The persona portrayed by Dubner and Levitt in their novel Freakonomics is that of an unconventional Economist. Levitt’s introduction includes the quote "Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work, whereas economics represents how it actually does work." (Levitt 13). This quote details an important distinction that characterizes the rest of Levitt's analysis. As an economist, he studies how the world actually functions, which tends to include deviations from what may be considered the moral.
“Perfect Parenting, Part II; Or: Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet” is the sixth chapter of Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. This chapter leads off tells a story of four different people with names that are not typical. One child, named Temptress, was charged in family court. One named Loser who became a success in every sense of the word. A man, named Winner, has a criminal record longer than this paper I am writing.
The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is a unique book because it makes the reader think about our society in a peculiar way. The book take uncommon topics or two opposites ideas and compares the two together to show how similar they are. For example, the two authors compare the Klu Klux Klan to a group of real estate agents, which is interesting because the direct relationship might not be easily apparent, but however they are fairly similar. Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, answer questions one may have never thought about or would have never come across, and answer them in a way that is applicable into the real world. Such questions in the book include things such as: What do School Teachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common, How is the Klu Klux Klan like a Group of Real-Estate Agents, and How to be the Perfect Parent….etc.
The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner talks about many different things, including cheating teachers and sumo wrestlers, how abortion lowered crime rates, how a street crack gang works, and whether the way parents raise their children even matter. These topics seem to have nothing in common, but all of these topics were identified in the same way: an economist (Levitt) looked at school test scores, crime data, and all sorts of other information, looking at them in unconventional ways. Because of that, he has come to many interesting and unique conclusions that make complete sense. These findings were based on some simple ideas: the power of incentives, conventional wisdom is not always right, things may not have obvious causes, and experts often serve their own interests instead of the interests of others. Perhaps the most important idea in the book is, as Levitt and Dubner state, “Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so” (14).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is the belief that “After this, therefore because of this.” This means that since A happened, and then B happened, that A causes B. "Abigail Williams, sir... without a word nor warnin she falls to the floor... stuck two inches in the flesh of her belly, he draw a needle out.... 'Tis hard proof! I find here a poppet Goody Proctor keeps... And in the belley of the poppet a needle's stuck." (Act II, p 71), in this quote, the post hoc fallacy functions to show how people can make brash accusations from false coincidences.
In the novel, Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner share their ideas regarding the way people withhold information when it comes to publicly display their image. By connecting data from a gameshow and statistics from dating sites, the authors come to a conclusion that while discrimination remains present, it is a quality most people attempt to conceal. The way the authors present and connect their ideas is done effectively with the great use of logic, evidence and organization. Levitt and Dubner make sure to logically describe instances of discrimination that take place in real life situations. For example, they claim that the voting strategy in the game show The Weakest Link, is being influenced by unfair judgements to another player’s identity.
For instance, if one claims that the voting age of eighteen in Canada should be reduced to the age of sixteen, many would assume that if the voting age is reduced to the age of sixteen, teenagers would identify themselves as adults which will cause them to make their own decisions and persuade themselves to make the wrong decisions, such as dropping out of school at an early age. In this case, the argument of whether the voting age should be reduced to sixteen will be considered as a slippery slope argument because individuals will make assumptions that once the voting age is reduced, then teenagers will no matter what, drop out of school and refuse to part take in any educational activities; as this assumption is not supported by any evidence that this event will in fact take place if the voting age is reduced. Therefore, the causal chain is not convincing because not every event that takes place must have a negative event that follows. Every event that takes place has its own causes, effects and reactions from other situations; as for no event can be the same, since it is unpredictable if the event will happen or not without any solid
The commercials, “ Towards the Sound of Chaos,” by Jay Walters Thompson, talks to the audience on how being in the marines is a special opportunity and privilege. The commercial attracts qualified civilians by explaining what the Marines are disciplined to do and how they acquire such advantages and skills. Created in 2009, when most modern countries in the world have fully equipped and developed armed forces, military power has become the standard for the country’s strength. This idea is exemplified by how the U.S wanted to draft more marines for their army. Being in the marines is advertised as the epitome of bravery, and this commercial is doing just the same.
Freakonomics Essay Freakonomics is a mind bending, engaging and controversial look into a never before talked about side of economics. From relating the Ku Klux Klan to real estate agents and to why drug dealers are living with their moms Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner turn conventional wisdom on its head. As a whole I enjoyed the book, but there were some things that annoyed me and that I didn’t like and/or confused me. Freakonomics makes you think differently about topics you thought you already knew the answer to. To most with little knowledge of writing techniques they would not have noticed/comprehended the authors uses of rhetoric and tone but luckily from these past few years of English classes I was able to pick up and see
Freakonomics is a book written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner which was published after they met each other in an interview for New York Times. After the article was published, the two went on to have an unanticipated partnership. Freakonomics, a book of problems and answers with no unifying theme, is supposed to make you look at a situation a different way. One of the problems in the book included the monumental drop in crime across America in the 1980’s when it was expected to rise significantly. Levitt came across this problem by first looking at the accepted reasons for the sudden drop such as more police, stronger capital punishment, changes in the crack market, and the aging of the population.
Freakonomics Review Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s Harper 2005 New York Times bestselling novel, Freakonomics, digs deep into the hidden side of economics. From comparing the safety of swimming pools and guns to discovering the truth about drug dealing, this book will have the reader questioning everyday life. Although the book uses odd examples and intriguing comparisons, the chapters themselves are tedious and lengthy. Steven D. Levitt is an economist that went to Harvard and MIT for his degree.
Freak has just died, and Max is very sad. Max never knew he was going to die. So this was surprising to him. Of course he was sad but there was more than just that. Freak never came out of the Down Under.
Freakonomics is somewhat random grab bag of topics. The unifying theme of this book for me was finding ways to ask questions so that one's available statistics and data can provide an answer, time after time they used available statistics to provide some time of reasoning or answers to the question being asked. Some of these efforts were more successful than others. Some of the questions Levitt and Dubner study felt unnecessary, that no one really cares about. But there are also some good subjects.
The use of real world examples and statistics give credibility to Leslie's argument, and demonstrate other viewpoints. Cause and effect, as well as compare and contrast show how one moment of
Levitt and Dubner classify Freakonomics as a book having “no such unifying theme” (14), but all the unique topics discussed throughout the text connect back together in order to show the hidden side of human nature. The argument that the wide variety of topics and their abstract descriptions all link together draws the attention of a large audience and connects to issues that society is currently facing or has recently confronted. Freakonomics is organized as an argumentative piece that asserts that “commerce without morality,” or the conducting of business without a sense of what is right or wrong, is triggered by human actions that are led by incentives and causes changes in the economy. Levitt and Dubner do not explicitly state their
