Lily Lassiter
Freakonomics Chapters 1 and 2 Reading Response
a) It was interesting to read about how economists study balance, among other things. For example, when they discussed incentives, it was clear that in order for people to do the desired action, the incentive had to be motivating and realistic. If the incentive was not strong enough, then the intended audience would not respond in a positive way. Similarly, if the incentive was too harsh, then it might backfire. In the second chapter, I was intrigued by the facts about the Ku Klux Klan and how Stetson Kennedy discouraged others’ support and involvement in the group. I thought that his plan to expose the Ku Klux Klan’s secrets was brilliant and enjoyed reading about how he executed it and what the results were. I think that if more people were brave enough to resist the Ku Klux Klan, perhaps they would not have gained as much power as they did. Additionally, it was interesting to read about how people’s mindsets about discrimination vary depending on whether they are in a public or private environment. The studies about the online dating sites and the gameshow The WeakestLink that the authors described clearly showed what most people refuse to admit: that discrimination is stronger and more common that one might think or want to believe.
b) The authors wrote about Paul Feldman, a man who brought bagels to his workplace and other businesses. I did not understand why weather or holidays had an impact upon the data. If, as the authors claimed, people in a good mood were more likely to pay, then it does make sense that sunny weather would result in less theft. However, the authors then wrote that around certain holidays, theft rates increased. One would think that the holidays bring about happiness, so an increase in theft does not make sense to me.
c) I had the following questions about the first two chapters of Freakonomics: Would it have been possible for the people who conducted the study about the school teachers to identify more of the teachers who cheated, particularly those of them who were less blatant? Would Paul Feldman’s bagel experiment have had different results if he had been in a different city? What other factors besides weather and holidays, such as people’s age or gender, the season of the year, size of the business, or type of company, could have an effect on his data? How did Stetson Kennedy eventually leave the Ku Klux Klan? The data chart that shows the number of lynching incidents accounts against African Americans in the United States, but how many of those were done by the Ku Klux Klan?
Freakonomics Chapters 3 and 4 Reading Response
a) In the third chapter, Levitt and Dubner made a connection between gangs such as the Chicago crack dealers and franchises such as McDonald’s. I had never thought about either of these businesses in depth, but the comparison between the members’ rankings and how they work was interesting. Also, reading about the effects that the crack cocaine boom had upon African Americans was shocking. I can imagine that it was devastating for any parties involved, but I did not realize how negatively it impacted the African American community, particularly compared to Caucasians. Also, it was interesting to read about the hypotheses for why crime rates dropped so suddenly. Upon looking at the chart, I originally thought that most of them seemed logical, but reading the explanations of which ones were or were not made me think about it more. For example, I would think that implementing the death penalty more frequently would result in a decrease in crime rates because criminals would be scared of being executed. However, Freakonomics explains that there is a higher chance of being killed in a gang than sitting on death row in a prison. Therefore, it is not enough of a negative incentive to deter crime.
b) In the third chapter, I was confused by John Kenneth Galbraith’s explanation of conventional wisdom. He says that truth and convenience are commonly associated with one another and then says wisdom must be convenient. Finally, it says that conventional wisdom is not always true. I do not understand what conventional wisdom is. Also, I do not understand how a gun buyback works, as described in the fourth chapter of Freakonomics. If law enforcement officials want to reward people for turning in guns, why would the incentives that they provided encourage doing so? Furthermore, most people who are dangerous and should not have a gun would probably not participate in a program like this, particularly if they had obtained their gun illegally.
c) These are my questions that I had while reading: How often do so-called experts make up facts and statistics? How often are people misled by those who do, as opposed to the times when people remember to fact check? Did Sudhir Venkatesh report his findings to the universities at which he was studying? If so, why would he have been scared to be indicted by the police? How would the African American neighborhoods have been different if crack cocaine had not become so popular? How do Switzerland’s gun laws differ from the United States of America’s gun laws?
Freakonomics Chapters 5 and 6 Reading Response
a) I thought it was interesting to read about how Sandman explains control. He said that scary situations or threats are perceived differently depending on how much control a person has over it. However, these unusual, sometimes rare, situations are usually less dangerous when one looks at the statistical data. They used comparisons such as the number of children killed by a gun versus a swimming pool and the number of people who die in an airplane versus a car or other motor vehicle. I also found the studies about children and school to be interesting. Richard P. Mills said that by the time students reach high school, gaps in African Americans and Caucasians have already been formed and widened. It was interesting to read that this gap forms in elementary school, as well as what can be done to eliminate or at least lessen it. In the sixth chapter, the study about names and their indication of a child’s success was interesting. I would not think that certain names could indicate a poor background or a parent’s education level, but it has been proven otherwise.
b) In the fifth chapter of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner talk about Sandman’s equation, which compares risk, hazard, and outrage. According to Sandman, outrage and hazard can be added to calculate the risk, but they do not contribute equally to risk. Furthermore, he says that hazard can only be changed naturally; in contrast, one can change outrage. I understand the gist of this equation, but I do not understand how hazard and outrage contribute differently. It is not clear to me whether hazard is more important or outrage. I would assume that people’s reactions would be based more on outrage, which is how Levitt and Dubner seem to explain it. However, I feel like the actual risk should be based more on hazard.
c) These are my questions from these two chapters: Why would the Chicago Public Schools decide to use a lottery? The benefits are that it is a random way to choose students, but what if the more hard-working student is not accepted, while a student who does not care about receiving a good education is accepted? What is the purpose of using regression analysis to compare two individual variables? If regression analysis can not determine whether one thing causes another, is it meant to simply help see whether two variables are correlated? What is the most significant factor that determines how successful a child will be? Have any “white” or “black” names switched over time to become popular names in the other culture? What are the indications associated with some other, less common names?