5 ms·

Sounds like the issue of correlation and causation isn't solidified here. Maybe the very fact of Tyler Cowen recognizes them is what makes them so successful.

Sounds like the issue of correlation and causation isn't solidified here. Maybe the very fact of Tyler Cowen recognizes them is what makes them so successful. He invests, puts their names out there and a lot of the elements needed for success fall at their feet. Or maybe Cowen made a deal with the devil and can predict the future. Hard to tell without a control group where Cowen doesn't exist.

antupis 5y ago
Also marginal revolution and his podcasts probably pulls in right kinda people.
progbits 5y ago
I agree there is likely impact from the recognition itself. Shouldn't be hard to verify, no? Have him pick 2N candidates, randomly select half that he can not announce publicly, talk to or otherwise influence (impossible to prevent entirely but "good enough" will suffice to establish a difference). Then look at how the two groups are doing some time down the line.
- carnitine 5y ago
  Not hard to verify in some weird vacuum where completely pointless albeit simple sounding things are done to validate random conjectures, yes.
  - emaginniss 5y ago
    Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum...
  - majormajor 5y ago
    If I was a person trying to find talented people with potential to do great things, and I cared about the quality of my selection process, I think doing things like that would be extremely necessary. You can't improve what you can't measure. But is the goal of these sorts of things often actually to select the best?
    - Jasper_ 5y ago
      Why would Cowen want to actually empirically test their skills? They're getting articles about their supposed mystical powers written up right now. Why risk tossing that away and find out for real, with very limited upside?
      - majormajor 5y ago
        Right: if PR and kudos for yourself is the point, you don't want to test it. But if you want to do this sort of thing for some sort of "making the world a better place" reason... or want to actually truly select the best... you gotta test it!
      - the_watcher 5y ago
        You should email him and ask him if he's considered this. Of all funders, he seems like one of the most likely to consider doing this (and given some of the people he funds, it may actually be possible to run some sort of experiment while minimizing moral hazard). I'm fairly certain he'd at least answer the question though.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      What’s in it for him? Wouldn’t he be even happier to be actually helping his companies succeed rather than just picking them? If he finds 2N great companies, you’re asking him to pass up half of the money he could make... to prove... that he doesn’t actually benefit the companies that he invests in, and only selects them?
      - majormajor 5y ago
        The goal is certainly the reverse: get the full return, and demonstrate that it's not just your name and address book that are helping. And yes, this requires you to be very self-reflecting and open to the possibility of being wrong, but is it truly so hard to imagine that someone would rather know than not know?
        spoonjim 5y ago
legitster 5y ago
I mean, you can compare the performance of different grant programs against each other. But it's worth noting that Emergent Ventures is not very widely publicized, even by Cowen himself. It's easier to take him at his own word - the program is so effective because the audience is self selected: > “I try to stay a bit weird and obscure enough that mostly quite smart people are writing me. If I had too many not smart emails I would feel that I was doing something else wrong with what I’m writing.” … “The rate of good applications is reasonably high. Maybe I’m lowering it just by talking about the program.”

antupis 5y ago

Also marginal revolution and his podcasts probably pulls in right kinda people.

progbits 5y ago

I agree there is likely impact from the recognition itself. Shouldn't be hard to verify, no? Have him pick 2N candidates, randomly select half that he can not announce publicly, talk to or otherwise influence (impossible to prevent entirely but "good enough" will suffice to establish a difference). Then look at how the two groups are doing some time down the line.

carnitine 5y ago
Not hard to verify in some weird vacuum where completely pointless albeit simple sounding things are done to validate random conjectures, yes.
- emaginniss 5y ago
  Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum...
- majormajor 5y ago
  If I was a person trying to find talented people with potential to do great things, and I cared about the quality of my selection process, I think doing things like that would be extremely necessary. You can't improve what you can't measure. But is the goal of these sorts of things often actually to select the best?
  - Jasper_ 5y ago
    Why would Cowen want to actually empirically test their skills? They're getting articles about their supposed mystical powers written up right now. Why risk tossing that away and find out for real, with very limited upside?
    - majormajor 5y ago
      Right: if PR and kudos for yourself is the point, you don't want to test it. But if you want to do this sort of thing for some sort of "making the world a better place" reason... or want to actually truly select the best... you gotta test it!
    - the_watcher 5y ago
      You should email him and ask him if he's considered this. Of all funders, he seems like one of the most likely to consider doing this (and given some of the people he funds, it may actually be possible to run some sort of experiment while minimizing moral hazard). I'm fairly certain he'd at least answer the question though.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    What’s in it for him? Wouldn’t he be even happier to be actually helping his companies succeed rather than just picking them? If he finds 2N great companies, you’re asking him to pass up half of the money he could make... to prove... that he doesn’t actually benefit the companies that he invests in, and only selects them?
    - majormajor 5y ago
      The goal is certainly the reverse: get the full return, and demonstrate that it's not just your name and address book that are helping. And yes, this requires you to be very self-reflecting and open to the possibility of being wrong, but is it truly so hard to imagine that someone would rather know than not know?
      - spoonjim 5y ago

legitster 5y ago

I mean, you can compare the performance of different grant programs against each other. But it's worth noting that Emergent Ventures is not very widely publicized, even by Cowen himself. It's easier to take him at his own word - the program is so effective because the audience is self selected: > “I try to stay a bit weird and obscure enough that mostly quite smart people are writing me. If I had too many not smart emails I would feel that I was doing something else wrong with what I’m writing.” … “The rate of good applications is reasonably high. Maybe I’m lowering it just by talking about the program.”