freakonomics

Job A: Ryan Job B: Zach Job C: Nicole Job D: Emily
 * __Week 1__** (read **to the end of** What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?)

__Week 1, Job B- by Zach__  This week’s topic, characters, is not really relevant to //Freakonomics//, but I will try my best. //Freakonomics// is a book in which 2 men, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, use economic tools to explain why certain things are the way the are. For this reason, it does not have what you might call a “character.” What it does have are examples of characters. For instance, in the chapter “ What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?” it talks generally about different types of teachers and sumo wrestlers and what each does, but it never creates a character with a story. That being said, the “characters” in this book are fascinating. It talks about the teacher in Chicago who is paid based on how his/her students perform in standardized tests. This influences the teacher to correct students’ test sheets before sending them in to be graded. This causes the students to be unprepared for the next grade and ultimately has a negative effect on them. Eventually, current Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan cracked down on this “cheating” by teachers by using techniques Levitt used to identify them. Sumo Wrestlers also cheat. Sumo wrestlers must win at least 8 of their 15 matches to remain in the elite circle. So, if one wrestler has 7-7 and another sumo wrestler has 10-5, the 7-7 wrestler may bribe the other to let him win. This corruption goes largely ignored because Japanese citizens are sensitive about their nation’s past time being called rigged. Most “characters,” given the right incentives, will cheat.

__Week 1, Job C- by Nicole__

Our first book club meeting this semester was a very productive one. Since our book has no characters or lasting plotlines, we didn’t discuss any of the typical things that we have talked over in the past. Freakonomics may sound like a pretty dry book based on the summary (it is basically a lot of irrelevant statistics), I discovered on Friday that I was not the only one of my group members who found it terribly interesting. For example, Zach’s favorite part so far was when the authors showed samples of student’s standardized tests within a single classroom. One of the samples was of a teacher who had cheated by changing student answers, and one was of a teacher who had not. When first looking at the samples, it was nearly impossible to tell which teacher had cheated, but when the section that had been altered was highlighted, it was obvious that there had been foul play. Personally, my favorite part was when the authors were talking about how incentives are everywhere, but how not all incentives are successful. He gave the example of a daycare center where a number of parents were constantly arriving late to pick up their children at the end of the day. The daycare decided that as an incentive for a parent to arrive on time, they would charge three dollars for a parent who arrived late. Instead of a decrease in the number of late pick-ups, there was a rapid increase. Before the fee was implemented, parents were given a moral incentive; it was rude and immoral to take advantage of the daycare service and not arrive on time. However, once the fine was implemented, parents could buy off their guilt for a mere three dollars. When the fine was taken away once it proved to be unsuccessful, the number of late pick-ups remained high. Parents assumed that it was not inconvenient for the daycare center when they arrived late since they were no longer being punished for their tardiness. I just found it extremely interesting that incentives could backfire so easily. I was shocked when I read about the daycare study, but once I thought about it, it made perfect sense. The common theme in the entire first section of the book was people who cheat. We talked for quite a while about sumo wrestlers, who, according to this book, are much more likely to lose a match when they have already secured a high rank in a particular wrestling tournament. This indicates that it is very likely that wrestlers will sometimes agree to throw their matches in exchange for a bribe. We also discussed how we found it was strange that in a study in an office building, well-respected executives were found more likely to steal bagels (when they were asked to pay based on the honor system) than lower-level employees. It seemed odd that those who made more money were dishonest and far less generous with their money. However, Emily pointed out that in the book, the author mentioned that it was quite possible that the executives had made their way to such prestigious positions by stealing and cheating. Then, we all discussed subjective morality and in what situations we would cheat. Ryan summed this discussion up best of all. When asked, he said that he could have no way of saying whether or not he would choose to cheat unless he was placed in a desperate situation.

__Week 1, Job D- by Emily__


 * 1. Did you expect that Feldman’s bagel plan would work?**

Zach: I didn’t think people would put money in the jar. But it was also a ‘white collar crime.’ The test isn’t a good indicator of actual crime in regular society. Nicole: It’s really people would could afford it against people who couldn’t. If it was tested in an economically poor area, where people couldn’t afford a dollar a bagel, people would be more likely to steal. It all depends on the environment.


 * 2. What did you think of the sumo wrestlers cheating without the bribe of money?**

Zach: If they have nothing to lose, why wouldn’t they cheat? Money or not. Nicole: It makes sense to me. I’d cheat for moving higher up in the ranks.


 * 3. Would you cheat in sumo wrestling (anything for that matter) if money wasn’t offered instead fame and honor (no matter how skewed it was)?**

Ryan: Cheating doesn’t give you honor. Emily: I was saying no matter how skewed it was--in the eyes of the crowd, they don’t know what you did. Ryan: Either way, it doesn’t work out.


