Para que serve um economista? A maioria das respostas a essa pergunta provavelmente giraria em torno de frases do tipo “para orientar políticas econômicas”, “para criticar políticas econômicas”, “para ganhar prêmios Nobel” ou, simplesmente, “para nada” – no caso daquelas pessoas que só dão valor ao que traz efeitos diretos às suas vidas. Steven Levitt, autor do livro Freakonomics (escrito em parceria com o repórter Stephen Dubner),  mostra que um economista pode também usar seus conhecimentos para abordar questões práticas, mesmo algumas que, à primeira vista, poderiam parecer insondáveis. E é esse o ponto principal da obra em questão, a aplicação de ferramentas da Economia para desvendar comportamentos do dia-a-dia das pessoas.

Tome-se como exemplo um dos trechos mais chatos do livro, que trata sobre lutadores de sumô (sim, lutadores de sumô): sem ter contato algum com a cultura oriental – pelo menos que tenha sido mencionado no livro – Levitt mostra que uma estimativa teórica da manipulação de resultados em lutas aponta exatamente para lutadores suspeitos de participar de tais falcatruas. Muito mais instigantes são os contundentes indícios apresentados de que a atuação dos pais na criação dos filhos é virtualmente irrelevante para o sucesso dos mesmos. Sim, pois de acordo com os dados avaliados, os pais são importantes para as crianças pelo que são, não pelo que fazem, e não há diferença entre pais que leem para os filhos e os que não leem, por exemplo. Assustador, não?

Entretanto, o ponto alto do livro (pelo menos para quem gosta de ver o circo pegar fogo) é a questão envolvendo criminalidade e aborto. O autor defende de forma extremamente convincente que um dos principais fatores, se não o principal, para a queda abrupta da criminalidade nos EUA a partir de meados da década de 1990 foi a aprovação pela suprema corte do direito ao aborto. Esse processo aconteceu, conhecido como Roe x Wade, teve sua definição em 1973. Vinte e poucos anos depois, os jovens que seriam responsáveis pela criminalidade simplesmente não existiam. O mais interessante é que Levitt parece ser apolítico. Ele não defende o aborto nem o condena, ele simplesmente vislumbrou uma descoberta e a perseguiu até acreditar que a havia desvendado.

E é essa aparente isenção que torna Freakonomics tão mais atraente. Como o próprio autor faz questão de ressaltar, seu propósito é afastar-se do senso comum ao iniciar qualquer análise. Se a descoberta dele, ao fim do processo, mostrar que o senso comum estava certo, ótimo. Caso contrário, melhor ainda. Quem dera toda a produção artística e intelectual partisse desse mesmo pressuposto.

Para quem se interessar, o site oficial.

I had some spare time at an airport, and happened to pick up Superfreakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. I haven’t read Freakonomics (I do plan to now) and didn’t know what to expect. I found the book to be an interesting read. It covers a wide range of topics – too many to list - but does so in an engaging and often witty way. The variety in topics makes this a particularly difficult book to review and I will not make any attempt to cover or even mention most of the contents.

Chapter 1 deals with prostitution. The authors write

Since time immemorial and all over the world, men have wanted more sex than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of women who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand.

Interesting. I hadn’t encountered this description before. A few pages further down, the authors note that the prostitute’s wage has fallen drastically over time and attribute it to the change in sexual mores that has resulted in “competition for the prostitute” – any woman who is willing to have sex with a man for free. The authors write

If prostitution were a typical industry, it might have hired lobbyists to fight against the encroachment of premarital sex. They would have pushed to have premarital sex criminalized or, at the very least, heavily taxed.

That is just hilarious. I wonder if the social conservatives (in India and abroad) who preach abstinence, oppose the mixing of the sexes etc. realize that they are promoting prostitution.

