Matteo’s Comments (group member since Sep 06, 2011)

Matteo’s comments from the MHS AP Language group.

Lesley wrote: "Lesley wrote: "In the final chapter of this book Levitt and Dubner continue on about what makes a perfect parent, but on the aspect of choosing a name. They first use the example about Robert Lan..."

I like this idea you guys are bringing up! It's interesting to think what the person would be like if they weren't given the name they were born with. What if Loser was actually Winner? Is the only reason he was successful because he was trying to prove his father wrong? Or maybe he was tormented as a child and that made him strive for success. It kind of goes back to Nature V. Nurture - if someone's given a terrible name, while their sibling is given a 'normal' name, and both children are raised the same, does their nature have an effect on their outcome? Although the Winner/Loser example says not, I feel like it has more of an impact than Levitt makes it seem. I know that I would probably make fun of someone with a ridiculous name, and it would draw me away from ever speaking to them...

In Chapter 6 of the novel, Levitt continues the idea of “Perfect Parenting”. This time, however, through the names parents give their children. They sought out to figure out if children’s names had any correlation with the person they grow up to be. This hypothesis was indeed false, as a parent named his children Winner and Loser. In the end, their names were exactly the opposite to the person they became.
The statistic (197) shows the parental education factor in the naming of children. It seems that the more years a parent has being educated, the more sophisticated the spelling of the name they give their child. The least educated parents gave the spelling “Jazmine”, while the most educated parents spelled their child’s name “Jasmyn.” Also, it is determined that parents with low socio economic status, and low levels of education give their children more ‘white’ and ‘upper class’ names, such as Cody, Travis, Brandon, Justin, and Tyler. By doing this, they give their children a better name, and therefore, the feel bettering their child’s chances of success later in life.
It’s obvious that there are a ton of motives that come into play when parents consider names for their children. Maybe they want some “white and traditional” (188), while others want something “bohemian” or avant garde? Regardless, Levitt makes the case that parents are all trying to signify SOMETHING with their choice of name. It may be as simple as “Winner” or “Looser”, “DeShawn” or “Jake” but they are trying to signify what their expectations for the child are. Although names have a large impact on people – how they are viewed by society, job applications, reputations, etc – in the end, they really make little difference. It’s merely a way for parents to know they tried their best with their kids.

Yeah, Lesley kind of hit on it above - the authors are claiming that it is nature over nurture. Although parents do all these things to nurture their kids - take time off work, take them places, etc. It really doesn't help in the long run. I don't really know how I feel about this though, because I feel like nurture plays a large part in who you become. How could it matter that a child has lots of books in his house, but not that his parents read to him every day? I don't get the corellation here. In mind, nurture trumps nature.

you're* TROLOLOL - JK - No trolling on Goodreads.

Just a quick question for Lesley and Karina, but do you really think his point is that crime went down due to more police and stricter gun laws? I though he was saying that they were actually false. He proves them wrong. The whole end of the chapter is about how abortion and birth control has lessened the number of unwanted children. Rather than these kids growing in hostile and poor family environments, they are not born, and do not become violent and turned to crime....

Chapter 5 proved to show how we conceive things – especially parenting and the decisions made – completely wrong. Off the bat, he makes the case of a swimming pool being more dangerous than parents owning a gun. Although one would associate more danger with a gun, it turns out that more children die each year from drowning in swimming pools, than by gun accidents “550 deaths to 175” (136). We go on to ask the question ‘What makes a good Parent?’ Levitt goes on to list things that are and are not important in the development of a child. I’m not really sure where he gets his data from, and the basis for his argument – it’s very subjective. For instance, I don’t see how a low birthweight is more impactful on a child’s development than the child’s family being intact, and living in a good neighborhood, and having a stay-at-home mom (maybe because these are all things that pertain to me), but I don’t understand how taking your child to a museum regularly doesn’t matter at all…. It surely must help development… This part of the book is a little sketchy… Maybe just because it’s judging on test scores, rather than the person the child will become. I don’t know, and I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Well, I think Karina summed up chapter 3 pretty well. Levitt structures his argument in a way that shows us the incentives that push people – even of gang/drug dealer status – on what to do. Often times, it’s all the know how to do. They are mainly uneducated, and those that are, sit at the top, giving the orders. Why do something that makes way less money when you can do something – although it may be illegal – that makes more?
I found chapter 4 about abortion incredibly interesting. Levitt explores the danger of crime throughout the United States in a way that isn’t so much about incentives and morals, but about how we perceive ideas wrong… Or so he thinks… He begins the chapter by talking about Ceauseacu’s rule in Romania, and how his ban on abortion in 1966 led to chaos in the nation. In the 1990s, crime in the US was at its height. Soon however, a large drop in crime occurred, and nobody had a real answer. Many thought it was new policing strategies and increased numbers of police, increased reliance on prisons, changes in drug markets, an aging population, tougher laws, a stronger economy, or a combination some (108). When data was taken, however, it turned out that many of these ideas really played no role and had little correlation with the drop in crime. However, Levitt investigates legalized abortion. Although to some not the most ethical solution, abortion did lower the crime rate. In the 20th century, “fewer women, had abortions. They had less access to birth control. Therefore, had a lot more babies” (125) When abortions became legal in the united states in 1973, the future generations would see a drop in unwanted children being born. Unwanted kids weren’t nurtured, and raised with a single mother, teenage mother, or both. Under these circumstances the likelihood of the child being a criminal or committing a crime rose by 50% (126). Therefore, the removal of these children helped to lower the rate of crime. Conceptions rose by almost 30%, but births actually fell by 6% (127). Although abortion raises ethical questions – killing a person who could at some point do great in the world (if you believe so) – does it make it better if it helps to lower the rate of crime in the world?

