You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gwern comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Yvain 11 October 2014 06:39AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (269)
Tags: meta

Comments (269)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: gwern 11 October 2014 05:41:29PM *  29 points [-]
  • I suggest a basilisk question, as usual.
  • I'd also like OCEAN/Big Five restored. The results from last time weren't very definitive and more data would be helpful.
  • Given the recent SSC debate on how effective MIRI is, it might be interesting to ask something about opinions of MIRI's effectiveness in pursuing its mission: just asking how much people donated is insufficient since one might donate faute de mieux, and IIRC the modal donation is $0 in the first place.
  • Perhaps the AI projection questions could be replaced by the same question-set used in "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A poll among experts", VC Müller, N Bostrom? Buys one comparability with their survey responses; it would be very interesting and intriguing if LWers turned out to be less extreme.
Comment author: Yvain 12 October 2014 03:34:04AM 4 points [-]

Any particular implementation details on OCEAN? Exact same as last time?

Comment author: VincentYu 13 October 2014 01:05:33PM *  6 points [-]

I suggest including the Big Five Inventory (BFI) in the survey itself. I've created an example of this on Google Forms. (I've reordered the inventory such that the first 11 items constitute the BFI-10, so that respondents can choose between the 44-item and 11-item versions).

The BFI is the inventory that was used in the online test to which the 2012 LW census linked. See also my comment about this in the 2012 LW census thread.

Comment author: peter_hurford 13 October 2014 03:01:18PM 1 point [-]

Why not directly include the 10-item Big Five in the survey itself?

Comment author: gwern 12 October 2014 06:26:01PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure. Didn't we have some odd results last time? It may be better to use a different website to see if the aggregate results or the results from retakers differ with last time.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 October 2014 08:39:21PM 2 points [-]

I'd also like OCEAN/Big Five restored. The results from last time weren't very definitive and more data would be helpful.

At best I think we should directly the corresponding test questions into the census. Is there a particular set of questions that would be ideal for this purpose? I also oppened a question on cogsci.stackexchange for that purpose.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 October 2014 08:37:04PM 3 points [-]

Given the recent SSC debate on how effective MIRI is, it might be interesting to ask something about opinions of MIRI's effectiveness in pursuing its mission: just asking how much people donated is insufficient since one might donate faute de mieux, and IIRC the modal donation is $0 in the first place.

It would also be very interesting to see whether those who think that MIRI is more effective actually donate more.

Comment author: cameroncowan 18 October 2014 12:24:03AM 0 points [-]

A basilisk question isn't necessary! What could we learn from it? However, the MIRI question is a good one.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 October 2014 12:40:35AM 5 points [-]

A basilisk question isn't necessary! What could we learn from it?

That most people on LW don't believe in the basilisk. That could be useful when facing outsiders who write articles about the basilisk.

Comment author: cameroncowan 18 October 2014 11:18:09PM 4 points [-]

I guess when you put it that way I can see its use.

Comment author: William_Quixote 13 October 2014 01:08:04PM 2 points [-]

Agree with this. Big 5 is worth having.

Comment author: gwillen 12 October 2014 04:20:17AM 2 points [-]

I strongly agree with the basilisk suggestion; have you provided Yvain with a specific question and set of answers to use, per his request, or can you do so?

Or would you not be satisfied with including it as a Super Extra Bonus Question, wanting it to be in the main body of the survey?

Comment author: gwern 12 October 2014 06:24:51PM 2 points [-]

have you provided Yvain with a specific question and set of answers to use, per his request, or can you do so?

I believe I did so, but Yvain is a smart enough cookie that I don't really need to draw up a list of exact phrasings. The question is not how exactly the question will be written, the question is whether such a question will be allowed at all.

Or would you not be satisfied with including it as a Super Extra Bonus Question, wanting it to be in the main body of the survey?

If it is to serve its intended purpose, it would be much better to get it in the main body of the survey to defang the sample size objection.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 October 2014 07:13:25PM 2 points [-]

I believe I did so, but Yvain is a smart enough cookie that I don't really need to draw up a list of exact phrasings.

He said “Please be specific - not "Ask something about taxes" but give the exact question you want me to ask as well as all answer choices.”

Comment author: gwern 12 October 2014 08:00:23PM 3 points [-]

The basilisk question is an exception.

Comment author: lmm 14 October 2014 05:30:37PM 0 points [-]

No it isn't

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit