= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on A survey of the top posters on lesswrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (38)
I'm sure you already know this, but: that really shouldn't have been a big surprise given that you said only "Maybe you want to rate each of these out of 10". (I was one of the survey-ees; I read that, thought "Nope, I don't", and gave qualitative responses rather than numbers. This still seems perfectly reasonable to me.)
I was definitely not being clear enough. In my head when I wrote the original note I was expecting replies from everyone with an understanding that it would be collated. as it is; 5 did not reply which surprised me greatly.
I am practicing the idea of being specific about what I ask (clearly not very good yet). I am surprised by how much "what I am asking" gets reinterpreted to be "what they think I want the answer to be like". I am also practicing the idea of answering the surface of the question; or answering the intention, not what I want to interpret the question as (or answering as both).
A 2/3 response rate is actually pretty spectacularly good.
on a normal population yes; but these are people selected for their ability to make comments on the internet. I was expecting higher.
Ability differs from willingness, and public comments on the internet differ from survey responses.
Of course, somewhere in my head they had a closeness to them, being related on the "participate in lesswrong things" axis. Hence an expectation of interest/participation/motivation to respond.