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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any particular implementation details on OCEAN? Exact same as last time?
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.
Why not directly include the 10-item Big Five in the survey itself?
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.
Agree with this. Big 5 is worth having.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
The basilisk question is an exception.
No it isn’t
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.
It would also be very interesting to see whether those who think that MIRI is more effective actually donate more.
A basilisk question isn’t necessary! What could we learn from it? However, the MIRI question is a good one.
That most people on LW don’t believe in the basilisk. That could be useful when facing outsiders who write articles about the basilisk.
I guess when you put it that way I can see its use.