Levitt's Freakonomics

Economics can be applied in many situations where you wouldn’t normally expect it found. In “Freakonomics”, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors attempt to reveal what is happening behind the curtain of modern day life by comparing what you would think are two completely different people or subjects, and they relate these seemingly uncommon topics to more sophisticated economic concepts. The authors initially claimed that there was no theme, but after reading the book I have realized that there are many misunderstandings in the standard wisdom that we know due to the fact that people usually do not look into the motives of a given situation to uncover the truth.

The author is very affective with his argument, he uses logos and rhetorical questions the most to make the audience form their own opinions, but also listen to his. The main point in this book, Freakonomics, written by Steven Levitt, is to show that economics can explain many phenomenons. Levitt uses logos and rhetorical devices the most to display this argument. The audience is made to question if “It might be worthwhile to step back and ask a rudimentary question; what is a gun?” (Levitt 118). The audience asked to think about what the consequences of a gun can be. Levitt also uses data so show that these moments can be discomforting and dangerous. The most discomforting example that Levitt provided was that “The most famous gun-control

In the book Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, is made up of a series of scenarios in which an economist and a journalist apply basic principles of economics to demonstrate that information can often expose interesting truths about how the world operates. It uses the science of economics and specific data to challenge our assumptions about everything. In the book Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner, compares and contrasts two groups of people or things by using their informational data. This is called juxtaposition, which means the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect. Levitt and Dubner look at the world in a way that is both surprising, occasionally funny, and always enlightening. They do so by drawing unexpected connections between two greatly different but complementary aspects of sociology and economics, such as sumo wrestlers to school teachers, KKK members to the real estate agents, and lastly, crack gangs to McDonalds.

One of the primary fundamental ideas expressed in Freakanomic is that “incentives are the cornerstone of modern life”. An incentive is persuading people to do more good than bad. Levitt defines three types of incentives, social, economic, and moral. The authors state that individuals including sumo wrestlers and teachers, will behave unprofessionally to meet their needs and desires, if the incentives are good enough. A schoolteacher’s incentive to cheat has increased due to high-stakes testing. While a sumo wrestler’s chance of cheating will increase when he is on the bubble since the outcome of his matches will affect every aspect of his life. In order to determine if these incentives to cheat exist, specific data is viewed. For the

In chapter 2 of Freakonomics the main argument is that the absence of information can be used for personal gain. The main example used to display this tactic is when the KKK is compared to real estate agents. Although the crafty practice of real estate agents is in no way similar to the horrors of the KKK, they have a distinct similarity when it comes to the hoarding of information. The majority of the chapter focuses on the history of the KKK and Stetson Kennedy’s effort to stop it through the infiltration and exposure via radio of the Klan. Since the Klan was dependant on their violent—despite not being extremely violent—reputation, the disclosure of the information they had withheld from the public rendered them powerless. The narrators

The author Steven Levitt studied economics at Harvard University and MIT. He is primarily known for his work in the field of crime. The title Freakonomics means a study of economics based on the principles of incentives. The title is related to the book since he emphasizes how incentives drive and affect people’s actions. Although this book does not have a single theme, the main focus of the book is a new way of interpreting the world using economic tools. He explores incentives, information asymmetry, conventional wisdom, crime and abortion, and parenting throughout the six chapters of the book.

Chapter 1 of Freakonomics focuses on the beauty of incentives. It asks the question “What do teachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?” The answer is that they both

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

​The field of economics is often distinguished as a field of studying financial trends and market advancements, but Freakonomics reveals how the tools used in economic research can be put to use to study the events and problems that our society encounter on a daily basis. Freakonomics presents a vivid display of how informal methods of data accumulation and examination are often necessary to have an appreciation of the world around us. Just knowing what to measure and how to measure data from our routine lives makes the complex world around us somewhat less problematic. Oftentimes, Levitt presents situations that challenge our prior beliefs and leaves the reader in a state of amazement. The situations in the chapters without no doubt demonstrate

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

In the book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner note “An incentive is a bullet, a lever, a key: an often-tiny object with astonishing power to change a situation” (16). This is to showcase the amount of power an incentive can have over a person or a situation; either good or bad. Humans are found to use incentives when it comes to making daily decisions. Often, people need motives to proceed with their plans. Some tend to make either moral, social, or economic incentive. The moral incentive is about self-respect; keeping in check with what was taught to believe is right and wrong. The social incentive is how the public views the person; wanting to look good in front others. Economic incentive, however, would relate to monetary benefit. While all three incentives can affect people’s decisions, economic

The instinct that once aided in the survival of people in the past serves a purpose in today’s modern society. Even today “herd behavior can aid in bonding, and it can clarify social expectations” (Moore 1). Humans are social creatures and strive to be part of a group whenever possible. By conforming to the norms of a group, a person is able to relate to the other members and therefore create a bond. In confusing situations, humans also look to people who posses more knowledge or appear to be stronger than themselves for guidance. Following others creates a set of guidelines which help to solidify social norms and expectations. By following others, people actually gain “relative morality” (Jasmine 1). Relative morality is the culturally influenced view of ethical and moral standards. Humans are not only affected in their understanding of societal standards, but also in terms of their ethical and moral values, which provide a basis for their actions. When a person’s ethical and moral standards change to match those of their peers, their actions inevitably change as well. Otherwise good people will suddenly start behaving in a way that is uncharacteristic to them because of relative

The intended audience of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s Freakonomics is made up of middle class Americans and comprised of adults and teenagers with a basic education and a broad knowledge of a wide range of subjects. Since Levitt and Dubner reference a large variety of topics, it is imperative for the audience to also be familiar with a wide variety of subjects or at the very least to be aware of popular culture and government. For example, when Levitt and Dubner reference a Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, where a young woman named Norma McCorvey was “...the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit seeking to legalize abortion” they establish their audience as one that would be educated enough to know the fundamentals of some of the most important events in American history (Levitt and Dubner 5). By referencing the Roe v. Wade case, a court case which is generally considered to be common knowledge for Americans, Levitt and Dubner reveal that their audience must be comprised of

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

morality permits each of us a sphere in which to pursue our own plans and goals.