When I first read the introduction, before reading the rest of the book, it said to me that the book was going to touch on some very touchy issues, to look at the root of some of society's problems however awkward it may be. Once I realized the necessity of posting on the intro, I read it again after finishiong the book. I realized someting: introductions shoud be read at the end of books. Authors write them after writing the peice, so why shouldn't they be read after reading the peice? After the second time I saw the introduction as an explanation for why the authors decided to write about these issues. It really tied the book up for me.
The laid the book out into two themes. First was the abortion preventing crime theory. They wrote about this first in the intro for a reason. It seems that this is the crown jewel of the book, the part the authors are most proud of. As I wrote in my earlier posting, I don't agree with it but it does seem logical. Second, they wrote about the main theme of the book: incentives. Thius is what the book was ultimately about. The reale state agents, the doctors, the mechanics, assymetric information, the fact that people are driven by incentives. That all makes perfect sense to me. How does the abortion thing fit in with that? Are they trying to say that something as unpleasant as abortion (most pro-choicers don't like the actual act) has positive outcomes thus giving society an incentive to maintain it? Or did they just put in a concept in with something completely unrelated to sell more books? In the intro it sounded like to me they had no relation whatsoever. All in all though it was a good book--it made me think. Most books today don't do that for me.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?
Who would have thought so much research would have gone into child naming trends? With economists and statisticians, if there is a subject to search for trends in, it probably has been done at least a hundred times before. Either way, the authors started to once again make me angry with the whole "if you have a black name you're doomed to failure" thing but they turned on it at the last minute and made some sense. It isn't that their names caused them trouble, it's the background the names come from that make life difficult. This is something I can't speak from experience on but I would think overcoming that kind of adversity is no simple feat.
Something I find disturbing that was mentioned in this chapter (and others) is the fact that many African-Americans feel that getting an education and trying to make a good life is "acting white" and apparently and very bad thing. Does this mean that they believe that "acting black" is the opposite? I guess I can sort of see where they are coming from, they are angry and resentful but why would they not want to better themselves? If being even moderately successful translates to being "white", this country is headed for some SERIOUS cultural problems. I'm a little familiar with the argument from the angry African-American standpoint: this is a white-donminated culture, black aren't given the same opportunities as whites and African-American cultural identity must be embraced and preserved. Why does the culture have to be divergent though? I mean we're all Americans. Isn't it all about the American dream? I think the people who ridicule the ones who are motivated to overcome that adversity are only jealous and don't want their peers to succeed because it would prove them wrong!!
I've noticed that the names people are giving their kids these days are getting quite weird. It does make sense that those who are on the top of society set the trends for the names. Why not they set the trends for everything else.
Something I find disturbing that was mentioned in this chapter (and others) is the fact that many African-Americans feel that getting an education and trying to make a good life is "acting white" and apparently and very bad thing. Does this mean that they believe that "acting black" is the opposite? I guess I can sort of see where they are coming from, they are angry and resentful but why would they not want to better themselves? If being even moderately successful translates to being "white", this country is headed for some SERIOUS cultural problems. I'm a little familiar with the argument from the angry African-American standpoint: this is a white-donminated culture, black aren't given the same opportunities as whites and African-American cultural identity must be embraced and preserved. Why does the culture have to be divergent though? I mean we're all Americans. Isn't it all about the American dream? I think the people who ridicule the ones who are motivated to overcome that adversity are only jealous and don't want their peers to succeed because it would prove them wrong!!
I've noticed that the names people are giving their kids these days are getting quite weird. It does make sense that those who are on the top of society set the trends for the names. Why not they set the trends for everything else.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
What Makes a Perfect Parent?
In keeping with the unorthodox nature of this book, I feel that most if its material is of a racist nature. Frankly, I find it offensive. As I mentioned in my last posting, these guys were just out to sell books. So naturally they would write about offensive things.
With this chapter though, they began to redeem themselves with me. I completely concur with their position that there is not a black-white test gap but a bad-school/good-school gap (CPS study). More interesting was that the difference between the two types of schools was based on PTA involvement/funding not on government funding. Also, the children who entered the lottery to get into the good schools were actually the students who cared about their education. It didn't matter what color they were, they were good students. Those children in the bad schools had worse grades because they were in the bad schools not because they were black, the whites in those schools had bad grades as well.
The earlier part of the chapter was on the paranoia of parents these days. They may have been right but they didn't need to attack that. The parents are only concerned with the well-being of their kids. The authors should have made a larger assault on the marketers and news media instead of just mentioning them as part of the problem. I myself am a marketer; I understand these things. People individually are very intelligent. In a group however they are not; the larger the group gets, the lower the intelligence goes. This is a psychological concept called groupthink. Look at it this way, its a lot easier to spook a herd of cows than just one. The marketers and news media capitalize on that ideology. Think back on all the times the entire television news industry focused on dangerous occurrances that really only happened a couple of times.
