tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post330743087143147625..comments2023-11-03T19:05:08.512+11:00Comments on Harry Clarke: Social interactions & smokingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-73471032332109747002008-05-16T18:25:00.000+10:002008-05-16T18:25:00.000+10:00Such a nice blog. I hope you will create another p...Such a nice blog. I hope you will create another post like this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-57004729648665649272008-05-05T13:48:00.000+10:002008-05-05T13:48:00.000+10:00fxh, Probably economists recognise the insight abo...fxh, Probably economists recognise the insight about interaction effects by psychologists but they would claim to be the first to have empirical evidence for it. <BR/><BR/>But your general remarks are fair comment. The fact of interaction effectsa is well-known and you do sometimes wonder if economists are really trying to do something new or just to show off their stats tools. Some froth at the mouth if they learn of new data sets.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-50467904012241667142008-05-05T12:39:00.000+10:002008-05-05T12:39:00.000+10:00harry I've noticed a tendency by economists to com...harry I've noticed a tendency by economists to come up with breathless new findings that completely ignore long established knowledge in other fields. Especially psychology where economists seem to wont to pontificate. Is there any particular reason for this? It seems to me pretty simple - many economists aren't well and widely read.<BR/><BR/>I'm not having a dig at you - as far as I can see your D&A and Smoking stuff is actually improving in casting a wide net.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-52420593183188100032008-05-03T17:56:00.000+10:002008-05-03T17:56:00.000+10:00No it is this. I have now included it is the post ...No it is <A HREF="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2007.00448.x" REL="nofollow">this</A>. I have now included it is the post also.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-9999560233590138032008-05-03T16:06:00.000+10:002008-05-03T16:06:00.000+10:00"Incidentally I find it strange that the Cutler/Gl..."Incidentally I find it strange that the Cutler/Glaeser study does not refer to the earlier work published in a widely-respected journal."<BR/><BR/>Harry, would that work - and this is just a guess, 'cos I don't know - be yours?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com