A Critique on Freakonomics, A Nobel by Levitt and Dubner

Today, the availability of birth control is taken for granted. There was a time, not long passed, during which the subject was illegal (“Margaret Sanger,” 2013, p.1). That did not stop the resilient leader of the birth control movement. Margaret Sanger was a nurse and women’s activist. While working as a nurse, Sanger treated many women who had suffered from unsafe abortions or tried to self-induce abortion (p.1). Seeing this devastation and noting that it was mainly low income women suffering from these problems, she was inspired to dedicate her life to educating women on family planning—even though the discussion of which was highly illegal at the time (p.1). She was often in trouble with

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 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.

For this review I read Freakonomics written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. This book was published by William Morrow an Imprint of HarperCollins and is copyrighted 2005. Freakonomics is a unique book where there is no central story. It is not a story where it goes from point a to point b and follows a traditional storyline. This book is broken up into a collection of mini stories where the authors try explore issues and approach them from a non-conventional way of thinking. Some of these issues in the book include comparing Ku Klux Klan members to real estate agents, why drug dealers live with their moms, and linking abortion to criminal rates. The book addresses the issues at hand and uses data they have accrued and in their

Abortion continues to make a profound impact on public policies and remains one of the most controversial debate of our time. Though abortion continues to be a debate, it was not always a problematic one. Abortion has been present throughout history dating back to the ancient Egyptians, Greek and Roman. Before abortion became a crime in the 19th century, abortion was a womans choice. “Before abortion became the object of law, it was a subject of everyday life” (Roe v Wade BOOK p. 11). From early civilizations to today, abortion was and may still serve as a form of birth control. It has been observed that through abortion those of upper class avoided “unwanted childbearing and the lower classes used it to limit family size when 1 or more child

In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner write in a colloquial fashion and tend to keep their writing informal. For example, when they write, “like the proverbial butterfly that flaps its wings on one continent and eventually causes a hurricane on another” the allusion to the butterfly effect serves to engender common ground with their audience (Levitt and Dubner 5). Additionally, by using the word “butterfly” Levitt and Dubner are able to create imagery which will help their audience better visualize their simile. Also, when Levitt and Dubner write, “it may sometimes feel as if we are peering at the world through a straw or even staring into a funhouse mirror,” the words “straw” and “funhouse mirror” create vivid imagery which helps the audience to better visualize the narrow scope through which people view the world (Levitt and Dubner 14).

Many, if not most, of the people in today's generation are constantly judged by others and even themselves based on what their identity comprises of. The concept of racial injustice and inequality among ethnic minorities constantly fills the media. Women's rights issues seem to arise rapidly whenever a single female is mistreated in the slightest way. The debate on homosexuality is also an enormous topic in our social lives today, with millions of supporters for it, but also millions against it. This internal segregation within our own human population is nothing new, since it has been continuing ever since verbal and written communication with each other has existed. All these components, and many more, are a huge part of what identifies a

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

When it comes to sensitive topics, there are few that draw on people’s emotions as much as abortion. Why it this so? It is the nature of the topic. Abortion is a topic in which people’s views are just as diverse as the population itself. Most people avoid writing about such topics altogether, especially when they are in support of such an act. However when economist Steven D. Levitt and writer Stephen J Dubner wrote chapter 4 of “Freakonomics” titled “Where have all the Criminals Gone?” they did just that. The chapter details historical examples of bans on abortion, possible reasons for the sharp decline in crime in the US, and a strong final argument for why abortion is the reason the crime rate dropped so suddenly. The emotionally

All in all, The New York Times editors purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to help make abortion legal. They use emotional connection with the audience, a sophisticated word choice, and logic. Ultimately, the writers have proven that abortion is a woman’s own choice, not the

Abortion is one of those topics that most people feel very strongly about, and it’s also something that not a lot of people enjoy talking about. Under the communist rule of Nicolae Ceausescu, abortion was illegal in Romania. The import of contraceptives was halted as well because Ceausescu believed that increasing the number of babies born in Romania during his rule meant more Socialist citizens. While this was true, abortion did not become obsolete during his regime. In fact, abortions were still performed at alarming rates. When the Soviet Union fell and Ceausescu was no longer in power, abortion and contraception use were legalized. Despite the increase in availability, legalization of abortion and contraceptives after the fall of Ceausescu in post-socialist Romania has not resulted in a change of the abortion culture. This is because of the lack of sex education, misconceptions about contraception, and a poor economy. In order to understand this, a basic understanding of socialism is necessary, as is general knowledge of the history of Romania and the Soviet Union.

As the article goes on, Valenti enumerates and explains the recent violent attacks towards abortion clinics in the last few months, affirming that, in one of the attacks, “…the alleged perpetrator made a comment in its wake about ‘no more baby parts’.” The “baby parts” is the name often called by anti-choice supporters to fetal organs. This statement leaves an idea of what was the believe of the attacker towards the clinic. However, Valenti weakens her previous supporting details by claiming “The attack in Colorado, which left three people dead and nine wounded, was shocking, but it was also the predictable result of a culture that demonizes abortion…” In other words, the author is making a generalization by including a whole culture when proving

1) The activities that I completed in order to achieve my learning goal included watching We the Economy videos, analyzing two websites that provided resources to learn about taxes and The Federal Reserve, and listening to two Freakonomics radio shows. I think the We the Economy videos and the website on The Federal Reserve were the most helpful. These resources defined and illustrated economic principles, as well as explained the government’s role in the economy. In the end, I was able to complete three activity ideas to use with elementary students. The activities are about the concepts I learned about during the completion of my planned activities. I am able to pass on the knowledge that I have gained. While watching the We the Economy videos I took notes and these notes helped me plan the concepts included in the activities.

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

One of the main arguments for pro-life is the governments role in the limitations and functions of abortion in the United States, by emplacing several bans and ideals