# 2016 LessWrong Diaspora Survey Analysis: Part Three (Mental Health, Basilisk, Blogs and Media)

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](/lw/nor/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_analysis_part_two/)
*   [LessWrong Criticism and Successorship](/lw/nor/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_analysis_part_two/)
*   [Diaspora Community Analysis](/lw/nor/2016_lesswrong_diaspora_survey_analysis_part_two/)
*   Mental Health Section
*   Basilisk Section/Analysis
*   Blogs and Media analysis (You are here)
*   Politics
*   Calibration Question And Probability Question Analysis
*   Charity And Effective Altruism Analysis

* * *

Mental Health
-------------

We decided to move the Mental Health section up closer in the survey this year so that the data could inform accessibility decisions.

| Condition | Base Rate | LessWrong Rate | LessWrong Self dx Rate | Combined LW Rate | Base/LW Rate Spread | Relative Risk |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Depression | 17% | 25.37% | 27.04% | 52.41% | +8.37 | 1.492 |
| Obsessive Compulsive Disorder | 2.3% | 2.7% | 5.6% | 8.3% | +0.4 | 1.173 |
| Autism Spectrum Disorder | 1.47% | 8.2% | 12.9% | 21.1% | +6.73 | 5.578 |
| Attention Deficit Disorder | 5%  | 13.6% | 10.4% | 24% | +8.6 | 2.719 |
| Bipolar Disorder | 3%  | 2.2% | 2.8% | 5%  | -0.8 | 0.733 |
| Anxiety Disorder(s) | 29% | 13.7% | 17.4% | 31.1% | -15.3 | 0.472 |
| Borderline Personality Disorder | 5.9% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.8% | -5.3 | 0.101 |
| Schizophrenia | 1.1% | 0.8% | 0.4% | 1.2% | -0.3 | 0.727 |
| Substance Use Disorder | 10.6% | 1.3% | 3.6% | 4.9% | -9.3 | 0.122 |

_Base rates are taken from Wikipedia, US rates were favored over global rates where immediately available._

### Accessibility Suggestions

So of the conditions we asked about, LessWrongers are at significant extra risk for three of them: Autism, ADHD, Depression.

LessWrong probably doesn't need to concern itself with being more accessible to those with autism as it likely already is. Depression is a complicated disorder with no clear interventions that can be easily implemented as site or community policy. It might be helpful to encourage looking more at positive trends in addition to negative ones, but the community already seems to do a [fairly good](https://blog.jaibot.com/500-million-but-not-a-single-one-more/) job of this. (We could definitely use some more of it though.)

#### Attention Deficit Disorder - Public Service Announcement

That leaves ADHD, which we might be able to do something about, starting with this:

A lot of LessWrong stuff ends up falling into the same genre as productivity advice or 'self help'. If you have trouble with getting yourself to work, find yourself reading these things and completely unable to implement them, it's entirely possible that you have a mental health condition which impacts your executive function.

The best overview I've been able to find on ADD is this talk from Russell Barkely.

[30 Essential Ideas For Parents](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCAGc-rkIfo)

Ironically enough, this is a _long_ talk, over four hours in total. Barkely is an entertaining speaker and the talk is absolutely fascinating. If you're even mildly interested in the subject I wholeheartedly recommend it. Many people who have ADHD just assume that they're lazy, or not trying hard enough, or just haven't found the 'magic bullet' yet. It never even occurs to them that they might have it because they assume that adult ADHD looks like childhood ADHD, or that ADHD is a thing that psychiatrists made up so they can give children powerful stimulants.

ADD is real, if you're in the demographic that takes this survey there's a decent enough chance you have it.

#### Attention Deficit Disorder - Accessibility

So with that in mind, is there anything else we can do?

Yes, write better.

Scott Alexander has written a [blog post](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/) with writing advice for non-fiction, and the interesting thing about it is just how much of the advice is what I would tell you to do if your audience has ADD.

*   Reward the reader quickly and often. If your prose isn't rewarding to read it won't be read.
    
*   Make sure the overall article has good sectioning and indexing, people might be only looking for a particular thing and they won't want to wade through everything else to get it. Sectioning also gives the impression of progress and reduces eye strain.
    
