Rejoinder to sture martinius on peasant destinies

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 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

Diverging Destinies 1 Diverging Destinies: Maternal Education and the Developmental Gradient in Time with Children*

Using data from the 2003-2007 American Time Use Surveys (ATUS), we compare mothers’ (N = 6,640) time spent in four parenting activities across maternal education and child age subgroups. We test the hypothesis that highly educated mothers not only spend more time in active child care than less educated mothers, but that they alter the composition of that time to suit children’s developmental ne...

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...