• Sort Blog:
  • All
  • Book Reviews
  • EA Rotterdam
  • Essays
  • Flotes
  • Goals
  • Links
  • Series
  • Short Stories
  • Uncategorized

My Philosophy

On this page, I want to define, as far as possible, my philosophy or view on life in some (core) concepts. This probably is incomplete and something that will change over time (see changelog below). Yet still, I think it’s good to get a better grip on these concepts to be better able to express why I’m thinking what (and taking actions based on this).

Lastly, I know that in most actions during our lives we don’t think this way. We don’t reason from first principles or weigh actions based on expected utility. We make decisions based on gut feelings, heuristics, experience.

Still, with time I think that we/I may be able to make more decisions based on these concepts. And many decisions are those that have an influence on a longer time horizon (e.g. not eating meat).

One final reason for making this page is the following from Karl Popper (video): “State your theses clearly so they can be refuted.” Said as a critique on philosophers that hide behind definitions, difficult language, and theory (not reality).

How to Think

Critical Rationalism

This is a theory on how knowledge grows. Knowledge is tentative solutions to problems (so no definitive ‘truth’). It grows through correcting errors.

This is contrasted with reasoning by induction (general principles from specific observations).

This is mostly based on ‘Conjectures and Refutations‘ by Karl Popper. He would call it fallibilism (we can’t know what is true, but our theories can get closer). And the books by David Deutsch and subsequent analysis by Brett Hall.

This means that knowledge grows by making conjectures (that we creatively make up) and then test them (refutations). The one with the least amount of holes is our current best understanding of the world (e.g. the theory of relativity).

Knowledge (thus) grows cumulatively. It builds on the earlier theories, and improves them. This is gradual (not revolutionary).

Also see this twitter thread explaining it (better).

Sceptic

Always test knowledge. Ask why. Dogma or arguments from authority don’t count.

And even be sceptical of your own experiences. Your memory is bad (link?) and our brains are made to recognise danger on the Savanna, not to be rational. I.e. if you see a ghost, it was there in your brain, but Casper was not floating there.

Bayesian

Update your beliefs based on conditional probability. This is especially useful (and counter intuitive) when thinking about test outcomes and (false) positives/negatives. (UPDATE THIS TO BE BETTER XD)

See this amazing intro sequence.

Our Maps are Only Approximations

  • universe is flat, maps have levels

Nothing Surprising Ever Happened

  • RAIZ

Free Will

Yes, I have the ability to do what I desire. But no, I don’t have the ability to choose what I desire.

This doesn’t take away my responsibility (at the human level).

TBD

Consciousness

TBD

The Status Quo is bad

How we’ve been doing things is probably not the optimal way. We should be more eager to change/update based on new information.

There is something to be said for conservatism (e.g. in complex systems), but more probably we should reason from first principles and do what comes out on top.

First Principles

  • tbd, Musk

How to Care

Effective Altruism

We should reduce suffering (negative utilitarianism). Which is much more urgent/easier/uncontroversial than maximising happiness.

This can be done on the cheap. Some interventions are much more effective than others. So give money to those interventions.

See my much longer page on Effective Altruism here.

Compassion > Empathy

We can put ourselves in the shoes of someone else (empathy). We care, and should care, about the people around us. But empathy is a spotlight.

We should care not based on geography, skin colour, or cuteness. We should care without these qualifiers, we should be compassionate (feel for others, not feel with others).

Note: See ‘Against Empathy‘ by Paul Bloom for more, and the Wikipedia definition of compassion (I think) is more in line with how I understand empathy (feeling with).

Life is Getting Better

  • Singer
  • Harari

We Shouldn’t Eat Animals

  • Part of EA maybe
  • Ethical (argument why sentient)
  • Link to longer post
  • We can’t do it right

How the Universe Works

Darwinian Evolution

  • Dawkins en Dennett

There is No Universal Time

  • local

We Live in an Always Splitting Multiverse

  • Deutsch
  • End of RAIZ

 

How the World Works

  • (multiple?)
  • We all don’t know what is going on
    • no conspiracy/cabal
    • not like evolution (we look forward) but close to it

The Near Future

  • Gene editing
  • Ageing done
  • AI (timelines), which may kill us all
  • Killing animals is bad
  • Mars and beyond (asteroid mining, Deutsch matter in space)
  • We Learn facts, not thinking (jobs will change (more)?)
  • Automation will take many jobs (uncertain how much will come back, and you need schooling for that)

How Humans Work

  • We do things because others do them (so be skeptical of that)
  •  

Change Log

This page was made in late August 2020 for the first time. I will update the change log when I significantly update a concept, or add a new concept.

