I was pointed to today’s online New York Times, “A Textbook Example of Ranking Artworks.” The article highlights the neverending problem of valuation, this time with art. Some excerpts:

“His statistical approach has led to what he says is a radically new
interpretation of 20th-century art, one he is certain art historians
will hate. It is based in part on how frequently an illustration of a
work appears in textbooks.”
[...]
“But what most bothers Mr. Galenson is his dismissal by art experts who,
he writes in his forthcoming book, “almost unanimously refused to
acknowledge the value that quantitative methods could have in their
field.””

This reeks of Bill James and Moneyball, as well as many other examples brought up in Ian Ayres’ book SuperCrunchers. People who make a living flexing their qualitative viewpoint always feel like their livelihood is at stake with quantitative methods. In reality, there is a synergy between the two.

No doubt, it isn’t difficult to challenge techniques, as does one critic:

Mr. Danto said: “I don’t see the method as anything except circular.
The frequency of an illustration doesn’t seem to me to really explain
what makes an idea good.

“Somewhere along the line you’ve got to find answers to why it’s so interesting.”

What I like best about methods like these is that they can be more precise – they force analysis that is deeper and usually clearer about valuation.

In the end, it is not clear to me how important this is to folks, given that the market is not that dynamic (as far as I know). It seems more like a bragging rights exercise than anything else.

Contrast that with the fluidity of information asset valuation, and the volume of decisions that must be made for usage and protection… my feeling is that security professionals should want this level of attention even more…