Chapter 3 – titled Unbelievable stories about apathy and altruism – was the one I found most interesting. The authors describe experiments conducted by economists in the 80s to measure altruism. The typical experiment involved two players, one of whom was given a sum of money with the choice to keep all of it or give any part of it to the other player. Players gave 20% of their money on average. The experimenters took this as proof of altruism. The authors then describe experiments by John List. List conducted the same experiment – called the Dictator game – with some variants. In the first variant, the player given the money ($20) was given the choice to give the other player any part of it or take $1 from the other player. Only half the number of people who had given money in the original version now gave money. In the second variant, the player making the decision was told that the other player was also given the same amount of money. The choice offered was to take the entire amount from the other player or to give any portion of her own money. In this variant, only 10% of the players gave money while more than 40% took all of the other player’s money. In the final variant, both players had to work for their money with the choice being the same as in the previous variant. In this variant two-thirds of the players neither gave nor took any money while 28% took the other player’s money. The authors note “It [the final variant of the experiment] suggests that when a person comes into some money honestly and believes that another person has done the same, she neither gives away what she earned nor takes what doesn’t belong to her.”

It should be obvious that any of the experimenters could have tried the twists that List used. In fact, without such twists, the experiments look quite weak. Yet they did not do so over a period of two decades. That indicates that the experiments’ motivation was a desire to find proof for hard-wired altruism rather a simple scientific enquiry.

After discussing a few factors that might influence the outcomes of such experiments such as selection bias – the people who volunteer to play along are more likely to be cooperative, the effect of scrutiny and the absence of a real-world context, the authors write

If John List’s research proves anything, it’s that a question like “Are people innately altruistic?” is the wrong kind of question to ask. People aren’t “good” or “bad”. People are people, and they respond to incentives. They can nearly always be manipulated – for good or ill – if only you find the right levers.
So are human beings capable of generous, selfless, even heroic behavior? Absolutely. Are they also capable of heartless acts of apathy? Absolutely.

I disagree with the authors but that is a subject for another post. Meanwhile, there several interesting questions worth considering. Were the experimenters really measuring altruism (or its lack, in the case of List) at all? Do such experimental results justify conclusions of the form that the experimenters drew – human beings are hardwired for altruism? If not, what would be required to establish (or reject) ahypothesis that a certain kind of behavior is hardwired?

Chapters 4 describes how several problems that were once thought of as difficult or unsurmountable have been solved very effectively at a low cost. As one instance, the authors write of how the simple practice of doctors disinfecting their hands before treating patients saved innumerable lives. It seems awful that doctors were/are responsible for easily avoidable deaths. It seems even more awful that doctors resisted and still resist policies that require them to wash/disinfect their hands. My reaction was – how could they be so negligent when the cost (potentially lost human lives) is so high? A little reflection shows that such negligence is not uncommon at all in any profession. Washing hands is after all a boring, time consuming act and its consequences (prevention of infection) are not apparant at all by their very nature. A parallel example from the field of software is writing tests – also a boring, time-consuming act whose consequences are not apparant. Is the cost of not writing tests as high as the cost of not washing hands? Again, it is doesn’t seems so, but in a world where the use of software is all-pervasive, it might even be higher. This is a good lesson in looking beyond the obvious.

Chapter 5 is about global warming and how there might be a cheap and simple solution to the problem – injecting sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere. But don’t expect anyone to try it (or be allowed to try it). I find the whole issue of global warming extremely boring – I don’t think I have a single post on it here. But I suspect that the contents of this one chapter – less than a fifth of the book – will dominate most reactions to this book.

Overall, the book is a collection of a large number of interesting and thought-provoking analyses and anecdotes and the attitude of the authors is refreshingly healthy.

University Of Alaska Anchorage
University Of Alaska Anchorage: I grew up in Alaska. I didn’t know there were dinosaurs up here, and I admit my perception of dinosaurs has been largely formed by the movies. That changed at this weekend’s Rock and Mineral Show, …

Uaa Online,Uaa Blackboard:
Uaa Online,Uaa Blackboard: This morning at 10, the UAA women’s basketball team will suit up for a game at one of the country’s most storied and hostile basketball arenas, against one of the sport’s giants: Duke University.

UAA Blasts DU, 7-3 – Denver Pioneers Official Athletics Site
Sean Wiles scored twice to lead Alaska Anchorage to a convincing 7-3 win over No. 2/3 Denver in WCHA tonight at Sullivan Arena.