 

 

https://twitter.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1298614421443444736

Where to give

Giving money away can be very personal. It’s based on your preferences, perspective on the world, personal experience, and more. So this section will only give a short overview of top charities and their QALY (or other relevant) indicators.

A few things that I think you can keep in mind when reading the following:

  • Your giving can radically change (or save) someone’s life. For as little as a few thousand euro/dollars, you can prevent a child from dying.
  • The wrong donation can accomplish nothing. Even many well-intentioned projects fail to deliver any QALYs.
  • Your donation is most effective where people have the least. In a developing country it will solve ‘easy’ (read: neglected) diseases, prevent more hunger, save more lives.
  • The time you take to consider where to give can be your most impactful hours spent. If you decide to donate, or donate more effectively, a few hours of research may translate into multiple lives saved, thousands of blind people prevented or kids dewormed.
  • But, we don’t know all the (unintended) consequences of our giving. You could even say that we’re quite clueless about most of the effects of giving. For brevity, I’ve not highlighted the uncertainty much more below.

Another interesting essay that speaks to this question of where to give is ‘Scope Insensitivity‘ by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Here he argues that the amount of money we are willing to give is not coupled to the amount of good it does. Or at least not when we haven’t thought about it much. Recommended reading.

Global Health

GiveWell is the best authority on this account and their staff spends thousands of hours researching charities each year. Also worth reading are (very similar) recommendations by The Life You Can Save, Founders Pledge, and EA Funds.

Malaria

Malaria sucks. It’s a mosquito-borne disease that comes from mosquitos. If you get malaria you will become ill, or die. Malaria mostly affects women and children. Each year 228 million people will get malaria, of which 400.00 will die (67% of whom are children under 5). (this used to be close to a million people in 2000, progress is being made)

Malaria can be prevented by long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets (AMF), some medications (chemoprevention, Malaria Consortium), and vaccination (but currently only 40% effective in kids).

The estimated costs of malaria in Africa is $12 billion (health care costs, people not working, less tourism).

I personally give to Against Malaria Foundation which buys nets at $2 and saves a life for somewhere between $2000 and $4500 (see complicated excel).

Deworming

Deworming can prevent many bad outcomes. One of these is blindness (see the text at the top). Other outcomes are better school attendance (less absence due to illness of kids) and other outcomes later in life. A deworming treatment costs $1.

Other most-effective charities

Next to these two, other programs focus on vitamin supplementation and the distribution of cash. The latter is a good example of something that is very effective (if given to mothers) but still 10-15 times less effective as spending directly on malaria prevention.

The information above is (mostly) based on GiveWell.

Mental Health

Mental health accounts for 10% of the global disease burden. The costs can be felt by almost every person on this earth. If you haven’t dealt with mental health issues, you definitely know someone who has. The global costs are estimated at $2.5 trillion.

In many countries around the world, there is almost no money spent on mental health (less than $2 per person). In middle- or low-income countries there are almost no psychologists, there is a stigma on mental health disorders (everywhere), and no priority on fixing the problems.

Some charities are working on fixing this. They employ people from local communities (e.g. elder women) who learn basic talk therapy skills.

Strong Minds is one of the charities in this area that is recommended by Founders Pledge.

Note: The best estimate is that they prevent one year of depression (MDD) at $248 which is equal to 1-3 sessions with a therapist in Europe. If compared to AMF, the costs of adding extra good years (QALYs) are within an order of magnitude.

Note 2: I’m personally working on psychedelics and their potential for the improvement of mental health. My estimate (also see Founders Pledge) is that for many years it won’t be as effective as Strong Minds or similar organisations.

Animal Welfare

Animal welfare can be improved from two directions. Giving is most effective when done via campaigns that influence big companies. This is done effectively by the Humane League (recommended via Animal Charity Evaluators). Their corporate outreach campaigns have resulted in many improvements in (factory farm) animal care.

Another route is by reducing (eliminating) animal products (meat, milk, etc) use. Next to animal suffering, there are many other good reasons like fighting climate change, lowering the chance of a next pandemic, and many more (e.g. see this essay). A charity that is working effectively on offering meat/milk/etc alternatives is The Good Food Institute.

