Monday I wrote: Abramowicz has let his imagination run free searching for ways we could use prediction markets in governance. … The main problem with using Abramowicz’s book as a "technical manual", however, is that he’s never actually seen, much less touched, most of the blocks he describes. His conclusions are not supported or tested by math models, computer simulations, lab experiments, field trials, nor a track record of successful past proposals – it is all based on his untested intuitions. … My intuitions about what will work how well differ in many ways.
Prediction markets may seem inadequately deliberative. On the election markets, for example, participants trade, but do not ordinarily explain their trades. Decision makers in deliberative bodies, in contrast, seek to persuade on...
Jess, in using the phrase "rookie mistake" I had in mind that the mistake would not have been made had he followed the standard procedure we drill into economics grad students. So it is the sort of mistake typical of "rookie" economists. I didn't mean that to be condescending - it is relevant to the issue I raised of whether he just happens to make some mistaken claims, or whether he more systematically does not offer support that meets economist's usual standards.
As a professor of law at GWU, I'm sure Michael Abramowicz eagerly accepts honest criticism of his work. Everyone in academia is an adult, and there is no need to moderate your criticism simply because it sounds harsh (or, perhaps, is damning). However, the term "rookie mistake" is condescending and unecessary. I suspect this phrase is what caused some readers to have taken exception with your tone.
Deliberating with Prediction Markets:
Prediction markets may seem inadequately deliberative. On the election markets, for example, participants trade, but do not ordinarily explain their trades. Decision makers in deliberative bodies, in contrast, seek to persuade on...
Jess, in using the phrase "rookie mistake" I had in mind that the mistake would not have been made had he followed the standard procedure we drill into economics grad students. So it is the sort of mistake typical of "rookie" economists. I didn't mean that to be condescending - it is relevant to the issue I raised of whether he just happens to make some mistaken claims, or whether he more systematically does not offer support that meets economist's usual standards.
As a professor of law at GWU, I'm sure Michael Abramowicz eagerly accepts honest criticism of his work. Everyone in academia is an adult, and there is no need to moderate your criticism simply because it sounds harsh (or, perhaps, is damning). However, the term "rookie mistake" is condescending and unecessary. I suspect this phrase is what caused some readers to have taken exception with your tone.
I'd hate to see the reviews of the people who didn't blurb the book.