# 2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis: Part Two (LessWrong Use, Successorship, Diaspora)

2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis
=======================================

Overview
--------

*   [Results and Dataset](/r/discussion/lw/nkw/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_results/)
*   [Meta](/r/discussion/lw/nmk/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_analysis_part_one/)
*   [Demographics](/r/discussion/lw/nmk/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_analysis_part_one/)
*   LessWrong Usage and Experience
*   LessWrong Criticism and Successorship
*   Diaspora Community Analysis (You are here)
*   Mental Health Section
*   Basilisk Section/Analysis
*   Blogs and Media analysis
*   Politics
*   Calibration Question And Probability Question Analysis
*   Charity And Effective Altruism Analysis

* * *

Introduction
------------

Before it was the _LessWrong_ survey, the 2016 survey was a small project I was working on as market research for a website I'm creating called FortForecast. As I was discussing the idea with others, particularly [Eliot](/user/Elo/overview/) he made the suggestion that since he's doing LW 2.0 and I'm doing a site that targets the LessWrong demographic, why don't I go ahead and do the LessWrong Survey? Because of that, this years survey had a lot of questions oriented around what you would want to see in a successor to LessWrong and what you think is wrong with the site.

LessWrong Usage and Experience
------------------------------

**How Did You Find LessWrong?**

Been here since it was started in the Overcoming Bias days: 171 8.3%  
Referred by a link: 275 13.4%  
HPMOR: 542 26.4%  
Overcoming Bias: 80 3.9%  
Referred by a friend: 265 12.9%  
Referred by a search engine: 131 6.4%  
Referred by other fiction: 14 0.7%  
Slate Star Codex: 241 11.7%  
Reddit: 55 2.7%  
Common Sense Atheism: 19 0.9%  
Hacker News: 47 2.3%  
Gwern: 22 1.1%  
Other: 191 9.308%

**How do you use Less Wrong?**

I lurk, but never registered an account: 1120 54.4%  
I've registered an account, but never posted: 270 13.1%  
I've posted a comment, but never a top-level post: 417 20.3%  
I've posted in Discussion, but not Main: 179 8.7%  
I've posted in Main: 72 3.5%

\[54.4% lurkers.\]

**How often do you comment on LessWrong?**

I have commented more than once a week for the past year.: 24 1.2%  
I have commented more than once a month for the past year but less than once a week.: 63 3.1%  
I have commented but less than once a month for the past year.: 225 11.1%  
I have not commented this year.: 1718 84.6%

\[You could probably snarkily title this one "LW usage in one statistic". It's a pretty damning portrait of the sites vitality. A whopping 84.6% of people have not commented this year a single time.\]

**How Long Since You Last Posted On LessWrong?**

I wrote one today.: 12 0.637%  
Within the last three days.: 13 0.69%  
Within the last week.: 22 1.168%  
Within the last month.: 58 3.079%  
Within the last three months.: 75 3.981%  
Within the last six months.: 68 3.609%  
Within the last year.: 84 4.459%  
Within the last five years.: 295 15.658%  
Longer than five years.: 15 0.796%  
I've never posted on LW.: 1242 65.924%

\[Supermajority of people have never commented on LW, 5.574% have within the last month.\]

**About how much of the Sequences have you read?**

Never knew they existed until this moment: 215 10.3%  
Knew they existed, but never looked at them: 101 4.8%  
Some, but less than 25% : 442 21.2%  
About 25%: 260 12.5%  
About 50%: 283 13.6%  
About 75%: 298 14.3%  
All or almost all: 487 23.3%

\[10.3% of people taking the survey have never heard of the sequences. 36.3% have not read a quarter of them.\]

**Do you attend Less Wrong meetups?**

Yes, regularly: 157 7.5%  
Yes, once or a few times: 406 19.5%  
No: 1518 72.9%

\[However the in-person community seems to be non-dead.\]

**Is physical interaction with the Less Wrong community otherwise a part of your everyday life, for example do you live with other Less Wrongers, or you are close friends and frequently go out with them?**

Yes, all the time: 158 7.6%  
Yes, sometimes: 258 12.5%  
No: 1652 79.9%

About the same number say they hang out with LWers 'all the time' as say they go to meetups. I wonder if people just double counted themselves here. Or they may go to meetups _and_ have other interactions with LWers outside of that. Or it could be a coincidence and these are different demographics. Let's find out.

