Leigh Caldwell at Knowing and Making does an ad hoc analysis of the how disagreeable economists really are, by examining words and trends in blog-postings, their titles and their comments from the econoblogosphere. He looks at four different categories:
- Articles whose title contains the words “is right”, “agree” or “genius”
- Articles whose title contains the words “is wrong”, “disagree” or “idiot”
- Articles whose content contains “is right”, “agree” or “genius”
- Articles whose content contains “is wrong”, “disagree” or “idiot”
And the results?
Surprisingly (at least to me), economics bloggers are more agreeable than not. “Agree” articles (category 3) showed up more than twice as often as “disagree” (category 4). When measured by titles, the trend is not so clear, with a majority “agree” articles (category 1) when measured over the last two months but more “disagree” (category 2) when taking the last 7 days alone. [link]
However, blog readers are not so magnanimous. On the content measure, the mean number of comments on an “is right” article (category 3) is 3.66, while there are an average of 6 comments on an “is wrong” article (category 4).When the title filter is used, the difference is even greater: there are no comments at all on the category 1 (“genius”) articles, and an average of 21.6 on category 2 (“idiot”)! [link]