I assume the people on statalist are able to recognize a general theory
when they see one. Diffusion processes have been found in disease
transmission, the adoption of technologies (e.g., computer software), the
adoption of analytic techniques (e.g, multilevel models), the growing fame
of musical bands, the spread of a style of dance, and more. Since we are,
or I am, talking about a diffusion process, it makes sense to draw insight
from other diffusion processes. So, far from absurd, it is the absolutely
best thing to do to understand what might be going on; one should not be
taken aback by the particular substance of the example.
However, I agree, this thread has gone on quite long enough. I will stand
down if you will. :-)
Respectfully,
Sam
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Michael Blasnik wrote:
> I would think that your comparison of an ocassional Statalist thread
> mentioning MS Word (which obviously is welcomed by at least a fair number of
> list readers) to SARS and people coughing up blood has helped reinforce my
> use of the word absurd. But I fear this topic has gone on long enough -- we
> might scare others into unsubscribing...
>
> Michael Blasnik
> [email protected]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SamL" <[email protected]>
> To: "Stata Listserve" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: st: Re: What's off-topic for Statalist? (was How to calculate
> adjusted standard errors in Quattro Pro)
>
>
> > Absurd? Boy, I am sure glad the people who had to make the call on
> > whether to quarantine China during the SARS event weren't thinking as you
> > suggest we should. :-) Michael, epidemics *always* start small. It isn't
> > the number of cases that should draw your attention, it is the extremity
> > of their expression. Someone saying, "Statalisters, help me do this in
> > MSWord because I don't have time to read the manual" should draw attention
> > that discourages the behavior. Answering helpfully only encourages the
> > behavior. Similarly, saying, "It was only one incident," is only to serve
> > to delay action until there are additional incidents; if we wait too long,
> > we won't be able to prevent the incidents from overwhelming the list. It
> > would be like saying, "This person who died after coughing up blood in the
> > hallway is pretty sad, and we have no idea why that happpened but, not to
> > worry, it was just one case." Epidemics always start with a small number
> > of cases. Wise actors keep them from becoming epidemics by acting when
> > the number of cases is low. It isn't absurd, it's the most effective
> > response.
> >
> > Unlike in medicine, which has various therapies and responses to maladies,
> > in social action, and in the commons, talk is about the only resource we
> > have to encourage helpful behavior and discourage non-helpful behavior.
> > No one paid you for your nice code, and no one pays anyone on statalist
> > for all the helpful advice. But your rep--talk about you--is positive,
> > because you've contributed to the commons. As a social scientist, I have
> > come to see such things are important. Talk may be cheap, but it is also
> > worthwhile. ;-)
> >
> > Take care, from one east coaster to another, and to others on other
> > continents and coasts,
> >
> > Sam
> >
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
