I'm very suspicious of that YouGov survey. "Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population." Really?
I don't know what the actual survey form looked like, but I suspect it was something like a sliding percentage bar that defaults to 50%, and the user is prompted to drag it to what they believe the true proportion is. Given 43 questions like that, a critical mass of people would probably just start clicking through and marking every question as 50%. This would bring the average closer to the 50% mark and entirely explain the systematic overestimate of small groups and underestimate of large groups. It would also explain the remarkable well-orderedness - of the people who are giving actual answers, they are making pretty good guesses, but everyone else is just saying 50%.
It might not be so unlikely as you think. Black Americans are highly concentrated in cities, so extrapolating from their day to day experiences it might be very reasonable to assume that it's about 50/50 black/white in the US. My father used to work in a youth detention center in the middle of nowhere PA, getting a lot of kids from Allentown and Philly, and he commented that they were always amazed at how many white people there were. Granted, most adults know more than juvenile delinquents, but not many adults are paying attention to demographic statistics, either.
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find your slider theory was perfectly true as well, Ludex. That sounds like exactly the sort of "why would we even think of that?" sort of problem so many surveys and other data collection methods have.
Zvi, what are your reasons for having children, if I may ask? I want to have kids, but I don't like the idea of bringing them into a world where humanity has a strong chance of dying off within the next couple decades. I'm mostly worried about unfriendly AI. I don't think climate change is a serious existential risk, particularly given where I live. I would definitely have kids if I wasn't so worried about the future. I would love to hear your thoughts, and potentially be convinced otherwise!
This space is insufficient for all the reasons, since this is very overdetermined, but to address the question of AGI. I'll ignore all the obvious basic reasons children are amazing in a 'baseline scenario' world, but let's say that if the world doesn't end you are making the best possible investment (including in your own existence in a decision theoretic sense, but if that didn't resonate right away ignore it).
First, having children is motivating to actually do something about the future. It makes the future real and meaningful, and your personal future much better. This effect alone overwhelms the resource cost downside in terms of "impact" concerns (and I'd bite this bullet all the way to the very top). It also gives you new perspective on this particular problem. If you're disconnected and unhappy because of no children, the opposite happens.
In general, ask, are people with children generally less productive at other things, or more? And the answer here is clear.
Second, let's do a simple model. World either ends or it doesn't. If it doesn't end, big win having kids. If it does end, who is so much worse off? I never understood the argument that 'bringing a kid into the world' is bad if it ends. Would you rather have never been born, or would you rather die at 20 at the hands of an AGI? If you don't think you can provide a positive-value life by then, you're doing it very wrong.
"Another note is that if it’s true that only 1% of Americans are transgender, 3% are gay and 4% are bisexual... I’m actually highly suspicious that those numbers are that low."
Suspicious? Maybe because you live in NYC?
To me, 1% trans seems high, as does 4% bisexual. 3% gay seems about right.
Agreed. I recall previous surveys finding consistently low numbers at the nationwide level, with much higher urban levels compared to suburban/rural.
I would be willing to believe that those percentages are biased low, either from social desirability bias or perhaps trans people not wanting to say they are, whatever, but probably not on the order necessary to reach the levels we see in the media. I think availability bias drives most of why it seems like there are so many of those three groups.
I'm very suspicious of that YouGov survey. "Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population." Really?
I don't know what the actual survey form looked like, but I suspect it was something like a sliding percentage bar that defaults to 50%, and the user is prompted to drag it to what they believe the true proportion is. Given 43 questions like that, a critical mass of people would probably just start clicking through and marking every question as 50%. This would bring the average closer to the 50% mark and entirely explain the systematic overestimate of small groups and underestimate of large groups. It would also explain the remarkable well-orderedness - of the people who are giving actual answers, they are making pretty good guesses, but everyone else is just saying 50%.
It might not be so unlikely as you think. Black Americans are highly concentrated in cities, so extrapolating from their day to day experiences it might be very reasonable to assume that it's about 50/50 black/white in the US. My father used to work in a youth detention center in the middle of nowhere PA, getting a lot of kids from Allentown and Philly, and he commented that they were always amazed at how many white people there were. Granted, most adults know more than juvenile delinquents, but not many adults are paying attention to demographic statistics, either.
For the record, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find your slider theory was perfectly true as well, Ludex. That sounds like exactly the sort of "why would we even think of that?" sort of problem so many surveys and other data collection methods have.
Zvi, what are your reasons for having children, if I may ask? I want to have kids, but I don't like the idea of bringing them into a world where humanity has a strong chance of dying off within the next couple decades. I'm mostly worried about unfriendly AI. I don't think climate change is a serious existential risk, particularly given where I live. I would definitely have kids if I wasn't so worried about the future. I would love to hear your thoughts, and potentially be convinced otherwise!
This space is insufficient for all the reasons, since this is very overdetermined, but to address the question of AGI. I'll ignore all the obvious basic reasons children are amazing in a 'baseline scenario' world, but let's say that if the world doesn't end you are making the best possible investment (including in your own existence in a decision theoretic sense, but if that didn't resonate right away ignore it).
First, having children is motivating to actually do something about the future. It makes the future real and meaningful, and your personal future much better. This effect alone overwhelms the resource cost downside in terms of "impact" concerns (and I'd bite this bullet all the way to the very top). It also gives you new perspective on this particular problem. If you're disconnected and unhappy because of no children, the opposite happens.
In general, ask, are people with children generally less productive at other things, or more? And the answer here is clear.
Second, let's do a simple model. World either ends or it doesn't. If it doesn't end, big win having kids. If it does end, who is so much worse off? I never understood the argument that 'bringing a kid into the world' is bad if it ends. Would you rather have never been born, or would you rather die at 20 at the hands of an AGI? If you don't think you can provide a positive-value life by then, you're doing it very wrong.
"Another note is that if it’s true that only 1% of Americans are transgender, 3% are gay and 4% are bisexual... I’m actually highly suspicious that those numbers are that low."
Suspicious? Maybe because you live in NYC?
To me, 1% trans seems high, as does 4% bisexual. 3% gay seems about right.
So 7% seems like a good number.
Agreed. I recall previous surveys finding consistently low numbers at the nationwide level, with much higher urban levels compared to suburban/rural.
I would be willing to believe that those percentages are biased low, either from social desirability bias or perhaps trans people not wanting to say they are, whatever, but probably not on the order necessary to reach the levels we see in the media. I think availability bias drives most of why it seems like there are so many of those three groups.