Unnamed comments on 2011 Survey Results - Less Wrong

94 Post author: Yvain 05 December 2011 10:49AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (513)
Tags: survey community meta

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: Unnamed 05 December 2011 07:20:42PM *  37 points [-]

Strength of membership in the LW community was related to responses for most of the questions. There were 3 questions related to strength of membership: karma, sequence reading, and time in the community, and since they were all correlated with each other and showed similar patterns I standardized them and averaged them together into a single measure. Then I checked if this measure of strength in membership in the LW community was related to answers on each of the other questions, for the 822 respondents (described in this comment) who answered at least one of the probability questions and used percentages rather than decimals (since I didn't want to take the time to recode the answers which were given as decimals).

All effects described below have p < .01 (I also indicate when there is a nonsignificant trend with p<.2). On questions with categories I wasn't that rigorous - if there was a significant effect overall I just eyeballed the differences and reported which categories have the clearest difference (and I skipped some of the background questions which had tons of different categories and are hard to interpret).

Compared to those with a less strong membership in the LW community, those with a strong tie to the community are:

Background:

  • Gender - no difference
  • Age - no difference
  • Relationship Status - no difference
  • Sexual Orientation - no difference
  • Relationship Style - less likely to prefer monogamous, more likely to prefer polyamorous or to have no preference
  • Political Views - less likely to be socialist, more likely to be libertarian (but this is driven by the length of time in the community, which may reflect changing demographics - see my reply to this comment)
  • Religious Views - more likely to be atheist & not spiritual, especially less likely to be agnostic
  • Family Religion - no difference
  • Moral Views - more likely to be consequentialist
  • IQ - higher

Probabilities:

  • Many Worlds - higher
  • Aliens in the universe - lower (edited: I had mistakenly reversed the two aliens questions)
  • Aliens in our galaxy - trend towards lower (p=.04)
  • Supernatural - lower
  • God - lower
  • Religion - trend towards lower (p=.11, and this is statistically significant with a different analysis)
  • Cryonics - lower
  • Anti-Agathics - trend towards higher (p=.13) (this was the one question with a significant non-monotonic relationship: those with a moderately strong tie to the community had the highest probability estimate, while those with weak or strong ties had lower estimates)
  • Simulation - trend towards higher (p=.20)
  • Global Warming - higher
  • No Catastrophe - lower (i.e., think it is less likely that we will make it to 2100 without a catastrophe, i.e. think the chances of xrisk are higher)

Other Questions:

  • Singularity - sooner (this is statistically significant after truncating the outliers), and more likely to give an estimate rather than leave it blank
  • Type of XRisk - more likely to think that Unfriendly AI is the most likely XRisk
  • Cryonics Status - More likely to be signed up or to be considering it, less likely to be not planning to or to not have thought about it
Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 07 December 2011 09:58:05PM 5 points [-]

Cryonics - lower

Cryonics Status - More likely to be signed up or to be considering it, less likely to be not planning to or to not have thought about it

So long-time participants were less likely to believe that cryonics would work for them but more likely to sign up for it? Interesting. This could be driven by any of: fluke, greater rationality, greater age&income, less akrasia, more willingness to take long-shot bets based on shutting up and multiplying.

Comment author: Unnamed 08 December 2011 03:43:47AM *  3 points [-]

I looked into this a little more, and it looks like those who are strongly tied to the LW community are less likely to give high answers to p(cryonics) (p>50%), but not any more or less likely to give low answers (p<10%). That reduction in high answers could be a sign of greater rationality - less affect heuristic driven irrational exuberance about the prospects for cryonics - or just more knowledge about the topic. But I'm surprised that there's no change in the frequency of low answers.

There is a similar pattern in the relationship between cryonics status and p(cryonics). Those who are signed up for cryonics don't give a higher p(cryonics) on average than those who are not signed up, but they are less likely to give a probability under 10%. The group with the highest average p(cryonics) is those who aren't signed up but are considering it, and that's the group that's most likely to give a probability over 50%.

Here are the results for p(cryonics) broken down by cryonics status, showing what percent of each group gave p(cryonics)<.1, what percent gave p(cryonics)>.5, and what the average p(cryonics) is for each group. (I'm expressing p(cryonics) here as probabilities from 0-1 because I think it's easier to follow that way, since I'm giving the percent of people in each group.)

Never thought about it / don't understand (n=26): 58% give p<.1, 8% give p>.5, mean p=.17
No, and not planning to (n=289): 60% give p<.1, 6% give p>.5, mean p=.14
No, but considering it (n=444): 38% give p < .1, 18% give p>.5, mean p=.27
Yes - signed up or just finishing up paperwork (n=36): 39% give p<.1, 8% give p>.5, mean p=.21
Overall: 47% give p<.1, 13% give p>.5, mean p=.22

Comment author: ewbrownv 12 December 2011 11:20:24PM 2 points [-]

The existential risk questions are a confounding factor here - if you think p(cryonics works) 80%, but p(xrisk ends civilization) 50%, that pulls down your p(successful revival) considerably.

Comment author: Unnamed 13 December 2011 12:45:18AM 2 points [-]

I wondered about that, but p(cryonics) and p(xrisk) are actually uncorrelated, and the pattern of results for p(cryonics) remains the same when controlling statistically for p(xrisk).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit