Urgent: Subjects needed for rationality measure development
post by Drewsmithyman
We at the Center For Applied Rationality (formerly known as the Center for Modern Rationality) need to measure the impact of our minicamps and develop rationality measures, and for this we need a group of test subjects. The interview portion will take about 5-10 minutes and the total time required will be about 30 minutes. All of it will be conducted online. If you are interested we also need you to be willing to fill out some follow-up surveys, questionnaires, etc. in one year, when it will also take about half an hour. The interviews and follow-up surveys will be interesting; you will be helping us conduct proper science; and you will get some information back which should provide you with some new self-knowledge, or at least entertainment.
The interviews will be fairly anonymous; we won't share your personal information with anyone. But, you MUST NOT discuss anything related to the interview with other people, ESPECIALLY not with other less wrongers, as that could mess up our entire process. We'd prefer for that not to happen, understandably.
If you are interested in doing this, please fill out this form. Thank you!
If anything in this process does not seem to be working, please send me an email at Drewsmithyman@gmail.com and let me know. Thank you for your time, and we hope to be interviewing many of you quite soon!
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by gRR ·
2012-05-03T23:32:50.209Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry for being paranoid, but this is the internet, and you're a newcomer, and you're asking for lots of personal data for unclear reasons (Phone? Full name? Whatever for?), and the question "Which sequences have you read at least 75% of?" is not well-defined without a list of sequence names...
Replies from: Nick_Tarleton
↑ comment by Nick_Tarleton ·
2012-05-03T23:39:32.430Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could someone with an established account and associated with CMR comment on this?
Replies from: AnnaSalamon
↑ comment by AnnaSalamon ·
2012-05-04T00:08:55.199Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, sorry; it's a legit post. I asked Drew to post it; he's one of our executive assistants at the rationality group.
Having some volunteers for this, to flesh out the comparison group, would be very helpful; we already have a randomized control group and experimental group, but more LW-ers would be good. An inexpensive way for many LWers to add to rationality research.
comment by AnnaSalamon ·
2012-05-04T00:36:31.372Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks in advance to all who do this; it'll really help us both with our efforts to measure the minicamps' impact, and with our efforts to move (slowly, step by step) toward having actual rationality measures.
comment by Mercurial ·
2012-05-05T02:07:32.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We have a number of volunteers for this, and we're very grateful to those of you who have volunteered! But we could really use about twice that number of people. You can help us raise the sanity waterline this way - either by volunteering or by pointing another LWer toward this. But we need people soon since the first minicamp is in just a week. So please, help us make a more sane world by helping us develop tools that will keep our efforts honest. Thank you!
Replies from: MixedNuts
comment by Dorikka ·
2012-05-04T01:09:16.695Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I noticed that the "Which sequences have you read at least 75% of?" seemed to request a plural answer, but you could only pick one option.
comment by Brigid ·
2012-05-04T00:41:38.266Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How do you click more than one sequence, if you have read more than one of them? Shift and alt don't seem to be making a difference.
Replies from: iDante