To be politically incorrect is one thing; to be simply incorrect quite another. Link between drunk driving and accident rates[ edit ] Levitt and Porter find that drivers with alcohol in their blood are seven times more likely to cause a fatal crash than a sober driver those above the legal limit are 13 times more likely than a sober driver.
McCrary stated "While municipal police force size does appear to vary over state and local electoral cycles Levitt found no discrimination against females or blacks, while finding taste-based discrimination against the old and information-based discrimination against Hispanics.
They found that the observed frequency of cheating appears to respond strongly to relatively minor changes in incentives. In the introduction to their new book, SuperFreakonomics could it have ever been named otherwise? As a result, the eclecticism of the first book turns into meandering in the second; we wander from subject to subject with only thin connections to the avowed chapter topic.
I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. Screen savers can make doctors wash their hands! This paper has sparked much controversy, to which Levitt has said "The numbers we're talking about, in terms of crime, are absolutely trivial when you compare it to the broader debate on abortion.
Freakonomics, which weighs in at just over pages plus a hefty section of bonus material for those interested in learning moretakes as its principal argument the idea that economics exist as a tool to study society. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century.
Statistically, the wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the wrestler is slightly better. At a time when economics could use new blood and new thinking - the discipline's complete miss on the global credit crisis is near and painful - a recruiting tool 2. Crime-Drop Explanation Levitt and Dubner then talk about the variety of explanations put forth by the experts in the national leading newspapers that lead to the drop in crime figures during the s in the US.
This must sound much like the last Freakonomics, so the obvious question is, Why carp? Levitt asks, "What would the pattern of answers look like if the teacher cheated? Criminal age[ edit ] Another paper finds that juvenile criminals are at least as responsive to criminal sanctions as adults.
The title entered the language, the authors got a popular blog at The New York Times, and people in elevators quoted Freakonomics' best bits to you. It's partly that we know the econo-magicians' patter, so we are predicting the trick's end long before it comes.
Sharp drops in crime at the age of maturity suggest that deterrence plays an important role in the decision to commit a crime. To be politically incorrect is one thing; to be simply incorrect quite another. It goes on to detail how author Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the KKK and disseminated its secrets, effectively stripping it of much of its power.
Dubnerwhich became a New York Times bestseller. Legalized abortion and crime effect Revisiting a question first studied empirically in the s, Donohue and Levitt argue that the legalization of abortion can account for almost half of the reduction in crime witnessed in the s.
Levitt and Dubner further add that the wisdom is not only wrong but it is hard to correct, reason being, specialists or the experts within the field have fabricated it.
This outcome can be explained by a change in the composition of women having children: Parenting and affect on children Next chapter surfaces the two sides of the same coin — what parents do versus what parents actually are.
When the corrections were made, Foote and Goetz argued that abortion actually increased violent crime instead of decreasing it and did not affect property crime. They have reached to the conclusions without resorting to the verity and the situation becomes worse when the subsequent experts further echo the same conclusions.
Information, a tool for controlling fear Information is an influencing tool, which people who have can exert over those who have not.Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is an easy, interesting book, even for people who do not usually like nonfiction or economics.
Although based around economics the boook links people and situations that one would never believe could be linked before reading the book/5(). Apr 12, · In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt.
Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis.4/5. In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant.
Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis.4/5. Sequel Explores More of the Strange.
When economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner paired up to write Freakonomics four years ago, they created a runaway best-seller. Their groundbreaking book taught readers how to look at the weird world around them with the discerning eyes of an award-winning economist.
out of 5 stars My Review of Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner My mini-synopsis: Freakonomics is a great book! I loved every minute of agronumericus.coms: K. Freakonomics, written by journalist Stephen J. Dubner and economist Steven D. Levitt, is a book on modern economics that provides key insight into our society as well as clarifying the difference between causation and connectivity, and discussing situations were people have confused the agronumericus.coms:Download