Here are some suggestions from the Facebook thread which you could upvote or downvote. Alas this could mean losing precious precious karma, but I guess there’s no other way to get these votes here (?) so I think I’ll live with that ;)
Some question that gets at whether they find talking to other EAs to be unpleasant b/c we’re too verbally aggressive VS would prefer more forthrightness
This would make it especially valuable to get people on the fringes of EA (who’ve been exposed but not wholely ‘signed up’) to take the survey. I remember it was open to them and anyone else last year.
If its beyond a certain threshold, a few questions getting their subjective cost/QALY (or equivalent) estimates for AMF, Dwtw, SCI, givedirectly and their best alternative bet in freetext might be interesting. I have the feeling that people’s subjective estimates are quite variable.
Yep, I presume the person suggesting this question (Josh Jacobson) only meant that there should be no ‘other’ option. Partly for the reason you state, every single question should be optional, just like last year.
Why not? LW and SSC do this without issue, and IQ is a very important variable for many things. What’s the point of doing a survey if not to understand your population?
I’ve taken those surveys for years, and it’s true that they’ve often contained questions that would get this (EA) community’s jimmies severely rustled, without any problems or complaints or concern trolling. At least, that’s my impression, as someone more familiar with the rationalist community than the EA one.
The best IQ proxy questions are demographic variables anyway (age, years of education, and occupation), which predict about 50% of the variance in full-scale IQ—see papers shared here: http://jmp.sh/b/V717o7yuqvQutQYTHIMh
It wouldn’t be hard to plug data we’re going to get anyway into Crawford’s regression equation—the only extra work would be plugging in occupations to the standardized occupational classification system. Reporting it could be bad PR, but it wouldn’t hurt for anyone who’s interested to take a look.
Not convinced that we want to measure iq but I think the whole point of doing it would be to see if eas are on the whole a lot smarter than would be predicted by demographic variables, like LessWrong seems to be. However, LessWrong’s annual process of measuring their iq and then arguing about whether or not it’s accurate is a bit of a fiasco, and probably not one that we want to engage in.
I haven’t read any of LW’s debates on this, so I’m not sure why one would be interested in whether the relationship between demographics and intelligence in EAs is weaker than usual, or what that would imply about EA. Mainly, I’d like to know by what routes people with predicted-to-be-average intelligence and average educational backgrounds are coming to EA, so I hope age, years of education, and occupation will be included so that the option exists of using the estimation techniques referred to above.
Having said that—intelligence research is politically toxic, and I’d also worry that people could spread bad ideas about how to use IQ estimates (e.g., general bragging rights, or “the smartest EAs focus on X, so we should pay more attention to X”), so I wouldn’t argue for including anything related to IQ estimation in publicly-announced results.
Mainly, I’d like to know by what routes people with predicted-to-be-average intelligence and average educational backgrounds are coming to EA, so I hope age, years of education, and occupation will be included so that the option exists of using the estimation techniques referred to above.
Last time we asked about age, income last year and highest level of education completed. Pending the community feedback we were planning to keep these, and add a free text box for ‘current occupation or career’. Does that all cover it OK? Is asking for years in education better, and if so why? Is it comparable across countries? Is it years of post-secondary education?
Having said that—intelligence research is politically toxic, and I’d also worry that people could spread bad ideas about how to use IQ estimates (e.g., general bragging rights, or “the smartest EAs focus on X, so we should pay more attention to X”), so I wouldn’t argue for including anything related to IQ estimation in publicly-announced results.
I personally agree, though the survey team as a whole will be influenced by the community view (which hasn’t had a strong consensus in favour of asking about IQ, either last time or—so far—this time).
This question would be more valuable when it makes clear that it asks for an assessment for the specific respondent at that time. Something like “Do you believe that for you at the moment it is better to act now or invest to act better later?” Then the answers could be faceted by age, student status, or other applicable demographic data (if the power is sufficient).
Some may also consider external factors like the availability of vaccines or progress of prioritization research, but for most the personal factors will probably weigh heavier in this decision, and we wouldn’t be able to distinguish that afterwards.
False dichotomy. Perhaps 2 questions here, 1 about diversity, 1 about strength of committment. Example wording (Likert responses?) “How much do you think EA should focus more on strengthening existing strategies for improving the world compared to broadening into new ones?” “How much do you think EA movement building should focus on increasing the commitment and coordination of current EAs as opposed to recruitment and outreach?” and perhaps “In recruiting and reaching out, who should be the primary target?” (example answers: people that are most likely to identify with EA, people with the most to offer in terms of time and resources, people from different walks of life that can reveal EA’s blindspots)
Haha! Probably all people who wanted to indicate that they got it, not that they thought it’s a valuable survey question. On the other hand it would make the survey funnier, especially without the photo, which may increase people’s motivation to finish it.
Here are some suggestions from the Facebook thread which you could upvote or downvote. Alas this could mean losing precious precious karma, but I guess there’s no other way to get these votes here (?) so I think I’ll live with that ;)
how confident are you that you’ll be an EA in 5 years? 10?
