Thanks for this, Just wanted to note a misframing of the slaughterhouse ban post. You have written āfound ~40% supported banning slaughterhouses or said ādonāt know /ā no opinionā to questions, highlighting a large discrepancyā-which I think is taken directly from the latest āEA & LW Forums Weekly Summaryā rather than the slaughterhouse ban post. This makes it seem like 60% opposed and then 40% combined EITHER supported or had no opinion, when in fact the 2017 Sentience Institute result was 43% supported, 11% chose donāt know, 46% opposed.
I realise this misunderstanding comes from my phrasing in the summary ā(~39-43% support when including those who chose no opinion/ādonāt know)ā
I added the āwhen including those who chose no opinion/ādonāt knowā clause because Sentience Instituteās 2017 summary only reports the percentages agreeing out of those who either agreed or disagreed (47% agree with the ban, 53% disagree). But since many respondents selected āDonāt knowā regarding the bans on slaughterhouses (11%), the overall percentages supporting these ban is slightly lower than their headline summary: 43% rather than 47%. In their 2020 replication, the same issue appears again when SI report a headline result of ā44.8% are in favor of banning slaughterhousesā but this excludes the ādonāt knowā, so the actual support is 39.5%.
Sorry for causing confusion. I have now edited the original post to avoid this so it just reads ā(~39-43% support).
Also you only mention the results from survey 1, the survey experiment of N=700, and I think a fairer comparison to the Sentience Institute figure is from survey 2 of 15.7% (95% CI [13%-18.8%]) support because both of these use weighting to represent the US publicās opinion and are of a larger sample size.
ApologiesāIāve fixed it so I use the 39-43% figure from SI as well as referencing survey 2 rather than survey 1 (agreed itās much more useful as itās larger and nationally representative).
No worries re the confusion, yeah I didnāt quite understand how it was framed in your post and thought Zoe might have the right interpretation but seems not! Thanks for amending your post and explaining thoughāitās much clearer now.
Thanks for this,
Just wanted to note a misframing of the slaughterhouse ban post. You have written
āfound ~40% supported banning slaughterhouses or said ādonāt know /ā no opinionā to questions, highlighting a large discrepancyā-which I think is taken directly from the latest āEA & LW Forums Weekly Summaryā rather than the slaughterhouse ban post.
This makes it seem like 60% opposed and then 40% combined EITHER supported or had no opinion, when in fact the 2017 Sentience Institute result was 43% supported, 11% chose donāt know, 46% opposed.
I realise this misunderstanding comes from my phrasing in the summary
ā(~39-43% support when including those who chose no opinion/ādonāt know)ā
I added the āwhen including those who chose no opinion/ādonāt knowā clause because Sentience Instituteās 2017 summary only reports the percentages agreeing out of those who either agreed or disagreed (47% agree with the ban, 53% disagree). But since many respondents selected āDonāt knowā regarding the bans on slaughterhouses (11%), the overall percentages supporting these ban is slightly lower than their headline summary: 43% rather than 47%. In their 2020 replication, the same issue appears again when SI report a headline result of ā44.8% are in favor of banning slaughterhousesā but this excludes the ādonāt knowā, so the actual support is 39.5%.
Sorry for causing confusion. I have now edited the original post to avoid this so it just reads ā(~39-43% support).
Also you only mention the results from survey 1, the survey experiment of N=700, and I think a fairer comparison to the Sentience Institute figure is from survey 2 of 15.7% (95% CI [13%-18.8%]) support because both of these use weighting to represent the US publicās opinion and are of a larger sample size.
ApologiesāIāve fixed it so I use the 39-43% figure from SI as well as referencing survey 2 rather than survey 1 (agreed itās much more useful as itās larger and nationally representative).
No worries re the confusion, yeah I didnāt quite understand how it was framed in your post and thought Zoe might have the right interpretation but seems not! Thanks for amending your post and explaining thoughāitās much clearer now.
Ah cheers, that makes senseāIāll update in the forum summary post too.