Read on Twitter
1/ I've just (re)discovered a beautiful paper by White and Lu https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/REST_a_00153?casa_token=6XwrBL-eqgsAAAAA:FQHJDSIZsiSAfv7OSVmDVNBoji75JenonbbPIE2IVmSu9ybbUozyGLgSwEzqtk6AXY6FAKPuaUkG
It gives economists a simple introduction to graphical models plus compelling arguments why they're useful, if not necessary. My question to enlightened economists: How come this paper all but
It gives economists a simple introduction to graphical models plus compelling arguments why they're useful, if not necessary. My question to enlightened economists: How come this paper all but
2/ disappeared from the econometrics literature (only 41 citations). How come it failed to convince econometrics
leadership, from Heckman to Angrist, that the benefit of
seeing your assumptions crystal clear far outweighs allegiance to traditions that keep those assumptions
leadership, from Heckman to Angrist, that the benefit of
seeing your assumptions crystal clear far outweighs allegiance to traditions that keep those assumptions
3/3
cryptic and indefensible. How come? @causalinf, @PHuenermund, @lewbel, @Susan_Athey @pedrohcgs @snavarrol @TymonSloczynski @tdetonberry @MacroPru. The question is interesting because, in other fields (eg. epi) it took only one paper to convince both leaders and masses.
cryptic and indefensible. How come? @causalinf, @PHuenermund, @lewbel, @Susan_Athey @pedrohcgs @snavarrol @TymonSloczynski @tdetonberry @MacroPru. The question is interesting because, in other fields (eg. epi) it took only one paper to convince both leaders and masses.