*   Use good data visualization to compress information, take away mental effort where possible. Take for example the condition table above. It saves space and provides additional context. Instead of a long vertical wall of text with sections for each condition, it removes:
    
    *   The extraneous information of how many people said they did not have a condition.
        
    *   The space that would be used by creating a section for each condition. In fact the specific improvement of the table is that it takes extra advantage of space in the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane.
        
    
    And instead of just presenting the raw data, it also adds:
    
    *   The normal rate of incidence for each condition, so that the reader understands the extent to which rates are abnormal or unexpected.
        
    *   Easy comparison between the clinically diagnosed, self diagnosed, and combined rates of the condition in the LW demographic. This preserves the value of the original raw data presentation while also easing the mental arithmetic of how many people claim to have a condition.
        
    *   Percentage spread between the clinically diagnosed and the base rate, which saves the effort of figuring out the difference between the two values.
        
    *   Relative risk between the clinically diagnosed and the base rate, which saves the effort of figuring out how much more or less likely a LessWronger is to have a given condition.
        
    
    Add all that together and you've created a compelling presentation that significantly improves on the 'naive' raw data presentation.
    
*   Use visuals in general, they help draw and maintain interest.
    

None of these are solely for the benefit of people with ADD. ADD is an exaggerated profile of normal human behavior. Following this kind of advice makes your article more accessible to everybody, which should be more than enough incentive if you intend to have an audience.[^1^](#fn1)

Roko's Basilisk
---------------

This year we finally added a Basilisk question! In fact, it kind of turned into a whole Basilisk _section_. A fairly common question about this years survey is why the Basilisk section is so large. The basic reason is that asking only one or two questions about it would leave the results open to rampant speculation in one direction or another. By making the section comprehensive and covering every base, we've pretty much gotten about as complete of data as we'd want on the Basilisk phenomena.

**Basilisk Knowledge**  
Do you know what Roko's Basilisk thought experiment is?

Yes: 1521 73.2%  
No but I've heard of it: 158 7.6%  
No: 398 19.2%

**Basilisk Etiology**  
Where did you read Roko's argument for the Basilisk?

Roko's post on LessWrong: 323 20.2%  
Reddit: 171 10.7%  
XKCD: 61 3.8%  
LessWrong Wiki: 234 14.6%  
A news article: 71 4.4%  
Word of mouth: 222 13.9%  
RationalWiki: 314 19.6%  
Other: 194 12.1%

**Basilisk Correctness**  
Do you think Roko's argument for the Basilisk is correct?

Yes: 75 5.1%  
Yes but I don't think it's logical conclusions apply for other reasons: 339 23.1%  
No: 1055 71.8%

### Basilisks And Lizardmen

One of the biggest mistakes I made with this years survey was not including "Do you believe Barack Obama is a hippopotamus?" as a control question in this section.[^2^](#fn2) Five percent is just outside of the infamous [lizardman constant](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/). This was the biggest survey surprise for me. I thought there was no way that 'yes' could go above a couple of percentage points. As far as I can tell this result is not caused by brigading but I've by no means investigated the matter so thoroughly that I would rule it out.

#### Higher?

Of course, we also shouldn't forget to investigate the hypothesis that the number might be _higher_ than 5%. After all, somebody who thinks the Basilisk is correct could skip the questions entirely so they don't face potential stigma. So how many people skipped the questions but filled out the rest of the survey?

Eight people refused to answer whether they'd heard of Roko's Basilisk but went on to answer the depression question immediately after the Basilisk section. This gives us a decent proxy for how many people skipped the section and took the rest of the survey. So if we're pessimistic the number is a little higher, but it pays to keep in mind that there are other reasons to want to skip this section. (It is also possible that people took the survey up until they got to the Basilisk section and then quit so they didn't have to answer it, but this seems unlikely.)

Of course this assumes people are being strictly truthful with their survey answers. It's also plausible that people who think the Basilisk is correct said they'd never heard of it and then went on with the rest of the survey. So the number could in theory be quite large. My hunch is that it's not. I personally know quite a few LessWrongers and I'm fairly sure none of them would tell me that the Basilisk is 'correct'. (In fact I'm fairly sure they'd all be offended at me even asking the question.) Since 5% is one in twenty I'd think I'd know at least one or two people who thought the Basilisk was correct by now.

