Looking for patterns/repetition in data: It seemed like they usually had a large set of data at their disposal, and one of the ways they evaluated it was to look for patterns in numbers - for example, they were talking about how a teacher might change some of her students answers on a standardized test. One thing they noticed was that there were a lot of students who got the same ten questions right, even of there were questions before that that they hadn't answered, which would imply that a teacher had simply filled in the same ten circles on each students test, so that they would get a higher score
Looking at how incentives influence people's behavior: Something they looked at was how people responded to incentives. This was shown in the segment where kids were paid each month if they did better in school - they had an incentive to do so - and demonstrated when a sumo wrestler would throw a match - he knew the other guy had more to gain from a win then he had to lose, and that the favor would be returned - basically, he had an incentive to lose the match.
Looking at whether theories are actually right: When they looked at the increase and decrease in crime rates in the 90s, they found that most of the variables that were attributed to a decrease in crime (ex. more police on the streets) actually didn't help that much. They didn't rely on other people's explanations for why things happened, they came up with their own.
2. How was Correlation Vs. Causation addressed?
They talked about how people who bought parenting books were better parents. While the two things are related, it doesn't mean that parenting books cause someone to be a better parent - it means that people who care enough to buy parenting books are better parents because they care - the two things are related, but one doesn't cause the other.
They also mentioned causation when they were talking about names:
People with "black" names had a harder time finding a job, and the data showed that their names were the direct cause of this - two different resumes were sent out, each identical except for the name on it, and the person with the resume that had the "white" name got called back first.
Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.
a. I agree.
b. I agree, because I think the movie did a good job of explaining how the dominant discourse about a subject could often be wrong - for instance, the thing about the parenting books. Most people would think that people who bought them would be better parents because of the books, but in reality, it is simply because they are the kind of people who would buy the books.
c. Correlation and causation was discussed in the movie, and could also be applied to foodways. The Omnivore's Dilemma mentions how people in the United States are less healthy then people in France, even though there is more of a focus on health in the US. You would think that caring about being healthy would make someone be more healthy, but this shows it isn't necessarily so, since there are other variables involved besides the food itself.
3. What sources of evidence do the Freakonomics authors most rely on? Why is this innovative?
They seem to rely on large amounts of data (ex. test scores and answers over a period of years, baby name data from a hospital). As opposed to solely using the results of a study someone else did to prove their point, they also sort through evidence themselves, and try to find patterns that most people wouldn't think about.
This is innovative, because most people would just try to prove their point, and find evidence to support it, as opposed to what the Freakonomics authors did, which was to look at the evidence and data first, and then draw conclusions about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment