In Freakonomics, correlation vs. causation is often the focus of the many examples we are given about our modern day societies and the oddness within it. One of the first examples we are introduced to is baby names. Some believe that certain names will lead to a child having a rich and successful life or a poor and unfulfilling one. More often than not, the ethnic background of the name is the basis of the assumptions that people make of the person. One specialist conducts a test in which two resumes are handed out but one has a common “white” name while the other is a common “black” name. According to the results of the test, the difference between the callbacks for interviews is substantial thus proving that different names do have a certain impact on the person who carries it. The other specialist only bases his findings on statistics and a story.
A young, black mother accidentally names her daughter temptress under the impression that she is naming her after an actress. This small mistake unwillingly leads her daughter into a life of promiscuity and theft as well as jail time; but is the name or the economic and social situation to blame? This doctor claims that the name may have had a somewhat insignificant impact, but the real culprit is the situation that person is in. These two very different specialists are operating under different ideas. One argues that names are mostly if not completely responsible for your future while the other figures that the two are very loosely related. These two opposing ideas are correlation vs. causation because of the different because of their differences in explaining the connections between names and their possible consequences.
For the majority of the movie, Steven levitt and Stephan Dubner heavily rely on data and facts to prove their hypothesis on how things work in our society and the relationships between everything. All of the examples they give us are always backed up by “the numbers” and the “data” that we never really get a look at. This concealed data holds all of he information that this movies runs on as well as its credibility as a source, but what sets this movie apart is its irrefutable ability to make you wonder about what else we don’t know as well as the oddness of our society. These questions posed by Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner not only influence the audience to thinks deeper about what goes on in our lives but it also asks them to make connections and ask more often about why something’s happen and the reasons behind it.
At most, Freakonomics challenged me to take a look into our culture as well as the dominant discourses in our society, it asked me to question our methods and figure out how we got to where we are now and why we are here. I completely agree with the ideas that Stephen and Steven have because it allows me to look at things differently. Instead of looking at the physical, the outside layer of what we see and hear, we should be looking at the basics and connections. This new form of looking at things is much like us looking at our dominant discourses in why we eat the way we eat and how that affects us. This technique should be applied to our finding the truth about the food industries and the methods used in making our food. Not only should we make every effort in knowing the truth about our own culture, we should expose it for what it really is and attempt to start from the beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment