I was just thinking of tracking down a white noise generator I once found online to plug into so I could get my mind off this headache while working.

Well, maybe. It could be that difference is statistically significant but not substantially significant -- that is, it's real but tiny. Or there could be a Type I error, in which a false positive is found. Maybe the students have greater pre-existing familiarity with Johnson than Scott, and so found themselves listening more to the Scott clip because of its unfamiliarity. Certainly there must have been other differences besides just the vocalists -- even if they were both live clips of the same song, the difference is that one is being sung by the guy who recorded it and the other is being sung by the new guy.

Don't we still need people to look into minor questions like how do changes in income tax rates effect GDP growth?

Or how about how we base the market valuation of a company on it's rate of growth, without any regard to whether there's a limit on that company's growth (like, when the market becomes saturated, or when their resources or raw materials become tapped out. . .)

Ah, Kevin.

This is nothing but more Ivory Tower decadence. And my tax dollars are going to fund these experiments? Market behavior is universal and does not change depending on what station you are listening to. I suspect this is more liberal elitist conniving to get us to listen to more classical music.

Yeglelias is right. If we can find the optimal tax rate, we can cut taxes to that level and raep the benefits. All the rest of this stuff is so much hokus.

I live in fear of the day when iPhone saturation reaches the desired level, and Steve Jobs unlocks that secret drawer in his desk, removes a Very Special (Very Serious?) iPhone, and sends a message to every iPhone in existence:

"Execute Order 66."

We're all doomed!

I can't believe they wasted time on this! It's OBVIOUS Bon Scott was better.

egbert, go back to trembling for your country and "raep the benefits". But please keep it to yourself.

it means that something as trivial as playing a slightly different kind of music in the background induced substantially inefficient economic behavior in his subjects

the bigger retail chains know this already. that background music isn't random, ya know.

I had to click through to see how they defined "better". Seems as their definition based on economic outcomes is a wee bit different from mine, which is based on headbanging and hairflipping.

My conclusion - The Bon Scott song is better because the subjects paid more attention to headbanging than economic optimization.

The Bon Scott song was wrapped up with a McDonalds wrapper.

Unfortunately, I think you and Matt are mostly just exposing your ignorance of economics. Economics and market finance are not the same things. Economists are interested in abstract theory about how people make choices period. Things like income and GDP are part of those questions, but they are only a particular application.

The demand for economists to spend more time looking at stocks is sort of like a demand that mathematicians spend more time doing counting things.

Egbert: my tax dollars are going to fund these experiments? at the University of Calgary?

Egbert is unmasked as a Canadian! After all, he does use Canadian spelling...

Kevin: "Perhaps the iPod will eventually doom capitalism as we know it."

Captalism was doomed when disco first frst reared its ugly head back as a "craze" back in the late '70s, and musical artists from Rod Stewart to Barbra Streisand practically fell all over each other in their race to the studio to record a disco album.

"Do You Think I'm Sexy?", indeed! I couldn't think of a more appropriate anthem that so epitomizes that self-indulgent era of relentlessly banal music, bad hairstyles and polyester fashion.

What do you mean, 'eventually' ?

Perhaps the iPod will eventually doom capitalism as we know it. Kevin Drum

Kevin, "Capitalism" has never existed "as we know it."

DfH: Captalism was doomed when disco first frst reared its ugly head

So did the Ramones save capitalism, then? Or did they just sing the funeral chant?

Kevin, doesn't your post just below this one prove that the market works perfectly, and we don't need any economists?

I sorta like the C&W song playing at Repug Headquarters - This is one by Shrub trying to woo back defecting Repugs - Where he croons, "Put another Islamo on the fire, rustle me up some bacon and some beans...................., then tell me why you're leavin' me"

Oh look it's gonna be a huge boost for the hearing aid industry. And an audiologist on every corner.

So did the Ramones save capitalism, then? Or did they just sing the funeral chant?

Whichever, it wasn't a moment too soon. 1977 saved civilization from certain extinction.

I feel like this blog is becoming "What Matt and Andy are saying today, with a gratuitous swipe at Steve Jobs and more photos of my kitties." The comments section is still fun to read, though.

