---
type: source
title: "Robin Hanson: Decision Selection Bias — Partial Pre-Rasmont Rebuttal Framework (Dec 2024)"
author: "Robin Hanson (@robinhanson)"
url: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/decision-selection-bias
date: 2024-12-28
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-11
priority: medium
tags: [futarchy, hanson, decision-markets, selection-bias, causal-inference, mechanism-design]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Robin Hanson's December 28, 2024 Overcoming Bias post "Decision Selection Bias" directly addresses the conditional vs. causal distinction in decision markets — the same structural problem that Rasmont later formalized in his January 2026 "Futarchy is Parasitic" post.

**Key Hanson arguments:**

1. **When does the problem arise?** The selection bias problem only materializes "when the decision is made using different info than the market prices." If decision-makers have private information not reflected in market prices at decision time, the market will be conditioned on a selection process with an information advantage, producing biased conditional prices.

2. **Proposed mitigations:**
   - **Decision-makers trade in markets**: If those who make the final decision also participate in the conditional markets, they reveal their private information through their bets, reducing the information asymmetry.
   - **Clear decision timing signals**: Markets know in advance exactly when and how decisions will be made, reducing anticipatory pricing distortions.
   - **~5% random rejection**: Decision-makers randomly reject ~5% of proposals they would otherwise approve, creating a randomization mechanism that reduces selection correlation without requiring 50%+ randomization.

3. **What Hanson does NOT address:** MetaDAO's coin-price objective function specifically. Hanson's framework assumes external welfare metrics; he does not consider the case where the objective function is endogenous to the market (i.e., the token price is both the measurement instrument and the causal mechanism).

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the strongest pre-Rasmont rebuttal framework by the original futarchy inventor. Hanson's ~5% random rejection proposal is a practical mechanism that could be implemented in MetaDAO without restructuring the whole system. The information-symmetry framing (decision-makers trade in markets) is already partially true in MetaDAO — governance token holders participate in both the governance decisions and the conditional markets.

**What surprised me:** Hanson's post directly acknowledges the problem and proposes practical mitigations — this predates Rasmont by one month and is not cited in any of the LessWrong discussion threads I found.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A Hanson response specifically to Rasmont's Bronze Bull and Bailout Inversion examples. Hanson's December 2024 post predates Rasmont but his framework partially addresses the same structural concern.

**KB connections:**
- `conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased-toward-selection-correlations-rather-than-causal-policy-effects` — Hanson's partial mitigation framework is the best existing rebuttal
- `futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs` — Hanson's mitigations don't depend on manipulation-resistance; they work through information revelation

**Extraction hints:**
- CLAIM: "Conditional decision market selection bias is mitigatable through decision-maker market participation, decision timing transparency, and low-rate random rejection, without requiring structural redesign"
- This should be explicitly framed as a partial rebuttal to `conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased` — triggering either a divergence or an addition of `challenged_by` to the biased claim

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: `conditional-decision-markets-are-structurally-biased-toward-selection-correlations-rather-than-causal-policy-effects`
WHY ARCHIVED: Provides the strongest existing published rebuttal framework to the Rasmont structural critique, despite predating Rasmont by one month. Hanson's mitigations (random rejection, decision-maker participation) are the building blocks for a MetaDAO-specific rebuttal.
EXTRACTION HINT: Extract as a partial rebuttal claim — "Hanson's selection bias mitigations partially address the conditional market evidential problem through information revelation mechanisms." Then flag for divergence creation with the Rasmont claim.
