This is a great idea. EA already runs an annual community survey. So it wouldn’t necessary to create a whole new survey to get this data—just add some questions to the existing community survey. If they aren’t already on there it would be great to see them on the next survey.
I am now also very curious about what value the community gets from various kinds of experiences in EA spaces.
For example, I’m curious how most women would weigh being in a community that lets them access healthy professional networks free from the tensions of inappropriate* sexual/romantic advances against being in a community where they are able to find find EA partners. (I am implying that there is a tradeoff here.)
I am also curious if the men in the community have an opposing view—if so, it might be important to think about how the existing state of the community (that may have been shaped by the views of the majority gender) may make it less attractive to women considering joining the community.
(I personally gain a lot from interacting with the EA community in a professional way and would weigh having healthy EA professional networks a lot higher than the chance to date within the community.)
*eg of inappropriate—young EA job seekers being propositioned by potential bosses in their field after making it clear that they are looking for opportunities in that field.
Ben—good idea. I think the crucial thing would be to phrase the questions about these issues as neutrally and factually as possible, to avoid responses biases in either direction.
Ideally EA would ask just about actual first-hand experiences of the individual, rather than general perceptions, impressions based on rumors and media coverage, or second/third-hand reports.
Here’s something else I’d like to know on that survey:
what proportion of respondents wants to post on EAF or engage in other discussions they think are important for EA’s goals, but don’t, or will only do so anonymously because they are worried about the consequences?
how does that compare to the proportion who feel free to contribute without fear of retribution?
what proportion thinks they have been in fact passed over for an opportunity because they have criticized EA or said something else “politically incorrect” here?
If you have not a Census of EA, you can not do this kind of survey. The EA Survey is donde on a voluntary basis on the Forum, and false identities can be used to manipulate results. Any EA survey shall be based on a anonymous answers but verified identity.
Surveys of these types are often anonymous, because
while it is possible for people to make false responses, that doesn’t happen very much, because it is time consuming, and unethical, and there just aren’t that many people out there who are all of unethical, have lots of time on their hands, and want to manipulate our survey. Manipulated responses are generally more of a danger for short polls (e.g., “which political party would you vote for”), but less of an issue for 10 minute + surveys.
there are means of probabilistically filtering false responses out, including eliminating identical copies of responses, comparing IP addresses, and so on
It is quite expensive, difficult, and risky to verify identities and at the same time, guaranteeing anonymity
For that reason verifying identities can discourage genuine responses
What you’re suggesting—some sort of census and then restricting access to the poll—would be rather expensive and time-consuming. Is there any evidence for someone wanting to fund what I expect would be a six-figure endeavor?
Why do you think an anonymous survey for physical gatherings and meeting attendants (real humans taking part in physical EA activities ) with paper sheets would be so expensive? You go to a gathering, ask people their names (ideally ask for a ID), write them in a list, then give them envelopes and the survey, and collect the written answers.
An additional issue is than the “at risk” population is not all EAs and EA adjacents, but only those physically involved.
You’d have to distribute at a lot of events to get a representative sample, and then would need the completed forms mailed to a trusted third party organization (having site-level distribution would risk deidentification, and people need privacy to complete surveys on particular topics). Unless you’re limiting yourself to multiple-choice, someone then needs to transcribe all the written responses before running the scantron sheets through.
There are reasons that mail-in surveys aren’t popular nowadays.
Well, it is hard to believe that a random chosen person would try to do “deidentification”. What I have described is routinely done for calification of university professors at end course in countless universities!
Do those surveys ask people if they are survivors of sexual assault? That is extremely sensitive information that requires a very high level of assurance that one’s identity cannot be attached to one’s responses.
This is a great idea. EA already runs an annual community survey. So it wouldn’t necessary to create a whole new survey to get this data—just add some questions to the existing community survey. If they aren’t already on there it would be great to see them on the next survey.
I am now also very curious about what value the community gets from various kinds of experiences in EA spaces.
For example, I’m curious how most women would weigh being in a community that lets them access healthy professional networks free from the tensions of inappropriate* sexual/romantic advances against being in a community where they are able to find find EA partners. (I am implying that there is a tradeoff here.)
I am also curious if the men in the community have an opposing view—if so, it might be important to think about how the existing state of the community (that may have been shaped by the views of the majority gender) may make it less attractive to women considering joining the community.
(I personally gain a lot from interacting with the EA community in a professional way and would weigh having healthy EA professional networks a lot higher than the chance to date within the community.)
*eg of inappropriate—young EA job seekers being propositioned by potential bosses in their field after making it clear that they are looking for opportunities in that field.
Ben—good idea. I think the crucial thing would be to phrase the questions about these issues as neutrally and factually as possible, to avoid responses biases in either direction.
Ideally EA would ask just about actual first-hand experiences of the individual, rather than general perceptions, impressions based on rumors and media coverage, or second/third-hand reports.
Here’s something else I’d like to know on that survey:
what proportion of respondents wants to post on EAF or engage in other discussions they think are important for EA’s goals, but don’t, or will only do so anonymously because they are worried about the consequences?
how does that compare to the proportion who feel free to contribute without fear of retribution?
what proportion thinks they have been in fact passed over for an opportunity because they have criticized EA or said something else “politically incorrect” here?
If you have not a Census of EA, you can not do this kind of survey. The EA Survey is donde on a voluntary basis on the Forum, and false identities can be used to manipulate results. Any EA survey shall be based on a anonymous answers but verified identity.
Surveys of these types are often anonymous, because
while it is possible for people to make false responses, that doesn’t happen very much, because it is time consuming, and unethical, and there just aren’t that many people out there who are all of unethical, have lots of time on their hands, and want to manipulate our survey. Manipulated responses are generally more of a danger for short polls (e.g., “which political party would you vote for”), but less of an issue for 10 minute + surveys.
there are means of probabilistically filtering false responses out, including eliminating identical copies of responses, comparing IP addresses, and so on
It is quite expensive, difficult, and risky to verify identities and at the same time, guaranteeing anonymity
For that reason verifying identities can discourage genuine responses
In my view you underestimate the degree of intentionality and coordination of the offensive against EA.
What you’re suggesting—some sort of census and then restricting access to the poll—would be rather expensive and time-consuming. Is there any evidence for someone wanting to fund what I expect would be a six-figure endeavor?
Why do you think an anonymous survey for physical gatherings and meeting attendants (real humans taking part in physical EA activities ) with paper sheets would be so expensive? You go to a gathering, ask people their names (ideally ask for a ID), write them in a list, then give them envelopes and the survey, and collect the written answers.
An additional issue is than the “at risk” population is not all EAs and EA adjacents, but only those physically involved.
You’d have to distribute at a lot of events to get a representative sample, and then would need the completed forms mailed to a trusted third party organization (having site-level distribution would risk deidentification, and people need privacy to complete surveys on particular topics). Unless you’re limiting yourself to multiple-choice, someone then needs to transcribe all the written responses before running the scantron sheets through.
There are reasons that mail-in surveys aren’t popular nowadays.
Well, it is hard to believe that a random chosen person would try to do “deidentification”. What I have described is routinely done for calification of university professors at end course in countless universities!
Do those surveys ask people if they are survivors of sexual assault? That is extremely sensitive information that requires a very high level of assurance that one’s identity cannot be attached to one’s responses.