Thanks so much for this—really clear, accessible and valuable data. I’m happy to see that the community is becoming more geographically diverse.
One minor nitpick: I found this graph confusing. The title is ‘Longtermism—Neartermism’ but the bars below are oriented ‘Neartermism <> Longtermism’. At a glance, especially at the top, it looks like the Czechs strongly favour Neartermist causes but it’s the opposite.
Thanks for highlighting this possible source of confusion. The ′ - ′ is intended to be like a literal minus sign, but it could be read more like a spectrum with Longtermism tending left and Neartermism tending right which seems to be how you (and possibly others) read it. I’ve adapted the labeling of the graph which I hope clarifies this
I guess that introduces another potential confusion though, because the scores (e.g. 0.78 for the Czech Republic) is ‘Longtermist score’ minus ‘Neartermist score’. “Neartermism—Longtermism” might lead people to think high scores mean strong interest in neartermist cause areas.
Thanks both! I think Jamie’s adjusted version, where we spell out the word “minus” and write “Positive numbers indicate relatively more Longtermism prioritisation” hopefully clarifies things.
Thanks so much for this—really clear, accessible and valuable data. I’m happy to see that the community is becoming more geographically diverse.
One minor nitpick: I found this graph confusing. The title is ‘Longtermism—Neartermism’ but the bars below are oriented ‘Neartermism <> Longtermism’. At a glance, especially at the top, it looks like the Czechs strongly favour Neartermist causes but it’s the opposite.
Thanks for highlighting this possible source of confusion. The ′ - ′ is intended to be like a literal minus sign, but it could be read more like a spectrum with Longtermism tending left and Neartermism tending right which seems to be how you (and possibly others) read it. I’ve adapted the labeling of the graph which I hope clarifies this
I think a useful/easy fix could be to change the title to “Neartermism—Longtermism”
I guess that introduces another potential confusion though, because the scores (e.g. 0.78 for the Czech Republic) is ‘Longtermist score’ minus ‘Neartermist score’. “Neartermism—Longtermism” might lead people to think high scores mean strong interest in neartermist cause areas.
Thanks both! I think Jamie’s adjusted version, where we spell out the word “minus” and write “Positive numbers indicate relatively more Longtermism prioritisation” hopefully clarifies things.
Good point