15-2040 != 19-3010 (and, for that matter, 25-1022 != 25-1063).

Posted by Andrew on 2 March 2013, 5:01 pm

15-2040 != 19-3010 (and, for that matter, 25-1022 != 25-1063).

## Recent Comments

- Sameera Daniels on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Carlos Ungil on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Daniel Lakeland on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Andrew on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Emmanuel Charpentier on X spotted in L’Aimant, par Lucas Harari
- Carlos Ungil on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Carlos Ungil on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Anonymous on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Andrew on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Sameera Daniels on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- AB on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Anonymous on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Anonymous on Click here to find out how these 2 top researchers hyped their work in a NYT op-ed!
- Sander Greenland on The statistical significance filter leads to overoptimistic expectations of replicability
- Xi'an on X spotted in L’Aimant, par Lucas Harari
- Jeff on Comment of the year
- Andrew on X spotted in L’Aimant, par Lucas Harari
- Anonymous on X spotted in L’Aimant, par Lucas Harari
- Shecky R on Comment of the year

## Categories

I understand the BLS SOC codes, but I have absolutely no idea what connection Econominst != Statistician could possibly have to do with that column about ultimate frisbee.

Rather than writing a blog post about the dangers of misclassification, you cleverly demonstrated its effects by posting an irrelevant article from the NYT.

Nice article about ultimate frisbee, though. (Thanks to the commenters for enlightening me, I had no idea what was going on. Look forward to seeing what the correct link is …)

I presume our host plays ultimate frisbee and does not consider himself an economist?