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 Click to highlight new comments since:

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!

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!

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

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

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 :)

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. 

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

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.

I sincerely apologize for the length of the survey.

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...

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

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.

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

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

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

Hello Caleb,

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

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

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 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
I wrote this to try to explain the key thing going on with AI right now to a broader audience. Feedback welcome. Most people think of AI as a pattern-matching chatbot – good at writing emails, terrible at real thinking. They've missed something huge. In 2024, while many declared AI was reaching a plateau, it was actually entering a new paradigm: learning to reason using reinforcement learning. This approach isn’t limited by data, so could deliver beyond-human capabilities in coding and scientific reasoning within two years. Here's a simple introduction to how it works, and why it's the most important development that most people have missed. The new paradigm: reinforcement learning People sometimes say “chatGPT is just next token prediction on the internet”. But that’s never been quite true. Raw next token prediction produces outputs that are regularly crazy. GPT only became useful with the addition of what’s called “reinforcement learning from human feedback” (RLHF): 1. The model produces outputs 2. Humans rate those outputs for helpfulness 3. The model is adjusted in a way expected to get a higher rating A model that’s under RLHF hasn’t been trained only to predict next tokens, it’s been trained to produce whatever output is most helpful to human raters. Think of the initial large language model (LLM) as containing a foundation of knowledge and concepts. Reinforcement learning is what enables that structure to be turned to a specific end. Now AI companies are using reinforcement learning in a powerful new way – training models to reason step-by-step: 1. Show the model a problem like a math puzzle. 2. Ask it to produce a chain of reasoning to solve the problem (“chain of thought”).[1] 3. If the answer is correct, adjust the model to be more like that (“reinforcement”).[2] 4. Repeat thousands of times. Before 2023 this didn’t seem to work. If each step of reasoning is too unreliable, then the chains quickly go wrong. Without getting close to co
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
JamesÖz
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Why it’s important to fill out this consultation The UK Government is currently consulting on allowing insects to be fed to chickens and pigs. This is worrying as the government explicitly says changes would “enable investment in the insect protein sector”. Given the likely sentience of insects (see this summary of recent research), and that median predictions estimate that 3.9 trillion insects will be killed annually by 2030, we think it’s crucial to try to limit this huge source of animal suffering.  Overview * Link to complete the consultation: HERE. You can see the context of the consultation here. * How long it takes to fill it out: 5-10 minutes (5 questions total with only 1 of them requiring a written answer) * Deadline to respond: April 1st 2025 * What else you can do: Share the consultation document far and wide!  * You can use the UK Voters for Animals GPT to help draft your responses. * If you want to hear about other high-impact ways to use your political voice to help animals, sign up for the UK Voters for Animals newsletter. There is an option to be contacted only for very time-sensitive opportunities like this one, which we expect will happen less than 6 times a year. See guidance on submitting in a Google Doc Questions and suggested responses: It is helpful to have a lot of variation between responses. As such, please feel free to add your own reasoning for your responses or, in addition to animal welfare reasons for opposing insects as feed, include non-animal welfare reasons e.g., health implications, concerns about farming intensification, or the climate implications of using insects for feed.    Question 7 on the consultation: Do you agree with allowing poultry processed animal protein in porcine feed?  Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate further).  We think it’s useful to say no to all questions in the consultation, particularly as changing these rules means that meat producers can make more profit from sel
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
2
2 authors
· · 3m read