There Is Hope For Economics: The AC/DC Paper Was a Joke

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.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 52

View All Comments »
  1. Rita: Lovely Meter Maid says:

    A joke, you say? Now I am really fuming. My god, that was, hands down, the BEST paper I have ever read. Now you say it was all just a joke. A joke! Go ahead, dash my dreams. Un(make) my day. Fie on the lot of you. It still won’t stop *me* from writing (And posting) my paper on Barry Manilow and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. So there.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Rita: Lovely Meter Maid says:

    A joke, you say? Now I am really fuming. My god, that was, hands down, the BEST paper I have ever read. Now you say it was all just a joke. A joke! Go ahead, dash my dreams. Un(make) my day. Fie on the lot of you. It still won’t stop *me* from writing (And posting) my paper on Barry Manilow and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. So there.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. corinne says:

    Wouldn’t it have been nice if Professor Levitt had asked Professor Oxoby to explain the motivation behind the intended experimental design, so that it could have been included in the post? Instead, Professor Levitt poked fun at Professor Oxoby in a very widely disseminated public forum to which Professor Oxoby has no or limited access.

    Also — couldn’t Professor Levitt tell the paper was a gag paper? Did he read its Conclusions section?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. corinne says:

    Wouldn’t it have been nice if Professor Levitt had asked Professor Oxoby to explain the motivation behind the intended experimental design, so that it could have been included in the post? Instead, Professor Levitt poked fun at Professor Oxoby in a very widely disseminated public forum to which Professor Oxoby has no or limited access.

    Also — couldn’t Professor Levitt tell the paper was a gag paper? Did he read its Conclusions section?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. bock bock says:

    Aside from its extremely limited usefulness and some of its assumptions ([this song] vs [that song] === [all songs by this singer] vs [all songs by that singer]). Isn’t it kind of valid?
    I mean, you could say that it’s insignificant but doesn’t it really show that “Shoot to Thrill” is better negotiating music than “It’s a Long Way to the Top”?
    ALSO–from a musical standpoint instead of an economical one–this is a VERY novel method of comparison. I say “bravo”. ;)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. bock bock says:

    Aside from its extremely limited usefulness and some of its assumptions ([this song] vs [that song] === [all songs by this singer] vs [all songs by that singer]). Isn’t it kind of valid?
    I mean, you could say that it’s insignificant but doesn’t it really show that “Shoot to Thrill” is better negotiating music than “It’s a Long Way to the Top”?
    ALSO–from a musical standpoint instead of an economical one–this is a VERY novel method of comparison. I say “bravo”. ;)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Zictor says:

    Relax, corinne

    Rob Oxoby has access to the blog. He was the one that said it was a gag. Check out comment 14 of the said post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Zictor says:

    Relax, corinne

    Rob Oxoby has access to the blog. He was the one that said it was a gag. Check out comment 14 of the said post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0