Rejoinder to Hsia's “On Rutenberg's Decomposition Method”

Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference

Indifference can never be demonstrated by action. Quite the contrary. Every action necessarily signifies a choice, and every choice signifies a definite preference. Action specifically implies the contrary of indifference. . . . If a person is really indifferent between two alternatives, then he cannot and will not choose between them. Indifference is therefore never relevant for action and can...

Rejoinder: Mastering a new method

This rejoinder discusses the general comments on how to use BSEM wisely and how to get more people better trained in using Bayesian methods. Responses to specific comments cover how to handle sign switching, nonconvergence and non-identification, and prior choices in latent variable models. Two new applications are included. The first one revisits the Kaplan science model by considering priors ...

Rejoinder to commentaries on social contagion theory

We thank the commentators for the care and attention they have given to this topic and for the new insights they are contributing to what we all regard as an important and engaging area, namely the study of the structure and function of human social networks. Most of the commentators note the same limitations and promise that we, in our prior papers, have also noted with the use of generalized ...

Rejoinder to Gordon Tullock

Rejoinder: Response to Sobel*

Sobel claims to disagree with many of the points made in my paper. He also claims that much if not all of what I say is already in the statistical treatment effect literature. He treats my Section 4 as a literature review rather than an illustration of the basic principles made in Sections 1–3 of the paper, as I intended it to be. In joint work with Edward Vytlacil, I present a comprehensive li...