I did not see that note. But for the calculations on the productivity impact, it seemed like one might read it with the assumption that the 80,000 hours in a career are EA career hours. If we don’t have enough information to make an estimate on this proportion, that’s fine, but it definitely doesn’t mean that we should implicitly treat it as if it is 100%; after all it is certainly less than that. What I read of the calculations just didn’t make it clear, so I wanted to clarify.
I am using estimates to make other estimates. I clearly labelled each estimate as an estimate.
It would be nice to have high-quality data, such as from doing our own studies. First, someone needs to do an estimate to show why the research questions are interesting enough to invest in studies.
I am doing the sorts of estimates that show why certain research questions are interesting. These estimates might inspire someone to fund a study.
Again—I’m not making any demand about putting a lot of effort into the research. I think it’s totally okay to make simple, off-the-cuff estimates, as long as better information isn’t easy to find.
On this particular question though, we can definitely do better than calculating as if the figure is 100%. I mean, just think about it, think about how many of EAs’ social and sexual interactions involve people outside of EA. So of course it’s going to be less than 100%, significantly less. Maybe 50%, maybe 75%, we can’t come up with a great estimate, but at least it will be an improvement. I can do it if you want. And you didn’t write that the number was 100%, but the way the calculation was written made it seem like someone (like me) could come away with the impression that it was 100% if they weren’t super careful. That’s all I’m suggesting.
I’m glad to hear you would find that easy, Zeke. I made dozens of estimations in this article, and decided that instead of upgrading every single one of them to the maximum level of quality, I should focus on higher value things like raising awareness and persuading people to test methods of sexual violence reduction and doing in-depth evaluations of the two scalable sexual violence reduction methods. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to upgrade all these estimations to the maximum level myself.
How long do you think it would take you to upgrade every single estimate to the maximum quality level? (I’ll just let you count the number of estimations in the article since they’re right there.) Would you be up for meeting my quality standards if I laid them out as a set of criteria?
Please provide your estimate as the number of hours you will require to upgrade every single estimate in the article to the absolute maximum level of quality.
Also, would you be able to do this for free? I’m in the middle of a career change.
(I normally wouldn’t ask but you said you would find it easy and asking can’t hurt!)
I did not see that note. But for the calculations on the productivity impact, it seemed like one might read it with the assumption that the 80,000 hours in a career are EA career hours. If we don’t have enough information to make an estimate on this proportion, that’s fine, but it definitely doesn’t mean that we should implicitly treat it as if it is 100%; after all it is certainly less than that. What I read of the calculations just didn’t make it clear, so I wanted to clarify.
I am using estimates to make other estimates. I clearly labelled each estimate as an estimate.
It would be nice to have high-quality data, such as from doing our own studies. First, someone needs to do an estimate to show why the research questions are interesting enough to invest in studies.
I am doing the sorts of estimates that show why certain research questions are interesting. These estimates might inspire someone to fund a study.
Again—I’m not making any demand about putting a lot of effort into the research. I think it’s totally okay to make simple, off-the-cuff estimates, as long as better information isn’t easy to find.
On this particular question though, we can definitely do better than calculating as if the figure is 100%. I mean, just think about it, think about how many of EAs’ social and sexual interactions involve people outside of EA. So of course it’s going to be less than 100%, significantly less. Maybe 50%, maybe 75%, we can’t come up with a great estimate, but at least it will be an improvement. I can do it if you want. And you didn’t write that the number was 100%, but the way the calculation was written made it seem like someone (like me) could come away with the impression that it was 100% if they weren’t super careful. That’s all I’m suggesting.
I’m glad to hear you would find that easy, Zeke. I made dozens of estimations in this article, and decided that instead of upgrading every single one of them to the maximum level of quality, I should focus on higher value things like raising awareness and persuading people to test methods of sexual violence reduction and doing in-depth evaluations of the two scalable sexual violence reduction methods. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to upgrade all these estimations to the maximum level myself.
How long do you think it would take you to upgrade every single estimate to the maximum quality level? (I’ll just let you count the number of estimations in the article since they’re right there.) Would you be up for meeting my quality standards if I laid them out as a set of criteria?
Please provide your estimate as the number of hours you will require to upgrade every single estimate in the article to the absolute maximum level of quality.
Also, would you be able to do this for free? I’m in the middle of a career change.
(I normally wouldn’t ask but you said you would find it easy and asking can’t hurt!)
Thanks.
Um I don’t know, I just said I would estimate this one number. I think I was clear that I was talking about “this particular question”.
Assuming 2,300 people in EA per the survey, for every 100 rape victims:
Out of the 25 rape victims who are spouses or partners of the perpetrator (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence), 20 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 45 rape victims who are acquaintances of the perpetrator, 30 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 28 rape victims who are strangers to the perpetrator, 20 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 6 victims who can’t remember or are victimized by multiple people, 4 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
For the 1 victim who is a non-spouse relative, the victim will be outside of EA.
This makes a total of 30% of rape victims of EAs being in EA.
Assuming 13,000 people in EA per the FB group, for every 100 rape victims:
Out of the 25 rape victims who are spouses or partners of the perpetrator (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence), 23 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 45 rape victims who are acquaintances of the perpetrator, 40 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 28 rape victims who are strangers to the perpetrator, 24 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
Out of the 6 victims who can’t remember or are victimized by multiple people, 5 will be outside of EA, when the offender is in EA.
For the 1 victim who is a non-spouse relative, the victim will be outside of EA.
This makes a total of 12% of rape victims of EAs being in EA.