Note: This post presents some data which might inform downstream questions, rather than providing a fully cooked perspective on its own. For this reason, I have tried to not really express many opinions here. Readers might instead be interested in more fleshed out perspectives on the Bostrom affair, e.g., [here](https://rychappell.substack.com/p/text-subtext-and-miscommunication) in favor or [here](https://www.pasteurscube.com/why-im-personally-upset-with-nick-bostrom-right-now/) against.
I am not sure whether EAs who answered the EA forum are a representative sample of all EAs. It might not be, if SSC readers have shared biases and assumptions distinct from those of the EA population as a whole. That said, raw numerical numbers will be accurate, e.g., we can say that "at least 57 people who identified as EAs in 2020 strongly agree with the human biodiversity hypothesis".
### Question framing effects
I think the question as phrased is likely to *overestimate* belief in human biodiversity, because the phrasing seems somewhat inocuous, and in particular because "biodiversity" has positive mood affiliation. I think that fewer people would answer positively to a less inocuous sounding version, e.g., "How would you describe your opinion of the the idea of "human biodiversity",\n eg the belief that some races are genetically stupider than others? (1 = very unfavorable, 5 = very favorable)".
For a review of survey effects, see [A review of two books on survey-making](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DCcciuLxRveSkBng2/a-review-of-two-books-on-survey-making).
### Interpreting as a probability
This isn't really all that meaningful, but we can assign percentages to each answer as follows:
- 1: 5%
- 2: 20%
- 3: 50%
- 4: 80%
- 5: 95%
- NA: 50%
The above requires a judgment call to assign probabilities to numbers in a Likert scale. In particular, I am making the judgment call that 1 and 5 correspond to 5% and 95%, rather than e.g., 0% and 100%, or 1% and 99%, based on my forecasting experience.
And then we can calculate an implicit probability as follows
The above calculation outputs 0.4025..., which, in a sense, means that SSC survey respondents which self-identified as EA assigned, as a whole, a 40% credence to the human biodiversity hypothesis.
titulo='Prevalence of attitudes towards "human biodiversity"\n amongst EA SlateStarCodex survey respondents in 2020'
subtitulo='"How would you describe your opinion of the the idea of "human biodiversity",\n eg the belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant ways?"\n (1 = very unfavorable, 5 = very favorable), n=993'
(ggplot(data = tally, aes(x =options, y = count)) +
titulo='Prevalence of attitudes towards "human biodiversity"\n amongst all SlateStarCodex survey respondents in 2020'
subtitulo='"How would you describe your opinion of the the idea of "human biodiversity",\n eg the belief that races differ genetically in socially relevant ways?"\n (1 = very unfavorable, 5 = very favorable), n=993'
(ggplot(data = tally_all_ssc, aes(x =options, y = count)) +
The file 2020ssc_public.csv is no longer available in the [SSC blogpost](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/), but it can easily be created from the .xlsx file, or I can make it available for a small donation to the AMF.
<p><sectionid='isso-thread'>
<noscript>Javascript needs to be activated to view comments.</noscript>