W/r/t the diet question, I think that’s incredibly valuable and useful information for EAA.
That’s likely true, but I presume the reason for considering removing it was that people would feel uncomfortable/judged/guilty and so stop completing the rest of the survey, which would be a large cost. Last year I was happy or even keen for people to know all my other answers, but didn’t want to be judged on failing to be vegetarian.
People might also feel judged if asked how much they donate, but asking this is part of assessing what part of EA principles they’re adopting, and how effective EA is at actually driving behavior change in self-identified EAs, which is sort of the point of the survey.
That’s a pretty convincing point, at least to me personally. I think that—just as we give a separate opt in/out for sharing your past or planned donations on the EA Donation Registry, whether or not they choose to share their answers in general via an EA Profile -we might want to consider having diet not be publicly shared. That’s assuming there’s no great benefit to having a commitment device and inspirational/motivational registry for diet, or that EA Profiles/the EA Survey aren’t the right place for them.
This seems more true for those who take an obligation-oriented perspective than an opportunity-oriented perspective.
Personally, I am concerned with animal suffering but I’m not a vegetarian. I agree with Katja Grace: “I am personally not a vegetarian because I don’t think it is an effective way to be altruistic.” I also agree with Chris Hallquist (who is vegan) that vegan activism seems like a relatively bad way to help animals in the long run. (It’s hard to measure how vegan activism might polarize people away from caring about animals, which would make passing a law more difficult.) And that’s not even accounting for the fact that, like Nick Beckstead, I think the far future is of overwhelming importance and it’s dubious to me that my avoiding animal meals now will have any significant positive effect on it.
That’s likely true, but I presume the reason for considering removing it was that people would feel uncomfortable/judged/guilty and so stop completing the rest of the survey, which would be a large cost. Last year I was happy or even keen for people to know all my other answers, but didn’t want to be judged on failing to be vegetarian.
People might also feel judged if asked how much they donate, but asking this is part of assessing what part of EA principles they’re adopting, and how effective EA is at actually driving behavior change in self-identified EAs, which is sort of the point of the survey.
That’s a pretty convincing point, at least to me personally. I think that—just as we give a separate opt in/out for sharing your past or planned donations on the EA Donation Registry, whether or not they choose to share their answers in general via an EA Profile -we might want to consider having diet not be publicly shared. That’s assuming there’s no great benefit to having a commitment device and inspirational/motivational registry for diet, or that EA Profiles/the EA Survey aren’t the right place for them.
EA is kinda inherently judgey in this way.
This seems more true for those who take an obligation-oriented perspective than an opportunity-oriented perspective.
Personally, I am concerned with animal suffering but I’m not a vegetarian. I agree with Katja Grace: “I am personally not a vegetarian because I don’t think it is an effective way to be altruistic.” I also agree with Chris Hallquist (who is vegan) that vegan activism seems like a relatively bad way to help animals in the long run. (It’s hard to measure how vegan activism might polarize people away from caring about animals, which would make passing a law more difficult.) And that’s not even accounting for the fact that, like Nick Beckstead, I think the far future is of overwhelming importance and it’s dubious to me that my avoiding animal meals now will have any significant positive effect on it.