Imagine you give a prize for achievement, and you also have some values you care about promoting.
It seems like it wouldn't be optimal for you to give the prize based exclusively on achievement all the time. The prize earns reputation with the strongest winners,
1/
It seems like it wouldn't be optimal for you to give the prize based exclusively on achievement all the time. The prize earns reputation with the strongest winners,
1/
which gives you latitude to promote values you care about some of the time, even when that "distorts" the allocation relative to what would be chosen by someone who did not want to promote the same values.
2/
2/
For the persuasion story to work, it must be that the uncontroversial measure of quality is better observed by you, the prize-giver, than the public. Only then can you shift beliefs about some winners' quality relative to the hypothetical "unbiased prize."
3/
3/
So only a credible prize whose committee gets honest advice from knowledgeable experts can be used "politically" at all.
But if those conditions are met, the prize can be used every now and then to give a huge boost to something you care about, and there's some tradeoff
4/
But if those conditions are met, the prize can be used every now and then to give a huge boost to something you care about, and there's some tradeoff
4/
about how often you do that and how much you build up the reputation that gives that boost its fuel.
5/5
5/5
PS/ Please feel free to reply with your favorite theory papers that analyze this properly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
