Morality represents how we want the world to work
Economics represents how it actually does.
-loose quote of the authors.
I think the focus on corruption/crime etc is simply because that is where the numbers are going to be inconsistent. Levitt looks at the numbers to find inconsistencies and then furthers those inconsistencies to draw a conclusion.
You would not be able to draw an interesting analysis from student's test scores (except if you are very invested in their scores), unless there was an inconsistency, in this case one that indicated cheating.
Baby names...I mean, the original pattern/trends of name selection is interesting, but what makes it more interesting is the indication of who chooses what sort of name when (the socio-economic implications of a baby's name).
I don't think that these sub themes are due to a moral preoccupation on the behalf of either author (“Freakonomics-style thinking simply doesn’t traffic in morality.” (p. 206)), it's just that within corruption is where the fascinating number are. Levitt and Dubner probably decided that to keep with the whole 'proving interesting things' theme, Levitt would have to analyze things that people find interesting, ie crime, corruption on behalf of experts, baby names etc.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
That is pretty interesting. I never noticed that. But I am kind of wondering how baby naming or the whole deal with the real-estate agents qualifies as corruption. Aren't the real estate agents just lazy? And the parents of the children just cruel? (unintentionally, as in the case of Temptress, and intentionally, as in the case of Loser Lane) I think it's a little dark to consider all of the topics to be under of the category of sin, as much we enjoy calling ourselves materialistic and evil sinners in America. I think that a lot of what Levitt and Dubner talk about is normal behavior. No, people shouldn't be dealing crack and shooting up rival gangs, and no, teachers shouldn't be changing their students' test scores. But aren't those people and aren't we all just trying to get by? People have been doing bad things for thousands of years. Shit happens, it's how we get by.
But I do agree that there is definitely a theme of corruption, cheating, and crime, even if it doesn't apply to every single chapter. It also relates to another, favorite theme: incentives....
But I do agree that there is definitely a theme of corruption, cheating, and crime, even if it doesn't apply to every single chapter. It also relates to another, favorite theme: incentives....
one last note on themes
reading kelly's take on the themes actually reminded me that there was an introduction! so i reread that whole deal and a couple things definitely hinted at themes as well as some sort of thesis and purpose (both of which we need to identify in those questions)
even before they get to the introduction, in the explanatory note on page xi (so far back it doesn't even get a number...) they quote the article that Dubner wrote about Levitt where his "abiding interests" are identified as "cheating, corruption, and crime"
when you look each of the topics mention in the following chapters, i'm pretty sure those three "sins," if you will, are clearly prevalent.
1. School Teachers & Sumo Wrestlers - cheating
2. KKK & Real Estate Agents - corruption
3. Drug Dealers - corruption and maybe this is a stretch but crime and cheating
4. Criminals - crime duh
5. Parents - corruption
6. Baby names - corruption
just thought that was interesting...
even before they get to the introduction, in the explanatory note on page xi (so far back it doesn't even get a number...) they quote the article that Dubner wrote about Levitt where his "abiding interests" are identified as "cheating, corruption, and crime"
when you look each of the topics mention in the following chapters, i'm pretty sure those three "sins," if you will, are clearly prevalent.
1. School Teachers & Sumo Wrestlers - cheating
2. KKK & Real Estate Agents - corruption
3. Drug Dealers - corruption and maybe this is a stretch but crime and cheating
4. Criminals - crime duh
5. Parents - corruption
6. Baby names - corruption
just thought that was interesting...
5 Main Themes
Everything is connected once you remove a layer or two sounds like a pretty solid theme.
I'm not sure to the exact relevance of this, but in the introduction, the authors state
that:
"This book, then, has been written from a very specific worldview, based on a few fundamental ideas:"
1. Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life.
2. The conventional wisdom is often wrong.
3. Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes.
4. "Experts"--from criminologists to real-estate agents--use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda.
