fburnaby comments on Efficient prestige hypothesis - Less Wrong

18 Post author: taw 16 November 2009 10:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (35)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: fburnaby 18 November 2009 01:52:46PM *  0 points [-]

There's no denying that prestige is better indicator of quality than random chance - the question is - is it the best we can do?

Where does the prestige come from? Likely, it's got a lot to do with public perception of quality in the first place. If we can improve objectivity in the judgment of this quality, then that's great; but the prestige would follow it along. We won't 'do better' than following the prestige, the prestige will 'do better' at following the quality.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 18 November 2009 02:01:04PM *  0 points [-]

The usual assumption is that public perception of quality is systematically biased and that individuals willing to do better shouldn't automatically agree with it. It's not a given that good indicators of quality known to experts are widely accepted. This post presents a hypothesis that public perception may be a pretty good indicator, incorporating other indicators as they become known.