Hwk 9

While viewing the film version of Freakonomics, there were many "tools" the film repeatedly incorporated in different examples. Some "tools" used throughout the film included: interviews, experiments, and gathering data. There were many topics that the movie used, such as the existence of cheating in sumo wrestling, the effects of parenting on education, and the impact of a child's name on his or her life.

When magnifying into the issue of cheating involved in the sport of sumo wrestling, Levitt and Dubner drew many questions when they found a pattern after looking into a number of sumo wrestling matches. Levitt gathered statistics which suggested that a wrestler which has seven loses and seven wins will win the match against a wrestler who has eight wins and six loses around 80% of the time. Towards the end, Levitt concludes that wrestlers who have eight wins will let the opponent with seven wins win the match because the wrestler who already owns the eight wins has a secured position for the next match. In order to figure this out for sure, Levitt turns to retired sumo wrestlers for support in gathering evidence. One retired sumo wrestler states that he himself and other sumo wrestlers he was close with were responsible for cheating in many of the matches they had fought. In addition, Levitt gathers evidence from other people who are just as interested in the topic as he is; together they are able to answer multiple questions regarding the topic of cheating in the sport of sumo wrestling.

Experimenting was another "tool" used from the "Freakanomics tool box". Levitt and Dubner investigated around the topic of a baby's name and its impact on his/her life. One experiment regarding this topic involved a situation where a resume containing the exact same information, but different names being sent out to a number of job offices around the United States. While keeping all the information the same, the only thing that differed between the two sets of resumes was the names. Half of the resumes were titled with a common name for a white person, and the other half read a common name for an African American individual. After a few weeks of waiting, the job offices that received the resumes with the common name for a white individual started to receive many calls. After waiting a couple more weeks, the job offices that received the resume with the common African American name started to call. When all the data was collected from the experiment, it was concluded that a resume with a typical name for a white individual will probably get a call back a couple weeks earlier than a resume titled with a common African American name.

Another example used in the film which included the "tools" of interviewing, conducting experiments, and gathering research, involved a scenario at school. In this particular school, there were many students that were doing poorly in their classes, which was determined by their grades. In order to try to solve this problem, the school started a payout program; each month a student receiving a grade of a "C" or higher in all of his/her classes would receive $50. In addition they would have an entry to a raffle which would reward one lucky winner $500.000. There were a few students that the documentary followed, at first their grades were suffering a lot, but after hearing about the payout program their school was taking a part of, it gave them a confidence boost. At the end, one of the few students was able to maintain a "C" for all of his classes; in return he received $50.00 for that month, and became the lucky winner of the raffle. In addition, Levitt interviewed the people behind this pay out program. He questioned them about how well they think the program will work in the future, and if it will make an improvement in the student’s education. After the experiments and interviews were conducted, a conclusion was drawn. The payout program caused some students to do better with their grades, while others didn't show much improvement at all. For example, one student was able to maintain C's, while another didn't give a damn about his school life; he could have cared less about his future.

Levitt and Dubner tend to rely on the interviews and statistics the most when collecting their evidence. This is innovative since it is able to help them draw accurate conclusions, which in return answer many of their questions. By gathering information from an individual’s experience, the source becomes more reliable. The interviews were able to give them a deeper meaning about the certain topic. After all the interviews were done, they were able to make comparisons. The statistics were factual; these were used to compare the facts to what the individuals had to say. After a process of comparing and contrasting, Levitt and Dubner were able to come to a consensus.

I agree; Freakanomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices. This movie made me realize that we are allowed to question everything in this world; whether it is the simplest of questions. After viewing this movie I have more confidence in myself to figure out answers to questions that may be simple, but tough to draw conclusions for. For example the simple question regarding different names and if they determine how successful an individual will turn out to be. In one part of the film, there is a father who has two sons; he names one of them "Winner" and the other Loser". Just by looking at their names, the average person will assume that Winner will have a perfect life, while Loser won't. After a couple decades pass, Winner ends up in jail, serving for the many crimes he committed, while Loser gains a degree graduating from a top university. At the end, we are able to conclude that the name of an individual does not determine how successful one might turn out to be in their life. This connects to our investigation of food ways in many ways indeed. There are many questions that build up in our minds while we discuss in class, or read our text. Many of these questions are as simple as: "Is processed corn the cause for high numbers regarding the issue of obesity in America?" By conducting an experiment which will hopefully draw some conclusions to this question, we will be able to come closer to an answer. One way to come up with an answer is by comparing the diet of an average American, to the diet of an individual from a society that does not consume processed corn as much as Americans do. We can then compare the rates of obesity in America to the rates of obesity in a society where the consumption of processed corn is not very common.