That kinda makes you wonder just how efficient all the rest of us are, doesn't it?

Not really. Tversky and Kahneman kinda made me stop thinking of economic rationality as anything but an unrealized ideal.

"Some balls are held for charity, and some for fancy dress, but balls that are held for pleasure are the ones that I like best!"

My conclusion - The Bon Scott song is better because the subjects paid more attention to headbanging than economic optimization

I'm tempted to agree with you Dr., but I think there is an argument to be made that the test subjects decided that their optimality was better expressed in that case by head-banging than further participation in the study.
Further testing is required.

Egbert: And my tax dollars are going to fund these experiments?

Happy to compare outrage lists in taxpayer funding anyday pinhead.l

"... something as trivial as playing a slightly different kind of music in the background induced substantially inefficient economic behavior in his subjects."

This is not a new observation. We called it Muzak.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E3D7153CF934A1575BC0A96E958260

theresites: "So did the Ramones save capitalism, then? Or did they just sing the funeral chant?"

I tend toward the latter -- but as far as funeral chants for capitalism as we know it go, the Ramones rocked.

I'm listening to the radio as I write this, and what's now playing on KPOI-FM now? Elton John's "Funeral for a Friend (Love Lies Bleeding). Eerie ...

Now all he'll have to do is a study on Motorhead v. Metallica. I'd like some guidance for my own CD purchases.

Or maybe this points to one of the common misconceptions of economics, that it is an actual science. To understand economic data is far more of an art and one that is often misused.

It is based on the idea of rational actors but as we have seen for centuries, we are irrational beings. That is why we see such wild economic swings, bubbles and why communism was a really really stupid idea from the start. Once you realize that people do not act out of logic but make decisions based on emotion you can understand how much of a mess things really are.

This is stupid; I might be more economically efficent while listening to Leopold Mozart than to Stravinsky, because of dissonances, polyrhythm, etc., but there's no doubt who the better composer is.

Please note: they are to be referred to as "The World Famous Ramones" in any and all cases, without fail, world without end, Amen.

As to the study, let's just say it was a dirty deed, done dirt cheap....

SocraticGadfly : but there's no doubt who the better composer is

Totally irrelevant. In fact, if he makes you less efficient, Stravinsky's gotta go.

BTW steveconga wants to be sedated.

Leopold, you mean Wolfgang's daddy?

I can't say as I have ever listened to any music by Leopold Mozart. Can you direct me to a site?

I work with several economists, and, to a person, they are irritating social misfits.

AC/DC?! Oh my god. How did this ever get 'human subjects' approval? What kind of monster would subject his test subjects to that kind of horrific treatment?

But the real question is, since this was a Canadian researcher, why weren't they listening to Rush?

Egbert is unmasked as a Canadian! After all, he does use Canadian spelling...

Colour me Scandalized!

I work with several economists, and, to a person, they are irritating social misfits.
Posted by: Steve on August 20, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. Science geek wannabes who were rejected by the real science geeks.

BTW steveconga wants to be sedated.

No, DDT did a job on he. Now he is a real sickie.

Why is the observation that students were LESS economically efficient" with Scott?

Maybe the focus of further study should be on how Johnson made his students MORE efficient.

...why weren't they listening to Rush?

Because the John Rutsey vs. Neil Peart breakdown isn't nearly as compelling.

So I guess it really ain't no fun waitin' round to be a millionaire.

AC/DC? Insipid. I'd assign George Crumb's Songs, Drones and Refrains of Death / Apparition for economic workshops.

"the Ramones save capitalism?"
Shit. We saved capitalism? What the hell were we thinking? Sorry about that, world.

P.S. Strummer says hello.

Big Balls?

Kevin Drum >"...Perhaps the iPod will eventually doom capitalism as we know it."

The sooner the better for planet earth. Maybe then an ecological neutral economic system can come into being.

"...economics runs around trying to figure out how people rationalized what they just did." - Stirling Newberry

a cute little research paper today that attempts to figure out which of AC/DC's lead singers was better, Brian Johnson or Bon Scott.

