preview

Summary Of Levitt's Freakonomics

Better Essays

Chapter three of Freakonomics by Steven Levitt lays out an argument against the population’s capacity to hastily believe conventional wisdom. Commencing the chapter with anecdotes about faulty statistics and facts provided by so called “experts,” Levitt sews a seed of suspicion in the reader’s mind. Citing anyone from homelessness experts, to women's rights activists, to police departments, Levitt walks the reader through erroneous proclamations by individuals who drive the common knowledge of everyday people. After introducing each fabricated fact, Levitt not only invalidates each one respectively, but also goes on to explain why each expert provided such bogus information. To summarize Levitt’s commentary, each expert holds different motivations …show more content…

Beginning with a thoughtful quotation from John Galbraith, “We associate truth with convenience” (86). Through this hook, Galbraith points out a flaw in modern human psychology; people believe whatever readily presents itself to them, so long as it does not interfere with their social or economic standing. Thus, the very beginning of the chapter presents a thought provoking concept which foreshadows the rest of the chapter. In accordance to the subject that Levitt presents, the author goes on to provide faulty statistics delivered by a plethora of people from homelessness experts, to women's rights activists, to police departments. Mitch Snyder, an apparent expert in homelessness claims that “45 homeless people die each second” (86). An erroneous fact such as Snyder’s is perfect for Steven Levitt to sink his teeth into. Levitt bombards this false fact with hypothetical statistics. According to Levitt, Snyder's statement “would mean a whopping 1.4 billion dead homeless every year,” (86) and conceding that Snyder may have misspoke and meant one death every forty-five seconds, Levitt argues, “That’s still 701,000 dead homeless people every year—roughly one-third of all deaths in the United States. Hmm” (86). The point behind this issue is that people believed Snyder because his statistics were easily accessible, and the fact …show more content…

Steven LEvitt, the author of Freakonomics focuses on the theme that one should regularly question conventional wisdom in chapter three. However, the conclusion of this chapter does not reflect the same sentiment, and is therefore not effective in terms of cementing the theme. Levitt closes this chapter with a discussion about how crack cocaine affected the black communities of the United States. This is not the presented theme at the exposition of the chapter (111-113). However, Levitt does briefly mention another example of when conventional wisdom was wrong, but it proves unsubstantial as an effective conclusion for such a powerful message (112). Although the ending of chapter three does not uphold Levitt’s original message, it does provide a smooth and comprehensive transition to the next chapter about crime. In this way, the discussion of black people’s wellbeing is effective with regards Levitt’s intentions. Overall, chapter three of Freakonomics questions authority and common knowledge which is a very powerful and important concept to pursue. With regards to how well Levitt executes his message, the whole chapter, saave the conclusion, echoes the sentiment that one must scrutinize conventional wisdom. In conclusion, chapter three takes the reader for a ride across different fields of expertise, displaying the

Get Access