personal/nunosempere.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update Analysis.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nuño Sempere 2018-11-11 17:31:17 +01:00 committed by GitHub
parent cfb687c227
commit 911d9415e1
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 3 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
rat/EA-predictions/Analysis.md
View File

@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
# Analysis of some predictions about the 2018 EA Survey
Note: Conclusions unsure, because I don't know whether the target interval is 80 or 60%
## Introduction.
Some effective altruists made predictions about the 2018 EA Survey: a survey which aims to reach most people within the effective altruism movement. Here, I present the set up for the prediction making, the questions, and explain some judgement calls I made when judging the answers. Everything is written such that you can play along.
@ -11,7 +9,7 @@ For every question, try to come up with an interval such that you're 80% confide
## Judgement call
In some cases, people didn't answer the question. For example, under the is.veg variable, you can have TRUE, FALSE, or NA: Not Available. If their number is respectively x, y and z, it might be a good first order approximation to estimate the actual proportion of vegetarians/vegans as x/(x+y).
However, I've decided to be extremely anal about it, and choose to define the actual proportion of people who define as vegan as x/(x+y+z). This doesn't make much of a difference in the case of plant eating, but it does in the identity politics questions.
However, I've decided to be extremely anal about it, and choose to define the actual proportion of people who define as vegan as x/(x+y+z). To do otherwise would be to replace questions. This doesn't make much of a difference in the case of plant eating, but it does in the identity politics questions. Curiously, doing so *raises* the average number of questions participants got right, but not by much.
## Questions
@ -94,7 +92,7 @@ However, I've decided to be extremely anal about it, and choose to define the ac
1. 52.5508247
1. 26.50556195
## Calibration results
## Results
For the 35 people who took part in the original prediction making, their results can be seen in the following graphics:
![](https://nunosempere.github.io/rat/EA-predictions/Scatterplot.jpeg)
@ -102,7 +100,7 @@ For the 35 people who took part in the original prediction making, their results
![](https://nunosempere.github.io/rat/EA-predictions/histogram.jpeg)
![](https://nunosempere.github.io/rat/EA-predictions/Brier-scores.jpeg)
The average accuracy is 55.12%, that is, the average participant got 13.22 out of 24 questions right. If it had been reached, a target credence of 80% would imply an average of 19.2 correct answers. In other words, in this limited domain, when these people say 80%, the thing happens 55% of the time. If they bet, they'd replace ~1:1 bets with 1:4 bets.
The average accuracy is 55.12%, that is, the average participant got 13.22 out of 24 questions right. If it had been reached, a target credence of 80% would imply an average of 19.2 correct answers. In other words, in this limited domain, when these people say 80%, the thing happens 55% of the time. If they bet, they'd be replacing ~1:1 bets with 1:4 bets.