Comment author: Vaniver 12 June 2016 11:00:41PM 2 points [-]

It's hard to know for sure, since previous surveys were only advertised on the LessWrong.com domain, but it doesn't seem like the diaspora thing has slowed the growth of the community a ton and it may have dramatically accelerated it.

My impression is that a big part of the increase in survey responses was that this was explicitly advertised as a diaspora survey, with a number of people saying things like "if you're reading this, it's for you."

Comment author: ingres 12 June 2016 11:49:19PM 1 point [-]

Yes, that was exactly why it was marketed that way.

Comment author: Vaniver 12 June 2016 11:09:08PM 2 points [-]

I'm trying to reconcile the 353 people on LW with the 668 people who never left. What do you think is up there?

Comment author: ingres 12 June 2016 11:11:38PM *  0 points [-]

I think those people interpreted the question as "Never left the community" or some such, rather than the site itself.

Also if you add up the LW and LW Meetup numbers they're almost that, I'd have to play with the data real quick to see how much overlap there is. Eh it's just a SQL query I'll do it right now:

sqlite> select count(*) from data where ActiveMemberships_1 = "Yes";

354

sqlite> select count(*) from data where ActiveMemberships_2 = "Yes";

216

sqlite> select count(*) from data where ActiveMemberships1 = "Yes" AND ActiveMemberships2 = "Yes";

77

77 / 354 = 0.2175141242937853

77 / 216 = 0.35648148148148145

P(Meetups | LW Site) = 21.75%

P(LW Site | Meetups) = 35.63%

I think that goes a long way towards explaining that particular inconsistency.

However it still leaves a quarter unaccounted for:

(668 - (354 + (216 - (216 * 0.3563)))) / 668 = 0.2619173652694611

Comment author: Sniffnoy 12 June 2016 05:33:33PM *  0 points [-]

Small note, "jargon" and "none of the above" seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.

Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there's a missing slash in the URL).

Further edit: I suspect you've misunderstood the one "NERB"; I think it's complaining about the discussion of Roko's Basilisk, not about there not being enough of it. The question asked about problems, right? (I wouldn't bother pointing this out, as as you've said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)

Comment author: ingres 12 June 2016 08:17:14PM 1 point [-]

Small note, "jargon" and "none of the above" seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.

That's because they didn't get used. I should probably just remove them.

Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there's a missing slash in the URL).

Fixed.

(I wouldn't bother pointing this out, as as you've said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)

You seem to be correct, I was trying really hard to power through these and I think I mixed these two up:

14:41 < namespace> "To be fair I wasn't around for the peak, however, I'd cite the aforementioned Basilisk. It suddenly presents a sort of 'Rational Devil' to a super intelligent Al's 'Rational Messiah'. It's silly and mildly off-putting. Thankfully the information on the site, especially the Sequences, is far too useful to just toss aside. | NERB"

14:42 < namespace> "A tendency to hyperfocus on the ridiculousness of Roko's Basilisk stopped most people (inside and outside of LessWrong) from thinking about more-plausible acausal-trade-based ideas. | TMRB"

Won't fix though because the numbers come out the same anyway.

Comment author: ingres 12 June 2016 07:38:13PM *  2 points [-]

I am honored that my survey writeup produced this level of quality discussion and endorse this post.

(Though not necessarily its proposed upvote scheme, sounds kind of flaky to me. I'm personally very skeptical of upvotes and community curation as cure-alls.)

Comment author: Sniffnoy 25 May 2016 12:49:07PM 1 point [-]

Question: Where in the data do we find the various write-in answers? Like for the blogs and such.

Comment author: ingres 25 May 2016 09:07:46PM *  1 point [-]

I'm going to add these as html/text files to the "Basic Results" section. Thanks for reminding me. In the mean time they're available in the public data release.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 24 May 2016 01:26:36AM 2 points [-]

All the links to the data appear to have gone down.

