Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
Kyle Fiore Law3
0
0

This is very good to know. Thank you for sharing these insights!

Reply
See in context
by Kyle Fiore Law
1 min read 20

25

CommunityOpportunities to take actionBuilding effective altruismResearchSurveys
Frontpage

I am actively recruiting effective altruists to participate in an online survey mapping their psychological profiles. The survey should take no more than 90 minutes to complete and anyone who identifies as being in alignment with EA can participate. If you have the time, my team and I would greatly appreciate your participation! The survey pays $15 and the link can be found below.

Survey Link: https://albany.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8v31IDPQNq4sKBU

The Research Team:

  1. Kyle Fiore Law (Project Leader; PhD Candidate in Social Psychology; University at Albany, SUNY): https://www.kyleflaw.com/
  2. Brendan O’Connor (Associate Professor of Psychology; University at Albany, SUNY):
  3. Abigail Marsh (Professor of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Neuroscience; Georgetown University)
  4. Liane Young (Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Boston College)
  5. Stylianos Syropoulos (Postdoctoral Researcher; Boston College)
  6. Paige Amormino (Graduate Student; Georgetown University)
  7. Gordon Kraft-Todd (Postdoctoral Researcher; Boston College)

Warmly,

Kyle :)

25

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments18


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Vasco Grilo🔸23
3
0
1

Thanks for sharing, Kyle!

May I ask how you estimated the time to complete the survey? I gave up because I made very little progress in 40 min, but I might be unusually slow.

I think 15 $ is a minor incentive for 90 min, but I tried to complete the survey anyway because this type of work seems useful. However, my guess is that you would get way more responses if you did a smaller e.g. 15 min survey even it had no monetary incentive. I also wonder whether the responses would be more accurate, because 90 min is so much time that people may start to give inaccurate responses. Alternatively, assuming I am not unusually slow, people may give rushed responses in order to finish the survey in 90 min.

In general, I also felt like many questions were overly similar. I appreciate some of this may be needed for internal validity purposes, but I would say the trade-off as the survey stands is not great.

Sorry if my comments come across as harsh. Thanks for working towards contributing to a better world!

Reply
Geoffrey Miller10
3
0
1

I just reposted your X/Twitter recruitment message, FWIW:

https://twitter.com/law_fiore/status/1706806416931987758 

Good luck! I might suggest doing a shorter follow-up survey in due course -- 90 minutes is a big time commitment for $15 payment!

Reply
gyang744
0
0

Please I participated in the survey and $15 was sent to my email I tried to send the fund to my PayPal account and the transaction was cancelled. How can I claim my $15

Reply
Caleb Zege1
0
0

Hi Gyang, how long did it take for you to get the pay?

Reply
Anonymous0003
0
0

I've just spent about an hour on the survey, at which point I noticed the progress bar was at about 1/6th. This was at the start of four timed questions which required 2 minutes each, with each one having a few follow-up questions.

At this point there had been 7 or 8 of these timed questions, as well as at least two dozen pages of multiple-choice questions and a few 'brain-teasers'. I do not see how it is possible to complete this first 1/6th in under 45 minutes, seeing that the timed questions alone already take up 16 minutes.

Reply
Kyle Fiore Law1
0
0

I sincerely apologize for the length of the survey.

Reply
Kyle Fiore Law3
0
1
1

Dear All,

I’m truly grateful for the valuable feedback and support received from the community. Below, I’ve provided some clarifications that I hope you’ll find useful.

To help ensure an accurate assessment of survey length, we timed the survey on the basis of median completion time derived from a pilot study with a general population sample (N=320). We’re aware of the concerns about respondent fatigue, which is why the pilot was crucial. It allowed us to examine the response quality and ensure the consistency and validity of our measures, aligning with well-established findings in relevant literature.

This survey marks our initial foray into this research area. As such, we opted for a comprehensive approach in selecting our measures. This approach enables us to explore numerous key variable relationships thoroughly, setting the stage for a more streamlined follow-up study.

Your participation, time and effort in helping us with this project are immensely appreciated. We are hopeful that the insights gained will significantly contribute to the development of more effective EA outreach strategies within the general population.

Warmly,

Kyle :)

Reply
Geoffrey Miller10
5
0

Kyle - I just completed the survey yesterday. I did find it very long and grueling. I worry that you might get lower quality data in the last 1/2 of the survey, due to participant fatigue and frustration.

My suggestion -- speaking as a psych professor who's run many surveys over the last three decades -- is to develop a shorter survey (no more than 25 minutes) that focuses on your key empirical questions, and try to get a good large sample for that. 

Reply
Kyle Fiore Law1
0
0

Thank you, Geoffrey! I really appreciate your time and candid feedback. I will take this into careful consideration going forward. 

Reply
Arepo2
0
0

Others have mentioned the length of the survey, but I think it would also be useful for long surveys to use a survey provider that has a progress bar.

ETA: I now realise there is a progress bar, but I didn't register it because it was advancing so slowly. I rescind my initial implication that others have said adequately expressed the length of this survey...

Reply
Arepo3
0
0

Also a 101-point Likert scale seems asking us for overmuch precision :P

Reply
Arepo3
0
0

Also I'm on a 7-point Likert scale page where I can only click on the first five options (about how much thought I like my tasks to involve).

I resolved it by shrinking the browser window so it switched to dropdown menus, but some people might not think to do that.

Reply
Kyle Fiore Law3
0
0

This is very good to know. Thank you for sharing these insights!

Reply
Caleb Yashe1
0
0

Hello, i completed the survey 3 days agi and was asked to drop my email to facilitate payment. I haven't heard a feed back from you since

Reply
Caleb Zege1
0
0

Hey Caleb,did you later receive the payment and how long did it take?

Reply
Caleb Yashe2
0
0

Hello Caleb,

Yes i did, i reached out to Kyle and it was sorted within 24 hours.

Reply
Caleb Zege1
0
0

I completed the survey hours ago, still yet to see any compensation though

Reply
Motiloluwa Abiola Oriowo 1
0
0

Hello, I participated in the survey and my study participation fund sent to PayPal was refunded back to Brenda O'Connor.

Kindly make my payment. Thanks 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
6
6
10
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
1
1
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
View more