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

Karina’s comments from the MHS AP Language group.

The boy that was in the hole turned out to be a prince named Filippo. Michele’s father and other adults in the countryside captured the boy seeking for a trade off. They ordered for riches as a trade off for the boy; however it didn’t happen. The adults decided that the boy had to be killed. Michele decided to save Filippo risking, and ending his life.

The storyline emphasizes the incentives of each character. The adults in the countryside incentive to steal the prince were to earn money. Money compensates their behaviors and beliefs that it’s justified to kidnap a child. They did not believe that the trade off wouldn’t work, which leads to the consequences of Filippo’s life. The adults argued if they should return the boy or kill the boy. Michele incentive to save Filippo because he knew it was the right thing to do. I believe that saving Filippo showed how he overcame his fears of monsters – that the only fear is men. The men that he feared turned out to be closer to home than expected. It turns out to be actually his father and the adults that he looked up too.

Lesley wrote: "In the second and thirds chapters in this novel, Michele returns home late and bruised up. He attempts to tell his parents about the boy he found in the abandoned house but they didn’t listen to hi..."

You brought up nice points on parenting and how it affects the child. I believe that the behaviors of parents on how they treat their child depend on where they live, their backgrounds, and their pasts. In the story, Michele’s parents allow them to adventure off until supper. If they do not make it for supper, then there’s punishment. Michele was threatened to leave the house and also not be able to eat supper. Parents believe that a punishment would make their child stop committing the actions that they do not like. As for Michele’s parents, taking away supper is effective due to where they live. Since they live in the middle of nowhere and are unfortunate, food is less available. This makes Michele want to come home on time to not face punishments. But as far as the story goes, I feel like this mystery of whose the boy is will make Michele lose track of time a lot. So, he will have a lot of punishments.

Throughout the next two chapters, the boy Michele found in a hole turned out to be alive. He attempts to tell his parents of his discovery however; they didn't want to hear his nonsense. When Michele went to visit the boy, he noticed a familiar saucepan that was lost in his house. He concluded that the boy could be his lost brother since his father stated someone was going to live with them. In prediction, I doubt that this will be correct. I don’t think the boy will be his brother but perhaps his father does know of the boy. It’s strange that the saucepan is there. In essence, Michele’s thoughts of connecting the boy to his family raise suspense of how the storyline will progress.

Lesley wrote: "Throughout the first chapter in this novel the plot has really not developed yet. A few friends decide to go race up into the hills to go and place a dead chicken their as a symbol. They reached th..."

I haven’t thought of ethics yet since we just read the first chapter but you brought up great points to discuss about. I believe that the boy is actually alive and those questions would probably be answered at the end of the novel. I also believe that Milichetti could have something to do with this boy since he was introduced in the beginning of the novel as well.

Although this novel was taken place in Italy, I feel like it’s translated into English because many could relate to such incidents. Michele decided to leave the boy there without even considering if he should call the police. Perhaps Ammaniti could also be directing a message to the audience of human behaviors – how individuals react after a crime is committed whether it was an eye-witnessed, victims, or the committer.

In Niccolo Ammaniti’s novel, I’m not scared narrates in the perspective of Michele, a nine-year-old with a younger sister that annoyingly follows him around with his friends. They often times have races that ends up with someone coming in last place and have to do a “forfeit.” Barbara would lose most of the time and the leader of the crew; Antonio a.k.a Skull would win most of the time. Thus allows him to choose the punishment that the loser has to do.

Skull is known to spread stories that are uncertain to be actually true. They decided to adventure off and figure out if “Melichetti feed his dachshund to the pigs” (8). Barbara exposed that she heard the story from Skull, in which Melichetti clarify that Skull should “never tell lies” and “blacken other people’s name” (10). She was out for revenges for all the forfeits she had to do.

In turn, Skull wanted to make a bet to race up a hill knowing that Barbara would lose. Michele acknowledged that Maria, his younger sister would be the reason why he could come in last. Ultimately, he did however Skull assured that Michele was off the hook since Maria was forced to come along. Barbara had to do the forfeit. She was forced to undress her pant. Michele didn’t want to see her in such a state and voted for him to do a punishment. He was forced to jump off a house to a tree. As a result, he discovered a body of a boy on the ground. It claims to be dead.