Comment author: ingres 24 May 2016 04:13:44AM 2 points [-]

Yes, I'm working on that. Hold tight.

Comment author: Emma_MK 15 May 2016 09:52:22AM 8 points [-]

Thanks for your work, ingres! I want to point out two possible errors in the data analysis output files:

  • In Blogs And Media Demographic Clusters, average age is 2.4

  • In the Superbabies section of Calibration Question And Brier Score Analysis, no people said they would have their child genetically modified for improvement purposes (e.g. to heighten their intelligence or reduce their risk of schizophrenia). This 0 for "yes" is for all Brier score groups, and it can't be right because:

1) on the next question, a lot of people answered they would have their child modified to change their eye color (but not to reduce risk of schizophrenia? doesn't make sense);

2) on a question further down, a lot have stated they have a positive opinion of such modifications.

Also, I remember answering "yes" there, so unless my survey answers got thrown out somehow, it can't be zero.

Comment author: ingres 15 May 2016 10:07:03AM *  5 points [-]

I'm somehow reminded of the scene in Logicomix where Russel figures that Godel should be given some kind of award for actually reading his Principia, though he's not sure what.

You went through the analysis files, closely enough to spot errors, and then actually went and reported them? Props.

Comment author: ingres 02 May 2016 07:18:29PM *  8 points [-]

Update on where I'm at:

Right this minute I'm writing a tool that imports the survey structure into a python datastructure to improve the analysis. This might take a bit, but once it's done it should make developing a generic basic analysis to replace the current one much easier. It'll also let me fix issues like the answers being in a weird order, with this I'll be able to order them by the order they appeared on the survey. To clarify what I said earlier, I think I can get out a fixed basic analysis today. A formal writeup will probably take longer.

Sub-update (Mon May 2 17:36:47 PDT 2016):

Wrote the tool, now writing the analysis with it.

Sub-update (Mon May 2 22:58:34 PDT 2016):

I have a mostly-working prototype of the analysis, finishing it up now.

Sub-update (Mon May 2 23:26:28 PDT 2016):

I've reached the point where I'm too tired to do anymore today, but what I've done so far seems to be enough to patch up the holes in the report system. I'll finish it tomorrow but in the meantime:

Basic Analysis With Null Entries Included Basic Analysis With Null Entries Excluded

Comment author: Yvain 01 May 2016 05:11:57PM 19 points [-]

Nice work.

If possible, please do a formal writeup like this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lhg/2014_survey_results/

If possible, please change the data on your PDF file to include an option to have it without nonresponders. For example, right now sex is 66% male, 12% female, unknown 22%, which makes it hard to intuitively tell what the actual sex ratio is. If you remove the unknowns you see that the knowns are 85% male 15% female, which is a much more useful result. This is especially true since up to 50% of people are unknowns on some questions.

If possible, please include averages for numerical questions. For example, there's no data about age on the PDF file because it just says everybody was a "responder" but doesn't list numbers.

Comment author: ingres 01 May 2016 05:21:45PM *  2 points [-]

On all of these. I'm a bit busy today though so expect them much later today or tomorrow.

Update (Tue May 3 21:34:49 PDT 2016):

Points two and three have been fixed, formal write up to follow.

Comment author: efenj 04 April 2016 06:18:25PM *  1 point [-]

Is there an easy way of printing one's replies (or saving them permanently for offline use), other than either:

  1. Printing out each separate page;
  2. Waiting for all the answers to be published and extracting one's own row (though that's suboptimal since the questions will presumably be absent and also, one has to wait)?

In the old survey/census I could print (to pdf) the entire form in one go.

Thanks for organising the survey!

Comment author: ingres 04 April 2016 09:19:00PM *  2 points [-]

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's actually an option in the software but I didn't turn it on because I couldn't imagine anybody would use it. ^^;

Fixing now.

EDIT: Should be an option now when you complete the survey, thanks!

View more: Prev | Next