With this chapter though, they began to redeem themselves with me. I completely concur with their position that there is not a black-white test gap but a bad-school/good-school gap (CPS study). More interesting was that the difference between the two types of schools was based on PTA involvement/funding not on government funding. Also, the children who entered the lottery to get into the good schools were actually the students who cared about their education. It didn't matter what color they were, they were good students. Those children in the bad schools had worse grades because they were in the bad schools not because they were black, the whites in those schools had bad grades as well.
The earlier part of the chapter was on the paranoia of parents these days. They may have been right but they didn't need to attack that. The parents are only concerned with the well-being of their kids. The authors should have made a larger assault on the marketers and news media instead of just mentioning them as part of the problem. I myself am a marketer; I understand these things. People individually are very intelligent. In a group however they are not; the larger the group gets, the lower the intelligence goes. This is a psychological concept called groupthink. Look at it this way, its a lot easier to spook a herd of cows than just one. The marketers and news media capitalize on that ideology. Think back on all the times the entire television news industry focused on dangerous occurrances that really only happened a couple of times.
Where have All the Cruminals Gone?
Before reading this book, this chapter was the one that I heard the most about from those who had already read Freakonomics. First off, I will say that this book in general is about shock value, that's why it is so popular. The authors are obviously big on commenting on topics that many would find offensive; that's a type of mentality that sells books.
The main question in this chapter is why the national crime rate dropped so drastically in the '90s. Most of you were too young to remember this time, however I wasn't. I remember when the crack epidemic began in the '80s and when it died off (it actually just lost public/media attention) in the '90s. I remember the media basically blaming the crime wave largely on the "poor, inner city dwellers"; they actually meant the African-Americans for all of the footage on the news showed people of color. I was in grade school when the crime wave was at its peak. A major topic for society at large was how to solve that enormous problem. Many wondered what was going to be done. I submit that it wasn't just one or two "programs" that changed things, it was a paradigm shift in society's thinking; a culmination of all of the efforts to attend to the issue (if you noticed, education was left out of the list). Society was threatened and it holistically attended to the problem.
I must admit that the authors' submission on the legalization of abortion being the cause for the drop in the crime rate is logical, almost convincing. What they centered on doing was supporting the argument. What they should have done was try to disprove it (much like a scientific hypothesis, because it is so brash) and by not disproving it it would have been more convincing. I think that this may be a case of experimenter bias. What if I said poor people during that era who were likely to rear criminals (I can hide my meaning too) were more likely to have extra children to gain extra welfare benefits? I bet I would find my proof with the proper research!
The main question in this chapter is why the national crime rate dropped so drastically in the '90s. Most of you were too young to remember this time, however I wasn't. I remember when the crack epidemic began in the '80s and when it died off (it actually just lost public/media attention) in the '90s. I remember the media basically blaming the crime wave largely on the "poor, inner city dwellers"; they actually meant the African-Americans for all of the footage on the news showed people of color. I was in grade school when the crime wave was at its peak. A major topic for society at large was how to solve that enormous problem. Many wondered what was going to be done. I submit that it wasn't just one or two "programs" that changed things, it was a paradigm shift in society's thinking; a culmination of all of the efforts to attend to the issue (if you noticed, education was left out of the list). Society was threatened and it holistically attended to the problem.
I must admit that the authors' submission on the legalization of abortion being the cause for the drop in the crime rate is logical, almost convincing. What they centered on doing was supporting the argument. What they should have done was try to disprove it (much like a scientific hypothesis, because it is so brash) and by not disproving it it would have been more convincing. I think that this may be a case of experimenter bias. What if I said poor people during that era who were likely to rear criminals (I can hide my meaning too) were more likely to have extra children to gain extra welfare benefits? I bet I would find my proof with the proper research!
Drug Dealers Living With Their Moms
In the first chapter, quite a bit was written about incentives. Crack dealing is one of the most perfect models to explain incentive-driven behavior. J.T., with his business background, brought a degree of organization to his "franchise" that most other cells at that level didn't see. His incentive was success and he made it to the top, if only for a short time.
Now let's look at this from a more realistic standpoint:
One has to admit that this unique circumstance was a little too unique. Remember at the beginning of the chapter what was written about how experts have a tendency to spice up their information. Venkatesh was a top-of-the-heap, PhD-level researcher. What's the chance that he would just stumble across the one crack gang out of a million that actually had that high of a degree of organization? I'm not saying that he made it all up. Nonetheless, of the staggering number of individual gangs in the entire organization, it's kind of strange that he would by chance gain access to the one that actually conducted accounting practices and had a leader go to the top! What did the first part of the chapter have to do with the part on crack cocaine? Nothing other than the latter proving the former. As I wrote above, I'm not saying he made it all up, I'm sure he spiced it up though. Who would go and check his data? Not any of the geeks he knew!
I had heard about the conspiracy theory that the CIA is responsible for the crack epidemic. Like most other conspiracy theories I didn't put any stock in it. After reading this chapter however, it seems a bit more credible. I agree that crack ruined the progress of the Civil Rights Movement. It's not as much of a problem today but think of the repercussions it has left: fear, resentment, blame and mistrust. First think of these words from your own perspective then try to from that of someone from the ghetto.