Personally, I’m less clear on the QALYs that these companies can add (there is more uncertainty, from how large their influence is to the level of (human-comparable) suffering animals have). But that doesn’t mean that these charities and your personal impact aren’t important.

Note: Effective animal charities offer a good example of how our first intuition and what is effective differ. Most money for animal care is spent on shelters for dogs and cats, whilst the same people continue eating live cooked fish, and pigs.

Global Warming

Within effective altruism, there is less focus on global warming. It’s my understanding that, how bad these effects may be, the bad effects of malaria and other areas are worse/cheaper to prevent.

However, global warming can be a multiplier for other bad outcomes. It could make the area that mosquitos live in larger, lead to mass migration (less stable world), lost harvest, and more.

Currently, we don’t have a good way out. Reduction and replanting are two things that we’re doing (not very well). Solutions like capturing carbon from the air and geoengineering are being developed.

If you want to give effectively I would recommend Cool Earth – rainforest protection (via Giving What We Can) or The Clean Air Task Force – various projects (via Founders Pledge).

One thing to consider with regard to climate change is the following two scenarios (about which I need to learn more). In the first scenario we limit economic growth (so the world is 200% richer in 2100) and we have 2°C degrees warming. In the second scenario we continue growing (300% richer) and there is 4°C degrees warming, which world would be better to live in?

A final note on climate change. Your most effective personal action here would be the money you donate to effective charities – not taking the train or flying less often. Or in other words, the CO2 (equivalent) that you can prevent with a donation is so much larger than taking a bike instead of a car (which you should still do). The next best thing to do personally, not having kids. See this great report by Founders Pledge for more.

AI Safety

We are currently creating minds that one day will bypass us. There is no physical law that says that we can’t make artificial intelligence (AI) that is more creative than us.

When this will happen is hotly debated. When that data/period comes, we should better make sure that we’ve created a benevolent ‘God’.

The AI safety community has been working on this problem for many decades and is (in some respects) now just part of the AI research agenda (as car safety research is in car development).

Besides reading a few books on this problem/challenge, I can’t say that I know what is best to do here as an individual donor (again, my uncertainty/lack of knowledge if a donation does any good).

Longtermism

In the future, many billions more people will roam this earth (and the universe). Their lives should be as valuable as life happening right now, but as there are many more (possible) people in the future, should we then not do our very best to make sure that the future is good?

Longtermism (which is a growing part of the EA movement) argues that interventions geared towards improving the change that our future will be good add the most QALYs.

Although I agree with the premise, I’m personally not familiar enough with the literature to say that I know if we (through charity) can be effective in helping here. I would need to do more research.

How to Give?

If you’re in The Netherlands, you can find out which charities have an ANBI (NGO) status here via ‘Doneer Effectief‘.

Rationality From AI to Zombies

Rationality: From AI to Zombies by Eliezer Yudkowsky is a huge tome that covers everything from heuristics to Bayes theorem. Its main goal is to give the reader a better/modern understanding of rationality and the tools one needs to have in their toolkit.

It can be found (as the original books and posts) here.

The book was quite the journey and over the coming months I plan to go back to the individual posts to put concepts in Obsidian and make notes here.

A cognitive bias is a systematic error in how we think, as opposed to a random error or one that’s merely caused by our ignorance. Whereas statistical bias skews a sample so that it less closely resembles a larger population, cognitive biases skew our thinking so that it less accurately tracks the truth (or less reliably serves our other goals)… Like statistical biases, cognitive biases can distort our view of reality, they can’t always be fixed by just gathering more data, and their effects can add up over time. But when the miscalibrated measuring instrument you’re trying to fix is you, debiasing is a unique challenge.”

The goal of the text is teaching (tools of) rationality, talking about biases that we have is the first step/part of it.

With biases, you may still experience them, even if you know beforehand that you have them. On the other hand, you can also over correct. So it’s always difficult/challenging to assess correctly.

  • base neglect bias: ignoring how many of X (and Y) there are (e.g. a shy person is more likely a sales person than a librarian because there are more of the former)
  • sunk cost fallacy: not ignoring the costs that we made before at the moment of evaluation (of future costs/benefits)

“The map is not the territory.”

We don’t clearly adjust our spending/giving based on the scope. We have scope insensitivity.