There’s not much to utter about the first chapter since the storyline is just beginning. But I believe that the boy is not dead but survived through a tragic event. Michele kept the boy to himself because he wanted to possess something that Skull can’t. That means me to think that he’s going back to check up on the boy within the next few chapters. Also, I’m assuming that someone tried to murder him.

Matteo wrote: "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 ha..."

I did not mention about the statistic but well written. I did notice that names were written differently amongst my classmates; however I didn’t assume it was because of the lack of education. I always thought parents just wanted to make it unique. After reading that passage, I went onto Google to check if my name was misspelled. Turned out that my name was it’s own meaning so that’s fine - although it could also be spelled as “Carina.” I agree that a name really does shape the future of the child since it’s viewed by society. It’s harsh how our society can be so judgmental – referring to Postman when he emphasizes that American prioritizes beauty.

In the final chapter, Levitt and Dubner expand on how parents impact their child’s future. The child’s future depends on the decision of his/her name and also the parents’ backgrounds. Some names are created through the proudness of the parents’ culture, the longing for uniqueness, education, or the parents’ expectation for the child.

The authors display the example of two sons named Winner Lane and Loser Lane. The father, Robert Lane had strong expectations that Winner Lane would be successful (the reason for his name). On the other hand, Robert Lane humorous named his other son, Loser for the amusement of “name’s bookend effect” (180). Although the father was correct that the children names matter, the opposite expectation occurs. Winner Lane ended up having a lengthly criminal record; meanwhile Loser Lane successfully became a sergeant in New York Police Department. In this case, it’s ironic that the sons’ name did not fit the expectations. In my opinion, I felt the son named Loser was encouraged to be successful to prove to his father that he was not a loser. This example draws the attention of how names are chosen.

The authors focus on the economic disparity between Black and White. They demonstrated that the Black with the lack of education or had pride in their culture names the child with a distinctive Black name such as Deshawn or Andre. It gives the child less of a chance to be successful comparing to a White name such as Jake or Cody. As illustrate in the book, the name Jake or Cody sounds trustworthy than Deshawn or Andre for a callback for employment. It doesn’t sound trustworthy because employer believes that “workers from such backgrounds are undependable” (187).

Expectation is mainly the reason for parents’ decision on a name. Some parents would choose a “high-end name” in hopes that the child will be successful as the “high-end name” children. I agree with the fact that the name of the child is important in shaping the child’s life. In the case of the young lady named Temptress, perhaps her expectation is to be what the word means as perceived by the mother (although the mother did not intentionally mean to name her daughter Temptress). She was shaped to become what her name was meant, which is why her future was not as bright as it could be. The name of a child characterizes who he/she will be in the future. It has the ability to help or hinder the child’s life as shown with the example of Deshawn Williams and Jake Williams.

Lesley wrote: "Through the next three chapters Levitt and Dubner are trying to disprove the misconceptions we have about certain things. In chapter three their argument is that the ability to move up the hierarch..."

You bring up a good point. I didn’t pay that much attention to that. A gun and a pool have opposing connotations. Most parents want what’s best for their children, which leads the children’s surrounding to be “safe”. Sadly to say, most of the toys parents provide their children can be harmful. Every tag on a toy has a caution sign.

Matteo wrote: "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..."

Well, I do agree on the correlation about abortion rates and crime rates. Instead of raising an unwanted child in a poor neighborhood, it's better off to have an abortion. I don’t necessary believe that more polices would reduce the criminal rates or any of the law enforcements. If anything, it will provide the government a better statistics on crimes happening. I guess I misinterpret that part.

As our reading progresses, Levitt and Dubner’s argument remain the same. They provide further insights on how incentives play a major role in our society through a scenario every chapter.

The third chapter illustrates the incentives of drug dealers through a branch of a gang known as the Black Gangster Disciple Nation. In poor neighborhoods, it’s unrealistic for anyone to achieve a higher learning. The ideal job would be a “janitor” (105) or an occupation that many would view as a low-paying job. The Black Gangster Disciple Nation is compared to a typical American company. It’s form in a shape of a pyramid. The top would have the most richness and authority. These characteristics will reduce as the pyramid reaches the bottom. Although every level in the pyramid has different incentives, every level wants to reach the top. The bottom occupation is known as “foot soldiers”, in which are the one who market the drugs in the street. Their incentive is to “survive”(97) and provide enough to “feed their family” (97). They believe that the risk is incomparable. The likelihood of a foot soldier getting arrested is 5.9 times, getting injured is 2.4, and chances of being killed is 25%. They believe that it’s worth it. On a higher level in this “company” is J.T., a boss. He’s one of the top 120 men in the Black Disciples. In addition, he also has a major in business. He earns about $100,000 a year. It’s more than what he would make if he works in an office. His incentive is the money.

