Yeah, I made a quick chart comparing anglosphere vs non-anglosphere

This is great! I think the survey team didn't do a per capita visualisation because response rates will probably vary a lot between countries for reasons other than the number of EAs per capita. 

To provide another data point, @Alix Pham from EA Switzerland put together a sheet with attendees per capita for EAG London this year and just now I made a quick chart. 

Obviously, due to the location of the event, some countries will be over-represented and others under-represented, but I think it might be a more accurate representation of per capita rates in Europe (with the exception of the UK). 

 

NB some of these countries have a very low number of attendees, e.g. Iceland only had one attendee. I made the below to visualise this, where the size of the blob represents the total number of attendees. 

Thanks Nicoll! There's much we can improve but I'm glad we've published something :)

Thanks!

Could this be added to the EA survey 2022 sequence? 

I agree that there are virtually zero (vocal) pro-Hanania people, and there is definitely an anti-Hanania group and a mixed-on-Hanania one.  

I think a lot of people will be 'boggled' by the number of 'mixed-on-Hanania' people. I wanted to reassure that boggled crowd. 

Last chance to apply for EAGxUtrecht! The deadline is today. 

Among our speakers, you'll have the chance to meet:

• Claire Boine - Researcher in AI law and CEO of Successif, on crafting your personal career strategy in AI safety and governance.
• Magnolia Tovar - Chemical Engineer with over 22 years of experience in the energy sector, discussing technology gaps we need to close to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
• Zou Xinyi - Executive Assistant to the CEO at Giving What We Can, debunking common myths about the 10% Pledge and sharing her personal journey.
• Nicoll Peracha - Experienced generalist in the non-profit sector and AIM alumnus, currently focusing on animal welfare with The Mission Motor, leading a collaborative workshop on designing theories of change.
• Nina Friedrich - Ph.D., Director of Programs at High Impact Professionals (HIP), leading a dynamic workshop on collaborative problem-solving and tackling career-related uncertainties.
• Paul Smeets - Professor in Philanthropy and Sustainable Finance at the University of Amsterdam, presenting new evidence on how giving pledges can structure donations.

You can see other speaker announcements here.

Questions? Check our FAQ or email us at utrecht@eaglobalx.org. 

I don't think the crux here is whether one ought to micromanage the attendance decisions of external events. It's more about:

1. "Should one give a platform to Hanania?"
2. "If forum users think it's wrong to give a platform to Hanania, is it reasonable for them to express displeasure at Manifest for giving him a platform?"
3. "If someone points out that Hanania has said, by his own admission, horrible things and therefore probably shouldn't be given a platform, is it reasonable to then write a long comment trying to add nuance to the discussion, instead of simply saying, 'yeah, seems right'"

Suggestions for assessing the claim, "forum users are only a subset of the EA community"? Or the claim, "most of them [EAs I know] would think it'd be ridiculous to give a platform to someone like Hanania"?

I don't think there's great evidence for either claim, unfortunately. For the former, I guess we can look at this and observe that forum use is quite unequal between users, which suggests something.

For the latter, I could survey EAs I know with the question, "Do you think it'd be a good idea to invite Hanania to speak at an event?". However, even typing that out feels absurd, which perhaps indicates how confident I am that most EAs I know would think it's a ridiculous idea.

Regarding stigma, my impression is that quite a few people would like to say on the forum, "Giving a platform to Hanania is a ridiculous idea", but don't because they worry the forum will not be receptive to this view. I think this is because people perceive there to be a stigma on the forum against anyone who expresses discomfort at seeing people dispassionately discuss whether it's okay to give a platform to someone like Hanania. 

Maybe this stigma is a good thing. I'm not sure. I like what Isa said: "I want to encourage people not to dismiss that 'wtf' feeling many people have towards him and other speakers as lacking some kind of intellectual rigor or curiosity about the world". 

Regardless, the votes on my quick take suggest the stigma isn't as strong as these people perceive it to be.

I 100% agree with you on your general point, Akash, but I think something slightly different is going on here, and I think it's important to get it right.

To me, it sounds like you're saying, 'Bob is developing a more healthy relationship with EA'. However, I think what's actually happening is more like, 'Bob used to think EA was a cool thing, and it helped him do cool things, but then people associated with it kept doing things Bob found repugnant, and so now Bob does not want anything to do with it'.  

Bob, forgive me for speaking on your behalf, and please correct me if I have misinterpreted things.