamotrigine has some interesting impacts on my sleep. (I know the medication doesn't kick in for 4-6 weeks, but these must be more short-term side effects.) In particular, it makes my dreams vivid and intense. Upon Googling the matter, I find that this is expected, because the medication increases REM sleep. The dreams aren't usually nightmares, but I often wake up every ~1.25 hours after each episode concludes[...].
The lamotrigine also worked successfully to bring my mental health back to a normal state, and by 2011 I was feeling so good I discontinued it without needing any further psychiatric medication. I wonder if the intense dreams were part of what contributed to my recovery or if they were just a random side effect.
Subsidies for farm-animal welfare
First published: . Last nontrivial update: .
A main reason it's difficult to enact strong legislation to improve the welfare of farm animals is that the meat industry has a lot of political power. Animal farmers and meat sellers oppose requirements that increase their costs.
But what if welfare reforms didn't have to increase costs to the meat industry? What if the government subsidized welfare improvements, such as larger and cleaner housing facilities, better slaughter equipment, and veterinary care? The US federal government already distributes massive subsidies to crop farmers, and a portion of those subsidies are intended to incentivize environmental conservation. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to imagine extending such subsidies to the realm of farm-animal welfare.
Benefits of the subsidies approach:
- The meat lobby would be much less opposed to such legislation and might even support it, since it would improve the industry's public image, and sometimes the subsidy payments for a given welfare improvement would exceed the costs of implementing it.
- One big problem with regular farm-animal regulation is that it can cause production of farm-animal products to move to a different state or different country where welfare standards are worse. But if you subsidize welfare improvements, production is encouraged to stay where it is in order to get the subsidies.
Downsides of welfare subsidies:
- Subsidies tend to increase the amount of a product produced, so these subsidies might slightly increase the total number of animals farmed.
- Animal activists might dislike the idea of paying farms to be somewhat less cruel to their slaves. This might make it harder to lobby for the legislation (although if the meat industry would support the idea, maybe it could succeed anyway).
- Maybe there would be a risk that over time, the US federal government would add meat subsidies not tied to welfare improvements. If the monetary amounts given were substantial, this could significantly increase meat production.
Rather than being general subsidies incentivizing welfare measures, the government payments could alternatively take the form of reimbursements for specific expenses, such as the cost of switching to a better slaughter method. Of course, farms might try to construe all kinds of expenses they incur as enhancing animal welfare, so there would need to be attentive oversight regarding what sorts of items were actually being reimbursed. There would also need to be inspection to make sure farms were actually implementing the welfare improvements.
I don't recall hearing the idea of farm subsidies for animal welfare discussed by animal advocates, though surely some people have thought of it before.
Being more rational by temporarily not caring
First published: . Last nontrivial update: .
It may be a trite thing to say, but I find that being too emotionally invested in a topic is one of the main reasons people hold one-sided viewpoints without being willing to hear or update on contrary arguments. This is especially true in politics, where many people sort themselves into ideological echo chambers and refuse to acknowledge that the other side has any legitimate points. It's also true in various other smaller-scale debates, at work and at home. People (myself included) may resist criticism because it's unpleasant to hear and it might imply that you should make uncomfortable changes to your habits.
If you're a superhuman machine, the proper way to be rational about such things is simply to consider all the arguments and update one's beliefs and actions accordingly. But for most of us, doing this is really hard. We might emotionally like our old habits or our current side in the debate without wanting to give those up.
For mere mortals like us, an alternative can be to be rational and dispassionate temporarily and then allow ourselves to return to our comfortable cocoons afterward. For example, you can listen to criticism for 2 minutes and then go right back to ignoring it. Or you can read an article by someone whose viewpoint makes you angry for 10 minutes, consider that this person makes some fair points, and then let yourself go back to being angry at this viewpoint afterward. Because this fair-minded attitude is only temporary, it's vastly less threatening than if you actually had to change your behavior as a result of being fair-minded. :)
During the brief period of open-mindedness, you can adopt a sort of jaded, apathetic attitude. For example: "Oh, someone I respect said my approach is probably wrong. Hm, maybe it is. Oh well. This Is Fine." Or: "This person makes some strong points that challenge the assumptions on which my current work is based. Maybe what I'm doing isn't as positive as I thought. Oh well. So it goes." After this period is over, you can go back to being your old emotional self, with all your existing biases. However, maybe at least a bit of the more objective perspective that you saw in the apathetic period can remain behind and plant a seed that might over the long run have some impact.