#### Lower?

One partial explanation for the surprisingly high rate here is that ten percent of the people who said yes by their own admission didn't know what they were saying yes to. Eight people said they've heard of the Basilisk but don't know what it is, and that it's correct. The lizardman constant also plausibly explains a significant portion of the yes responses, but that explanation relies on you already having a prior belief that the rate should be low.

* * *

**Basilisk-Like Danger**  
Do you think Basilisk-like thought experiments are dangerous?

Yes, I think they're dangerous for decision theory reasons: 63 4.2%  
Yes I think they're dangerous for social reasons (eg. A cult might use them): 194 12.8%  
Yes I think they're dangerous for decision theory and social reasons: 136 9%  
Yes I think they're socially dangerous because they make everybody involved look foolish: 253 16.7%  
Yes I think they're dangerous for other reasons: 54 3.6%  
No: 809 53.4%

Most people don't think Basilisk-Like thought experiments are dangerous at all. Of those that think they are, most of them think they're socially dangerous as opposed to a raw decision theory threat. The 4.2% number for pure decision theory threat is interesting because it lines up with the 5% number in the previous question for Basilisk Correctness.

P(Decision Theory Danger | Basilisk Belief) = 26.6%  
P(Decision Theory And Social Danger | Basilisk Belief) = 21.3%

So of the people who say the Basilisk is correct, only half of them believe it is a decision theory based danger _at all_. (In theory this could be because they believe the Basilisk is a good thing and therefore not dangerous, but I refuse to lose that much faith in humanity.[^3^](#fn3))

**Basilisk Anxiety**  
Have you ever felt any sort of anxiety about the Basilisk?

Yes: 142 8.8%  
Yes but only because I worry about everything: 189 11.8%  
No: 1275 79.4%

20.6% of respondents have felt _some_ kind of Basilisk Anxiety. It should be noted that the exact wording of the question permits _any_ anxiety, even for a second. And as we'll see in the next question that nuance is very important.

**Degree Of Basilisk Worry**  
What is the longest span of time you've spent worrying about the Basilisk?

I haven't: 714 47%  
A few seconds: 237 15.6%  
A minute: 298 19.6%  
An hour: 176 11.6%  
A day: 40 2.6%  
Two days: 16 1.05%  
Three days: 12 0.79%  
A week: 12 0.79%  
A month: 5 0.32%  
One to three months: 2 0.13%  
Three to six months: 0 0.0%  
Six to nine months: 0 0.0%  
Nine months to a year: 1 0.06%  
Over a year: 1 0.06%  
Years: 4 0.26%

These numbers provide some pretty sobering context for the previous ones. Of all the people who worried about the Basilisk, 93.8% didn't worry about it for more than an hour. The next 3.65% didn't worry about it for more than a day or two. The next 1.9% didn't worry about it for more than a month and the last .7% or so have worried about it for longer.

**Current Basilisk Worry**  
Are you currently worrying about the Basilisk?

Yes: 29 1.8%  
Yes but only because I worry about everything: 60 3.7%  
No: 1522 94.5%

Also encouraging. We should expect a small number of people to be worried at this question just because the section is basically the word "Basilisk" and "worry" repeated over and over so it's probably a bit scary to some people. But these numbers are much lower than the "Have you ever worried" ones and back up the previous inference that Basilisk anxiety is mostly a transitory phenomena.

[One article](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/07/roko_s_basilisk_the_most_terrifying_thought_experiment_of_all_time.html) on the Basilisk asked the question of whether or not it was just a "referendum on autism". It's a good question and now I have an answer for you, as per the table below:

| Condition | Worried | Worried But They Worry About Everything | Combined Worry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Baseline (in the respondent population) | 8.8% | 11.8% | 20.6% |
| ASD | 7.3% | 17.3% | 24.7% |
| OCD | 10.0% | 32.5% | 42.5% |
| AnxietyDisorder | 6.9% | 20.3% | 27.3% |
| Schizophrenia | 0.0% | 16.7% | 16.7% |

The short answer: Autism raises your chances of Basilisk anxiety, but anxiety disorders and OCD especially raise them much more. Interestingly enough, schizophrenia seems to bring the chances _down_. This might just be an effect of small sample size, but my expectation was the opposite. (People who are really obsessed with Roko's Basilisk seem to present with schizophrenic symptoms at any rate.)

