Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Freakonomics - A course in Power Statistics

Jawsus-son Starship

13:33 / 22.04.06

I don't know if this is the right place to put it, but
reading this book currently, wondering if anyone would like to discuss the concepts the book raises, which include such gems as;

- Rowe vs. Wade responsible for the dropping rates of youth crime.

- Hidden discrimination throughout America and the Weakest Link.

- False statistics used for political means

In all, a very interesting, very well thought out book about how economic studies can be used to look at the modern moral landscape.

So if you've read it, and want to unpack what it's saying, lets do it here!

Freakonomics

23:50 / 22.04.06

*whispers*
Psst. It's Roe versus Wade.

Jawsus-son Starship

08:58 / 23.04.06

dagnammit - my chunky sausage fingers will be the undoing of me! I need a dialling wand to type with.

21:08 / 23.04.06

Is there anything about it that *you* want to discuss, Math?

I think there might be some mileage in looking about how Levitt's analysis of the drop in the US crime-rate in the 1990s conflicts with Gladwell's analysis of the same in The Tipping Point. And I think there's probably a discussion to be had about how economic models can be used to answer questions other than fiscal ones. I was quite intrigued by Levitt saying "I'd like to put together a set of tools that let us catch terrorists. I don't necessarily know yet how I'd go about it. But given the right data, I have little doubt that I could figure out the answer."

But shouldn't this be in Books?

Jawsus-son Starship

21:33 / 23.04.06

I think this book is so full of ideas, and hell, I'd like to discuss every last one of them.

There is an arguement that this belongs in books, but only as it has all been writen down in one. As it deals with political ideas, I think this is a healthy home for it.

I think, first, lets talk about the idea that fear is a manufactured commodity. For example, the examples used; Terrorist attacks vs Heart Disease. We know which one kills more, but we also know the one which the average person fears most. Same thing for CJD vs E coli, same for Aeroplanes vs. Cars.

The manufacture of fear. Why does it happen, who is causing it, and to what end. All this and more on Sick Sad World.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:58 / 23.04.06

But shouldn't this be in Books?

I wouldn't say so. Not to get too all off-topic and meta about the whole thing, I don't think the intended discussion is about its literary qualities, more the ideas it contains. Were I to start a thread on the Bible, and the ideas contained therein, I'd do it in the Temple.

10:57 / 24.04.06

I think, first, lets talk about the idea that fear is a manufactured commodity. For example, the examples used; Terrorist attacks vs Heart Disease. We know which one kills more, but we also know the one which the average person fears most. Same thing for CJD vs E coli, same for Aeroplanes vs. Cars.

I haven't read Freakonomics, but I would like to suggest reasons why some of the things you mention above may be feared more than others.

Terrorist attacks may, overall, kill less people than heart disease. However they do tend to kill/injure many people at once and generally in a rather spectacular manner. The unpredictability of precisely when and where a terrorist attack can occur could also be a factor. Heart diease can be identified during your annual heath check and dealt with, a terrorist can strike anywhere.

E.coli versus CJD. Perhaps it's a matter of curability? E.coli can be treated if caught, there is currently no known cure for prionic infections like CJD. Another part of this could be to do with the fear of the "death of self". Although both conditions lead to death in the end, CJD involves the deterioration of mental faculties. So perhaps it is feared greater as, on a subconcious level, we fear that it is destoying that most fundamental part of us, our mind.

I take it the book doesn't claim ALL fear is manufactured?

Jawsus-son Starship

18:10 / 24.04.06

No, but the quote for that is;

When hazzard is high and outrage is low, people underreact. When hazzard is low and outrage is high, people overreact.

19:08 / 24.04.06

When hazzard is high and outrage is low, people underreact. When hazzard is low and outrage is high, people overreact.

That seems awfully simplistic, but I'm guessing the book contains more than the one quote on this topic. What is the cause of a high or low level of "outrage" for each issue? What would be the "outrageous" aspect of airplanes?

It seems to me that the news media scares us about many topics, including heart disease, terrorism, E.Coli, CJD, airplanes, and cars. The reason people are more afraid (however that is quantified) of one thing than the other may have to do with perceptions of how much one or the other involves a loss of control (which some say is the root of all fears & phobias). You cannot control terrorists, but you can control your risk of heart disease. You cannot control CJD as (easily as) you can control your exposure to E.Coli by taking proper precautions with food & kitchen surfaces. You can't control airplanes, unless you're a pilot, but you can (feel like you can) control cars if you're a driver.

I haven't read this book, but I think we could still have a productive discussion of the issues it addresses if you could describe one or two of them in more detail, Math. For example, what does it say about "False statistics used for political means?" That that's helpful or useful, that it's bad or destructive, merely that it happens? Also, did you mean false use of statistics, or just false statistics used (the latter, seemingly, a less complex topic)?

I once heard the author of this book give an interview on NPR, but it was a while ago (last fall I think). I remember him talking about how one could make a correlation between rising abortion rates and falling crime rates... but I forget why he was making that correlation or what he was trying to prove by making it. I mean, you could make a correlation between rising Earth temperatures and fashion's trending toward higher hemlines but I'm not sure it would be helpful, or indeed, meaningful in any way.

07:16 / 25.04.06

One of the authors has been reading out excerpts on the XFM morning show this week and I managed to catch this morning's one about abortion vrs crime rate.

I'm paraphrasing here, but the final line read out goes something like:

"So gun control and new police policies do nothing, it is in fact abortion which, along with other factors, is responsible for blunting America's rising crime rate."

Other factors like, say, gun control and new police policies perhaps?

Is this supposed to be a satirical point of view or are the authors serious?

Help a Barbeloid out.

07:21 / 25.04.06

Hidden discrimination throughout America and the Weakest Link.

Math, can you expand on this please? For those of us who've not read the book.

Cheers.

Jawsus-son Starship

08:50 / 25.04.06

Ok, this is gonna be a slightly wooly post as I haven't got the book in front of me to go to for the exact statistics, so I'll have to give you what I can from memory.

RE The Abortion/Crime idea, the argument is that while things like better policing, ageing citizens, better gun control etc, do have an effect on crime figures, just not the effect that the fall in crime in the 1990s would suggest. It's quite a compelling argument when presented in the book.

The Weakest Link thing - Hidden dicrimination becuase it has been suggested that people now are unwilling to be outrightly discriminatory, instead hidding these outmoded ideas. So on the weakest link - black men and all women are not at all discriminated against, becuase people who may do that in private will not do it infront of the entire country on a TV show. However, people do discriminate against hispanics and the elderly. Another example used are from exit polls. Can't remember the names, but the black mayor of NY before Guilliani was expected to really win that first election when you consider the exit polls, but only just scrapped through. Same situation, white supremicist ran for the senate, and won 20% more of the votes than his exit polls would suggest.

I'll post the exact numbers when I get back from work.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:17 / 25.04.06

Okey. I'm going to move to lock this thread, before it becomes hopelessly confused. I suggest that individual issues are examined in their own threads, possibly marked FREAKONOMICS - (subject).

The abortion/crime argument has been addressed in one particular flavour here - you may want to pick it up from there or just reference it.