“The usual finding is that exponential increases in scope create linear increases in willingness-to-pay—perhaps corresponding to the linear time for our eyes to glaze over the zeroes; this small amount of affect is added, not multiplied, with the prototype affect. This hypothesis is known as “valuation by prototype.””

“An alternative hypothesis is “purchase of moral satisfaction.” People spend enough money to create a warm glow in themselves, a sense of having done their duty.”

Or in other words, we care about people/animals, but really don’t see that 10X more saved is 10X better. A good lesson for effective altruism (communication). Focus on the prototype in communication, whilst still ruthlessly strive for the best solution.

(study linked)

We should have rationality dojos says Yudkowski. There are now some places devoted to this. But like my weightlifting, I like to learn from the best, practice much alone. And yes, I do recognize that you need to test things in the real world and talk to others. But I think that learning from Dawkins, Dennett, and Deutsch, isn’t that bad either.

The availability heuristic is judging the frequency or probability of an event by the ease with which examples of the event come to mind.”

This is how terrorism and fear of flying (vs driving) works.

Related is absurdity bias, if something hasn’t happened (in a long time) we also can’t image it happening now.

https://www.lesswrong.com/s/5g5TkQTe9rmPS5vvM/p/jnZbHi873v9vcpGpZ

River Out of Eden

River Out of Eden by Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) gives an overview of our understanding of evolution. It explains deep concepts in understandable ways. Dawkins is a master in communication, and by using the ‘river out of Eden’ as an analogy, he presents evolution as a forwards flow of information. And although the book (and Dawkins in general) is a refutation of God-made creation(ism), it does the heavy lifting with explanation, not with conflict.

Preface

The ability to self-replicate is the (proximate?) cause for Darwinian selection, and the life we know on this world.

Chapter 1 – The Digital River

Real ancestors (vs myths/(religious) cults) hold the key to understanding life.

Ancestors are rare, descendants are common.”

Fun fact, not one of our ancestors died in infancy.

All organisms contain successful genes. Genes that have what it takes to become ancestors (to reproduce, leave kids behind). Genes to survive and reproduce.

Good genes cause success. Not the other way around (behaviour/lifetime doesn’t influence genes).

Every generation is a filter, only the successful genes get through. Some animals are sterile (worker ants), but they contain the genes that can also be passed along (the environment ‘chooses’ who becomes a reproducer or sterile worker). Thus they assist ‘their genes’ through the transgenerational sieve.

Genes are also not influenced by sex. Their effects are blended, but the genes are digital (yes/no, not analoge (radio frequency)).

The river analogy can be seen as genes travelling together on a stream. Those that cooperate well together, say in a body of an animal, form different branches/rivers. Speciation is the term for two rivers splitting. They will not join again.

The separation can be a geographical separation (both adapting to different environments over thousands/millions of years).

The number of species is estimated at 30 million (in 1994, now 2-10 million estimated to live), and if 99% has already gone extinct before now, the total branches/rivers (including those dried up) is 3 billion.

The separation of species (e.g. dinosaurs and mammals) may look significant, but it’s not. It was just another small river, branching from another. Only over long-history-time it looks significant.

The great animal groups are more similar in building blocks than we thought before. The genetic code is a dictionary with 64 words (from 4 letters) mapped on 21 words from another language (amino acids (20) plus punctuation mark). The chance of that is 1 in a million (x5). Or in other words, all life originates from a single ancestor.

So if you put on your molecular lens, all animals (and plants) are quite closely related.

DNA is digital, nerve cells are a mix of digital and analogue. The pulse (yes/no, action potential) is digital. But the rate of pulses is analogue.

This complex set of genes (and the instructions they give) are held together in a body (e.g. a polar bear). The number of cells of a polar bear are about 9 million million. And the complexity doesn’t stop there, each cell has a complex interior structure of folded membranes too.

Enzymes are the catalysts in a cell. Which genes in a cell are turned on, is determined by the chemicals already present in a cell. Bootstrapping is the term Dawkins uses for explaining how these processes start/interact. (do read the book or a whole book on this topic to get a better understanding of this).

[T]he genes that survive in the river will be the ones that are good at surviving in the average environment of the species, and perhaps the most important aspect of this average environment is the other genes of the species; the other genes with which a gene is likely to have to share a body; the other genes that swim through geological time in the same river.”

