The First Chapter Of Freakonomics By Steven D. Levitt

Incentives can either encourage or discourage certain behavior and through various case studies in the novel Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, proves that majority of people act in their own self-interest. Although distinguished through the use of economic, social and moral incentives no matter the stimulation the result is always self-beneficial. Therefore it can be determined that the benefit of self-interest virtually explains all behavior.

In chapter one of Freakonomics, Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt describe how when incentives are strong enough, many usually honest people from different walks of life will cheat in order to gain financially or climb the ladder in their careers. The authors define an incentive as “a means of urging people to do more of a good thing or less of a bad thing.” This chapter covers three varieties of incentives: Economic, Social and Moral. Economic incentives motivate people with the promise of money or goods. Social incentives motivate people to respond in a certain way because they care about how they will be viewed by others. Moral incentives motivate people on the basis of right and wrong. We look at four

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

Based on Paul Feldman’s findings, the authors of Freakonomics argue that a person, who is faced with an efficient way to cheat, will not necessarily choose to. The data involved in Feldman’s accidental bagel study proves that not all humans are corrupt. However,

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

In chapter one of Freakonomics, the comparison between school teachers and sumo wrestlers is a juxtaposition that was introduced in this book. The Chicago Public School System is an example of how teachers were willing to cheat, thus manipulating their students test results in order to obtain money compensations and prestige. The possibility of promotion or higher pay, provoked teachers to inflate their student 's test scores. Whether through writing the answers to Standardized tests on the

Lahey argues that “the product of our testing-oriented and performance-obsessed culture” is to blame for the majority of cheating in school systems. This is a valid statement due to several varying factors in that occur in people’s everyday lives. For instance, in some cases, teachers drape a nonessential amount of stress over the students. This occurs when dealing with assignments, tests, and even their futures, over emphasizing the need to succeed. While it is important to call attention to and install a want to be prosperous, being overly dramatic does more harm than good. Lahey

Imagine a perfectly ripe Granny Smith apple. Famished, you bite into it, expecting a crisp, juicy crunch. Instead, it's soggy. Acidic. Different. Confused, you reel back to view the apple's interior: it's not an opaque, light green, it's a glistening orange. The fruit, at least on the inside, is an orange. Your bite, the act of diving into the fruit, revealed a deeper layer, something not expected, something that simply staring at the surface could have never revealed. That is how Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner work. That is Freakonomics.

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

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

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.

In chapter 1, Levitt and Dubner describe how many people in different cultures and walks of life, which are otherwise inclined to be honest, find subtle ways of cheating to advance their position or increase monetary awards when incentives are strong enough. The authors define an incentive as “a means of urging people to do more of a good thing or less of a bad thing,” and identify three varieties of incentives. Economic incentives are those, which a person responds to in the marketplace. Social incentives motivate people to respond in a certain way because they care or are worried about how they will be viewed by others. Moral incentives appeal to a person’s sense of right versus wrong. Three case studies of the

​Freakonomics is a book that explores the many possibilities of why some things are the way they are. Principles of everyday life are examined and explained while Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner search for logic in statistical economics. This book answers the questions: how can things affect what people do, why are things the way they are, and why experts routinely make up statistics. This book highlights the commonalities between schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers as well as the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents, the life of drug dealers, criminals, and the art of parenting.

What they were all responding to was the force of Levitt’s underly- ing belief: that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not un- knowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more in- triguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. - Stephen J. Dubner.

In the first chapter of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner focus on that the reaction of cheating is that humans demonstrate in response to incentives. The basics of economics are that positive and negative implications of incentives that people respond to throughout their entire lives (Levitt,