P(Community part of daily life | Meetups) = 40%

Significant overlap, but definitely not exclusive overlap. I'll go ahead and chalk this one up up to coincidence.

**Have you ever been in a romantic relationship with someone you met through the Less Wrong community?**

Yes: 129 6.2%  
I didn't meet them through the community but they're part of the community now: 102 4.9%  
No: 1851 88.9%

LessWrong Usage Differences Between 2016 and 2014 Surveys
---------------------------------------------------------

**How do you use Less Wrong?**

I lurk, but never registered an account: +19.300% 1125 54.400%  
I've registered an account, but never posted: -1.600% 271 13.100%  
I've posted a comment, but never a top-level post: -7.600% 419 20.300%  
I've posted in Discussion, but not Main: -5.100% 179 8.700%  
I've posted in Main: -3.300% 73 3.500%

**About how much of the sequences have you read?**

Never knew they existed until this moment: +3.300% 217 10.400%  
Knew they existed, but never looked at them: +2.100% 103 4.900%  
Some, but less than 25%: +3.100% 442 21.100%  
About 25%: +0.400% 260 12.400%  
About 50%: -0.400% 284 13.500%  
About 75%: -1.800% 299 14.300%  
All or almost all: -5.000% 491 23.400%

**Do you attend Less Wrong meetups?**

Yes, regularly: -2.500% 160 7.700%  
Yes, once or a few times: -2.100% 407 19.500%  
No: +7.100% 1524 72.900%

**Is physical interaction with the Less Wrong community otherwise a part of your everyday life, for example do you live with other Less Wrongers, or you are close friends and frequently go out with them?**

Yes, all the time: +0.200% 161 7.700%  
Yes, sometimes: -0.300% 258 12.400%  
No: +2.400% 1659 79.800%

**Have you ever been in a romantic relationship with someone you met through the Less Wrong community?**

Yes: +0.800% 132 6.300%  
I didn't meet them through the community but they're part of the community now: -0.400% 102 4.900%  
No: +1.600% 1858 88.800%

Write Ins
---------

In a bit of a silly oversight I forgot to ask survey participants what was _good_ about the community, so the following is going to be a pretty one sided picture. Below are the complete write ins respondents submitted

### Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak

[Philosophical Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak\[Part One\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_phil_write_in_one.html)  
[Philosophical Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak\[Part Two\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_phil_write_in_two.html)  
[Community Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak\[Part One\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_comm_write_in_one.html)  
[Community Issues With LessWrong At It's Peak\[Part Two\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_comm_write_in_two.html)

### Issues With LessWrong Now

[Philosophical Issues With LessWrong Now\[Part One\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/now_phil_write_in_one.html)  
[Philosophical Issues With LessWrong Now\[Part Two\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/now_phil_write_in_two.html)  
[Community Issues With LessWrong Now\[Part One\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/now_c_issue_write_in_one.html)  
[Community Issues With LessWrong Now\[Part Two\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/now_c_issue_write_in_two.html)