The fourth chapter discusses about the correlations of criminals and government actions. The government actions issued in the book were increasing reliance on prisons, increasing cops, and stronger enforcement on gun laws. All of the actions reduced the crime rate.

The fifth chapter describes how parenting performances depends on incentives which will ultimately affect the children. Should the parent provide the children more opportunities to learn during the ages of one or two? Should the parent not allow children to learn during the ages of one or two? Some may say that it will increase children knowledge of learning. Some may say that it damages the brain because the brain is still developing during those ages.

All of these scenarios have in common is the morals of the individual. The members in Black Disciples believed it’s justified to commit crimes of selling drugs because it’s the only income to provide enough to feed their families. In many cases, the younger generations grew up in the environment, in which the youth only foresee themselves selling drugs in the future. The correlation of crimes decreasing as government actions increasing is a sign of morals. The individuals will fear that since there’s more enforcement, the risk of getting caught is likely. Likewise, the parents feel a sense of fear when nursing their children because they only want to be the best – that will benefit the children’s success in the future. Ultimately, the scenarios that the book discusses show how human behaviors affect the economy. Everybody operates on incentives that only benefit themselves.

Lesley wrote: "Throughout the first two chapters of the book I noticed that the authors talks about things that are just naturally built inside of us. We all want to be rewarded for doing well and avoid for being..."


I agree with how the author discusses about the characteristics of a human being that it’s natural for us wanting to be awarded for committing a good deed. However many wouldn’t want to be punished for any reason. Through the example of the tardy parents and the schoolteachers changing high-stakes tests results demonstrates that they only want to be awarded. Not be punished for their actions. In my opinion, they probably feel that it’s justified to misuse the incentive because it benefits them. As you said, they work out of greed not for the purpose of teaching students. I also strongly agree with your details on the sumo wrestlers and real estate agents. It’s shameful to see how our society is corrupted for the stake of benefiting themselves. In many cases, incentives do diminish the quality of work/actions from our society.

As I read through the first three chapters (including introduction), I realized that the author mainly stresses on the role-play of incentives in our society. Incentives are the values that people would take into consideration before committing an action. Although most incentives are created for a positive reason, our society could misuse it. The author mainly demonstrates how incentives affect our society through the examples of a day care center and schoolteachers.

The example of the day care center illustrates how some parents violate the policy that every child must be picked up no later than 4:00pm by arriving late. Economists believed that implementing a “fine [for] tardy parents” (19) would reduce the amount of tardy parents. However the incentive backfired for numerous reasons. One reason is because the fine was not high enough. Another reason is because parents feel less guilty for arriving late now that they are paying for it. The parents misuse the incentive by providing themselves more of a reason to be late.

Schoolteachers are used to demonstrate the incentive of cheating on high-stakes tests. Many would believe that cheating is justified for a raise or promotion, which is out of greed. This benefits the schoolteacher, not the students. The purpose of the high-stakes testing for students is to “measure their progress” (26), not for providing raise or promotion for the schoolteacher. It was created to promote the schoolteacher to teaching better. This is another example of how incentives are misused by society.

On a side note, I find the examples quite compelling. In addition, I liked how the author states, “Who cheats? Well, just about anyone, if the stakes are right” (24). The quote also emphasizes how everyone is willing to cheat but that depends on his/her morals. In my opinion, this is true. It doesn’t have to be cheating; the idea exists for any situations. However referring back to cheating. Just imagine yourself about to fail a class, if you don’t pass the next exam. The likelihood of cheating is high if you really want to pass the class.

In Dave Eggers' "What is the What", the purpose of this novel was to inform about historical events that happened in Sudan and also, the impact of adversity and how to overcome it. My favorite moment was when Valentino got some encouragement about how he's not limited to opportunities in life because he is a human from Sudan. I thought it was a very powerful paragraph!