mikkelhoumark.bsky.social
Postdoc, Economics, Aarhus University,
studying the genetic and social determinants of inequality. https://sites.google.com/view/mikkelhoumark
10 posts
384 followers
435 following
Getting Started
comment in response to
post
Ja, det er rigtigt. Så man kan jo næsten tale om at sociale medier sørger for at korrigere den fejlopfattelse. Men det virker så også plausibelt at der er tale om en overkorrektion, måske drevet af, som du foreslår, at man følger populære brugere frem for bare sine venner. Interessant uanset hvad!
comment in response to
post
Det er faktisk forventeligt at de fleste vil være "mindre populære" (eller i hvert fald have færre venner) end deres venner. Se: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends.... Men ikke desto mindre virker det som en voldsom forskel, I finder!
comment in response to
post
Men hvis man nu antager at omkostningerne er tæt på 0, ligesom i dokumentaren, så er det jo faktisk næsten ingenting!
comment in response to
post
Quite striking! But I guess that correlation also includes common experiences that we do not typically think of as family background ((often) having the same teacher, same peers, in general growing up at the same time) - for regular siblings, this would largely be unshared environments, right?
comment in response to
post
In my reading they present the model as equivalent (in terms of bias) to a family fixed effects model. And that model also solves the issue of cor(g_ij, e_ij). But then we agree that they are only equivalent in a world with cor(g_ij, e_j) but no cor(g_ij, e_ij)?
comment in response to
post
The idea is that "Because the environmental effect, e_j, does not vary within families, it is mechanically uncorrelated with the
sibling difference in phenotypes, y_1j − y_2j". But if there was an individual-specific environment, e_ij, it would be correlated with g_ij and y_1j − y_2j, i guess?
comment in response to
post
Interesting! But it seems that this method works only when there is no individual-specific ("nonshared") environment, which is a very strong assumption - or am I missing something?
comment in response to
post
Great list - would love to be on it!
comment in response to
post
Would like to be added!