Chapter 2 – All Africa and Her Progenies

(cultural relativism bad)

Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results [make testable predictions]. Myths and faiths are not and do not.

If we go back far enough in time, we are all cousins. If you go back to Roman times, the people there are either all our ancestors or ancestors of none (their line died out). Go further back and we’re all connected to the first replicator.

The changes in DNA can be measured with a molecular-clock (hypothesis, still somewhat controversial). The clock rate between species (and possibly time periods in history) may be different.

To find our common ancestor, we can look at mitochondrial DNA (because that doesn’t get mixed during sex, only that of the mother is passed along). Two million years ago is the moment of our mitochondrial (female line) ancestor (or as late as 250.000 years ago), probably in Africa.

Mithochondria are the powerhouses of our cells. If we look at their origins, they were bacteria (2 billion years ago).

… if all the mitochondria in a single human body were laid end to end, they would girdle the Earth not once but two thousand times.”

Chapter 3 – Do Good by Stealth

Creationists say something like “this is so beautifully designed, and it would be useless if it missed X (of X Y Z) function, God must have made this all in one go.” or as Dawkins puts it “… cannot have evolved by gradual stages, because the intermediate, half-formed stages could not have been good for anything.”

This chapter does away with those conceptions.

A proto-eye can already see (e.g. light and dark). Birds are fooled by red spots that their kin normally have. If you present a supernormal stimulus, they go crazy for it (as do humans, think adult movies).

Douglas Hofstadter (yes of Gödel Escher Bach) called the inflexible, mindless automatism that some (all?) animals exhibit (and bees in particular in this case) ‘sphexish’.

Many things we humans make also work when a part stops working (e.g. even a plane flies with one fewer engine). Something that breaks if it misses one part is called brittle (robust or antifragile could be the opposite?).

Eyes are useful in a gradient (analog) kind of way, you can vaguely see what is far away, and clearly see what is close. They have evolved between 40 and 60 times, with at least 9 different design principles.

Computer simulations show that an eye can be evolved (gradually) in about half a million years.

Do good by stealth. A key feature of evolution is its gradualness.” It may sometimes go quickly (e.g. meteor strike), but is almost always gradual.

The rest of the chapter describes the evolution of the dance of bees and some very clever experiments to test this.

Chapter 4 – God’s Utility Function

“Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous – indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”

As humans we (think) we have a purpose, a goal, a consciousness. We plan for the future, look ahead, look back. But nature lacks this, nature just is. Evolution doesn’t have a plan. Evolution doesn’t answer the ‘what is it for’ question.

Only through Darwinian natural selection does evolution happen. There is no grand design or purpose. If we see that, it’s just an illusion left by the former.

Dawkins takes inspiration from Darwins Dangerous Idea (link if read). He uses the follow two terms:

  • Reverse engineering: making the assumption that there is an intelligent and economical reason for something being there (as outcome)
  • Utility function: that which is maximized

By watching the behavior of individuals throughout their lives, you should be able to reverse engineer their utility functions.”

There can be multiple things (utilities) that an organism (or organization for that matter) is optimising for. In the end, for us living things, it comes down to DNA survival.

Dawkins then explains the sex ratio and why a 50:50 division is optimal.

Beauty (e.g. peacock’s tail) is also explained by this utility. It isn’t directly useful for getting food, but displays evolutionary strength and over evolution it is selected for. Beauty has no virtue in itself, but the genetic competition makes sure it exists.

Evolution doesn’t have a ‘cooperative restraint’ in it. We can’t all just say, let’s not spend so much resources on beauty (or growing taller as a tree). Heck, the outcomes of this race could even mean the extinction of your species (e.g. all the beautiful birds get eaten by predators).

About old age and dying, Dawkins repeats some things I know about genes that optimise for reproduction, may be harmful if you’re older. They will not be filtered out (because with them, you can still get kids when you’re young).

About happiness. “Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about anything.”

If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”

Chapter 5 – The Replication Bomb

We are probably somewhere in space-time that can be called an information or ‘replication bomb’. Because life consists of replicators. And these replicators can lead to exponential growth.

This growth can only go on for so long, until more resources are acquired.

Dawkins then explains the start of this process, where self-replication differs from crystals (something building on itself, but not self-replicating).

The halfs need to split and then both sides need to be able to grow the other side again. DNA has four ‘letters’ that make this possible.

