HW 9 - Freakonomics Response

Correlation vs. Causation in Freakonomics:

In the film, Levitt and Dubner go through several examples of how people confuse correlation with causation. They believe that there is a sharp difference between the two and some people just can not see it. One example is when Levitt examines the drop in crime rate in the early 1990’s. Money people have found a connection to the amount of people in prison at that time to the crime rate reduction. Levitt and Dubner argue that the crime rate reduction is due to the fact that many young criminals were never borne due to the legalization of abortion in 1973. The two of them never say that correlation is causation. They spend a segment of the storey discussing how it is quit the opposite. The two of them vaguely imply that “lack of proof is causation.”

Evidence in Freakonomics:

In Freakonomics several forms of evidence are used including statistics and experts. Statistics are used when examining the sumo wrestling scores. They identified cheaters by looking when which wrestlers won which match, They found that it correlated directly with which ever wrestler needed to win to keep there rank up. That means that sumo wrestling buddies were allowing each other to win to remain in control of there salary.

            When Levitt and Dubner were looking for examples of how names can portray someone’s outcome they went directly to two Harvard professors. This type of evidence can be considered a fallacy. More specifically a logical fallacy, because of the fact that both of these men are Harvard professors they seem smart. So by saying that these men are smart they must be right. Unfortunately this is a fallacy that is difficult to get around because of the fact that these men are smart and educated.

             

Response to statement about Freakonomics:

“Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the ‘hidden-in-plain-sight’ weirdness of dominant social practices.”

I agree with the statement. I agree because, the movie does attempt to expose what is, “hidden in plain sight.” This is shown in the film when they descuss the possibility of the fact that allowing un wanted babes to not be borne into un-wanting families may reduce the chances that they will become criminals. You do not hear people discuss this on a everyday basis just like you don’t hear people discussing how McDonald’s exploits immigrants.