Before we move on, there's one last elephant in the room to contend with. The philosophical theory underlying the Basilisk is the [CEV](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Coherent_Extrapolated_Volition) conception of friendly AI primarily espoused by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Which has led many critics to speculate on all kinds of relationships between Eliezer Yudkowsky and the Basilisk. Which of course obviously would extend to Eliezer Yudkowsky's Machine Intelligence Research Institute, a project to develop 'Friendly Artificial Intelligence' which does not implement a naive goal function that eats everything else humans actually care about once it's given sufficient optimization power.

The general thrust of these accusations is that MIRI, intentionally or not, profits from belief in the Basilisk. I think MIRI gets picked on enough, so I'm not thrilled about adding another log to the hefty pile of criticism they deal with. However this is a serious accusation which is plausible enough to be in the public interest for me to look at.

| Belief | Percentage |
| --- | --- |
| Believe It's Incorrect | 5.2% |
| Believe It's Structurally Correct | 5.6% |
| Believe It's Correct | 12.0% |

Basilisk belief does appear to make you twice as likely to donate to MIRI. It's important to note from the perspective of earlier investigation that thinking it is "structurally correct" appears to make you about as likely as if you don't think it's correct, implying that both of these options mean about the same thing.

| Belief | Mean | Median | Mode | Stdev | Total Donated |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Believe It's Incorrect | 1365.590 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 4825.293 | 75107.5 |
| Believe It's Structurally Correct | 2644.736 | 110.0 | 20.0 | 9147.299 | 50250.0 |
| Believe It's Correct | 740.555 | 300.0 | 300.0 | 1152.541 | 6665.0 |

_Take these numbers with a grain of salt, it only takes one troll to plausibly lie about their income to ruin it for everybody else._

Interestingly enough, if you sum all three total donated counts and divide by a hundred, you find that five percent of the sum is about what was donated by the Basilisk group. ($6601 to be exact) So even though the modal and median donations of Basilisk believers are higher, they donate about as much as would be naively expected by assuming donations among groups are equal.[^4^](#fn4)

| Anxiety | Percentage |
| --- | --- |
| Never Worried | 4.3% |
| Worried But They Worry About Everything | 11.1% |
| Worried | 11.3% |

In contrast to the correctness question, merely having worried about the Basilisk at any point in time doubles your chances of donating to MIRI. My suspicion is that these people are not, as a general rule, donating because of the Basilisk per se. If you're the sort of person who is even capable of worrying about the Basilisk in principle, you're probably the kind of person who is likely to worry about AI risk in general and donate to MIRI on that basis. This hypothesis is probably unfalsifiable with the survey information I have, because Basilisk-risk is a subset of AI risk. This means that anytime somebody indicates on the survey that they're worried about AI risk this could be because they're worried about the Basilisk or because they're worried about more general AI risk.

| Anxiety | Mean | Median | Mode | Stdev | Total Donated |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Never Worried | 1033.936 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 3493.373 | 56866.5 |
| Worried But They Worry About Everything | 227.047 | 75.0 | 300.0 | 438.861 | 4768.0 |
| Worried | 4539.25 | 90.0 | 10.0 | 11442.675 | 72628.0 |
| Combined Worry |     |     |     |     | 77396.0 |

_Take these numbers with a grain of salt, it only takes one troll to plausibly lie about their income to ruin it for everybody else._

This particular analysis is probably the strongest evidence in the set for the hypothesis that MIRI profits (though not necessarily through any involvement on their part) from the Basilisk. People who worried from an unendorsed perspective donate less on average than everybody else. The modal donation among people who've worried about the Basilisk is ten dollars, which seems like a surefire way to torture if we're going with the hypothesis that these are people who _believe_ the Basilisk is a real thing and they're concerned about it. So this implies that they don't, which supports my earlier hypothesis that people who are capable of feeling anxiety about the Basilisk are the core demographic to donate to MIRI anyway.

Of course, donors don't need to _believe_ in the Basilisk for MIRI to profit from it. If exposing people to the concept of the Basilisk makes them twice as likely to donate but they don't end up actually believing the argument that would arguably be the ideal outcome for MIRI from an Evil Plot perspective. (Since after all, pursuing a strategy which involves Basilisk belief would _actually_ incentivize torture from the perspective of the acausal game theories MIRI bases its FAI on, which would be bad.)

