Warrigal comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - Less Wrong

77 Post author: Yvain 01 November 2011 06:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (694)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: arundelo 03 November 2011 03:01:57PM *  9 points [-]

I was kind of surprised how many people can't settle on a specific gender

You could cut the gordian knot by borrowing Randall Munroe and Relsqui's solution for the xkcd color survey, which was to ask about chromosomal sex:

Do you have a Y chromosome?

[Don't Know] [Yes] [No]

If unsure, select "Yes" if you are physically male and "No" if you are physically female. If you have had SRS, please respond for your sex at birth. This question is relevant to the genetics of colorblindness.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2011 07:26:27PM 7 points [-]

Technically, isn't it the number of X chromosomes that matters to colorblindness? It's just that people with Y chromosomes almost always have one X chromosome, and people without them almost always have two.

Comment author: Relsqui 29 November 2011 06:52:00AM 2 points [-]

You're correct; we asked for Y chromosomes rather than X chromosomes because it's way easier to have an extra X and not know it than to have a Y and not know it. So if we ask about Y, we can rough-sort into "probably XY" and "probably XX" groups and then look at the statistics for chromosomal deviations within those groups.

Comment author: homunq 05 November 2011 03:52:30AM 0 points [-]

... especially if they're responding to xkcd polls.

Comment author: pengvado 05 November 2011 02:22:11PM *  6 points [-]

You have some reason to believe that Klinefelte's syndrome (XXY) is less common among xkcd readers than among the general population?

Comment author: homunq 07 November 2011 04:16:38PM *  0 points [-]

I thought I did. Now that I've followed your link, I realize that even if it were less common, it would probably only be marginally so, so I withdraw my comment above.