I can’t reply on behalf of Peter, but I would imagine the following:
Individuals at companies choose to hire for reasons other than expected performance (e.g. it’s a publicly defensible decision to hire someone with recognized credentials and track record, whereas it’s not publicly defensible to hire someone who lacks those but who otherwise seems like they’d perform really well). See general discussion of the signalling value of education.
Individuals at companies are bad at hiring for expected performance: e.g. relying on things which the evidence suggests don’t predict job performance well (such as subjective impressions in an unstructured interview) and (possibly) credentials.
Many companies in the world can in theory hire people with 10 year track records doing similar roles in similar companies. People hiring for EA researcher roles typically can’t find anyone with a 10 year track record in similar work- and even if you relax the assumptions somewhat, can still find far fewer people with any kind of track record in similar work.
The competencies Peter is hiring for may be more test-taskable than many that companies are hiring for. e.g. creating a cost-effectiveness model may be a better predictor of performance at creating cost-effectiveness models than the best available test tasks for “be an executive” or “manage HR.”
Fair – an implicit assumption of my post is that markets are efficient. If you don’t think so, then what I had to say is probably not very relevant.
I assume you’re not arguing for the strong EMH here (markets are maximally efficient), so the difference to me seems to be a difference of degree than kind (you think hiring markets are more efficient than Peter does, Peter thinks hiring markets are less efficient than you do.)
If you are arguing for the strong version of EMH here I’d be curious as to your reasoning, as I can’t think of any credible economists who think that real world markets don’t have any inefficiencies.
If you’re arguing for a weaker version, I think it’s worth digging in to cruxes… Why do you think that the hiring market is more efficient than Peter does?
I can’t reply on behalf of Peter, but I would imagine the following:
Individuals at companies choose to hire for reasons other than expected performance (e.g. it’s a publicly defensible decision to hire someone with recognized credentials and track record, whereas it’s not publicly defensible to hire someone who lacks those but who otherwise seems like they’d perform really well). See general discussion of the signalling value of education.
Individuals at companies are bad at hiring for expected performance: e.g. relying on things which the evidence suggests don’t predict job performance well (such as subjective impressions in an unstructured interview) and (possibly) credentials.
Many companies in the world can in theory hire people with 10 year track records doing similar roles in similar companies. People hiring for EA researcher roles typically can’t find anyone with a 10 year track record in similar work- and even if you relax the assumptions somewhat, can still find far fewer people with any kind of track record in similar work.
The competencies Peter is hiring for may be more test-taskable than many that companies are hiring for. e.g. creating a cost-effectiveness model may be a better predictor of performance at creating cost-effectiveness models than the best available test tasks for “be an executive” or “manage HR.”
I can reply on behalf of Peter and I approve this message.
Fair – an implicit assumption of my post is that markets are efficient. If you don’t think so, then what I had to say is probably not very relevant.
I assume you’re not arguing for the strong EMH here (markets are maximally efficient), so the difference to me seems to be a difference of degree than kind (you think hiring markets are more efficient than Peter does, Peter thinks hiring markets are less efficient than you do.)
If you are arguing for the strong version of EMH here I’d be curious as to your reasoning, as I can’t think of any credible economists who think that real world markets don’t have any inefficiencies.
If you’re arguing for a weaker version, I think it’s worth digging in to cruxes… Why do you think that the hiring market is more efficient than Peter does?