OK, so now you've read it (or are reading it) let the brawl begin...OK, no brawling actually, let's be nice to each other. :o) I'd love to hear your thoughts on the book and ideas presented therein.
Some of the questions may contain "spoilers" so I have indicated which chapter the question is dealing with if you really don't want to get any info about the content of the chapter before reading it.
- What is the purpose of the book?
- From the Introduction:Do you buy Levitt and Dubner's claim that conventional wisdom is often wrong? What is the role of conventional wisdom in society?
- From Chapter 1: Why do you think more parents at the Israeli day care came late after the financial penalty was added? Are their situations in your life where guilt is a better motivator than money?
- From Chapter 1: Do you believe Levitt and Dubner's findings about Chicago school teachers and sumo wrestlers cheating? Did the findings surprise you?
- From Chapter 2: How do you think the Internet is changing the information advantage of experts and secret societies (like real estate agents and the KKK)?
- From Chapter 3: Were you surprised by how similar the Black Disciples' organizational structure was to corporations like McDonalds? Why do you think people perceive drug dealers as well off financially?
- From Chapter 4: Do you buy Levitt and Dubner's argument that the drop in crime in the 1990s was the result of Roe v. Wade? What are the strengths and weaknesses of their argument?
- From Chapter 5 & 6: Do you agree that their is little parents can do to influence whether their children are successful? Do you think there are high-end and low-end names?
- Rate Freakonomics on a scale of one to five.
Remember, next month's book will be Scarlet Pimpernel, I'll try to post questions before the 15th!
5 comments:
I tried to check this book out at the library yesterday and was like #17 on the list, so no chance of me being able to be involved in this month's discussion... I still put myself on the list b/c I do want to read this book...
I'm not reading your book right now - I just wanted to comment on your new template. I like it. I prefer a clean, simple look myself.
Maybe for June you might consider reading "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak (jk).
Once again, I'll get us started on the discussion.
I'm not really sure what the purpose of the book is. I think perhaps the authors main intent is to ruffle feathers, but thats just the cynic in me. I guess the biggest "theme" is that you can't just trust conventional wisdom to give you the correct answer. I don't necessarily agree that statistics give you the right information either though. I think people just have to use their brains and trust themselves enough to weigh all the information available to them.
I think that the parents at the day care probably came late because they could...I definitely agree that guilt is a better motivator than money (at least for me). I find myself doing things or not doing things because of how I feel it will affect other people.
I think the internet is a great tool for people like me who want to learn things about buying a house, I also think that "secret" things (like the Temple ceremony) being published on the internet are completely disrespectful-and I believe that you can't believe it all just because you read it on the interweb. :)
I don't remember any McDonald's connection...I think that TV and movies make us believe that drug dealers are living it up. I also think that we want to believe that they must be getting a high return for doing such a terrible thing.
I think the Roe v. Wade argument is interesting...it could make sense, but like all statistics they don't tell the whole story...I don't think we'll ever have ALL the answers for why crime rates dropped, there are countless reasons.
I do not believe that parents have little influence, I think they have a large influence, even if it is only based on where they live and who they live near.
The idea of low-end, high-end names is very interesting. I hadn't ever thought of it. I think it might be more true in places where there is a really big difference in economic class. Where majority of people are the same economic class I think you see the whole spectrum of names.
I ranked Freakonomics 3 of 5...I didn't dislike it, I didn't love it, I just liked it.
I think the purpose of Freakonimics was to get people to think differently about society and what we think is true, or the "convential wisdom."
I do buy Levitt and Dubner's claim that conventional wisdom can be wrong. It is like any "wisdom" that we have. We may think now that something is true or the best way to go, but looking back it seems ridiculous. Take some medical practices for example. It used to be common practice to bleed someone who had an infection to get rid of impurities in the blood. Now we see that draining someones blood does not seem so helpful. Also, what are we going to think of chemotherapy in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years? It may seem wise to do something and socially acceptable until we learn something new that will disprove our "wisdom."
I think there are situations where guilt is a better motivator than money. THe parents didn't feel guilty for coming late anymore because they were paying for it anyway. Why rush to be on time when with a couple more dollars you could finish up what you are doing?
I did believe the findings about cheating from teachers and sumo wrestlers. No, it didn't really surprise me, and that's sad.
I think the internet is making it very easy to find information quickly that before would have been very difficult to find. People are able to "publish" their findings on anything, no matter their credentials or knowledge of the subject. I agree with Kim that we have to be careful about what we read and make sure we are researching truths.
I was surprised how commercially organized the Black Disciples were. The comarison to MacDonalds was also surprising. I never thought of a drug dealer having to climb the corporate ladder so to speak. My experience with drug dealers comes only from the movies and TV and that medium usually depicts the drug dealers with plenty of money.
I think Roe vs. Wade did have some impact on crime rates, but so did many other factors. It makes sense to me. If the kind of children that grow up to be criminals are never born, then there would be a drop in crime rates. I like how Freakomonics outlined that there were many reasons for the drop in crime rate and that not one can be pinpointed as the only reason. There are many varying factors. I think they outlined abortion in the book because it is the most controversial and entices discussion and booksales.
I don't think that there is little a parent can do for their success of their children. One point was that peers have more influence than parents. But if parents instill a good sense of right and wrong and good values within their children, the peer pressure won't be as much of an influence. I do agree that there are situations that influence children such as, community, social-economic standing, etc. I do agree that there are high and low-end names.
I would give Freakonimics 4/5. I found it a vastly interesting read, even though I don't tend to enjoy non-fiction. It invites discussion and reflection on our own behaviour and encourages one to be observant of the world around us.
I just finished the book not too long ago (I had to wait awhile to get it from the library), and I thought it was really interesting. My favorite part was how 7 million American children disappeared overnight when the tax rules changed- so interesting! I didn't care for all of the chapters, but a lot of them sure gave me something to think about.
Post a Comment