### Peak Philosophy Issue Tallies

| Label | Code | Tally |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Arrogance | A   | 16  |
| Bad Aesthetics | BA  | 3   |
| Bad Norms | BN  | 3   |
| Bad Politics | BP  | 5   |
| Bad Tech Platform | BTP | 1   |
| Cultish | C   | 5   |
| Cargo Cult | CC  | 3   |
| Doesn't Accept Criticism | DAC | 3   |
| Don't Know Where to Start | DKWS | 5   |
| Damaged Me Mentally | DMM | 1   |
| Esoteric | E   | 3   |
| Eliezer Yudkowsky | EY  | 6   |
| Improperly Indexed | II  | 7   |
| Impossible Mission | IM  | 4   |
| Insufficient Social Support | ISS | 1   |
| Jargon |     |
| Literal Cult | LC  | 1   |
| Lack of Rigor | LR  | 14  |
| Misfocused | M   | 13  |
| Mixed Bag | MB  | 3   |
| Nothing | N   | 13  |
| Not Enough Jargon | NEJ | 1   |
| Not Enough Roko's Basilisk | NERB | 1   |
| Not Enough Theory | NET | 1   |
| No Intuition | NI  | 6   |
| Not Progressive Enough | NPE | 7   |
| Narrow Scholarship | NS  | 20  |
| Other | O   | 3   |
| Personality Cult | PC  | 10  |
| None of the Above |     |
| Quantum Mechanics Sequence | QMS | 2   |
| Reinvention | R   | 10  |
| Rejects Expertise | RE  | 5   |
| Spoiled | S   | 7   |
| Small Competent Authorship | SCA | 6   |
| Suggestion For Improvement | SFI | 1   |
| Socially Incompetent | SI  | 9   |
| Stupid Philosophy | SP  | 4   |
| Too Contrarian | TC  | 2   |
| Typical Mind | TM  | 1   |
| Too Much Roko's Basilisk | TMRB | 1   |
| Too Much Theory | TMT | 14  |
| Too Progressive | TP  | 2   |
| Too Serious | TS  | 2   |
| Unwelcoming | U   | 8   |

Well, those are certainly some results. Top answers are:

Narrow Scholarship: 20  
Arrogance: 16  
Too Much Theory: 14  
Lack of Rigor: 14  
Misfocused: 13  
Nothing: 13  
Reinvention (reinvents the wheel too much): 10  
Personality Cult: 10

So condensing a bit: Pay more attention to mainstream scholarship and ideas, try to do better about intellectual rigor, be more practical and focus on results, be more humble. ([Labeled Dataset](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_phil_write_ins_tagged.txt))

### Peak Community Issue Tallies

| Label | Code | Tally |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Arrogance | A   | 7   |
| Assumes Reader Is Male | ARIM | 1   |
| Bad Aesthetics | BA  | 1   |
| Bad At PR | BAP | 5   |
| Bad Norms | BN  | 5   |
| Bad Politics | BP  | 2   |
| Cultish | C   | 9   |
| Cliqueish Tendencies | CT  | 1   |
| Diaspora | D   | 1   |
| Defensive Attitude | DA  | 1   |
| Doesn't Accept Criticism | DAC | 3   |
| Dunning Kruger | DK  | 1   |
| Elitism | E   | 3   |
| Eliezer Yudkowsky | EY  | 2   |
| Groupthink | G   | 11  |
| Insufficiently Indexed | II  | 9   |
| Impossible Mission | IM  | 1   |
| Imposter Syndrome | IS  | 1   |
| Jargon | J   | 2   |
| Lack of Rigor | LR  | 1   |
| Mixed Bag | MB  | 1   |
| Nothing | N   | 5   |
| ??? | NA  | 1   |
| Not Big Enough | NBE | 3   |
| Not Enough of A Cult | NEAC | 1   |
| Not Enough Content | NEC | 7   |
| Not Enough Community Infrastructure | NECI | 10  |
| Not Enough Meetups | NEM | 5   |
| No Goals | NG  | 2   |
| Not Nerdy Enough | NNE | 3   |
| None Of the Above | NOA | 1   |
| Not Progressive Enough | NPE | 3   |
| Not Rational | NR  | 3   |
| NRx (Neoreaction) | NRx | 1   |
| Narrow Scholarship | NS  | 4   |
| Not Stringent Enough | NSE | 3   |
| Parochialism | P   | 1   |
| Pickup Artistry | PA  | 2   |
| Personality Cult | PC  | 7   |
| Reinvention | R   | 1   |
| Recurring Arguments | RA  | 3   |
| Rejects Expertise | RE  | 2   |
| Sequences | S   | 2   |
| Small Competent Authorship | SCA | 5   |
| Suggestion For Improvement | SFI | 1   |
| Spoiled Issue | SI  | 9   |
| Socially INCOMpetent | SINCOM | 2   |
| Too Boring | TB  | 1   |
| Too Contrarian | TC  | 10  |
| Too COMbative | TCOM | 4   |
| Too Cis/Straight/Male | TCSM | 5   |
| Too Intolerant of Cranks | TIC | 1   |
| Too Intolerant of Politics | TIP | 2   |
| Too Long Winded | TLW | 2   |
| Too Many Idiots | TMI | 3   |
| Too Much Math | TMM | 1   |
| Too Much Theory | TMT | 12  |
| Too Nerdy | TN  | 6   |
| Too Rigorous | TR  | 1   |
| Too Serious | TS  | 1   |
| Too Tolerant of Cranks | TTC | 1   |
| Too Tolerant of Politics | TTP | 3   |
| Too Tolerant of POSers | TTPOS | 2   |
| Too Tolerant of PROGressivism | TTPROG | 2   |
| Too Weird | TW  | 2   |
| Unwelcoming | U   | 12  |
| UTILitarianism | UTIL | 1   |

