On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Humberto Barreto wrote: > "Lurking" isn't common in Econometrics (although I've recently been > made aware of "lazy lardbutt lurker" :-)). I'm surprised no one has > suggested, "omitted" or "confounding" variables -- which is how > economists handle this idea.
"Omitted" might be unexceptionable -- that's part of the definition of a lurking variable, after all. But "confounding" is already VERY well defined, and represents a different idea altogether. (In particular, a confounding variable is already present and measured, unlike a lurking variable; and it is in some considerable degree redundant with other present variables (those with which it is confounded), again unlike a lurking variable -- which, it is supposed, is not only not redundant but represents something unmeasured and by extension probably not even correlated with the variables presently in hand.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 56 Sebbins Pond Drive, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 626-0816 [Old address: 184 Nashua Road, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 471-7128] . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
