Hide table of contents

Polis is a surveying platform designed for finding clusters of people with similar opinions on a topic. Participants submit short text statements(<140 characters) which are sent out semi-randomly[1] to other participants to vote on by clicking agree, disagree or pass. 

This post provides links to  video and text tutorials for using polis.

When can Polis be Useful?

  • Identify subgroups of readers/users who you can then target more specifically
  • Understand better the types of people attending your university EA group
  • Survey opinions on how the EA community should be structured
  • Get suggestions for a new project for your organisation that are widely agreed upon in a given community
  • Understand the beliefs of a group of people affected by your project (e.g. AI researchers, parents in Nigeria, people new to EA)

 Tutorials

This tutorial from Computational Democracy is a good introduction:

Polis is a 💡 Wikisurvey, as:

  • the dimensions of the survey are created by the participants themselves
  • the survey adapts to participation over time and makes good use of people's time by showing comments semi-randomly
  • participants do not need to complete the entire survey to contribute meaning

pol.is is the main instance of the technology hosted online, but there are other instances in the wild.

In its highest ambition, Polis is a platform for enabling collective intelligence in human societies and fostering mutual understanding at scale in the tradition of nonviolent communication.

 A good tutorial based on a worked example is available here:

The text input to seed statements can be found in the ‘configure’ tab once you’ve started your conversation, seen at left.

It’s usually a good idea to seed around 10–15 diverse comments. This has a powerful effect on early participation. We’ve found that about 1 in 10 people leave a comment (whereas 9 in 10 only agree disagree and pass on statements submitted by others). Given this ratio, if there are no statements at the outset, it can take a little while for enough statements to build up to make the conversation meaningful. This is an impediment to data collection. So seed away!

Examples

There's one example worth pulling out before the others: vTaiwan. vTaiwan is an experiment in using Polis & other tools to find how opinions group, find the least controversial statements, and help set agendas for future consultations iteratively. 

In 2015, Polis was used in combination with an in-person meeting of key stakeholders to make decisions about regulation of Uber in Taiwan. 

Other Examples:

Personal Experience

Polis is very easy to use & intuitive, and I like that users can submit statements for other users to vote on; the core of the tool seems broadly useful.

However, I think its real edge over other survey tools (grouping beliefs) is a little niche. It's useful for large projects like vTaiwan where identifying groups is important for setting meeting agendas, but I'm not sure how important understanding subgroups is in most circumstances where you're soliciting opinions. For instance, it's not clear to me what benefit was gained by constructing subgroups in getting charity suggestions for Charity Entrepreneurship. 

I think Polis is most useful when you need to understand who exactly believes what within a larger group. For instance, understanding whether people with little experience of EA find the phrase "EA Aligned" useful is more actionable than finding how popular it is among all survey respondents. 

Try it Yourself

Go to this polis and add your opinions on the phrase "EA Aligned"; if you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can see the groupings that have been created.

If you found that interesting, create a poll! Want to know what the forum thinks about a topic? Make a linkpost for a Polis or post it in the comments here!

 

We've reached the end of this sequence now! I'd appreciate if you could let me know how you found the sequence via Polis or in the comments below. Also, join me in the EA GatherTown tomorrow [02/02/23] at 6pm GMT to discuss the use of Polis!

Thanks for reading, and thanks to everybody who gave feedback throughout!

  1. ^

    This is only important if people don't respond to all the statements i.e. especially for large polls. I believe they're ordered to help clustering.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I wasn’t aware of this sequence, but I’m glad to see someone working on this topic! That being said, I am disappointed by the apparent lack of reference to Kialo or any other form of what I call argument/debate management systems

The specific tools were mostly my choice, not done with an eye towards full categorization of the space, but taken from suggestions from people in a slack about epistemics plus my own experiences. If you wanted to write up a tutorial / explanation, we'd be really excited to have more in this sequences written by others!

Thanks for making tools like this so much more accessible!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
This post summarizes a new meta-analysis from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab. We analyze the most rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to reduce consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). We conclude that no theoretical approach, delivery mechanism, or persuasive message should be considered a well-validated means of reducing MAP consumption. By contrast, reducing consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) appears to be an easier target. However, if RPM reductions lead to more consumption of chicken and fish, this is likely bad for animal welfare and doesn’t ameliorate zoonotic outbreak or land and water pollution. We also find that many promising approaches await rigorous evaluation. This post updates a post from a year ago. We first summarize the current paper, and then describe how the project and its findings have evolved. What is a rigorous RCT? We operationalize “rigorous RCT” as any study that: * Randomly assigns participants to a treatment and control group * Measures consumption directly -- rather than (or in addition to) attitudes, intentions, or hypothetical choices -- at least a single day after treatment begins * Has at least 25 subjects in both treatment and control, or, in the case of cluster-assigned studies (e.g. university classes that all attend a lecture together or not), at least 10 clusters in total. Additionally, studies needed to intend to reduce MAP consumption, rather than (e.g.) encouraging people to switch from beef to chicken, and be publicly available by December 2023. We found 35 papers, comprising 41 studies and 112 interventions, that met these criteria. 18 of 35 papers have been published since 2020. The main theoretical approaches: Broadly speaking, studies used Persuasion, Choice Architecture, Psychology, and a combination of Persuasion and Psychology to try to change eating behavior. Persuasion studies typically provide arguments about animal welfare, health, and environmental welfare reason
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is 99% automation of fully-remote jobs in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math dataset (thou