But frankly this is veering into very speculative territory. I don't think there's an evil plot, nor am I convinced that MIRI is profiting from Basilisk belief in a way that outweighs the resulting lost donations and damage to their cause.[^5^](#fn5) If anybody would like to assert otherwise I invite them to 'put up or shut up' with hard evidence. The world has enough criticism based on idle speculation and you're peeing in the pool.

Blogs and Media
---------------

Since this was the LessWrong **diaspora** survey, I felt it would be in order to reach out a bit to ask not just _where_ the community is at but what it's reading. I went around to various people I knew and asked them about blogs for this section. However the picks were largely based on my mental 'map' of the blogs that are commonly read/linked in the community with a handful of suggestions thrown in. The same method was used for stories.

### Blogs Read

**LessWrong**  
Regular Reader: 239 13.4%  
Sometimes: 642 36.1%  
Rarely: 537 30.2%  
Almost Never: 272 15.3%  
Never: 70 3.9%  
Never Heard Of It: 14 0.7%

**SlateStarCodex** (Scott Alexander)  
Regular Reader: 1137 63.7%  
Sometimes: 264 14.7%  
Rarely: 90 5%  
Almost Never: 61 3.4%  
Never: 51 2.8%  
Never Heard Of It: 181 10.1%

\[These two results together pretty much confirm the results I talked about in part two of the survey analysis. A **supermajority** of respondents are 'regular readers' of SlateStarCodex. By contrast LessWrong itself doesn't even have a quarter of SlateStarCodexes readership.\]

**Overcoming Bias** (Robin Hanson)  
Regular Reader: 206 11.751%  
Sometimes: 365 20.821%  
Rarely: 391 22.305%  
Almost Never: 385 21.962%  
Never: 239 13.634%  
Never Heard Of It: 167 9.527%

**Minding Our Way** (Nate Soares)  
Regular Reader: 151 8.718%  
Sometimes: 134 7.737%  
Rarely: 139 8.025%  
Almost Never: 175 10.104%  
Never: 214 12.356%  
Never Heard Of It: 919 53.06%

**Agenty Duck** (Brienne Yudkowsky)  
Regular Reader: 55 3.181%  
Sometimes: 132 7.634%  
Rarely: 144 8.329%  
Almost Never: 213 12.319%  
Never: 254 14.691%  
Never Heard Of It: 931 53.846%

**Eliezer Yudkowsky's Facebook Page**  
Regular Reader: 325 18.561%  
Sometimes: 316 18.047%  
Rarely: 231 13.192%  
Almost Never: 267 15.248%  
Never: 361 20.617%  
Never Heard Of It: 251 14.335%

**Luke Muehlhauser** (Eponymous)  
Regular Reader: 59 3.426%  
Sometimes: 106 6.156%  
Rarely: 179 10.395%  
Almost Never: 231 13.415%  
Never: 312 18.118%  
Never Heard Of It: 835 48.49%

**Gwern.net** (Gwern Branwen)  
Regular Reader: 118 6.782%  
Sometimes: 281 16.149%  
Rarely: 292 16.782%  
Almost Never: 224 12.874%  
Never: 230 13.218%  
Never Heard Of It: 595 34.195%

**Siderea** (Sibylla Bostoniensis)  
Regular Reader: 29 1.682%  
Sometimes: 49 2.842%  
Rarely: 59 3.422%  
Almost Never: 104 6.032%  
Never: 183 10.615%  
Never Heard Of It: 1300 75.406%

**Ribbon Farm** (Venkatesh Rao)  
Regular Reader: 64 3.734%  
Sometimes: 123 7.176%  
Rarely: 111 6.476%  
Almost Never: 150 8.751%  
Never: 150 8.751%  
Never Heard Of It: 1116 65.111%

**Bayesed And Confused** (Michael Rupert)  
Regular Reader: 2 0.117%  
Sometimes: 10 0.587%  
Rarely: 24 1.408%  
Almost Never: 68 3.988%  
Never: 167 9.795%  
Never Heard Of It: 1434 84.106%

\[This was the 'troll' answer to catch out people who claim to read everything.\]