Alesandra wrote: "I agree with the last statement that Lesley stated on his first post."The ethics in all of this I think is that people care more about the incentives in their work instead of the quality of their w..."

Well said. If teachers can make extra money without putting in the extra effort, then why put in the extra effort? It's the same as the real-estate example. There's no need to put in extra hours and resources if it's not going to benefit you. Society has gotten to the point where taking the easy way out is the best way out. Are we really doing our duty to society if we continue this way? Does this raise any ethical dilemmas?

Alesandra wrote: "As the book progresses, I keep on finding the topic this author talks about so interesting. But the one I found the most interesting so far is how teacher were cheating by changing up the answers o..."

@alessandra. You bring up some good points. However, in response to your last paragraph, does it really matter if/what we are learning if how we are graded is only based on what we score on a test? How important is learning compared to scoring well? If we can be rewarded without putting in the effort to learn the material, then why bother?

The first two chapters + intro of “Freakonomics” provide valuable insight into the way the minds of humans in society today work. Levitt is successful in drawing comparisons and ideas from abstract topics in a way that is easy for the reader to understand.
Levitt’s argument is that society is dominated by incentives. If somebody completes an act properly, they get a cookie. If not, there is some sort of harsh punishment. By connecting this with the idea of day-care, and a fee for picking children up late, Levitt brings incentives into play. If a day care charges only $3 to the family per week if they pick their kid up late, it was found that it made no difference in the amount of tardy parents. If anything, the number increased. Now they felt no guilt for leaving their kids an extra half hour if the labor of caring for their child was only $3. An extra 30 minutes at the gym, or in the office vastly outweighed the minimal $3 late charge, and they did not have to feel guilty about placing a burden on the day care for leaving their child with them. However, if the fee was jacked up to something like $50/$100 per week, now not one parent would be late to pick up their child.
The same goes with real estate agents. If they can sell your house for $10,000 more, all they get in return is $150. There’s no incentive for them to work harder to make you over $9,000, if they only get a small amount in return. However, if it’s their own house, they usually leave them on the market for 10 days longer, extracting the maximum amount possible from the sale. The $10,000 is now suddenly worth it.
Some states also reward teachers for “high test scoring” students. In some states, the reward can be excess of $25,000. Clearly, teachers want this extra money, so they do whatever is necessary to earn it. It’s been said that “A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for” (20). To me, that large sum of money would be quite worth cheating for. Slipping children a couple of hints, or giving them sneak peeks of tests would be nothing in the way of the money. And the chances of being caught are nearly zero. Educating kids well (which is the real incentive for them to receive the reward $) is shifted to ‘making kids seem like they’re well educated’.
So, I feel like Levitt is making the argument that incentives are good. However, they can still backfire. The minds of people are easily swayed, and as a whole we do things for our own benefit, rather than the benefit of everyone. Teachers can more easily help students cheat than actually educate them. Real estate agents see no need for countless hours to benefit others, and just make themselves a minimal extra revenue. Parents see no problem with leaving their kids at day care overtime, if it means they can get more done in their day. It’s a society “all about me” where you are the center, and everyone revolves around you. Incentives lead people to do things that only benefit them. This is the root of society’s problems. We work as individuals, not as a whole. How do we fix this? What questions does this raise ethically? Should we be more concerned about everyone as a whole rather than ourselves?
PS: If we talk about presidential stuff again, there are some really good statistics about the influence of television in the beginning of the intro. Bring them up!

Egger's purpose in What is the What is to portray the struggles that occur in less fortunate areas of the world. He does so through the body of Achek Deng, making the novel emotional, and one that tears at the heart of the reader.