If we redefine metacharity to also include rationality and cause
prioritization, it takes the top slot (with 616 people advocating for at least one of the three).
This is not “about half”; it’s 616⁄813 ≈ 75%. But maybe I’m misinterpreting where these statistics are coming from?
(edit: It’s “about half” if you use 616/1146, but the 1146 figure includes more than just EAs. Maybe this was the error?)
I was referring the the numbers from the table (in the old version) and I didn’t add them up, so not half in total but half each. Due to the Bernadette’s and Tom’s corrections the whole paragraph has changed a bit anyway, but I’ve also added an “each of” in the hope that it’ll make that clear. And 813 is the total I used.
I think Bernadette is correct. This should be fixed.
Also, immediately afterward it says:
But the figure in the results and analysis pdf says:
This is not “about half”; it’s 616⁄813 ≈ 75%. But maybe I’m misinterpreting where these statistics are coming from?
(edit: It’s “about half” if you use 616/1146, but the 1146 figure includes more than just EAs. Maybe this was the error?)
I was referring the the numbers from the table (in the old version) and I didn’t add them up, so not half in total but half each. Due to the Bernadette’s and Tom’s corrections the whole paragraph has changed a bit anyway, but I’ve also added an “each of” in the hope that it’ll make that clear. And 813 is the total I used.