HW 9 - Freakonomics Response

            In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephan Dubner approach the "correlation proves causation" fallacy by tackling many active examples in our society. They help refute beliefs that operate upon the premise that correlation is causation. For example, many black people have unique, stereotypically "black" names. Many people think that having such a name from birth will lead to having a violent, permiscuous, poor, or lousy life. Levitt and Dubner counter this by arguing that the cause of a lousy, ghetto life is not someone's name, but the environment that so often accompanies their name. The type of mother to name her daughter Shaniqua is statistically more likely to be a single mom, live in a hostile domestic situation, and have a low income and minimal education. Thus, Shaniqua will probably lack a good example to follow, feel little love, and have little instruction. This environment, and not the name, will contribute to a lousy future. This is one example of how the authors of the movie proved acknowledged the correlation is causation fallacy.

            Levitt and Dubner use several forms of evidence in order to come to conclusions in Freakonomics. They look for patterns within huge collections of numbers to find certain evidence for hypotheses. For example, they observed students who had gotten the majority of the questions on tests wrong, except for the last 10 to 20 questions. The number of students was significant enough to support the hypothesis that teachers had helped them by going to the end of the test (where many questions are often blank) and filled in the correct circles. This was innovative, because most analyzations of answers on tests are of percentages of right answers, or races of test-takers. Most people do not think to observe and compare patterns within individual tests. Other forms of evidence are statistics, the word of experts and informed or involved people, and possible motives of wrongdoers. For instance, if it became apparent that a Sumo Wrestler had something to gain by cheating, then it is much more likely to the researcher that cheating occured. A names expert claimed that a name can not define anyone's destiny, thereby lowering the significance of names and their connotations. Statistics about "black" vs. "white" names revealed that employeers are more likely to hire people who they think are white, and that success is easier to obtain for caucasian people.
           I agree that Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices. The conclusions of Levitt and Dubner were not always completely un-biased and sometimes were not based on dynamic research and evidence. However, they succeeded in supporting several hypotheses and revealing their knowledge to the public; they began this process by asking questions and exercising distrust. They distrusted the integrity of those involved with Sumo Wrestling, asked if their was a correlation between crime, cheating, and winning, and researched until they answered those questions. This very process should be used when investigating US foodways. We should treat the food production industries of the US like the authors of Freakonomics treated Sumo Wrestling. We should question the integrity and processes of our current industrial agriculture, but we shouldn't stop with just questions. Like Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore's Dilemma, and the authors of Freakonomics, we should invasively research our foodways and reveal our findings to the public.