Top Answers:

Unwelcoming: 12  
Too Much Theory: 12  
Groupthink: 11  
Not Enough Community Infrastructure: 10  
Too Contrarian: 10  
Insufficiently Indexed: 9  
Cultish: 9

Again condensing a bit: Work on being less intimidating/aggressive/etc to newcomers, spend less time on navel gazing and more time on actually doing things and collecting data, work on getting the structures in place that will onboard people into the community, stop being so nitpicky and argumentative, spend more time on getting content indexed in a form where people can actually find it, be more accepting of outside viewpoints and remember that you're probably more likely to be wrong than you think. ([Labeled Dataset](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/peak_comm_write_ins_tagged.txt))

One last note before we finish up, these tallies are a _very rough_ executive summary. The tagging process basically involves trying to fit points into clusters and is prone to inaccuracy through laziness, adding another category being undesirable, square-peg into round-hole fitting, and my personal political biases. So take these with a grain of salt, if you really want to know what people wrote in my advice would be to read through the write in sets I have above in HTML format. If you want to evaluate for yourself how well I tagged things you can see the labeled datasets above.

I won't bother tallying the "issues now" sections, all you really need to know is that it's basically the same as the first sections except with lots more "It's dead." comments and from eyeballing it a higher proportion of people arguing that LessWrong has been taken over by the left/social justice and complaints about effective altruism. (I infer that the complaints about being taken over by the left are mostly referring to effective altruism.)

Traits Respondents Would Like To See In A Successor Community
-------------------------------------------------------------

### Philosophically

**Attention Paid To Outside Sources**  
More: 1042 70.933%  
Same: 414 28.182%  
Less: 13 0.885%

**Self Improvement Focus**  
More: 754 50.706%  
Same: 598 40.215%  
Less: 135 9.079%

**AI Focus**  
More: 184 12.611%  
Same: 821 56.271%  
Less: 454 31.117%

**Political**  
More: 330 22.837%  
Same: 770 53.287%  
Less: 345 23.875%

**Academic/Formal**  
More: 455 31.885%  
Same: 803 56.272%  
Less: 169 11.843%

In summary, people want a site that will engage with outside ideas, acknowledge where it borrows from, focus on practical self improvement, less on AI and AI risk, and tighten its academic rigor. They could go either way on politics but the epistemic direction is clear.

