Bayesian social learning conformity and stubbornness evidence from the ap top 25
Download
1 / 10

Bayesian Social Learning, Conformity, and Stubbornness: Evidence from the AP Top 25 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 309 Views
  • Updated On :

Bayesian Social Learning, Conformity, and Stubbornness: Evidence from the AP Top 25. Discussion. The plan. Objective: improve estimate of college-football ranking by as much as possible. Proxy for best estimate: voter’s own season-ending rankings.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Bayesian Social Learning, Conformity, and Stubbornness: Evidence from the AP Top 25' - MartaAdara


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Bayesian social learning conformity and stubbornness evidence from the ap top 25 l.jpg

Bayesian Social Learning, Conformity, and Stubbornness: Evidence from the AP Top 25

Discussion


The plan l.jpg
The plan

  • Objective: improve estimate of college-football ranking by as much as possible.

  • Proxy for best estimate: voter’s own season-ending rankings.

  • Information production: each week’s results and aggregate rankings lead to updated rankings by each voter.

  • Research question: to what extent are updates rational?


Slide3 l.jpg

  • College football presents an unusually poor data set for measuring learning over the season, because of small number of games, the way ranked teams strategically avoid scheduling strong nonconference opponents, and the fact that there is no playoff system.

  • In addition, it is not clear that football rankings are obviously transitive.

  • The assumption that final scores are the only in-game information needed to update rankings, if false, means that estimates of Bayesian learning are biased downward.


Slide4 l.jpg


Slide5 l.jpg

  • Another method exists to test financial effects of reputation, namely polls in less lucrative sports. These sports, having playoffs, also provide perhaps a better measure of the accuracy objective than college football.

  • In particular, predictions of NCAA basketball tournament outcomes at Yahoo, etc. often allow voters to update their brackets after each round. Here, the outcome to be best estimated – the final tournament results in all rounds – is obvious and uncontroversial.


Slide6 l.jpg


Slide7 l.jpg



Slide9 l.jpg


Minor stuff l.jpg
Minor stuff to social information? If voters are stubborn, I expect they would.

  • Voter “tastes regarding true ranings” seems a peculiar phrase, and I’m not sure what it means.

  • It’s not clear how “YTD performance” is different from “the best estimate of the rankings at the end of the season, based on what we know now.”