I agree it’s a messy example, I used it more because it was the motivating example than because it was the best illustration; this was originally from the post about IQ tests in general and got split out since I realized I had an important general point and didn’t want it to be lost.
I do agree that over time, the failure of anyone to do X, where X is an established, known, easy-to-replicate, clearly does what it means to do at a reasonable price procedure, is much stronger evidence than local failure to X. No question it points towards indifference! But for more discussion of the details in this case, which explain my full opinion on the case, see the original post this split off from.
If we were willing to admit the students who would benefit most by objective criteria like income or career success, we could use prediction markets. The complete lack of interest in this suggests that isn’t really the agenda.
Robin is saying that lack of interest in using prediction markets for student admissions shows that universities don’t actually want the best students. I can think of many other possible explanations:
They have never heard of prediction markets. It’s a fairly obscure concept.
They don’t believe it would work.
They have moral issues with letting strangers bets decide if someone gets admitted, or they think it could be manipulated.
There are dozens of other strange methods that someone thinks would solve all their problems.
I agree it’s a messy example, I used it more because it was the motivating example than because it was the best illustration; this was originally from the post about IQ tests in general and got split out since I realized I had an important general point and didn’t want it to be lost.
I do agree that over time, the failure of anyone to do X, where X is an established, known, easy-to-replicate, clearly does what it means to do at a reasonable price procedure, is much stronger evidence than local failure to X. No question it points towards indifference! But for more discussion of the details in this case, which explain my full opinion on the case, see the original post this split off from.
Maybe this is a good example.
Robin is saying that lack of interest in using prediction markets for student admissions shows that universities don’t actually want the best students. I can think of many other possible explanations:
They have never heard of prediction markets. It’s a fairly obscure concept.
They don’t believe it would work.
They have moral issues with letting strangers bets decide if someone gets admitted, or they think it could be manipulated.
There are dozens of other strange methods that someone thinks would solve all their problems.