Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

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
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
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
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
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong 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 that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable 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 achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
6
12 Weeks to Feel Better & Do More Good
2 authors
· · 3m read
0
0
View more