Academic Identity
I am assistant professor of Sociology at Barnard College. My book (and my dissertation research) is a comparative study of technology and futures trading, an ethnography of open outcry and electronic traders. My current research is on how art specialists price cultural commodities, particularly how categories and commensuration work in the secondary/resale fine arts market. I teach courses in economic sociology, organizations, and gender.
Professional Identity
I occasionally consult, focusing on organizational change, the future of technology and financial markets, and environmental markets. I do strategic assessments of markets, technology and organizational design, with qualitative and quantitative components. If you are interested, please email me.
Personal Identity
I grew up outside Chicago, and went to school(s) at Wesleyan University, USC, and Northwestern University. I currently live in New York, with a partner who is a marketing manager for an educational nonprofit. I love movies, like to cook, and I can do a mean lindy swing out. I am INTP.
February 14, 2007
‘independence’, markets vs. guesses
Filed under: Daily — Peter @ 3:04 pm
One problem with the assumption that crowds work is the independence assumption. Particularly with regard to markets, people don’t buy a stock as a guess as to what the stock is going to do, per se. That is, I don’t start by saying that IBM should be $50/share, and if it’s not then I’m going to buy/sell it. Instead, I’d guess that how it works is that I make a guess as to what other people are going to think that shares of IBM will be in the future. That is, it doesn’t matter what IBM should be at, if $35/share is what it is at. The assumption that markets trend to efficiency over the long run may or may not be true, but knowledge of that underlying ‘true’ or ‘natural’ or ‘fundamental’ price of IBM is unknowable.
If markets are a combination of what the thing is worth, and what others think the thing is worth, then independence will be impossible to come by. One way to test this - take the same future guess/prediction, and ask people to guess at the outset what the final number will be (so, what a movie would gross in its opening weekend, or how many innocentive challenges will be solved by June 1). Then take those same people and let them at an information market on the same prediction. Which should do better?
If the answer is the latter, why? New information becomes available, perhaps. Or perhaps there is information in other peoples’ guesses. That is, information precisely in the dependence of each member on others’ perceptions of that market.
Comments (0)times when crowds suck, first in a series
Filed under: Daily — Peter @ 1:47 pm
Just to keep a personal marker, and because I’m becoming more and more convinced that there is some serious sampling on the dependent variable in information market / crowd accumulation for the purposes of forecasting, of times when crowds v experts don’t sit well with crowds.
The full story/report is at Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress, but the point to highlight is the ‘public perception’ versus the expert community (page 6 of the report). How can we test to see if people are stupid or smart vis-a-vis the experts in this case?
Comments (0)This site is hand-woven, and heavily borrows from the wonderful blueprint framwork. Rock on, grids!
Not quite
, but getting there..