I’m biased, of course, but it seems fine to write a post like this. (Similarly, it’s fine for CFAR staff members to write a post about CFAR techniques. In fact, I prefer if precisely these people write such posts because they have the relevant expertise.)
Would you like us to add a more prominent disclaimer somewhere? (We worried that this might look like advertising.)
The post speaks about Ewelina’s experience in the third person which is untypical for LessWrong posts and quite a bit into the text. I guess that in many cases a reader would not remember at this point that she’s the author of the article.
A good portion of LessWrong posts start with an “epistemic status” paragraph in which information such as “Ewelina Tur is trained in therapy X” could be presented. Whether or not she’s formally trained in CFT and schema therapy is useful information when reading her presentation of it. She is unlikely to misrepresent therapies for which she has formal training while at the same time maybe exaggerating their benefits.
While I don’t think it makes sense to focus on this as an issue of conflict of interest, having epistemic legibility is always good.
This is mentioned in the introduction.
I’m biased, of course, but it seems fine to write a post like this. (Similarly, it’s fine for CFAR staff members to write a post about CFAR techniques. In fact, I prefer if precisely these people write such posts because they have the relevant expertise.)
Would you like us to add a more prominent disclaimer somewhere? (We worried that this might look like advertising.)
The post speaks about Ewelina’s experience in the third person which is untypical for LessWrong posts and quite a bit into the text. I guess that in many cases a reader would not remember at this point that she’s the author of the article.
A good portion of LessWrong posts start with an “epistemic status” paragraph in which information such as “Ewelina Tur is trained in therapy X” could be presented. Whether or not she’s formally trained in CFT and schema therapy is useful information when reading her presentation of it. She is unlikely to misrepresent therapies for which she has formal training while at the same time maybe exaggerating their benefits.
While I don’t think it makes sense to focus on this as an issue of conflict of interest, having epistemic legibility is always good.
Good idea, thanks. We added such an ‘epistemic status’ paragraph.