5. Knowing what to measure and how to measure is makes a complicated world much less so.
So these ideas provide the theme for each chapters, and often the reoccur in other chapters as well. (They absolutely love to discuss incentives, and not just for parents picking up their kids at daycare). I took these points as the points the authors were trying to prove as well (the theses, if you will).
I think perhaps the large theme/message goes into each one of those individual themes, and that's how the entire book achieved any sense of cohesion and flow (sorry I know the hate of that word).
I'm not sure to the exact relevance of this, but in the introduction, the authors state
that:
"This book, then, has been written from a very specific worldview, based on a few fundamental ideas:"
1. Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life.
2. The conventional wisdom is often wrong.
3. Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes.
4. "Experts"--from criminologists to real-estate agents--use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda.
5. Knowing what to measure and how to measure is makes a complicated world much less so.
So these ideas provide the theme for each chapters, and often the reoccur in other chapters as well. (They absolutely love to discuss incentives, and not just for parents picking up their kids at daycare). I took these points as the points the authors were trying to prove as well (the theses, if you will).
I think perhaps the large theme/message goes into each one of those individual themes, and that's how the entire book achieved any sense of cohesion and flow (sorry I know the hate of that word).
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Themes vs. Messages
I kind of like that idea, and I'm not sure whether it would be a theme or a message. I'm not even sure what the difference is. Maybe it's that a message is something the author tries to communicate using a theme. If that's the case, then I think what Jordan said would be a message: you can find connections between seemingly unrelated things, and finding this relationship can in turn reveal more about each subject.
I think that if that is the message, it's sort of a minor aspect of what the book is trying to communicate. Because, like we've established, the book isn't really trying to communicate information but explain that economic theory can be applied to unusual subjects and yield interesting information. Maybe the idea that you can find connections between unconnected subjects is just a sort of a subplot. I don't know, thoughts?
I think that if that is the message, it's sort of a minor aspect of what the book is trying to communicate. Because, like we've established, the book isn't really trying to communicate information but explain that economic theory can be applied to unusual subjects and yield interesting information. Maybe the idea that you can find connections between unconnected subjects is just a sort of a subplot. I don't know, thoughts?
hey look i'm blogging!
So I've been thinking a lot about the claim that the book has no unifying theme and that may be true but I think there must be something there because I found the organization of subjects pleasingly cohesive in, I guess, an abstract sort of way.
I'm having trouble articulating this....
Obviously they cover a wide range of topics (who knew parenting skills and crack dealers could be in the same book?). But the thing is, every comparison was equally out there. KKK to real estate agents, abortion and crime... it's all about taking things that are seemingly unconnected and using them to shed light on a societal issue.
If a theme is a repeating idea throughout a piece, I really think that the theme of the book is how every factor of society can be and is connected, and all affect each other.
Unless you'd rather call that the message, in which case this entire post just lost all purpose.....
I'm having trouble articulating this....
Obviously they cover a wide range of topics (who knew parenting skills and crack dealers could be in the same book?). But the thing is, every comparison was equally out there. KKK to real estate agents, abortion and crime... it's all about taking things that are seemingly unconnected and using them to shed light on a societal issue.
If a theme is a repeating idea throughout a piece, I really think that the theme of the book is how every factor of society can be and is connected, and all affect each other.
Unless you'd rather call that the message, in which case this entire post just lost all purpose.....
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Very interesting Claire.
I think this is where our idea of the book's purpose differs.
I saw Freakonomics as giving insight to a revolutionary economists ways and methods. It introduced the reader to Levitt's unconventional way of viewing the world.
I do not see it as a source of actual information (although the information presented is valid and generally unknown). I thought the examples provided were intended to act as examples to Levitt's style of economics-- more along the lines of "look at what I can prove using my mind and some numbers!" as opposed to "Here is some valuable information I derived from this data." I see it as an examination of the means, the way he got to those answers, rather than an important report of content. The range of topics was so broad and unconnected that Dubner/Levitt could not have been hoping to inform the reader of the things Levitt derived, but merely teach a new way to see things.