The copying isn’t perfect and because of how molecules can be folded, there is open-ended variety next to heredity.

Dawkins then describes several thresholds that a planetary replication bomb could/should pass:

  1. Replicator Threshold: self-copying system, with occasional random mistakes in copying. This leads to a mixed population with competition for scares resources.
  2. Phenotype Threshold: replicators survive because of causal effects on phenotype (parts of animals/plants that genes can influence).
    1. He has written more about this in The Extended Phenotype
  3. Replicator Team Threshold: working together in cells (eukaryotic cells is those in our body, otherwise bacterial cells which are the forerunners of them).
    1. Darwinian selection still chooses among rival genes, but the genes that are favored are those that prosper in the presence of other genes that are simultaneously being favored in one another’s presence.”
  4. Many-Cells Threshold: many cells working together to form a larger (emergent?) system (and that makes it different from crystals which is just molecules times X)
  5. High-Speed Information-Processing Threshold: neurons (at least on earth). This system needs sense organs, brains, and memory.
  6. Consciousness Threshold: humans, maybe other animals
  7. Language Threshold: networking system by which brains exchange information with sufficient intimacy to allow the development of a cooperative technology.
  8. Cooperative Technology Threshold: the meme, a river of culture
  9. Radio Threshold: sending out signals to outer space
  10. Space Travel Threshold: sending more than radio waves

Alright, that’s that.

Autism on Acid

This post originally appeared on Blossom Analysis.

Autism on Acid (How LSD Helped Me Understand, Navigate, Alter & Appreciate My Autistic Perceptions) is an amazingly personal book written by Aaron Paul Orsini and documents his transformational experience with a variety of LSD dosages and how they have helped him in his struggles with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The book can be best seen as a case-study and an invitation for more research to be done. That being said, it’s an incredible case study and one that under four hours (do get the audiobook Aaron narrates himself) will impact not only your mind, it will also touch your heart.

Summary & Review

Introduction

Aaron was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADS) at the age of 23. Four years later, at the age of 27, he had his first Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) trip. This book documents his experience of living with ADS, discovering LSD, and learning to better manage his condition. Or in other words, it will explain the opening statement:

“[W]hen LSD met my ASD, I experienced incomparable relief for — and, in some sense, a near-total resolution of — my struggles with Autism Spectrum Disorder.”

Chapter 1 – Me Before LSD

Emotional awareness and emphatic access are two traits that people with ASD have trouble experiencing (to a varying degree, it’s a spectrum). Social interactions aren’t natural and fun, they are more often draining and confusing. Aaron recounts how he specifically experienced the world from this perspective. For him, social information and seamless interaction were out of reach.

“I am in no way joking when I say that before LSD, I felt more closely related to a robot or robotic learning algorithm than I did to a human being.”

For more background, you can find the DSM-V (psychologists/psychiatrists handbook of sorts) definition of ASD here.

Chapter 2 – Autism on Acid

The diagnosis of ASD came very late and Aaron battled with depressive symptoms for a long time before his diagnosis helped him better understand himself. But it wasn’t enough, and after the death of a close friend, Aaron retreated and bought a train ticket west.

His first trip was with a tab of LSD of around 150-250 micrograms. The trip gave him access to a world he had never experienced before. A world in which he could make connections. Instead of talking to a person, he was talking with a person. He could, for the first time, understand the nuance and detail of social interactions.

“In the initial hours of the experience, as the LSD began to take effect, I felt more and more connected… with the trees and breeze and sunlight around me. I experienced a deep moment of engagement. Yes. A moment of connection, with nature, with thoughts of my parents, my family, friends, and the whole of the human family and the broader web of life. And yes I know it sounds cliche to say but I was awash in a sense of deep, deep love for so many aspects of life.”

Aaron does a very good job of also describing the (legal) risks of taking an illegal drug, and discourages anyone from doing the same.

Chapter 3 – After the First Dose

This newfound access to emotions wasn’t just amazing, it also opening him up to challenging and intense emotions. But as he learned more about himself, he discovered the nuance of emotions.

“It was as if LSD had unclogged a lifetime of emotional constipation, and there I was, sifting through my mound of unprocessed mental sh*t. But the odd part about this was that, with the assistance of LSD, It was as if LSD had unclogged a lifetime of emotional constipation, and there I was, sifting through my mound of unprocessed mental sh*t. But the odd part about this was that, with the assistance of LSD, this type of inner emotional work seemed not very burdensome.this type of inner emotional work seemed not very burdensome.”

