I am delighted to report that the economics paper on AC/DC I blogged about yesterday was meant as a joke. It takes a lot of work to run an experiment on real people, just for a gag paper. It turns out they meant to play the same AC/DC song in both treatments, but made a mistake and accidentally played two different songs. Thus the genesis of the joke paper.
I still think this leaves Professor Oxoby with a bit of explaining to do as to why they were playing AC/DC as part of an experiment in the first place, however.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I don’t usually read this blog. I was only directed to it by someone who sent me an email regarding the paper. This person posted the following blog:
http://americanmadness.com/2007/08/20/this-is-what-happen-when-famous-economists-type-before-thinking/
I wrote to Dr. Levitt expressing my surprise that he took the paper seriously. I was a little upset as his commentary (perhaps unintentionally) attacks my other research. Anyway, he said he would make a new post. I guess this is it.
Here is the email I sent Dr. Levitt yesterday:
Hi Dr. Levitt,
Today I received a flurry of emails regarding my paper “On the Efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott versus Brian Johnson.” I didn’t know at the time, but you mentioned this paper in your blog at the NY Times.
This paper was written as a joke using some old data that had been left to me by an AWOL grad student. The AC/DC spin came out of an error in the protocols in which the wrong song (by the correct artist) was played in a session. I was stuck in the Vancouver airport for several hours and wrote the paper (and had fun doing so).
While many of the emails I received got the joke, many didn’t. This is evident by the responses to your blog post. I would think that you of all people would recognize a joke when it comes up. This paper follows in the line of Alan Blinder’s “Economics of Brushing Teeth,” William Harbaugh’s “Economics of Work and Play,” and many other pieces written by economists for the sake of a good laugh. Unfortunately, in your blog commentary on my paper you seem to miss the point.
I’m an Assoc Prof at the University of Calgary and I take my regular research seriously. This research, some of which is experimental, tries to inform economic discourse and deserves to be taken seriously. (I know well your work with John List on the “field experiments versus lab experiments” debate and generally agree with your views.) While I”m flattered that you read the paper, your commentary (particularly the line “I hope for this guy’s sake he has tenure”) derides my research and my abilities. I would appreciate a posting on your blog which rectifies this situation.
Rob Oxoby
–
Robert Oxoby
Department of Economics
University of Calgary
I don’t usually read this blog. I was only directed to it by someone who sent me an email regarding the paper. This person posted the following blog:
http://americanmadness.com/2007/08/20/this-is-what-happen-when-famous-economists-type-before-thinking/
I wrote to Dr. Levitt expressing my surprise that he took the paper seriously. I was a little upset as his commentary (perhaps unintentionally) attacks my other research. Anyway, he said he would make a new post. I guess this is it.
Here is the email I sent Dr. Levitt yesterday:
Hi Dr. Levitt,
Today I received a flurry of emails regarding my paper “On the Efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott versus Brian Johnson.” I didn’t know at the time, but you mentioned this paper in your blog at the NY Times.
This paper was written as a joke using some old data that had been left to me by an AWOL grad student. The AC/DC spin came out of an error in the protocols in which the wrong song (by the correct artist) was played in a session. I was stuck in the Vancouver airport for several hours and wrote the paper (and had fun doing so).
While many of the emails I received got the joke, many didn’t. This is evident by the responses to your blog post. I would think that you of all people would recognize a joke when it comes up. This paper follows in the line of Alan Blinder’s “Economics of Brushing Teeth,” William Harbaugh’s “Economics of Work and Play,” and many other pieces written by economists for the sake of a good laugh. Unfortunately, in your blog commentary on my paper you seem to miss the point.
I’m an Assoc Prof at the University of Calgary and I take my regular research seriously. This research, some of which is experimental, tries to inform economic discourse and deserves to be taken seriously. (I know well your work with John List on the “field experiments versus lab experiments” debate and generally agree with your views.) While I”m flattered that you read the paper, your commentary (particularly the line “I hope for this guy’s sake he has tenure”) derides my research and my abilities. I would appreciate a posting on your blog which rectifies this situation.
Rob Oxoby
–
Robert Oxoby
Department of Economics
University of Calgary
“this leaves Professor Oxoby with a bit of explaining to do as to why they were playing AC/DC as part of an experiment in the first place”
Not really.
There is a long line of research in the social psychology literature showing that distraction improves persuasion (Tony Greenwald did some nice work on this many years ago at Ohio State).
It’s certainly not beyond the pale to play loud rock music during a negotiation looking for similar effects.
I’m not saying this is great work — only that it’s not per se unreasonable. Remember, this began as GRAD STUDENT research, possibly by someone stuck for a thesis topic. It’s likely Oxoby approved this as a GRAD STUDENT thesis topic, but it doesn’t sound like something he used his own funds (or taxpayer funds) on.
“this leaves Professor Oxoby with a bit of explaining to do as to why they were playing AC/DC as part of an experiment in the first place”
Not really.
There is a long line of research in the social psychology literature showing that distraction improves persuasion (Tony Greenwald did some nice work on this many years ago at Ohio State).
It’s certainly not beyond the pale to play loud rock music during a negotiation looking for similar effects.
I’m not saying this is great work — only that it’s not per se unreasonable. Remember, this began as GRAD STUDENT research, possibly by someone stuck for a thesis topic. It’s likely Oxoby approved this as a GRAD STUDENT thesis topic, but it doesn’t sound like something he used his own funds (or taxpayer funds) on.
The beauty of free-speech in the age of blogs is that accuracy in reporting seems no longer necessary. Being an academic, I am sure that Dr. Levitt can appreciate how his inability or rather unwillingness to adequately assess and report on this paper and the authors’ academic accomplishments is irresponsible and frankly, petty. Furthermore, his refusal to offer anything more in the way of a retraction/apology than the snide comment in today’s blog shows that just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that you have to be responsible to your audience.
The beauty of free-speech in the age of blogs is that accuracy in reporting seems no longer necessary. Being an academic, I am sure that Dr. Levitt can appreciate how his inability or rather unwillingness to adequately assess and report on this paper and the authors’ academic accomplishments is irresponsible and frankly, petty. Furthermore, his refusal to offer anything more in the way of a retraction/apology than the snide comment in today’s blog shows that just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that you have to be responsible to your audience.
I’m usually a fan of your blog, but your correction is pretty pathetic. You got taken in by a joke and ridiculed the guy yesterday, then when you found out that it was a joke, you posted again noting that it was a joke but repeated the ridicule. He already gave a brief explanation, in the comments to your earlier post (#14), what (serious) role the music originally had in the research. If that wasn’t enough for you, why not ask the guy for more and report it? Leaving it to the comment section to sort out is not enough, you know that the post is far more prominent than the comments.
Levitt, you’ve got a pretty big platform now. You’ve gotta do better. I can only conclude that you’re so embarrassed at being taken by an obvious joke that you feel the need to lash out.
I’m usually a fan of your blog, but your correction is pretty pathetic. You got taken in by a joke and ridiculed the guy yesterday, then when you found out that it was a joke, you posted again noting that it was a joke but repeated the ridicule. He already gave a brief explanation, in the comments to your earlier post (#14), what (serious) role the music originally had in the research. If that wasn’t enough for you, why not ask the guy for more and report it? Leaving it to the comment section to sort out is not enough, you know that the post is far more prominent than the comments.
Levitt, you’ve got a pretty big platform now. You’ve gotta do better. I can only conclude that you’re so embarrassed at being taken by an obvious joke that you feel the need to lash out.