Lets not get caught up in the content; focus on the rhetoric, the structure of economics.
Its structure not information.
If it was information they were hoping to provide, I should think that the organization and content would have indicated so. (The organization of examples is better suited to explain the use of economic tools than to enlighten the audience of the dangers of different things.)
Levitt's organization:
I. "My style of economics is unconventional"
a. random tidbit of information derived from my unconventional style of economics.
b. another, unconnected tidbit of information derived from my style of economics.
c. a slightly more connected (to example b) tidbit derived from my style of economics
and so on for several chapters. If he was informing he would have to have a thesis, and unifying theme (which he himself states his book lacks), etc.
I think this is where our idea of the book's purpose differs.
I saw Freakonomics as giving insight to a revolutionary economists ways and methods. It introduced the reader to Levitt's unconventional way of viewing the world.
I do not see it as a source of actual information (although the information presented is valid and generally unknown). I thought the examples provided were intended to act as examples to Levitt's style of economics-- more along the lines of "look at what I can prove using my mind and some numbers!" as opposed to "Here is some valuable information I derived from this data." I see it as an examination of the means, the way he got to those answers, rather than an important report of content. The range of topics was so broad and unconnected that Dubner/Levitt could not have been hoping to inform the reader of the things Levitt derived, but merely teach a new way to see things.
Lets not get caught up in the content; focus on the rhetoric, the structure of economics.
Its structure not information.
If it was information they were hoping to provide, I should think that the organization and content would have indicated so. (The organization of examples is better suited to explain the use of economic tools than to enlighten the audience of the dangers of different things.)
Levitt's organization:
I. "My style of economics is unconventional"
a. random tidbit of information derived from my unconventional style of economics.
b. another, unconnected tidbit of information derived from my style of economics.
c. a slightly more connected (to example b) tidbit derived from my style of economics
and so on for several chapters. If he was informing he would have to have a thesis, and unifying theme (which he himself states his book lacks), etc.
Monday, January 5, 2009
I agree with Kelly's statement that this book primarily provides entertainment; it's witty, amusing and moves quickly, eschewing a single theme or purpose. But, I disagree with the idea that this book is unimportant. It does, like it says, "[strip] a layer or two from the surface of modern life and [see] what is happening underneath." While it may present its discussions in a scattered, amusing way, the explanations it offers give us deeper insight into our world. Isn't it necessary to understand why something as dangerous and life-affecting as crime decreases? Shouldn't we know how what we do or who we are affects our children? (or doesn't affect them, for that matter) I can see why Levitt and Dubner wrote Freakonomics, thinking that understanding the causes of our society's behaviors and how it affects our future is vital.
I'm not saying this is one of the most influential and important books of our time, or even that it should be taken extremely seriously. But I do think we should recognize that it can be useful in considering the future.
I'm not saying this is one of the most influential and important books of our time, or even that it should be taken extremely seriously. But I do think we should recognize that it can be useful in considering the future.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Questions
Hey Guys...
So our questions are due Jan. 9 (end of the week).
I thought I'd type them up.
1. What do you think was the purpose or intention of your author in writing this book? Is this clear from the beginning or does it unfold as you read on in the text?
2. How is the book organized? Does the author approach the subject in an interesting way? Explain
3. What is the thesis or argument advanced by the author in this work? How does he develop the argument? What evidence or support does he provide? Does he qualify he argument or provide concessions to the opposing viewpoints?
4. What kinds of audience would find this book interesting, useful, or worthwhile? For what reasons? Are there assumptions that the author makes about his audience?
5. Describe the writing style of your author. Is the style formal or informal, academic or personal, wordy or concise? What about the diction of the piece? Is it specialized or general? Give examples that support all of your comments on style.
6. What is the tone of the writer? Explain the connection between the author's subject matter and his attitude toward it, giving reasons that may account for why the tone is as it is. Does the tone shift at any point in the text? If so, when and why do you think it shifts?
