Yet another argument against Levitt and Dubner is the outcry surrounding the processes used to devise their controversial conclusions. While many opponents challenge the nature of the studies, people like Charles Jobs said their statistical methods were wrong. He illustrates how Freakonomics suggests “socioeconomic situations which violate a normative standard involving real life situations” (Jobs). He cites the naming study, which challenges the fabric of many people’s core beliefs and is viewed by many as unethical. Jobs attacked the virtue of the study by citing Levitt and Dubner’s conclusion of how “a person with a distinctively black name… does have a worse life outcome than a woman named Molly or a man named Jake” (119). He was just one of the many outspoken critics who claimed the study had no true bearing on possible events.
Others, like Michat Brezezski and Maria Halber, have examined the studies first hand and found “the coefficients’ estimates in abortion-crime regressions [were] not computationally stable and, therefore, are unreliable” (Brezezski and Halber). These critics affirmed Levitt and Dubner’s research was wrong in more than its moral character through their analysis. Unfortunately, these critics did not understand the purpose of the book. They drew conclusions undermining the purpose of Freakonomics and instead focus on the specifics of each study.
Freakonomics should be viewed as a form of questioning the world. Not as “an excellent subject for more rigorous analysis” but rather as an example of literature used to present information to the general public (Jobs). For example, although Charles Jobs critiques many Freakonomic studies, he discovered the importance a certain mindset can have in a c...
... middle of paper ...
...
Works Cited
Brzezinski, Michat, and Maria Halber. "Testing the perturbation sensitivity of abortion-crime regressions." Contemporary Economics 6.2 (2012): 58+. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Fung, Kaiser, and Andrew Gelman. "Freakonomics: what went wrong?" American Scientist 100.1 (2012): 6+. General OneFile. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Jobs, Charles. "Peakonomics: toward a case typology for increasing undergraduate economics literacy and concept retention." Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research 9.1 (2008): 19+.General OneFile. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Kats, Milena. "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side Of Everything." American Economist 50.1 (2006): 93+. General OneFile. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Levitt, Steven D, and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: William Morrow, 2005. Print.
Summary In chapter one of Freakonomics, the beginning portion of the chapter discusses information and the connection it shares with the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents. The Ku Klux Klan was founded right after the Civil War, in order to persecute and subdue the slaves that were newly freed. The popularity of the Klan increased in the early 20th century, around the time of World War I. In the late 19th century, the Klan had only discriminated, persecuted, and subdued Blacks, but in the 20th century they did these things to Blacks, Jews, and Gypsies.
On the front cover of Freakonomics, the subheading reads, “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything,” which is the purpose of the book. The economist Steven Levitt and the author Stephen Dubner wrote this book using several rhetorical devices to achieve that purpose. A few of those devices, style, ethos, pathos, and logos, were prominent within the book and helped to convey the message and purpose well.
Brue, S. L., Flynn, S. M., & McConnell, C. R. (2011).Economics principles, problems and policies. (19 ed.). New
The book “Freakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner is a dissection of anecdotes. The authors intensely dismantle ideas that are social norms, using economic and demographic data. The book has no central theme other than to “explore the hidden side of… everything.”pg.14 One chapter the subject will be on corruption in the sumo wrestling community, then another on how legalizing abortion lowers crime rates, then another on what effect parenting has on children. Chapter three explains why the popular idea that most drug dealers were rich is almost entirely false. The authors blame the media for this idea. When crack cocaine first started to appear en masse, the cops and the media put an emphasis on how unfair the fight was, because the
"Background on Abortion." OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues. On The Issues.org. Web. 23 July 2011. .
Revealing the hidden side of life in clarity, Freakonomics draws in all economists with unmentioned assumptions which are upheld with reasoned correlation, bonding subjects that unveil misconceptions, concluding on economic pattern limitations. Effectively, they lead their audience on their conviction route as smoothly as possible. Nice job on not screwing the map up. Allowing them to achieve their goals, this was to change people’s views. By the time a person puts down Freakonomics, they have been led to conviction about all their claims because Dubner & Levitt know that in order to change someone else’s way of thinking you must change your own.
Abortion, which is defined as a deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, is one of the most controversial issues in society. Many people believe that abortion is unethical and morally wrong, while others believe that it is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body. According to www.census.gov, “the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at 1.2 million a year” (1). This statistic supports how many women are choosing abortion. Although abortion is legal in the United States, many people continue to voice their opinions on how it is a human rights violation and should be illegal everywhere.
In a 2006 study conducted by the CDC, it was reported that 53-56% of abortions were performed on white women between the ages of 20 and 29. Among the 46 states that provided data consistently during 1996--2006, a total of 835,134 abortions (98.7% of the total) were reported; the abortion rate was 16.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 236 abortions per 1,000 live births. During the previous decade (1997--2006), reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 5.7%, 8.8%, and 14.8%, respectively; most of these declines occurred before 2001. During the previous year (2005--2006), the total number of abortions increased 3.1%, and the abortion rate increased 3.2%; the abortion ratio was stable. (CDC, 2009)
At first thought, abortion may not appear to have any involvement in economics. But, economics and abortion are, in fact, deeply intertwined. Studies of abortion show that financial hardship is the reason most often cited by women seeking abortions. Lack of money is rarely the only reason a woman seeks an abortion. Most women do so for a complex set of reasons, but money is frequently the paramount factor, the one that tips the scales in favor of abortion. This is especially true for low-income families and single
"Milton Friedman." - New World Encyclopedia. N.p., 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 3 May 2014. .
Dehlendorf, Christine, Lisa H. Harris, and Tracy A. Weitz. "Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach." American Journal of Public Health 103.10 (2013): 1772-779. Print.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society : an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley: University of California Press.
O'Sullivan, A., & Sheffrin, S. (2005). Economics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Tragakes, E. (2012). Economics for the IB diploma (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.