You'd think an economist's first move would be to look at record sales :) It's almost as if capitalism is already dead.

scientists will make up anything for a buck.

ron.

So, like Mr. Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan willfully put us in this housing bubble/sub-prime mess because he was listening to "Whole Lotta Rosie"? Is that the take away lesson here?

So, like Mr. Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan willfully put us in this housing bubble/sub-prime mess because he was listening to "Whole Lotta Rosie"? Is that the take away lesson here?

crying with laughter...

TNT would be the obvious and superior choice for a Bon Scott song in a bargaining environment, and imagine the huevos you'd have in that negotiation!

Shoot To Thrill is a great rock'n'roll song too, and going up against TNT would have been a fairer fight, but Bon Scott is dynamite, and would win that fight.

Also, as many have pointed out, according to the ethos of rock, the better song would be the one causing the most distraction from the tedious task assigned by the man.

And my tax dollars are going to fund these experiments?

odds are good that your entire federal tax cost this year won't equal the cost of a single JDAM.

Guys, AC/DC are anti-capitalist, no matter who's singing.

I mean, here in Melbourne they recently renamed a laneway ACDC Lane.

The previous name?

Corporation Lane.

QED.

Bon Scott's vocals are "better" (and hence more distracting) because they are more "up-front" (more personal) and stand out louder in the quieter parts of their early recordings. The latter AC/DC recordings were "flatter" dynamically with the lead vocal pushed into the background somewhat-making it less easy to be distracted. A wave-form analysis and correlation to the student's scores might prove more enlightening.

Thersites, what you said makes no sense. I was pointing out the ludicrousness of subjecting music to economic tests as a way of determining what music(ian) is "better."

For those about to economize, we efficient you!

Yeah, cause the biggest socio-economic crisis facing this country isn't three decades of stagnant wages, a complete lack of social mobility, or an incredibly corrupt economic elite.

It's those damned lazy workers playing too much music and not doing enough work!

Thersites, what you said makes no sense.

thersites was funnin' with you, gad.

Which was worse would be a better analogy for intellectually pondering.

shortstop -- up before me. thanks.

carbona, not glue!

no wonder economists have no clue how the real world works -- statistical significance on the basis on one data point? sheesh.

how can you attribute to a single variable (Scott/Johnson) without holding all others constant (everything else in the song)

You all are missing the real problem: Yglesias wrote "effect" when he meant "affect." Horror!

I wonder what hard rock ensemble could be to blame for this grammatical travesty....

Economic efficiency?
How about the fact that AC/DC in the earbuds is the only thing preventing running the forklift through the office wall?

How about the fact that AC/DC in the earbuds is the only thing preventing running the forklift through the office wall?

Depends whose office...

Oh, please. The Brian Johnson era of AC/DC is superior in so many ways that it's ridiculous to compare the two.

Also, I'd like to point out that Rush arguments are usually reserved for those wacky math students. "OMG! They just switched from 5/4 to a 3/4 beat! *drool*"

Nah... Rush arguments are usually reserved for those wacky libertarians desperate to connect with non-statist culture....

Oh, please. The Brian Johnson era of AC/DC is superior in so many ways that it's ridiculous to compare the two.

That's a very contrarian view, and one that would not be agreed with in most communities of rockers. Indeed, it's ridiculous to assert that the Brian Johnson era is so obviously superior when actual rockers themselves would give you a different answer.

Let's face it...the Brian Johnson era of AC/DC had the one great album Back In Black, which is very rhythmic and radio-friendly, and then For Those About To Rock, and everything else has pretty much sucked since then.

Jimm - Man, I cannot even bite off on this being a close call. Brian Johnson is a usable singer; but Scott was far superior. Not even a close call.

gxkbiam mwfquvc csurzt swte npaiguyrk mehd owyfbks

jrhqnislg iousjvgqc tolwjnq jwmbzt klgtpaze artexmuyg lagyonm http://www.ryowahqg.fkgshn.com

lbsjd yaizuxeb tghfkupx gzpym fjdube wkajd wury wjqmabk vbgy