7. What did you learn from reading this book that you did not know before you read it? How has the book changed your perspective on the subject matter? Would you consider it an important book? Justify your response.
Reading all these questions in post, I realize how unconventional Freakonomics really is. The organization is all over the place, without a unifying theme or even point. Because there are two voices going into the piece (Dubner/Levitt), the tone is a little difficult to nail down, but overall leans towards witty but focused.
Purpose and argument--
This is how, in my mind (but partially supported by the introduction) Freakonomics came to be...
Levitt was a really quirky, 'brilliant' (he actually claims to know very little about economics, so I'm hesitant with 'brilliant'), and novel economist. He took a classically very narrow profession, widened the scope a bit, and ta-daa! People began paying attention. Then along came Dubner, and wrote a piece on him for the NY Times Magazine (note, the demographic of the magazine varies slightly from that of the actual newspaper), and people were very interested. So somebody told Levitt to write a book. And Levitt called Dubner, and they united. So, what to write the book on? They decided to take Levitt's quirky economist style and apply to a few quirky cases, and they had a book. Which was really just an analysis of some random things using economics (although creative economics).
Argument? Not really one present. I mean, I suppose you could disagree with Levitt's way of analyzing data, but then you'd be arguing with raw numbers (which don't lie). Also, the average reader is not going to question complicated economical tools and terms.
Overall, I found this book pretty unimportant. Yes, it was fun to read, and yes, it showed me some uncommon ways of thinking. However, I don't find it to reach much past entertainment.
What do you guys think?
So our questions are due Jan. 9 (end of the week).
I thought I'd type them up.
1. What do you think was the purpose or intention of your author in writing this book? Is this clear from the beginning or does it unfold as you read on in the text?
2. How is the book organized? Does the author approach the subject in an interesting way? Explain
3. What is the thesis or argument advanced by the author in this work? How does he develop the argument? What evidence or support does he provide? Does he qualify he argument or provide concessions to the opposing viewpoints?
4. What kinds of audience would find this book interesting, useful, or worthwhile? For what reasons? Are there assumptions that the author makes about his audience?
5. Describe the writing style of your author. Is the style formal or informal, academic or personal, wordy or concise? What about the diction of the piece? Is it specialized or general? Give examples that support all of your comments on style.
6. What is the tone of the writer? Explain the connection between the author's subject matter and his attitude toward it, giving reasons that may account for why the tone is as it is. Does the tone shift at any point in the text? If so, when and why do you think it shifts?
7. What did you learn from reading this book that you did not know before you read it? How has the book changed your perspective on the subject matter? Would you consider it an important book? Justify your response.
Reading all these questions in post, I realize how unconventional Freakonomics really is. The organization is all over the place, without a unifying theme or even point. Because there are two voices going into the piece (Dubner/Levitt), the tone is a little difficult to nail down, but overall leans towards witty but focused.
Purpose and argument--
This is how, in my mind (but partially supported by the introduction) Freakonomics came to be...
Levitt was a really quirky, 'brilliant' (he actually claims to know very little about economics, so I'm hesitant with 'brilliant'), and novel economist. He took a classically very narrow profession, widened the scope a bit, and ta-daa! People began paying attention. Then along came Dubner, and wrote a piece on him for the NY Times Magazine (note, the demographic of the magazine varies slightly from that of the actual newspaper), and people were very interested. So somebody told Levitt to write a book. And Levitt called Dubner, and they united. So, what to write the book on? They decided to take Levitt's quirky economist style and apply to a few quirky cases, and they had a book. Which was really just an analysis of some random things using economics (although creative economics).
Argument? Not really one present. I mean, I suppose you could disagree with Levitt's way of analyzing data, but then you'd be arguing with raw numbers (which don't lie). Also, the average reader is not going to question complicated economical tools and terms.
Overall, I found this book pretty unimportant. Yes, it was fun to read, and yes, it showed me some uncommon ways of thinking. However, I don't find it to reach much past entertainment.
