3 ms·

Letting the most prestigious people make important decisions isn't the best system, but it's probably better than the other options.

• cinquemb 10y ago
  How would you define "most prestigious"? In the academic context: Best at the grant hamster wheel? GPA maximization at $x university? Best politicking? Number of papers? Actively solving relatively trivial problems for little economic value for people who are `Best at the grant hamster wheel`? :P
  • mpbm 10y ago
    I don't think it's the sort of thing that yields to calculations, but I think it does yield to consensus. So, generally speaking, the most prestigious people are whoever other people agree are prestigious. Sort of like peer review. The "who should make decisions" question is a lot like the "is this logic malicious" question. You can't answer it ahead of time. You just have to let people make decisions, or let the logic run, hopefully in a controlled context, and see what happens. If a preponderance of people agree it's good, then it's probably good enough.
    • cinquemb 10y ago
      >I don't think it's the sort of thing that yields to calculations… "But we often have plenty good metrics that people don’t want to use." "I think the problem is more fundamental; basic human prestige programming."