I prefer asking for the times of exercise per week and a question for when the person last exercised to check whether certain people overestimate the amount they exercise. It would be interesting to see whether people who are better calibrated on the calibration question do better at this task then people who aren’t calibrated.
I also don’t think that minutes are very meaningful. Intensity matters as well. It’s easier to stay with the simple question for the amount of exercise. I don’t think there a strong systematic bias at play.
I like the calibration check idea, and it’s a fair point about intensity. The last survey I took that included this kind of question asked about “moderate exercise (eg brisk walking)” and “intense exercise”, or some similar wording, which I thought was a reasonable split. These might all be details we don’t care about though.
Could be a good addition! I don’t really know what the purpose of these questions is other than vague general interest… is there some hypothesis like “people who think there will be a Singularity soon are more active/healthier than people who think it will be less soon / never”??
I think it would depend on the probabilities and payoffs: if surviving to the Singularity is sufficiently worthless, or taking care of your health is sufficiently expensive, or the Singularity is near with extreme confidence, then you might conclude that you can neglect your health, stop brushing your teeth, etc. But very few people expect any singularity to be near or sooner than a decade or two, or with extreme confidence, so I think for any plausible values you’d wind up wanting to pay attention to your health. Cancer can strike at any time, among other threats.
I prefer asking for the times of exercise per week and a question for when the person last exercised to check whether certain people overestimate the amount they exercise. It would be interesting to see whether people who are better calibrated on the calibration question do better at this task then people who aren’t calibrated.
I also don’t think that minutes are very meaningful. Intensity matters as well. It’s easier to stay with the simple question for the amount of exercise. I don’t think there a strong systematic bias at play.
I like the calibration check idea, and it’s a fair point about intensity. The last survey I took that included this kind of question asked about “moderate exercise (eg brisk walking)” and “intense exercise”, or some similar wording, which I thought was a reasonable split. These might all be details we don’t care about though.
Do you think the survey should also take into account BMI + bodyfat % if it includes fitness questions?
Could be a good addition! I don’t really know what the purpose of these questions is other than vague general interest… is there some hypothesis like “people who think there will be a Singularity soon are more active/healthier than people who think it will be less soon / never”??
I would think it would be the other way around—no sense preserving your health if you’ll be uploaded in a few years anyway, right?
I think it would depend on the probabilities and payoffs: if surviving to the Singularity is sufficiently worthless, or taking care of your health is sufficiently expensive, or the Singularity is near with extreme confidence, then you might conclude that you can neglect your health, stop brushing your teeth, etc. But very few people expect any singularity to be near or sooner than a decade or two, or with extreme confidence, so I think for any plausible values you’d wind up wanting to pay attention to your health. Cancer can strike at any time, among other threats.