I think the hypothesis that forecasting is not very black because of racism implies the same about EA in general, given their similarly low levels of black representation.
If I had to guess, I’ve known a couple of black forecastingy people and their views are a bit different form the typical progressive. I’d guess the median isn’t a fan of Hanania is probably would not have him as a speaker but reluctantly would allow attendees to think what they like, but with a finger on the pulse of the event to decide whether to attend or not. Probably there are some who are put off by the speakers so push the median a bit towards inhibiting speech. Not sure that the median would want all the geneticsy speakers disinvited though.
But I don’t know why we guess rather than figuring out the correct group and then asking them.
Ideally, a group of Black individuals who have characteristics that would suggest they would have interest in and success at forecasting, generally matching relevant demographics (e.g., age, educational background). One could then infer the range of viewpoints in the population we are looking to apply the results to: Black individuals who aren’t in the forecasting community but are in the candidate pool (so to speak).
Obviously the inability to fully operationalize membership in the group of Black people who might be into forecasting would be a source of error here. It’s plausible that there are characteristics we didn’t take into account. But I think sampling from that group would likely generate error opposite to the error generated by sampling people who are already in the forecasting community (who may be self-selected for willingness to tolerate its culture).
If you got similar results from both your proposed sample and mine, you could have a decent amount of confidence in the result. If you got different results, then I’d be inclined to call the overall results indeterminate.
Which group would you like to poll?
I think the hypothesis that forecasting is not very black because of racism implies the same about EA in general, given their similarly low levels of black representation.
If I had to guess, I’ve known a couple of black forecastingy people and their views are a bit different form the typical progressive. I’d guess the median isn’t a fan of Hanania is probably would not have him as a speaker but reluctantly would allow attendees to think what they like, but with a finger on the pulse of the event to decide whether to attend or not. Probably there are some who are put off by the speakers so push the median a bit towards inhibiting speech. Not sure that the median would want all the geneticsy speakers disinvited though.
But I don’t know why we guess rather than figuring out the correct group and then asking them.
Ideally, a group of Black individuals who have characteristics that would suggest they would have interest in and success at forecasting, generally matching relevant demographics (e.g., age, educational background). One could then infer the range of viewpoints in the population we are looking to apply the results to: Black individuals who aren’t in the forecasting community but are in the candidate pool (so to speak).
Obviously the inability to fully operationalize membership in the group of Black people who might be into forecasting would be a source of error here. It’s plausible that there are characteristics we didn’t take into account. But I think sampling from that group would likely generate error opposite to the error generated by sampling people who are already in the forecasting community (who may be self-selected for willingness to tolerate its culture).
If you got similar results from both your proposed sample and mine, you could have a decent amount of confidence in the result. If you got different results, then I’d be inclined to call the overall results indeterminate.
Yeah I’d be interested in this.