 * 4. Would you ever to have thought that your elementary school teacher could have been cheating on your test?**

Zach: Teachers wouldn’t be cheating in our areas because they don’t have the threat of losing their jobs if their kids don’t do well on standardized tests. Nicole: It was showed in areas not as well off as ours, and therefore I don’t think that teachers here would cheat on their students tests for them.


 * 5. Putting yourself in the teachers shoes, in threat of being fired for low tests scores, would you ‘helpfully’ cheat on your students tests for them?**

Zach: I would, if that’s what I needed to do to keep my job. Nicole: I would, but it would depend on my economic situation. If I was in threat of starving if I lost my job, I would cheat. But if I was well off and could survive without a job if I was fired, I wouldn’t. Ryan: I like to say that I wouldn’t, but I might. It’s like situational morals. You don’t know what you would do unless you’re placed in that situation.

Job A: Emily Job B: Ryan Job C: Zach Job D: Nicole
 * __Week 2__** (read **to the end of** How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents)

Job B: Ryan Simpson

This book contains mostly standard, modern language. Being a nonfiction book, there is not much room for creativity in terms of language. For the most part, it is straightforward It is written formally, to best present the data that it includes. It does not contain many words that I do not understand, as it is written so that the casual reader can easily understand it. The book is written for adults, but due to its simple language, high schools students can easily understand it as well. By writing this way, the book makes it easy to understand what the presented data means.

Week 2, Job C- by Zach This week’s book club, as usual, was very interesting. Emily brought in delicious munchkins from Dunkin’ Doughnuts and we enjoyed those throughout the meeting. The glazed ones were the fluffiest ever, and there’s nothing like a good munchkin to start your day! After we ate, Nicole started asking us the discussion questions she prepared. We talked about a wide variety of topics such as various types of discrimination, the KKK, real estate agents, and how much society has (or has not) changed over the years. Particularly, in the book, a game show was discussed in which people compete in a quiz competition to win money. Each week people are voted off. Studies showed that latinos and old people were voted off an unusually large amount of the time. Emily and I both agreed that the latino part was unfortunate, but that old people should be voted off of the Earth, let alone the game show. We proceeded to make a plan to send old people to the moon in space shuttles. Of course, a council would be created to see which old people could stay (those with families, Tom Hanks, etc.). Another book club meeting, another world problem solved.

__Week 2, Job D- by Nicole Rifkin__ Emily: I think there might be because I think we’ve been conditioned that Latinos and elderly people know less than they actually know. Zach- old people should be voted off the Earth because they know nothing; all of their knowledge is outdated. Emily-old people didn’t even know what dirt was because they’re so old. However, both claimed that whether or not a person was Latino would not influence their opinions. Emily -for Latinos, this bias stems from the fact that most Latinos are part of the lower class and are more likely to hold unskilled jobs
 * 1) What was your reaction to the controversial claim that almost all people are biased against Latinos and the elderly? Do you think there is any truth behind the claim?**

Ryan- I don’t think that it has anything to due with publicity. Game shows are less of a commitment because it is over within an hour, but dating is a much larger commitment. In general in society, it would be better if everybody could learn to take a joke and laugh at each other, rather than focusing on being politically correct.
 * 2) Were you surprised that people didn’t discriminate against blacks on national television, but emailed people of their same race on dating websites almost exclusively? What does this say about today’s society?**

Emily- Everybody is a different person in public than in private. People put on a crusade to prove they aren’t racist, but there is still that hint of racism. It is always in our minds, which is why society is so careful //not// to discriminate in public.

Zach- I’m surprised people weren’t racist. I thought racism was something that people can’t really control and that it is more subconscious. I think that this is an improvement over the past because it was okay to be racist before but now people are more conscious of it.

3) The authors claimed that the Klu Klux Klan disintegrated because people gained so much knowledge about it. Do you think this claim is true? Do you believe that it was the only contributing factor, or that other unknown factors contributed to the demise?

Ryan- it was the knowledge because the reason they were so respected was because they were so secretive, but may be other factors contributed in moderation like increased tolerance.
4) Could this same principle be applied to issues like Islamic terrorism or any other similar group? ^^^

=
Emily- We only have limited knowledge about terrorist groups because outside of our country. So in principle, yes, but gaining this information is a lot more difficult than gaining information on the Klu Klux Klan, which was thriving within America’s borders.======

=
Ryan- this wouldn’t work because terrorists aren’t afraid of dying so exposing them would do no good because they are not afraid of any of the consequences. Even if knowledge was leaked about them, they would still join. Klu Klux Klan members were respected members of society who didn’t want to ruin their reputations, whereas terrorists don’t care about the public’s perception. In addition, unlike the Klu Klux Klan, terrorist groups have no history, so can change customs but still use the same tactics to scare people.======

=
Zach- I think the same strategy could be applied and is being used in Afghanistan. Soldiers are setting up schools to educate people. The problem in Afghanistan is that Taliban is all that these people know, but if the people gain knowledge of the outside world, they will be less likely to join or support the Taliban.======

5) Do you agree that the klu klux klan is like a group of real estate agents?