### Community

**Intense Environment**  
More: 254 19.644%  
Same: 830 64.192%  
Less: 209 16.164%

**Focused On 'Real World' Action**  
More: 739 53.824%  
Same: 563 41.005%  
Less: 71 5.171%

**Experts**  
More: 749 55.605%  
Same: 575 42.687%  
Less: 23 1.707%

**Data Driven/Testing Of Ideas**  
More: 1107 78.344%  
Same: 291 20.594%  
Less: 15 1.062%

**Social**  
More: 583 43.507%  
Same: 682 50.896%  
Less: 75 5.597%

This largely backs up what I said about the previous results. People want a more practical, more active, more social and more _empirical_ LessWrong with outside expertise and ideas brought into the fold. They could go either way on it being more intense but the epistemic trend is still clear.

### Write Ins

Diaspora Communities
--------------------

So where did the party go? We got twice as many respondents this year as last when we opened up the survey to the diaspora, which means that the LW community is alive and kicking it's just not on LessWrong.

**LessWrong**  
Yes: 353 11.498%  
No: 1597 52.02%

**LessWrong Meetups**  
Yes: 215 7.003%  
No: 1735 56.515%

**LessWrong Facebook Group**  
Yes: 171 5.57%  
No: 1779 57.948%

**LessWrong Slack**  
Yes: 55 1.792%  
No: 1895 61.726%

**SlateStarCodex**  
Yes: 832 27.101%  
No: 1118 36.417%

\[SlateStarCodex by far has the highest proportion of active LessWrong users, over twice that of LessWrong itself, and more than LessWrong and Tumblr combined.\]

**Rationalist Tumblr**  
Yes: 350 11.401%  
No: 1600 52.117%

\[I'm actually surprised that Tumblr doesn't just beat LessWrong itself outright, They're only a tenth of a percentage point behind though, and if current trends continue I suspect that by 2017 Tumblr will have a large lead over the main LW site.\]

**Rationalist Facebook**  
Yes: 150 4.886%  
No: 1800 58.632%

\[Eliezer Yudkowsky currently resides here.\]

**Rationalist Twitter**  
Yes: 59 1.922%  
No: 1891 61.596%

**Effective Altruism Hub**  
Yes: 98 3.192%  
No: 1852 60.326%

**FortForecast**  
Yes: 4 0.13%  
No: 1946 63.388%

\[I included this as a 'troll' option to catch people who just check every box. Relatively few people seem to have done that, but having the option here lets me know one way or the other.\]

**Good Judgement(TM) Open**  
Yes: 29 0.945%  
No: 1921 62.573%

**PredictionBook**  
Yes: 59 1.922%  
No: 1891 61.596%

**Omnilibrium**  
Yes: 8 0.261%  
No: 1942 63.257%

**Hacker News**  
Yes: 252 8.208%  
No: 1698 55.309%

**#lesswrong on freenode**  
Yes: 76 2.476%  
No: 1874 61.042%

**#slatestarcodex on freenode**  
Yes: 36 1.173%  
No: 1914 62.345%

**#hplusroadmap on freenode**  
Yes: 4 0.13%  
No: 1946 63.388%

**#chapelperilous on freenode**  
Yes: 10 0.326%  
No: 1940 63.192%

\[Since people keep asking me, this is a postrational channel.\]

**/r/rational**  
Yes: 274 8.925%  
No: 1676 54.593%

**/r/HPMOR**  
Yes: 230 7.492%  
No: 1720 56.026%

\[Given that the story is long over, this is pretty impressive. I'd have expected it to be dead by now.\]

**/r/SlateStarCodex**  
Yes: 244 7.948%  
No: 1706 55.57%

**One or more private 'rationalist' groups**  
Yes: 192 6.254%  
No: 1758 57.264%

\[I almost wish I hadn't included this option, it'd have been fascinating to learn more about these through write ins.\]

Of all the parties who seem like plausible candidates at the moment, Scott Alexander seems most capable to undiaspora the community. In practice he's very busy, so he would need a dedicated team of relatively autonomous people to help him. Scott could court guest posts and start to scale up under the SSC brand, and I think he would fairly easily end up with the lions share of the free floating LWers that way.

