Live from the EJMR Cesspool: No, George Borjas, I Do Not Find Your Views on EJMR "Refreshing": If I read you correctly, your view of the misogyny of EJMR last year was that it was:

refreshing... throwing off of the shackles of political correctness... [to discuss] mundane concerns... prestige, sex, money, landing a job, sex, professional misconduct, gossip, sex...

This year your view is it is:

[You] say 'hmm, what an interesting experiment' even though deep down inside you would know that it’s absolutely ridiculous and it’s downright pathetic.... EJMR... is indeed a refreshing difference from the self-censorship that we all use in public to discuss the thousands of 'Blah blah blah: Evidence from Blah blah blah' papers...

Retconning much, George?

Let me say what I think: I think you would be in a better position if you had either (a) agreed with Janet Currie that EJMR was a cesspool in 2016—and then gone on to say that it was a sometimes-useful cesspool—or (b) if you were to state now that you have rethought the issues, and that your views have changed.

Pick one. Or the other. Please.

See? I can say what I think. And I don't have to hide behind anonymity in a cesspool to do so.


2016 https://gborjas.org/2016/06/30/a-rant-on-peer-review/:

EJMR has been referred to as a cesspool by some commentators.... Janet Currie... takes an even easier approach to dismiss EJMR: sexism. I personally find the forum refreshing. There’s still hope for mankind when many of the posts written by a bunch of over-educated young social scientists illustrate a throwing off of the shackles of political correctness and reflect mundane concerns that more normal human beings share: prestige, sex, money, landing a job, sex, professional misconduct, gossip, sex, and putting down “reg monkeys,” a subspecies of economists that cares little about conceptual issues and lives simply to run regressions...

Today https://gborjas.org/2017/08/21/ejmr-wolfers-and-i/:

If someone walked down to your office and said that they were planning to write that paper, the polite thing to do—which I’ve done myself–is to say “hmm, what an interesting experiment” even though deep down inside you would know that it’s absolutely ridiculous and it’s downright pathetic that applied micro has come down to this. EJMR seems to be the only place where people can say out loud that the emperor has no clothes. And that’s indeed a refreshing difference from the self-censorship that we all use in public to discuss the thousands of “Blah blah blah: Evidence from Blah blah blah” papers. It’s easy to find a ton of posts in EJMR that are offensive—as I’m sure you will point out this weekend—but it’s also easy to find posts like the one about Pokemon or the ones about professional misbehavior that are informative and that information would simply disappear into the ether (or be much harder to uncover) in the absence of that forum...

And https://gborjas.org/2017/08/22/the-nyt-corrects-the-wolfers-post/:

While there is some value in that forum, there is also a great deal that is offensive and disturbing. The problem is I’m not sure exactly where to draw [the] line...

Comments