Chapter 4 – Integration

The LSD experienced needed to be integrated into his daily life and Aaron recounts how the ASD lens is much different from average. And that until his 27th year, socializing was on the bottom of his priority list.

“The closest I can come to describing what it’s like to have an ASD-affected brain would be to compare it to relying on a mailroom clerk who receives all of the envelopes in the mail but only ever seems to have no clue as to which envelopes ought to be opened first.”

Chapter 5 – Acceptance

Through his experience with LSD, Aaron was able to accept himself, to become his own best friend. In this chapter, and in later chapters, he recognizes that the ASD lens is just one of the ways of seeing the world, and a way that he does still values. One lens is not better than the other, they are just different perspectives.

“By alternating between the lenses of ASD and LSD, I gained an intimate understanding of not only a new way of seeing, but also, critically, a wholly new and novel perspective on the ways that I had always seen. I became aware of the ways in which I was aware, and unaware, of various aspects of the ever-available stimulus. In this way, I became capable of seeing my own biases, and conditioned patterns of belief, and so many other aspects of self that had become so familiar and ingrained that they had likewise become more or less invisible to me in my day-to-day perception.”

Aaron makes the great analogy to people who are deaf. A cochlear implant is awesome, but it’s also great to be able to turn it off when you’re riding the subway.

Chapter 6 – Immersion Therapy

One of the reasons for writing the book is to inspire researchers and therapists. Aaron’s experience may serve as a template of sorts that they can try and validate or update with a larger sample size.

Through experimentation, Aaron has found that 20-50 micrograms works best as ‘LSD-Assisted Immersion Therapy’. This is more than a microdose (sub-perceptual, usually 5-10 µg) and less than a full/psychedelic/macro dose (>100 µg). This dosage helped him most with social learning and development, without being too distracting/psychedelic.

“It was a variable dose range that seemed to work well for me; a range that would decrease my fear and increase my perceptivity but still allow me to re-root and more readily integrate insights into aspects of selfhood in real-time.”

He followed the 3-day (1 on, 2 off) protocol as proposed by James Fadiman (The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide). The rest of the chapter also describes the usefulness of other dosages (macro, micro), how to prepare it, and the preparation he undertook.

Aaron describes the LSD-Assisted Immersion Therapy as a place in which he could discover and change his conditioning maps, his routines and (unhelpful) (mental) routines.

“This process of use-testing and editing my conditioned behavioral responses allowed me to (1) recognize patterns of behavior, (2) consider potential root causes of the behavior (3) consider potential modifications to said behavior, and (4) test and integrate the behavior change IN THE MOMENT.”

Chapter 7 – What Now?

This chapter can be best described as a call-to-action, a thank you to LSD, and encouragement for more research to be done.

“LSD let me see & comprehend complicated social behaviors. LSD let me feel feelings and deeply sense the feelings of other living beings. From a single dose I woke up, from a numb and deafened black and white life, obscured by memorized maps. I fell in love with the dynamic full-color, heart-tingling, sensational, birational, expressive world of human beings being social. So – pretty please – with an fMRI image on top, please consider rescheduling so we can more readily research LSD.” (printed in a very large font)

Chapter 8 – LSD Research, Then & Now

The research on LSD and ASD is still very limited. Aaron has made available all his (up-to-date) notes and links on this website. Much of the research is from the 1960s, and good new studies have yet to be done. In the book, Aaron quotes four papers:

Chapter 9 – An Open Letter to Science

The final chapter highlights the resurgence of research being done with psychedelics. Aaron cheers this on (and donates the proceeding of the book to MAPS and Heffter).

“If I had a wish, I would wish that neuroimaging studies could continue to provide insight into what exactly happens during the psychedelic experience. I would wish that such studies could continue to reveal not only the neurological underpinnings of both psychedelic and autistic experiences, but also, in turn, the neurological underpinnings of the broader human experience. Because I strongly believe that by studying psychedelics and autism, we advance our perspective on the formation of perspectives, period. And I for one find that to be an exciting prospect indeed.”

Buy Autism on Acid

Next to the normal places, you can also get the (audio)book directly from the website. You can also collaborate/give feedback on this google doc.

Do Meaningful Work

Most of your productive time will be spent at your day job. A rough estimate of the hours you will spend doing this is 80.000 hours.