Before I call a hearse for LessWrong, there is a glimmer of hope left:

**Would you consider rejoining LessWrong?**

I never left: 668 40.6%  
Yes: 557 33.8%  
Yes, but only under certain conditions: 205 12.5%  
No: 216 13.1%

A significant fraction of people say they'd be interested in an improved version of the site. And of course there were write ins for conditions to rejoin, what did people say they'd need to rejoin the site?

[Rejoin Condition Write Ins \[Part One\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/rejoin_conditions_one.html)  
[Rejoin Condition Write Ins \[Part Two\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/rejoin_conditions_two.html)  
[Rejoin Condition Write Ins \[Part Three\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/rejoin_conditions_three.html)  
[Rejoin Condition Write Ins \[Part Four\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/rejoin_conditions_four.html)  
[Rejoin Condition Write Ins \[Part Five\]](http://jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/rejoin_conditions_five.html)

Feel free to read these yourselves (they're not long), but I'll go ahead and summarize: It's all about the content. [Content, content, content](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE&nohtml5=False). No amount of usability improvements, A/B testing or clever trickery will let you get around content. People are overwhelmingly clear about this; they need a reason to come to the site and right now they don't feel like they have one. That means priority number one for somebody trying to revitalize LessWrong is how you deal with this.

Let's recap.

Future Improvement Wishlist Based On Survey Results
---------------------------------------------------

### Philosophical

*   Pay more attention to mainstream scholarship and ideas.
*   Improved intellectual rigor.
*   Acknowledge sources borrowed from.
*   Be more practical and focus on results.
*   Be more humble.

### Community

*   Less intimidating/aggressive/etc to newcomers,
*   Structures that will onboard people into the community.
*   Stop being so nitpicky and argumentative.
*   Spend more time on getting content indexed in a form where people can actually find it.
*   More accepting of outside viewpoints.

While that list seems reasonable, it's quite hard to put into practice. Rigor, as the name implies requires high-effort from participants. Frankly, it's not fun. And getting people to do un-fun things without paying them is difficult. If LessWrong is serious about it's goal of 'advancing the art of human rationality' then it needs to figure out a way to do real investigation into the subject. Not just have people 'discuss', as though the potential for Rationality is within all of us just waiting to be brought out by the right conversation.

I personally haven't been a LW regular in a long time. Assuming the points about pedanticism, snipping, "well actually"-ism and the like are true then they need to stop for the site to move forward. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Scott Alexander's comment policy: All comments must be at least two of true, kind, or necessary.

*   True and kind - Probably won't drown out the discussion signal, will help significantly decrease the hostility of the atmosphere.
    
*   True and necessary - Sometimes what you have to say isn't nice, but it needs to be said. This is the common core of free speech arguments for saying mean things and they're not wrong. However, something being _true_ isn't necessarily enough to make it something you should say. In fact, in some situations saying mean things to people entirely unrelated to their arguments is known as the [ad hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy.
    
*   Kind and necessary - The infamous 'hugbox' is essentially a place where people go to hear things which are kind but not necessarily true. I don't think anybody wants a hugbox, but occasionally it can be important to say things that might not be true but are needed for the sake of tact, reconciliation, or to prevent greater harm.
    

If people took that seriously and really gave it some thought before they used their keyboard, I think the on-site LessWrong community would be a significant part of the way to not driving people off as soon as they arrive.

More importantly, in places like the LessWrong Slack I see this sort of happy go lucky attitude about site improvement. "Oh that sounds nice, we should do that." without the accompanying mountain of work to actually make 'that' happen. I'm not sure people really understand the dynamics of what it means to 'revive' a website in severe decay. When you decide to 'revive' a dying site, what you're really doing once you're past a certain point is **re**founding the site. So the question you should be asking yourself isn't "Can I fix the site up a bit so it isn't quite so stale?". It's "Could I have founded this site?" and if the answer is no you should seriously question whether to make the time investment.

Whether or not LessWrong lives to see another day basically depends on the level of ground game its last users and administrators can muster up. And if it's not enough, it won't.

Virtus junxit mors non separabit!