Dr. Francis Collins Speaking at the University of Alaska Anchorage …
This Thursday, March 30, 2006, Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project will be giving a free public talk at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He promises that it won’t be a lecture just for the “science nerds”. …

Murray and Rakhshani Lead DU Past UAA – Denver Pioneers Official …
Rhett Rakhshani (Huntington Beach, Calif.) scored twice and freshman Adam Murray (Anchorage, Alaska) stopped 22 shots in his hometown return as No. 2/3 Denver defeated Alaska Anchorage 3-2 in WCHA action tonight at Sullivan Arena.

My Alaska: University of Alaska Anchorage
This is the newest building at the University of Alaska Anchorage, compliments of ConocoPhillips, and formally named the Integrated Science Building (CPISB). Recently opened this fall, it is eco-friendly, with State-of-the-Art …

University of Alaska Women& Bazaar opens holiday shopping with …
FAIRBANKS — Scarves, jewelry, watercolors and wood carvings were just the beginning of the University Women’s Association 41st annual holiday bazaar, which saw a near-record turnout this weekend inside the University of Alaska Fairbanks …

University of Alaska Anchorage: Midterms
Just try again until you know how you work when it comes to studying and test taking. It defiantly took me a semester before I settled into my own personal routine. Good luck and don’t get discouraged, Lindsay. Posted by UAA Future …

Friday Game Day: Seawolves vs. Pioneers
Friday November 6th, 2009 University of Alaska Anchorage Seawolves vs. University of Denver Pioneers. Game Time: 7:07 PM (Alaska Standard Time) – 9:07 (Mountain Time). Sullivan Arena – Anchorage, Alaska. Links to Other Articles/Previews …

What city should I move to? Reccommend?
alright so heres my deal, im in the usmc reserves and going to be stationed at home (anchorage, ak) and im going to be attending the University of Anchorage Alaska. now my question is does anyone know what would happen if say im in the middle of a semester and i get deployed overseas? im not blocked for deployment because im not in any NJROTC programs or anything like that. i wanna know can i get my tuition back, etc.? is this situation handle differently by different universities? if so what is the most common outcome? thanks a lot

military reserves, college deployment question?
ok, so on the 22 i leave for mcrd san diego and am signed up for infantry reserve. my plan, is to come back to alaska where i live since there is a reserve station here, go to college at uaa(university of anchorage alaska) get my 4 year degree, then apply for ocs. this wasnt my original plan, i was signed up for active duty infantry but my date was delayed due to DOD budget cuts so i looked into this and due to my high ASVAB score this was reccomended. i have all along wanted to look into OCS and this looks like a much more likely way to get it done since ive heard trying to get a degree while on active duty is quite hard/unlikely. now what i wanna know is this, is being prior enlisted then applying for ocs going to make it more likely that i get accepted? i have talked to my recruiter so please dont tell me to ask him, i just want at least another opinion from another person. im going to leave next week regardless, please dont tell me no to, i just wanna know my chances. and if you have any other advice pertaining to this plan i have or other questions to ask my recruiter please share. thanks

USMC officer OCS question?
So I wanted to be an orthodontist for a while, and I have been accepted to UAS for my undergrad. But now I am changing my mind, and wish to be a dental hygienist. UAS does not have a dental hygiene program. I will be in Juneau (where UAS is located) for two years before being able to return to Anchorage where University of Alaska Anchorage offers a dental hygiene program (associates degree). Should I go to UAS for the first two year and get GERS out of the way? Or should I cancel my attendance at UAS (have not signed up for classes yet) and save money for those two years, and then return to Anchorage and start new?

Dental Hygienist education?
I want to major in Political Science. My options are: University of California, Berkeley University of Alaska, Anchorage New York University in New York City Does it matter in which one I go?