**The Unit Of Caring** (Anonymous)  
Regular Reader: 281 16.452%  
Sometimes: 132 7.728%  
Rarely: 126 7.377%  
Almost Never: 178 10.422%  
Never: 216 12.646%  
Never Heard Of It: 775 45.375%

**GiveWell Blog** (Multiple Authors)  
Regular Reader: 75 4.438%  
Sometimes: 197 11.657%  
Rarely: 243 14.379%  
Almost Never: 280 16.568%  
Never: 412 24.379%  
Never Heard Of It: 482 28.521%

**Thing Of Things** (Ozy Frantz)  
Regular Reader: 363 21.166%  
Sometimes: 201 11.72%  
Rarely: 143 8.338%  
Almost Never: 171 9.971%  
Never: 176 10.262%  
Never Heard Of It: 661 38.542%

**The Last Psychiatrist** (Anonymous)  
Regular Reader: 103 6.023%  
Sometimes: 94 5.497%  
Rarely: 164 9.591%  
Almost Never: 221 12.924%  
Never: 302 17.661%  
Never Heard Of It: 826 48.304%

**Hotel Concierge** (Anonymous)  
Regular Reader: 29 1.711%  
Sometimes: 35 2.065%  
Rarely: 49 2.891%  
Almost Never: 88 5.192%  
Never: 179 10.56%  
Never Heard Of It: 1315 77.581%

**The View From Hell** (Sister Y)  
Regular Reader: 34 1.998%  
Sometimes: 39 2.291%  
Rarely: 75 4.407%  
Almost Never: 137 8.049%  
Never: 250 14.689%  
Never Heard Of It: 1167 68.566%

**Xenosystems** (Nick Land)  
Regular Reader: 51 3.012%  
Sometimes: 32 1.89%  
Rarely: 64 3.78%  
Almost Never: 175 10.337%  
Never: 364 21.5%  
Never Heard Of It: 1007 59.48%

I tried my best to have representation from multiple sections of the diaspora, if you look at the different blogs you can probably guess which blogs represent which section.

### Stories Read

**Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality** (Eliezer Yudkowsky)  
Whole Thing: 1103 61.931%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 145 8.141%  
Partially And Abandoned: 231 12.97%  
Never: 221 12.409%  
Never Heard Of It: 81 4.548%

**Significant Digits** (Alexander D)  
Whole Thing: 123 7.114%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 105 6.073%  
Partially And Abandoned: 91 5.263%  
Never: 333 19.26%  
Never Heard Of It: 1077 62.29%

**Three Worlds Collide** (Eliezer Yudkowsky)  
Whole Thing: 889 51.239%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 35 2.017%  
Partially And Abandoned: 36 2.075%  
Never: 286 16.484%  
Never Heard Of It: 489 28.184%

**The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant** (Nick Bostrom)  
Whole Thing: 728 41.935%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 31 1.786%  
Partially And Abandoned: 15 0.864%  
Never: 205 11.809%  
Never Heard Of It: 757 43.606%

**The World of Null-A** (A. E. van Vogt)  
Whole Thing: 92 5.34%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 18 1.045%  
Partially And Abandoned: 25 1.451%  
Never: 429 24.898%  
Never Heard Of It: 1159 67.266%

\[Wow, I never would have expected this many people to have read this. I mostly included it on a lark because of its historical significance.\]

**Synthesis** (Sharon Mitchell)  
Whole Thing: 6 0.353%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 2 0.118%  
Partially And Abandoned: 8 0.47%  
Never: 217 12.75%  
Never Heard Of It: 1469 86.31%

\[This was the 'troll' option to catch people who just say they've read everything.\]

**Worm** (Wildbow)  
Whole Thing: 501 28.843%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 168 9.672%  
Partially And Abandoned: 184 10.593%  
Never: 430 24.755%  
Never Heard Of It: 454 26.137%

**Pact** (Wildbow)  
Whole Thing: 138 7.991%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 59 3.416%  
Partially And Abandoned: 148 8.57%  
Never: 501 29.01%  
Never Heard Of It: 881 51.013%

**Twig** (Wildbow)  
Whole Thing: 55 3.192%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 132 7.661%  
Partially And Abandoned: 65 3.772%  
Never: 560 32.501%  
Never Heard Of It: 911 52.873%

