We also found sizable differences between the percentage of Republicans (4.3% permissive, 1.5% stringent) estimated to have heard of EA, compared to Democrats (7.2% permissive, 2.9% stringent) and Independents (4.3% permissive, 1.5% stringent). [emphasis added]
It looks like the numbers for Republicans were copy-pasted for Independents? Since the text implies that the numbers should be very different but they’re identical, and since if those are the correct numbers it seems weird that the US adult population estimates would be much closer to the Democrat estimates than to the Republican and Independent estimates.[1]
[I work at Rethink Priorities, but on a different team, and I read this post and left this comment just for my own interest.]
The total population estimate is “We estimate that 6.7%[2] of the US adult population have heard of effective altruism using our permissive standard and 2.6% according to our more stringent standard.”
So the current text suggests the percentages in the total population were slightly lower than in Democrats but much higher than in Republicans and Independents. This could make sense if there are notably more US Democrats than US Republicans and US Independents put together, but I doubt that that’s the case in the US population?
It seems very plausible that the sample included far more Democrats than Republicans+Independents. But I assume your weighting procedure to get US adult population estimates should adjust things so that overrepresentation of Democrats in the sample doesn’t distort estimates for the population?
(I wrote this chunk of text before I realised the issue was probably just a typo, and then rearranged it.)
Thanks for this post!
I think there’s a typo here:
It looks like the numbers for Republicans were copy-pasted for Independents? Since the text implies that the numbers should be very different but they’re identical, and since if those are the correct numbers it seems weird that the US adult population estimates would be much closer to the Democrat estimates than to the Republican and Independent estimates.[1]
[I work at Rethink Priorities, but on a different team, and I read this post and left this comment just for my own interest.]
The total population estimate is “We estimate that 6.7%[2] of the US adult population have heard of effective altruism using our permissive standard and 2.6% according to our more stringent standard.”
So the current text suggests the percentages in the total population were slightly lower than in Democrats but much higher than in Republicans and Independents. This could make sense if there are notably more US Democrats than US Republicans and US Independents put together, but I doubt that that’s the case in the US population?
It seems very plausible that the sample included far more Democrats than Republicans+Independents. But I assume your weighting procedure to get US adult population estimates should adjust things so that overrepresentation of Democrats in the sample doesn’t distort estimates for the population?
(I wrote this chunk of text before I realised the issue was probably just a typo, and then rearranged it.)