In my eyes, there are several ways (all good) through which your career can contribute to making the world a better place.

  1. Work directly on (global) issues (if you have the skills and motivation)
    1. At an effective organisation (job board)
    2. Start your own (Charity Entrepreneurship incubator)
  2. Find the best organisation in your field (‘the best’ of course differs depending on your goals)
  3. Change the impact of the organisation you work at (e.g. yearly fundraiser, changing supply chain)

For more specific career advise (and a good podcast too), go to 80.000 hours.org

I personally always keep my eyes open as to how Queal can be more sustainable, and think that by replacing many meals that were previously meat-based, we are already having a large impact.

With Blossom, I plan to donate a percentage of revenue to mental health charities.

Learn More About Effective Altruism

Some of the Effective Altruism Organisations:

Stuff I’ve read and found interesting:

Have Healthy Habits

Note: these are actions that I recommend, but as stated before, the impact of your giving will be many times larger than your habits (unless you own a yacht).

Bike > Train > Car

Plants > Vegetarian > Meat

Sweater > Heater

Durable clothes > Fast fashion

Old phone > Newest phone

More on how your consumption impacts the world can be found in The Hidden Impact.

Promote Effective Altruism

A final part of maximizing my impact is the effort I make in promoting Effective Altruism. I do this via the monthly meeting in Rotterdam which attracts between 5-30 people each month.

You can find the meetup here (600+ members). Or on Facebook.

Also find out more on our website (sign up for the newsletter there).

In future months I plan on also doing a fundraiser and making it easier for others to do fundraisers too.

Note: in the future I want to evaluate if my time doing this is worth it (does it even get others to donate? (yes I think) or make other significant changes (maybe))

Give Money Away

Up to this point, I’ve explained some of the philosophy behind effective altruism and introduced a few of the concepts. I think that I should have everyone on board at this point, so here comes the conclusion of the above: You should give away a part of your money.

Let me explain why.

You are rich!

If you make €15.000 after taxes in The Netherlands, you are among the richest 10% of people in the world. Bump that up to a corporate salary of €40.000 after taxes and you’re in the top 1.5%.

You can calculate your own ‘richness’ with this calculator from Giving What We Can. The median income in the world is about €2.000.

Giving away money buys happiness

Spending money on yourself brings you happiness, it makes possible great experiences and beautiful things. But spending everything on yourself isn’t effective.

For instance, buying high-quality food at €10 will for instance add one unit of happiness (utilon) to your life. But somewhere around the world, that same €10 will buy a whole family of five, one unit of happiness, for two weeks, totaling 70 units of happiness.

This is but a very course example. Still, I hope it gets the point across that money somewhere else will have a larger effect on happiness than spending everything on yourself.

Giving away money buys you happiness

Experiments show that giving away money also ‘buys’ you happiness. When participants in the study spent the money on others, they reported higher levels of happiness than those who spend everything on themselves.

Just like caring about the people close to us, altruism is also something that is baked into our genes. All EA asks of you, is to take a global and impartial perspective.

Just give away a little

Giving What We Can, is an organisation that promotes giving to effective charities. They recommend giving 10% of your income. Or put the other way around, to spend 90% on yourself and loved ones.

This means that you can still go on vacation, have a caramel latte, drink beers at the pub, etc.

I have three tips for starting giving:

  1. Try Giving, start at 1%
  2. Make it automatic, don’t make it an ‘active’ choice every month/year
  3. Scale up the giving when your income increase, so you don’t feel any ‘pain’ from it

It doesn’t all have to be effective

Giving effectively isn’t the perfect way to buy happiness for yourself. Helping out at a soup kitchen (and not working those hours at your high-paying job) feels much better than donating the money you could have made in those hours. Giving to that handsome guy who wrangles people for donations feels like the right thing to do.

So, here are my suggestions for thinking about giving effectively, based on the essay ‘Purchase Fuzzis and Utilons Separately‘:

  • Buy the warm feelings (fuzzies) by doing something very local like supporting a soup kitchen a few hours or helping elderly do their taxes (a small part of your time or money)
  • Buy status among friends and family by donating to your nephews fundraising effort for charity X, help out a few hours at your children’s school event (again, a small part of time or money)
  • Then with the rest of your giving, be a rationalist and give it to the most effective charities there are (see below)