Now let's look at this from a more realistic standpoint:
One has to admit that this unique circumstance was a little too unique. Remember at the beginning of the chapter what was written about how experts have a tendency to spice up their information. Venkatesh was a top-of-the-heap, PhD-level researcher. What's the chance that he would just stumble across the one crack gang out of a million that actually had that high of a degree of organization? I'm not saying that he made it all up. Nonetheless, of the staggering number of individual gangs in the entire organization, it's kind of strange that he would by chance gain access to the one that actually conducted accounting practices and had a leader go to the top! What did the first part of the chapter have to do with the part on crack cocaine? Nothing other than the latter proving the former. As I wrote above, I'm not saying he made it all up, I'm sure he spiced it up though. Who would go and check his data? Not any of the geeks he knew!
I had heard about the conspiracy theory that the CIA is responsible for the crack epidemic. Like most other conspiracy theories I didn't put any stock in it. After reading this chapter however, it seems a bit more credible. I agree that crack ruined the progress of the Civil Rights Movement. It's not as much of a problem today but think of the repercussions it has left: fear, resentment, blame and mistrust. First think of these words from your own perspective then try to from that of someone from the ghetto.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Chapter 2: The KKK and Real Estate Agents
This chapter is basically about how information can be used to its posessor's advantage. Typically the term information assymetry denotes a negative use of information for personal gain; this is usually the case. Not all of the time though. Stetson Kennedy was most definitely not trying to take down the KKK for his own personal gain. He went under cover into a dangerous situation to improve society at large. Some psycologists (and Ayn Rand) would argue that his actions were actually for himself and that his intentions were just aligned with the betterment of society, I'm not going to affirm that though. Nonetheless, such a notion puts him more in line with the real estate agents and the rest of the examples in this chapter. I don't know if that's what the authors intended by putting Kennedy's positive example with the other negative examples but it seems to make at least some sense.
What does the collection of facts in Chapter 2 mean to me? It means that knowledge is king; he (or she) who possesses the information posesses the control. That say a lot about modern society if you asked me, money and power seem to be a byproduct, even a side-effect of information. The real battle isn't over cash or command, it's over what you can learn and know that no one else can. This can be appplied to every facet of life in this world: international relations, corporate business, intrapersonal relations like romantic or otherwise, gambling, I can go on forever. I partially feel that this is sad and wish I could change it somehow but I also understand that's just how things are; this is a dog-eat-dog world.
What does the collection of facts in Chapter 2 mean to me? It means that knowledge is king; he (or she) who possesses the information posesses the control. That say a lot about modern society if you asked me, money and power seem to be a byproduct, even a side-effect of information. The real battle isn't over cash or command, it's over what you can learn and know that no one else can. This can be appplied to every facet of life in this world: international relations, corporate business, intrapersonal relations like romantic or otherwise, gambling, I can go on forever. I partially feel that this is sad and wish I could change it somehow but I also understand that's just how things are; this is a dog-eat-dog world.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Chapter 1: Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers
I've heard people talk about this book before. The impression I was given was that it is a non-traditional view on economics. So far, I can certainly tell that it was written by economists. With all three of the examples given in chapter 1, the means by which the points were proven is statistics; an economist's favorite tool. Yes, an effective argument was given by the authors but it was done quantitatively (ahh, the cold language of economics). I wouldn't mind seeing at least some emotion in this!
Now on to the material (at least my interpretation of it) . What are the authors trying to say in this chapter? They're obviously laying the groundwork for the rest of the book: people are incentive-driven. Ultimately that means that humans will hold interest in something only if they can get something good out of it. Whether you like it or not, that's true.
The non-traditional aspect comes in with the way this point was made. No matter what, in order to gain an incentive, there will always be those who will lie (teachers), cheat (sumos) and steal (bagel-eaters) to get it. I was surprised to see just how common cheating is in sumo wrestling and test giving in Chicago. I was not surprised by the bagel example. There is always dishonesty in business. I would have expected more stealing to happen than what was recorded. Wasn't it interesting to see that the most common theives at that three-floor place were in the leadership positions? What does thay say about incentives and rewards in the business world? I guess the economist authors are actual writers as well!
Now on to the material (at least my interpretation of it) . What are the authors trying to say in this chapter? They're obviously laying the groundwork for the rest of the book: people are incentive-driven. Ultimately that means that humans will hold interest in something only if they can get something good out of it. Whether you like it or not, that's true.
The non-traditional aspect comes in with the way this point was made. No matter what, in order to gain an incentive, there will always be those who will lie (teachers), cheat (sumos) and steal (bagel-eaters) to get it. I was surprised to see just how common cheating is in sumo wrestling and test giving in Chicago. I was not surprised by the bagel example. There is always dishonesty in business. I would have expected more stealing to happen than what was recorded. Wasn't it interesting to see that the most common theives at that three-floor place were in the leadership positions? What does thay say about incentives and rewards in the business world? I guess the economist authors are actual writers as well!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
