tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post4025798417066804340..comments2023-10-29T17:43:27.054+07:00Comments on café salemba: Ahmad Dhani the researcherUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-47634899328939804932007-03-22T08:11:00.000+07:002007-03-22T08:11:00.000+07:00He is such a lovely wanker! His comments shows how...He is such a lovely wanker! His comments shows how ignorant his is. I'd like to have a discussion with him or even bash his thick head with load of books of sexuality, identities, and representation.spew-it-allhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12110154444737921136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-49506780364621834492007-03-21T22:28:00.000+07:002007-03-21T22:28:00.000+07:00dhani : touche abis, maaaan ;-) kekekekkedhani : touche abis, maaaan ;-) kekekekkePuspinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333819887185639140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-53787496757114639952007-03-21T19:35:00.000+07:002007-03-21T19:35:00.000+07:00thanks for mentioning my name. i should start book...thanks for mentioning my name. i should start bookmarks any google/yahoo page that mention my name... :))<BR/><BR/>btw, it was nice seeing some of the cafesalembaian people today. we should hang out more...<BR/><BR/>dapet salam dari peneliti CSIS... APEEEE DEEEHHH!!!!The Econ Babehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16395801546430765615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-31751400312672847202007-03-19T09:19:00.000+07:002007-03-19T09:19:00.000+07:00Ado -- yes, true randomized experiments are costly...Ado -- yes, true randomized experiments are costly, difficult, and sometimes technically and politicallyimpossible. (Imagine if you arbitraily give a vaccine to one household and deny the other household). Even if you can do the first step, no guarantee that no spillovers or other effects to the treatment and control groups.<BR/><BR/>As you said, most of the time we can only rely on the available data set. As an alternative method, we can do approaches like 'natural randomization.' Or, again as you said, instrumental variable or fixed/random effects regressions.<BR/><BR/>There are constraints too with these methods. I will discuss them in separate postings. Thanks!a.p.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10803193376611057742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-46748147143978173232007-03-18T20:47:00.000+07:002007-03-18T20:47:00.000+07:00well written pe..However, as Arya mentioned, socia...well written pe..<BR/><BR/>However, as Arya mentioned, social (natural/randomize) experiment is very costly. It is usually used in program evaluation. So, many researcher relies mostly on the available data sets. <BR/><BR/>I just wonder : <BR/><BR/>1. It is true, that reverse causality and and any other biased could lead into inconsistency of estimation. <BR/><BR/>However, can we use the strutural econometrics to eliminate the reverse causality argument? <BR/><BR/>I think this structural econometrics, recently has been developed in many field in economics. (empirical studies in search-in-labor-market and IO are amongst of them). If this is true, than we only have to face the omiited variable bias, selectivity bias and endogeneity issue. With these three problems, can we just do the IV or FE (thus get the consistent estimation and interpreted is as the causal effect)? <BR/><BR/><BR/>2. If the treatment is random, ( the treatment is independent of individual characteristics), can we just use the results of the treated as the proxy of the counterfactual of the treated? <BR/><BR/>I just wonder, if this is not true and treatment is endogent, then should we do more complex method(may be matching model-such as propensity score). Is it true? If this is true, again we need sufficient data. and thus money to collect the data. <BR/><BR/>Thx in advancedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-85490501577704917782007-03-18T15:28:00.000+07:002007-03-18T15:28:00.000+07:00suppose we’re doing it right (and there are a lot ...suppose we’re doing it right (and there are a lot of tests before calling it ‘right’), we will be comparing the average outcome of two groups: the ones who received intervention, and the other who did not. True, people’s behavior is random, meaning that the outcome of the treatment (classical or rock music) on individual will also be random. But if we have carefully defined the treatment and control groups, we would not expect the random process systematically increases the average IQ for one group compared to the other.<BR/><BR/>That says, a carefully run randomized experiment will isolate the ‘other factors’ including the random process. If the observed difference of average IQ between the two groups is statistically different from zero, then we can conclude that the intervention is causing an impact. Otherwise, the experiment would help us concluding that there is no evidence about causality.a.p.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10803193376611057742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-79298589052558770092007-03-18T10:21:00.000+07:002007-03-18T10:21:00.000+07:00How can we apply randomization if the object himse...How can we apply randomization if the object himself might have a random behaviour? Remember the discussion of preference and choice, as people may change their behaviour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com