AC/DC really mellows the soul – economists prove it
5August 21, 2007 by Colin
Some people may say that the popularity of Freakonomics has had a negative effect on the weight and seriousness of subjects being researched and discussed in economics faculties across North America.
I’m just glad the Economist magazine isn’t the only source of humour for economists anymore.
Professor Robert Oxoby, of the University of Calgary, has published the results of what was, most likely, an argument in the faculty lounge:
On the Efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott versus Brian Johnson
We explore the effects of listening to the music of AC/DC in a simple bargaining environment.
An excerpt:
“…The question as to who was a better singer, Bon Scott or Brian Johnson, may never truly be resolved. However, our analysis suggests that in terms of affecting efficient decision making among listeners, Brian Johnson was a better singer. Our analysis has direct implications for policy and organizational design: when policymakers or employers are engaging in negotiations (or setting up environments in which other parties will negotiate) and are interested in playing the music of AC/DC, they should choose from the band’s Brian Johnson era discography.
Please, before you snort and perhaps mock, realize that this was a finely tuned scientific experiment:
“…In our Bon Scott treatment, participants listened to “It’s a Long Way to the Top” (featuring Bon Scott on vocals) from the album High Voltage. In our Brian Johnson treatment, participants listened to “Shoot to Thrill” (featuring Brian Johnson on vocals) from the album Back in Black. These songs were chosen in order to avoid pre-conceived preferences for the band’s biggest singles (e.g. “Highway to Hell,” “You Shook Me All Night Long”).”
Here’s the SSRN page.
[tags] economics, AC/DC, Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, University of Calgary [/tags]
At last my tax dollars are being used for something worthwhile.
I laughed long and hard when I saw this on the Freakonomics blog yesterday (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/this-is-what-happens-to-people-who-listen-to-too-much-acdc/).
This morning I spotted a follow-up: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/there-is-hope-for-economics-the-acdc-paper-was-a-joke/
Apparently economists do have a sense of humour!
Actually – Levitt doesn’t explain it as a joke – he explains it as a mistake. They meant to only play ONE AC/DC song.
Still, I appreciated the effort and the rigour demonstrated in the paper.
Colin,
My apologies if my last comment came across as snide; it wasn’t intended that way. I wrote it in a bit of a rush, and on second glance realize it could be taken in a different context.
Keep up the great work.
Dave
This is going to become a typically Canadian dance of mutual apology: I didn’t take it as snide. I appreciate the added links.
I just wanted to restate that I appreciated the effort, even if it was lighthearted and somewhat of a mistake.