=
Emily- In a way yes, but I still don’t think they’re similar. The situation presented is too general. Using the same reasoning, this could apply to almost anything. You could claim that the KKK is just like almost any other American group.======

Job A- Zach (for Nicole) Job B- Emily Job C- Emily (for Ryan) Job D- Zach
 * __Week 3__** (read "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?")

__Week 3 Job D__, by Zachary Weinstein

Emily: It can be considered so because of the amount of consumers. It’s a perfect business plan for those who make it to the top, but not for everyone else. Zach: Yes, this is the perfect business.
 * 1) The authors said that Burger King, McDonald’s, and crack cocaine drug dealers all follow the same business model. Is this the perfect business model?

Emily: It’s the glamour and the chance that if you do make it to the top you will become famous and the rewards outweigh the struggle. Hollywood is fantasy, people never see the struggles that celebrities went through, they only see the reward. Zach: People try to be Hollywood actors for the same reason people play the lottery. The chances for success are slim, but the rewards are huge. Also, I think the potential failure actually attracts people.
 * 1) If the chance of becoming a broadway star, Hollywood actor, etc. is so low, why do so many people try? Do people become drug dealers for the same reason?

Emily: Once you become a drug dealer, it’s hard to get out. Gang leaders don’t let you leave because they don’t want you to tell the police. Zach: I think that they don’t have real jobs because of a misconception (that before reading //Freakonomics// I shared) that drug dealers are always very successful. They become wealthy and powerful and acquire respect through fear.
 * 1) If most drug dealers make less than minimum wage, why don’t they simply work at minimum wage jobs?

Emily: If marijuana was legalized there would be a lot less drugs in the streets. Legalizing it would lower crime rates. Zach: I would legalize it because, as Emily said, there would be a lot less crime. The gangs would have no money to operate with, so many would disappear. Also, right now, the prisons have many people locked up because of drugs, as opposed to horrible things like murder. Legalizing marijuana would alleviate that.
 * 1) The book mentioned that when crack cocaine became more abundant it became cheaper. If marijuana were legalized there would surely be more of it. Drug dealers would lose their business. Should marijuana be legalized?

Emily: A lot of people would do a lot to save their families. Drug dealers have no other options. It’s also the potential to make it to the top and become rich. Zach: It’s a respect thing. In an inner-city culture, the drug dealers are the violent ones, the powerful ones, and therefore earn respect. The poor people see this and want to have that kind of influence.
 * 1) Why do people become drug dealers? Money? Lack of options

__Week 3 Job C, Emily Considine__ Zach and I started off the meeting (with the loss of Nicole and Ryan to Teen Arts) with a delicious brownie that Zach brought in. We listened to the climax point of Tori’s book, which talked about a boyfriend killing his ex-girlfriend’s family because that was the only family that ever loved him. Zach asked questions about how if Burger King and McDonalds and crack cocaine deals all had a perfect business plan. I thought that perhaps it was, for the people who make it to the top, but not those who are at the bottom. We discussed the coolest thing we had read in the book, which was the abortion and crime rate intertwined. We discussed the glamour idea of the Hollywood tier of hierarchy, about how the riches and the fame that those on the top (that we see) have gained, and not the darker side of the things, or the struggles that those artists have gone through to get to where they were. I said that it would be difficult to get out of an organization like drug dealing because if you do manage to escape, you would constantly be worried about your life and family and well-being. I believed that once you got in, it would be difficult to get out because I feel that almost automatically, if you escaped a situation like that, others within the organization would automatically go to the police and tell them all you knew about the organization. But being put into that job to being with, it would depend on the situation you’re in. A lot of people would do much to save their families--things they might not do if given a chance to consider their morals and take a different path. With Zach’s most controversial question (about whether legalizing marijuana would bring the crime rate down or if the positive outcomes of legalizing it would far outweigh the risks) I said I personally did not see the problem with legalizing marijuana. We then looked up statistics that said that if we legalized marijuana, how much money the government would make, just by stopping drug prevention for it. Within years of legalizing marijuana, the United States debt would be gone.

