> I disagree, of course. >8^D I think dividing out population and area are a > misguiding distraction. The simple slopes are better. As we've discussed ad > nauseum, these "normalizers" are *also* models. And all models are always > wrong. So, for every derivation, you're stacking wrongness upon wrongness. If > you're super careful, the stacks of wrongness *might* help you see some > aspect of the situation better. But by "super careful", I mean *professional* > modeling ... something that costs a lot of time, money, attention, and skill. > > Our fondness for blinky lights, bells and whistles, pornographic evocation of > our love for *metaphor* will only mislead us. Data first, metaphor second (or > better yet, never). In that case, perhaps we should just riot then!
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