Does it matter what University I go to?
okay so i am applying to the university of alaska anchorage. the only have dental assistant and dental hygenist…..i want to become a DENTIST!!!!! i figured i have to pick one of these options then go to dental school……please help!!!! also what degree and major must i pick in order to become a dentist or a doctor.

how to become a dentist in a university..alaska?
Ive been looking into the Air Traffic controler area as a career. I have been looking at the University of Alaska Anchorage for my schooling. My questions are… Is UAA a good school for this program?? Does going through the program and getting an associates give you more of an edge? Or where does it help? Is the degree worth it or should I just take the test (after studying of course) and go down that route?

Couple questions about which route to take with Air Traffic Control career.?
So, Ive been looking into schools for Air Traffic Control. Yes, Ive seen the site on the FAA site that has the list of all the schools. What im wondering is…. What school would I be able to get into the quickest and get out of the quickest for an associates and still not be sacrificing any learning? Also, from your experience or opinion which school with an associates would the school that I would learn the most at? Also, how much will these programs be costing me? How long will they take? Ive been looking at the University of Alaska Anchorage for my schooling. Does anyone know how well this program is at this school? Or are there better programs? Please any insight would be greatly appreciated!!!! Thanks!

What school is my best choice for Air Traffic Control?
We say we want average people to be politicians and represent us do we really mean it? Can or does a woman have place in Politics? Is this a lack of experience and or smarts/wit, a Lack of life experience and understanding of people, and everyday life, wants, needs? Do we really mean what we say or do we sometimes just say things that sound good at the time? What is reality? • Parents: Father: science teacher and track coach. Mother: a school secretary. • Born 1964 – • High School Basketball star ” Barracuda” for her intense playing style. • 1984 runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest. bachelor’s degree in journalism University of Idaho • Got Married • Became a television sports reporter in Anchorage and helped run his family’s commercial fishing business. • entered politics in 1992, winning a seat on the Wasilla City Council by opposing tax hikes. Four years later, she was elected mayor of Wasilla by knocking off a three-term incumbent, all the while having kids too. As mayor, Palin cut property taxes and reduced spending. She also raised the city sales tax by a half a percent to build a popular sports complex and put more money into public safety. • ran first statewide campaign in 2002 in a bid for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. She lost by fewer than 2,000 votes. • Governor appoints her to chair the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003. She resigned a year later in protest over what she perceived to be the “lack of ethics” of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, including Republican Party Chair Randy Ruedrich. • In 2006, wins the Republican primary for Governor, defeating Murkowski. She went on to win the general election in November 2006 by defeating former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49 percent to 41 percent. Making history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn-in as the first woman and youngest governor of Alaska. She was also the state’s first governor who was born after Alaska achieved statehood in 1959. With an emphasis on ethics and openness in government, Palin’s administration focused on education, public safety and transportation. • Mother of 5 • picked as VP mate on August 29, 2008well she was cleared of all wrong doing on that BTW -

We say we want average people to be elected and represent us do we really mean it?
We say we want average people to be politicians and represent us do we really mean it? Can or does a woman have place in Politics? Is this a lack of experience and or smarts/wit, a Lack of life experience and understanding of people, and everyday life, wants, needs? Do we really mean what we say or do we sometimes just say things that sound good at the time? What is reality? •Parents: Father: science teacher and track coach. Mother: a school secretary. •Born 1964 – •High School Basketball star ” Barracuda” for her intense playing style. •1984 runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest. bachelor’s degree in journalism University of Idaho •Got Married •Became a television sports reporter in Anchorage and helped run his family’s commercial fishing business. •entered politics in 1992, winning a seat on the Wasilla City Council by opposing tax hikes. Four years later, she was elected mayor of Wasilla by knocking off a three-term incumbent, all the while having kids too. As mayor, Palin cut property taxes and reduced spending. She also raised the city sales tax by a half a percent to build a popular sports complex and put more money into public safety. •ran first statewide campaign in 2002 in a bid for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. She lost by fewer than 2,000 votes. •Governor appoints her to chair the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003. She resigned a year later in protest over what she perceived to be the “lack of ethics” of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, including Republican Party Chair Randy Ruedrich. •In 2006, wins the Republican primary for Governor, defeating Murkowski. She went on to win the general election in November 2006 by defeating former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49 percent to 41 percent. Making history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn-in as the first woman and youngest governor of Alaska. She was also the state’s first governor who was born after Alaska achieved statehood in 1959. With an emphasis on ethics and openness in government, Palin’s administration focused on education, public safety and transportation. •Mother of 5 •picked as VP mate on August 29, 2008So rich and elite and polished

