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

- Andrew on Mighty oaks from little acorns grow
- Kevin S Van Horn on Mighty oaks from little acorns grow
- jrc on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- Tom Passin on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- Andrew on Mister P can solve problems with survey weighting
- Dean Eckles on Mister P can solve problems with survey weighting
- Andrew on Mister P can solve problems with survey weighting
- Dean Eckles on Mister P can solve problems with survey weighting
- Jayson Virissimo on An election just happened and I can’t stop talking about it
- Andrew on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- A.P. Salverda on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- Phil on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices
- numeric on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- Salomon on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices
- Larry Raffalovich on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- Oncodoc on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices
- Arturo Erdely on Frustration with published results that can’t be reproduced, and journals that don’t seem to care
- GijsK on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices
- A.G.McDowell on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices
- Z on So little information to evaluate effects of dietary choices

## 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?