**Ra** (Sam Hughes)  
Whole Thing: 269 15.558%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 80 4.627%  
Partially And Abandoned: 95 5.495%  
Never: 314 18.161%  
Never Heard Of It: 971 56.16%

**My Little Pony: Friendship Is Optimal** (Iceman)  
Whole Thing: 424 24.495%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 16 0.924%  
Partially And Abandoned: 65 3.755%  
Never: 559 32.293%  
Never Heard Of It: 667 38.533%

**Friendship Is Optimal: Caelum Est Conterrens** (Chatoyance)  
Whole Thing: 217 12.705%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 16 0.937%  
Partially And Abandoned: 24 1.405%  
Never: 411 24.063%  
Never Heard Of It: 1040 60.89%

**Ender's Game** (Orson Scott Card)  
Whole Thing: 1177 67.219%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 22 1.256%  
Partially And Abandoned: 43 2.456%  
Never: 395 22.559%  
Never Heard Of It: 114 6.511%

\[This is the most read story according to survey respondents, beating HPMOR by 5%.\]

**The Diamond Age** (Neal Stephenson)  
Whole Thing: 440 25.346%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 37 2.131%  
Partially And Abandoned: 55 3.168%  
Never: 577 33.237%  
Never Heard Of It: 627 36.118%

**Consider Phlebas** (Iain Banks)  
Whole Thing: 302 17.507%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 52 3.014%  
Partially And Abandoned: 47 2.725%  
Never: 439 25.449%  
Never Heard Of It: 885 51.304%

**The Metamorphosis Of Prime Intellect** (Roger Williams)  
Whole Thing: 226 13.232%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 10 0.585%  
Partially And Abandoned: 24 1.405%  
Never: 322 18.852%  
Never Heard Of It: 1126 65.925%

**Accelerando** (Charles Stross)  
Whole Thing: 293 17.045%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 46 2.676%  
Partially And Abandoned: 66 3.839%  
Never: 425 24.724%  
Never Heard Of It: 889 51.716%

**A Fire Upon The Deep** (Vernor Vinge)  
Whole Thing: 343 19.769%  
Partially And Intend To Finish: 31 1.787%  
Partially And Abandoned: 41 2.363%  
Never: 508 29.28%  
Never Heard Of It: 812 46.801%

I also did a k-means [cluster analysis](http://www.jdpressman.com/public/lwsurvey2016/analysis/media_demographic_tables.html) of the data to try and determine demographics and the ultimate conclusion I drew from it is that I need to do more analysis. Which I would do, except that the initial analysis was a whole bunch of work and jumping further down the rabbit hole in the hopes I reach an oasis probably isn't in the best interests of myself or my readers.

Footnotes
---------

* * *

1.  This is a [general trend](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuIkFRZKfCU) I notice with accessibility. Not always, but very often measures taken to help a specific group end up having positive effects for others as well. Many of the [accessibility suggestions](https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/) of the W3C are things you _wish_ every website did.[↩](#fnref1)
    
2.  I hadn't read this particular SSC post at the time I compiled the survey, but I was already familiar with the concept of a lizardman constant and should have accounted for it.[↩](#fnref2)
    
3.  I've been informed by a member of the freenode #lesswrong IRC channel that this is in fact Roko's opinion, because you can 'timelessly trade with the future superintelligence for rewards, not just punishment' according to a conversation they had with him last summer. Remember kids: Don't do drugs, including Max Tegmark.[↩](#fnref3)
    
4.  You might think that this conflicts with the hypothesis that the true rate of Basilisk belief is lower than 5%. It does a bit, but you also need to remember that these people are in the LessWrong demographic, which means regardless of what the Basilisk belief question means we should naively expect them to donate five percent of the MIRI donation pot.[↩](#fnref4)
    
5.  That is to say, it does seem plausible that MIRI 'profits' from Basilisk belief based on this data, but I'm fairly sure any profit is outweighed by the significant opportunity cost associated with it. I should also take this moment to remind the reader that the original Basilisk argument was supposed to prove that CEV is a flawed concept from the perspective of not having deleterious outcomes for people, so MIRI using it as a way to justify donating to them would be weird.[↩](#fnref5)