What do you guys think?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Love
So Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner begin their book with-
(I JUST realized the copy I got from the library is signed by both of them)
-a masculine love letter to each other.
To quote:
"But Levitt decided that Dubner wasn't a complete idiot. And Dubner found that Levitt wasn't a human slide rule"- awww cute. They like each other.
Then "The writer was dazzled by the inventiveness of the economist's work and his knack for explaining it. Despite Levitt's elite credentials (Harvard undergrad, a PhD from MIT, a stack of awards)..." Dubner then calls Levitt a "very smart and curious explorer". They're adorable, really.
After being told he should write a book on his quirky economic methods, Levitt said:
"Write a book? I don't want to write a book-- unless, maybe Dubner and I could do it together."
After that they are "henceforth known as the two of us."
After that, their slightly sarcastic partnership in crime was practically cemented.
But back to the original reason for this post.
Organization? Anybody notice a lack thereof?
Even the introduction is choppy. They go from proving that abortion brought down crime rates and meld straight into...lying real estate agents. Hmmm. And the connection lies in?
Mr and Mrs Dubner-Levitt close their book with "And now, with all these pages behind us, an early promise has been confirmed: this book indeed has no "unifying theme."
Their chapters are full of vaguely, slightly, barely connected subsections made me feel like I was getting strung along by floss, barely baited to keep reading.
After discussing the 'glamour job' of being a crack dealer (similar to trying to be in the NBA, a celebrity, or even a publicist), the next subsection begins with "Now for another unlikely question: what did crack cocaine have in common with nylon stockings."
Maybe this is how economics work. Perhaps Levitt was able to prove some really random but fascinating things...and then poor Dubner was left to string them together. I find the partnership really interesting because the style is quite funny and the content is quite interesting, so I wonder which one is responsible for what. (Clearly all the math and economics stuff goes to Levitt, but how much of the wit belongs to Dubner?).
The intro really leads me into the partner dynamic...and then the rest of the book focuses more on subject/content matter then the authors.
Sorry for the varying subject matter. Enjoy!
(I JUST realized the copy I got from the library is signed by both of them)
-a masculine love letter to each other.
To quote:
"But Levitt decided that Dubner wasn't a complete idiot. And Dubner found that Levitt wasn't a human slide rule"- awww cute. They like each other.
Then "The writer was dazzled by the inventiveness of the economist's work and his knack for explaining it. Despite Levitt's elite credentials (Harvard undergrad, a PhD from MIT, a stack of awards)..." Dubner then calls Levitt a "very smart and curious explorer". They're adorable, really.
After being told he should write a book on his quirky economic methods, Levitt said:
"Write a book? I don't want to write a book-- unless, maybe Dubner and I could do it together."
After that they are "henceforth known as the two of us."
After that, their slightly sarcastic partnership in crime was practically cemented.
But back to the original reason for this post.
Organization? Anybody notice a lack thereof?
Even the introduction is choppy. They go from proving that abortion brought down crime rates and meld straight into...lying real estate agents. Hmmm. And the connection lies in?
Mr and Mrs Dubner-Levitt close their book with "And now, with all these pages behind us, an early promise has been confirmed: this book indeed has no "unifying theme."
Their chapters are full of vaguely, slightly, barely connected subsections made me feel like I was getting strung along by floss, barely baited to keep reading.
After discussing the 'glamour job' of being a crack dealer (similar to trying to be in the NBA, a celebrity, or even a publicist), the next subsection begins with "Now for another unlikely question: what did crack cocaine have in common with nylon stockings."
Maybe this is how economics work. Perhaps Levitt was able to prove some really random but fascinating things...and then poor Dubner was left to string them together. I find the partnership really interesting because the style is quite funny and the content is quite interesting, so I wonder which one is responsible for what. (Clearly all the math and economics stuff goes to Levitt, but how much of the wit belongs to Dubner?).
The intro really leads me into the partner dynamic...and then the rest of the book focuses more on subject/content matter then the authors.
Sorry for the varying subject matter. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)