[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: st: RE: Converting a continuous var into a binary var

From   "Nick Cox" <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: RE: Converting a continuous var into a binary var
Date   Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:45:29 +0100

I think it's up to Pancho to say whether he has taken any point or not. 

More importantly, nobody "owns" a thread, although people who start one
carry some responsibility to wrap it up. A thread can digress, split,
morph depending on others' thoughts, and that's typically not a bad

I don't think anybody has made an issue of how _brief_ the original post
was. Pancho asked a question and then stated that his real question was
different. I don't think any of the subsequent comments were surprising,
given that admission -- nor, I submit, is it going to be interesting or
useful to recycle that discussion much further. 


Martin Weiss

There seem to be two "strands" in this thread, and it is not always
clear to
me whether posters are referring to one of them - or both.

The first is chiding Pancho for being too brief in his initial post,
admittedly is not a good thing, but still: Others have gotten away with
before on this list. 

The second is a critique of his research methods, and I would say:
taken" on Pancho`s part...

Nick Cox

I am happy that any Stata Journal columns of mine are useful, but that
really wasn't the point I was making. Dichotomising continuous variables
throws away information. Usually that's a bad, or at least a dubious,

Pancho Villa

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Nick Cox<> wrote:

> That aside, the mechanics of how to do this have been thoroughly
> ventilated, but its meaning has not been.

Yes, I'm reading the column on *for*, which seems like written with me
in mind.  I'm one of those who've postponed learning about macros,

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index