Analysis Of Steven Levitt And Stephen Dubner And Freakonomics

Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Levitt and Dubner utilize intriguing rhetorical questions, compelling anecdotes, and interesting allusions to refute the legitimacy of conventional wisdom. Freakonomics also attempts to inform and entertain readers with interesting facts. Levitt and Dubner explicitly reveal their purpose when they state that “the aim of this book is to explore the hidden side of . . . everything” (Levitt and Dubner 14). The authors intend to debunk commonly held beliefs by looking into a wide range of unusual inquires, and they use rhetorical questions such as “what do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?” in order to lead into deeper issues(Levitt and Dubner 15). Like Socrates, Levitt and Dubner rely on questions as a means of achieving deeper understanding, and while outwardly sumo wrestlers and schoolteachers don’t have much in common, Levitt and Dubner reveal that both are connected in an unexpected way:

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

In chapter one, Levitt talks about incentives and how it's an important role in economics. This is something most of us learn at some point in our lives if not at a very young age.

They explained that: “Changes in incentives influence human behavior in predictable ways”. The main point of this concept is that the more attractive an option is the more likely an individual to choose it. Another point that they also focused on was the fact that if a particular product more costly, the more unappealing it will become to the consumer. They used examples such as employees will worker harder if they feel that they will be greatly rewarded or a student will study material that they feel will be on an

Levitt next examines the incentives that cause people to cheat. The first example of cheating is a story of teachers cheating in Chicago public schools. To avoid the risk of getting fired or getting penalty by the government for low test scores, many teachers chose to cheat and inflate their students ' scores. They cheated by allowing the students to have more time during test, giving away answers, and even by changing students’ answers by themselves. In this case, we can see that the schoolteachers are driven by economic incentives. For them, moral and social incentives are not as strong as economic incentives. Similar cheating can be seen in sumo wrestling. In Japan, sumo wrestling is a very popular sports and the high-ranked wrestlers get great honor. Also, among sumo wrestlers, their rank determines their salary, reputation, how they are treated, and even how much he gets to eat and sleep. Because they are so desperate for higher rank, the incentive for cheating is very powerful. In the crucial matches that determines sumo wrestler’s ranking, they cheat by

In what way are schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers similar? At first, this question might be puzzling, but the answer is provided in the book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Freakonomics is the result of a partnership between an award winning economist, Steven D. Levitt, and a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner. The duo decided upon making a book after Dubner was given an assignment to profile Levitt. Dubner realized that Levitt took a different approach to economics than other economists and he saw that Levitt had an interesting and effective way to explain statistics. This pushed the two to release the 315 page book to the public in 2005 in New York, New York. Since then, the book has flourished and has been republished numerous times. In Freakonomics, Dubner and Levitt reveal that fundamental ideas of economics can be used to interpret just about everything in modern society. The book focuses on a few key points including; incentives are the driving force behind everything, conventional wisdom is often wrong, small causes can often have dramatic effects, and the advantages of having information. The authors use many interesting stories and statistics to demonstrate these economic themes in the modern world. Stories include how some school teachers in the Chicago school system cheat, the influence that the legalization of abortions had on crime rates, and how real estate agents tend to sell their own homes for higher prices than if they

“An incentive is a bullet, a key: an often tiny object with astonishing power to change anything”(Levitt 20). What professor Steven D. Levitt (a professor of economics at the University of Chicago’s dictum here is that the incentive has a lot of power in this world). And that the metaphor of comparing “incentives”to a bullet really speaks wonders to their strengths. They can change almost any situation by motivating someone to do something in a business situation, all the way to education fields. After many years of college, business and economics students are being taught how to be greedy in college. It is only a matter of time before greed is too powerful. Incentives and greed both have favorable and critical effects on individuals and the populace, but when connected together both can have dangerous effects on future selections.

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

Although they also have other minor purposes like to diffuse controversial issues or to demonstrate the power of numbers, their primary purpose in writing Freakonomics was to objectively present a new way of thinking which would cause their audience of teenagers and adults to reevaluate the way that they view the world. When they write, “” they use an allusion to emphasize that while simultaneously creating common ground with their audience thus boosting their credibility and the likelihood that the audience would consider adopting their new world perspective (Levitt and Dubner). Additionally, when they ponder, “” they employ rhetorical questions as a means of causing the discovery of knowledge to happen inside of the audience members which helps to prove the validity of their unique perspective since they did not have to explicitly state their conclusions rather the conclusions were so valid that anyone audience member could arrive at the same one (Levitt and

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.

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).

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 Why Axis, written by behavioral economists Uri Gneezy and John List, introduce alternative experimentation to facilitate a deeper understanding of why everyday people behave in the way they do. This book attempts to illustrate the real underlying motivation of humans by using real world field tests/experimentations on people who are unaware they are being studied. One key discovery in this book is that self-interest lies at the root of human motivation. Once Gneezy and List establish what people truly value, money altruism, praise, relationships etc… they can acutely conclude the triggers needed to entice people to do better at something. The concept of correlation vs. causality is ascertained, where the authors plead for people

Firstly, our example illustrates how people respond to incentive. In economics, an incentive is defined as any factor that provides a motive for a particular course of action. This example is exemplified in our first customer. Perhaps, the promotion encourages her to purchase an extra bottle of X shampoo now instead of later. By doing so, the BOGO 1.5 promotion can be classified as an incentive which ensures her decision. As she rationalizes her decision to purchase an extra shampoo, she demonstrates that everyone do respond to incentives. In contrast, the promotion does not have the effect on the second consumer because it does not provide incentive therefore not applicable to him and his choice as a consumer.

Incentives are seen everywhere in daily life and they appear in a variety of ways. Whether a person is making a choice between what to eat for lunch or when to go to bed, they are being influence by incentives. For example, images of an appealing lunch meal in a TV commercial may make someone choose Subway over Mcdonalds. However, the same thought process can motivate someone to prefer a meal at McDonalds because of the company’s constant promotion of their “dollar menu” (Mcdonalds, 2013). Either of these incentives can appeal to a person, depending on what they are motivated by, in this case, either health or money.