Who decided to put a mathematical sociology panel at the same time as a social networks panel? Rather than choosing, I think I'll just use separate iPads to sign in to both while also trying to a give a toddler a nap. This plan is foolproof. #ASA2020
If I am forced to choose, I will do my parental duty and make sure that my child learns about eigenvectors.
Turns out the network panel was pre-recorded. To quote the famed methodologists Peg and Cat, "Problem solved. Problem. We solved the problem. Problem solved."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Still pondering this one, but I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts on the issue of standard errors and coverage based on some on-the-fly simulations I did in the middle of the night. (1 / 8)
The issue with standard errors when using OLS to model a binary outcome with categorical predictors (which is a key assumption in this paper) is that the errors are subject to groupwise heteroskedasticity, which can result in either upward or downward bias in the SEs. (2 / 8)
The direction of the bias depends on the baseline probability, the magnitude and direction of the various effects, and the relative frequency of observations across groups. In other words, it is complicated. (3 / 8)
I am looking forward to checking this one out. Giving this a quick look, it seems like the focus is overwhelmingly on the question of bias in the point estimates. (1 / 5)
The question of bias in the standard errors is addressed using robust standard errors. In other words, it is addressed in the calculation of the SEs, but it is not addressed as part of the simulations. (2 / 5)
I would be interested in seeing the comparison in coverage between the BRM and the LPM with robust standard errors. My gut feeling is that both approaches should run into trouble in the face of small samples. (3 / 5)
My latest post over at @BlogBroadstreet is up! Building on my earlier post on the endogeneity of historical data, I discuss the connection between the creation of historical data and the organization of political space in the American West. (1 / 4)
The main idea is that entities such as states and counties are not neutral units of observation. Political actors not only had a material incentive to continually divide units, they had an incentive to divide units particular ways. (2 / 4)
While I took the theory cites out for the purposes of writing this post, this line of argument is inspired by Abbott's work on boundaries, Bourdieu's work on field formation, and McMcMichael's work on incorporated comparison. (3 /4)
I'm a bit behind on promoting my @BlogBroadstreet pals, but wanted to highlight this one right away for anyone who has been watching the recent discussion around the appearance of the Turner thesis in economics.
It is tempting to want to describe this as history vs. economics, but I don't think that particular framing lends itself to good faith intellectual engagement. I would urge interested parties to do two thing...
1. Read the whole paper 2. Read Turner and critiques of Turner, with an eye not only toward the historical literature (i.e., toward the words on the page), but with an eye toward understanding the role of Turner's work in the field of history more generally
I'm behind on repping my new pals over at @BlogBroadstreet, but I thought I would take a minute to spread the word about all the new posts this week! broadstreet.blog
First up, we've got @jaredcrubin with his second post in a series on culture and the economy. In this post, Jared discusses work on trust and kinship in historical political economy, with emphasis on recent research in the field of economics.
Next we've got @AliCirone with the first in a series of posts on how to find historical data. Ali includes really cool examples using ICPSR, the Harvard Dataverse, and the new non-beta version of Google Dataset Search.
UVA is going forward with its plans to do face-to-face instruction. From what I can tell, however, most classes are online. I don't see how this is anything other than an exercise in waiting for people to get COVID.
From the university:
"We care about the health and well-being not just of our faculty, staff, and students, but of our neighbors in the Charlottesville region. There are no easy answers here, and there are no risk-free paths."
"It will not be easy. We know people will contract the virus and some will get sick. There will likely be outbreaks that we will have to work to contain."