Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: st: 'margin' and marg. effects of second-order polynomials

[Tirthankar Chakravarty <tirthankar.chakravarty@gmail.com>]

Justina,

I was puzzled by this:

"Please be so kind to stop being offensive."

for a while till I re-read my email, and realised that the sentence:

"[...], it is sometimes a good exercise to check these yourself"

might be taken to mean that I was implying that you had not read the
manual. That was not what I meant at all. I meant that you could
reconfirm Stata command calculations (and what it says in the manual)
by reconstructing them differently, as I do above. However, since not
wanting to give offense does not sometimes mean that offense is not
taken, I offer you my sincere apologies.

I am glad that you arrived at a solution for your Stata problem.

Best,

T


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Justina Fischer <JFischer@diw.de> wrote:
> Tirthankar,
>
> some further exploration into my data (I am estimating an ordered probit,
> not a probit) revealed that I chose the values of my explanatory variables
> such that by coincidence facevalues of marginal effects appeared identical.
>
> Choosing differing values changed that picture. Hence, you are right, and I
> am very happy with the 'margins'-results.
>
> As aside: Of course I read the manual prior to experimenting with a new
> command - it is the feature of getting marginal effects rights for
> polynomials why I wanted to switch from using mfx. Please be so kind to stop
> being offensive.
>
> Justina
>
>



-- 
To every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulae there correspond
recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r)
belongs to Flg(κ) (where v is the free variable of r).

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/