Some question that gets at whether they find talking to other EAs to be unpleasant b/c we’re too verbally aggressive VS would prefer more forthrightness
‘have you found conversations with effective altruists persuasive?’(y/n/haven’t talked/mixed) ‘Why so?’ (freetext)
This would make it especially valuable to get people on the fringes of EA (who’ve been exposed but not wholely ‘signed up’) to take the survey. I remember it was open to them and anyone else last year.
have you taken a different job than the one you would have taken, for EA reasons?
how many people in your life know how much you give?
(if no local EA chapter) if there were a local chapter, would you attend?
I’d upvote this one, as I’d use the results for my work creating new EA presences.
how much time do you spend thinking about where to donate?
If its beyond a certain threshold, a few questions getting their subjective cost/QALY (or equivalent) estimates for AMF, Dwtw, SCI, givedirectly and their best alternative bet in freetext might be interesting. I have the feeling that people’s subjective estimates are quite variable.
Forced choice with no ‘other’ option: which topic primarily made you discover EA: philosophy and ethics, charity, or rationality?
Seems like making this a forced choice might mean you lose people from completing the survey.
Yep, I presume the person suggesting this question (Josh Jacobson) only meant that there should be no ‘other’ option. Partly for the reason you state, every single question should be optional, just like last year.
Some IQ proxy question
Let’s not do this.
Why not? LW and SSC do this without issue, and IQ is a very important variable for many things. What’s the point of doing a survey if not to understand your population?
I’ve taken those surveys for years, and it’s true that they’ve often contained questions that would get this (EA) community’s jimmies severely rustled, without any problems or complaints or concern trolling. At least, that’s my impression, as someone more familiar with the rationalist community than the EA one.
The best IQ proxy questions are demographic variables anyway (age, years of education, and occupation), which predict about 50% of the variance in full-scale IQ—see papers shared here: http://jmp.sh/b/V717o7yuqvQutQYTHIMh
It wouldn’t be hard to plug data we’re going to get anyway into Crawford’s regression equation—the only extra work would be plugging in occupations to the standardized occupational classification system. Reporting it could be bad PR, but it wouldn’t hurt for anyone who’s interested to take a look.
Not convinced that we want to measure iq but I think the whole point of doing it would be to see if eas are on the whole a lot smarter than would be predicted by demographic variables, like LessWrong seems to be. However, LessWrong’s annual process of measuring their iq and then arguing about whether or not it’s accurate is a bit of a fiasco, and probably not one that we want to engage in.
I haven’t read any of LW’s debates on this, so I’m not sure why one would be interested in whether the relationship between demographics and intelligence in EAs is weaker than usual, or what that would imply about EA. Mainly, I’d like to know by what routes people with predicted-to-be-average intelligence and average educational backgrounds are coming to EA, so I hope age, years of education, and occupation will be included so that the option exists of using the estimation techniques referred to above.
Having said that—intelligence research is politically toxic, and I’d also worry that people could spread bad ideas about how to use IQ estimates (e.g., general bragging rights, or “the smartest EAs focus on X, so we should pay more attention to X”), so I wouldn’t argue for including anything related to IQ estimation in publicly-announced results.
Last time we asked about age, income last year and highest level of education completed. Pending the community feedback we were planning to keep these, and add a free text box for ‘current occupation or career’. Does that all cover it OK? Is asking for years in education better, and if so why? Is it comparable across countries? Is it years of post-secondary education?
I personally agree, though the survey team as a whole will be influenced by the community view (which hasn’t had a strong consensus in favour of asking about IQ, either last time or—so far—this time).
I doubt it would be done without issue here and I doubt the information would be useful for any purposes. But I’m willing to consider otherwise.
Agree, would have downvoted if I could, but have upvoted you instead!
How many older siblings
Do you believe in acting now or investing to act better later?
This question would be more valuable when it makes clear that it asks for an assessment for the specific respondent at that time. Something like “Do you believe that for you at the moment it is better to act now or invest to act better later?” Then the answers could be faceted by age, student status, or other applicable demographic data (if the power is sufficient).
Some may also consider external factors like the availability of vaccines or progress of prioritization research, but for most the personal factors will probably weigh heavier in this decision, and we wouldn’t be able to distinguish that afterwards.
Simple mamogram-style question
I think a question measuring reflectiveness could also be interesting ala the Cognitive Reflection Test.
Could you expand on that?
?
I think this is referring to a common probability question, e.g., example 3 here.
Did you fulfil your plan or pledge for last year? (answer to always be anonymous)
Do you think EA should be a broad church or a committed core?
False dichotomy. Perhaps 2 questions here, 1 about diversity, 1 about strength of committment. Example wording (Likert responses?) “How much do you think EA should focus more on strengthening existing strategies for improving the world compared to broadening into new ones?” “How much do you think EA movement building should focus on increasing the commitment and coordination of current EAs as opposed to recruitment and outreach?” and perhaps “In recruiting and reaching out, who should be the primary target?” (example answers: people that are most likely to identify with EA, people with the most to offer in terms of time and resources, people from different walks of life that can reveal EA’s blindspots)
What colour is this dress?
A test question to see how much you have to correct for people’s unwillingness to let you lose comment karma, right? ;‑)
Heh, I just copied and pasted people’s suggestions from Facebook. This was one of the most upvoted ones!
Haha! Probably all people who wanted to indicate that they got it, not that they thought it’s a valuable survey question. On the other hand it would make the survey funnier, especially without the photo, which may increase people’s motivation to finish it.