__Week 3 Job D, Emily Considine__

There really is no overall mood/tone of the book, considering we choose a fact-based book which really gives you straightforward answers about all it explains. But you could argue that the tone/mood of the book is just that: straightforward. It gives you examples as to how the Klu Klux Klan and real estate agents are the same, or what sumo wrestlers and schoolteachers have in common. There are many facts to back up these claims, like how sumo wrestlers and schoolteachers could be corrupted in order to keep their jobs or move up in fame, and while it is a little dense at times, you can still consider it straightforward. For example the Klue Klux Klan and real estate agents are similar because of one thing: they hold information out that you don’t know about and that they can use to your advantage. The book presents you with a hypothesis, and then gives you facts and convincing examples to as why this is so.

Job A: Nicole (repaying Zach) Job B: Nicole Job C: Ryan (repaying Emily) Job D: Ryan
 * __Week 4 (final Week)__** (read to end of "What Makes a Perfect Parent?")

__Week 4 Job B: Nicole Rifkin__ Freakonomics is mostly about statistics and doesn't contain a lot of imagery (or any, for that matter). However, I will be able to discuss themes. One theme that has been prominent throughout the book thus far is the effect incentives have on people. Incentives can be both rewards for exemplary behavior or punishments for immoral behavior; either way they govern the way all humans act. Teachers and sumo wrestlers are all given incentives to cheat because the punishment for bad student test scores or bad performance in matches, respectively, is so severe. However, if these punishments were removed, or even just reduced, neither group would have any incentive to perform their best. Real estate agents are given incentives to sell a home at the highest price, but the incentive is not large enough to make the extra effort worthwhile, and therefore many homes are sold for less than they are worth. Despite the fact that they are dirt poor and in danger of being killed or arrested, drug dealers have no problem putting themselves in danger because they are incentivized with the improbable promise of becoming a top dog and gaining immense wealth. The fact is that nothing we do is without incentive. Idealists believe that morals govern our society, however, according to the authors, this only appears to be true because incentives encourage good morals.

Job C: Ryan Simpson

This week, Nicole brought in muffins and apple juice for a delightful snack. After several minutes of eating, we discussed the book. The last two chapters we read were on criminals and parenting. The first of the two chapters states that the crime rate dropped in the 90s because of the legalization of abortion. It was legalized in 1973 after the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. The authors found that most people who abort children are single or teenage mothers, whose children are statistically more likely to become criminals. With many of these children never having been born, there were fewer criminals and thus, fewer crimes. The parenting chapter discusses what makes a good parent. It was found that successful children are raised by successful parents, not parents that put their children in special programs or anything of that sort.

We talked about which chapters we liked and didn't like. The group found that the chapter on criminals was basically a repeat of the introduction of the book. Part of the introduction mentions the connection between abortion and crime rate. The rest of the meeting was spent discussing the questions that I wrote for the meeting. One particularly interesting part was when we talked about what parents fear. While drownings in swimming pools occur more often than deaths due to guns, why are parents more insistent on keeping their children away from guns? It was mentioned that the familiarity with pools is what eliminates that fear. Also, dying by gunshot is much more gruesome that drowning, so parents are more afraid of it.

Job D: Ryan Simpson

1. Does its effect on crime rate change your stance on abortion at all? If so, how? Nicole (everyone agreed): I have always has been pro-choice, but this reaffirms my stance and serves as supporting evidence.

2. In terms of the crime rate, is there much of a benefit in increasing numbers of police and having a strong economy? Emily: More police would all have to be trained, and with the economy, if someone is born into a poor family, then the economy does nothing. Zach: It makes sense to add cops because it does statistically lower crime.

3. Why is it that people are more afraid of guns and plane crashes than of swimming pools and car crashes? Nicole: People spend more time in pools than by guns, so they are more familiar and people are less afraid of them. Ryan: People go in pools and cars many times and are not harmed, so they feel that it won't happen the next time. Also, while much rarer, if you get in a plane crash, you are more likely to die than if you get in a car crash. Also, plane crashes and guns seem more gruesome than car crashes and swimming pools. Zach: Because of our culture, people think of guns as a lot more dangerous than pools. People are more likely to grow up with a pool than with a gun.

4. Besides genetics, what effect do you think that parents have on the upbringing of their children? Nicole: Parents have more effect on their children than the book gives them credit for. Zach: It matters more who the parents are than what the parents do, so I agree with the book. Ryan: I think peoples' surroundings have more effect than the book gives them credit for.

5. Why, if they have no effect on a child's school performance, do adoptive parents make their children more successful adults? Nicole: They are still affected by their biological parents as children, but as they get older, they are more affected by their adoptive parents. Ryan: I agree with Nicole, because as you get older, your biological parents begin to have less of an effect on you.