We say we want average people to be politicians and represent us do we really mean it?
What do you think I should do? I could go to college in Washington state or michigan but I’d much rather go up north to Alaska. I live in Colorado It costs around $1,000 per person for a plane ticket. I also would not be able to visit a college in Alaska because the ticket costs to much too do it. I have never been to Alaska but I come from a town (Boulder) with a real tree hugger culture which is what draws me to the 49th state. University of Alaska at Anchorage or University of Alaska southeast I still have 2.5 years until I get out of high school, and 1.5 years until it’s time to start applying. Thanks

FRONTLINE just aired one of the best documentaries, “The Warning,” on the recent financial collapse. It documents how Brooksely Born, the head of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, CFTC, attempted to regulate OTC derivatives in the late 1990s. She saw the impeding disaster years before it actually happened. Unfortunately, three idiots – Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt – actively sought to prevent the CFTC from creating of new regulations … even though the CFTC had the legal power to regulate.

Obviously, true laissez-faire economics was a failure. In the documentary, Greenspan admits to this to Rep. Waxman in a Congressional hearing. Today, Greenspan and Levitt are supporters of regulation after the meltdown. Too little too late.

Las empresas definen sus estrategias mirando el largo plazo, con la idea de obtener ventajas competitivas (ver artículo Planificar la estrategia de negocio). Lo que define las decisiones estratégicas son dos cosas: tienen que ver con el largo plazo, y son difícilmente reversibles. En la metodología de análisis que llevemos a cabo pasaremos inevitablemente por un paso dedicado al análisis de nuestros competidores. Es aquí donde es preciso tener en cuenta la observación inteligente de T. Levitt en su artículo la “Miopía del Marketing” para definir correctamente y sin errores a nuestra competencia y poder analizar COMO competir, escogiendo la ruta más adecuada (p.e. si seguimos modelo del reloj de Bowman).

La miopía de marketing está relacionada con el hecho de definir el mercado de referencia en términos del producto y no de la necesidad que satisface. Si se mira solamente a los competidores que producen el mismo bien o servicio y no se presta atención a otras empresas, de otras industrias o sectores, que producen bienes destinados a satisfacer la misma necesidad (sustitutivos), se incurrre en un error de miopía de marketing. Los productos no se venden por el bien en sí mismo sino por la función que cumplen y la necesidad que satisfacen (percepción del cliente).

Nuestro sector o nuestro mercado es aquel en el que están nuestros competidores. Empecemos por definir correctamente quienes son…

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

When Freakonomics came out in 2005 I was blown away. It was such a new style of critical thinking about how we look at professional competition, crime rates, and success to name a few. It became the run-away book that year and is now used as a text in sociology courses at some pretty distinguished Universities. So it should come as no surprise that Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have released a new book Superfreakonomics, which continues the trend of questioning the way we see the world, while providing a compelling ‘rogue’ view to why some things are the way they are. The difference this time is the inclusion of practical solutions to some of the problems investigated, which was never a concern in the first book. In the most controversial chapter of Superfreakonomics. ‘What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common?‘ the suggestion is made that geo-engineering is a better approach to limiting global warming than the reduction of Co2 into the atmosphere. Levitt and Dubner delve into a new arena of not only looking at the ‘hidden side’ but promoting a ’silver bullet’ solution to a problem they don’t really understand. The rebuke of this chapter has been constant and unrelenting with everyone from Paul Krugman to former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and influential climate blogger Joe Romm getting in on the action. What are the inherent problems these people have with Superfreakonomics?

1) Mis-quoting climate scientists

Ken Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution of Washington was heavily quoted in the book and feels his work and his answers given in an interview were misconstrued. From an interview with Yale environment 360 last week;

Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over SuperFreakonomics. In the book, you are quoted as saying, when it comes to global warming, “Carbon dioxide is not the right villain.” Is that accurate?

Ken Caldeira: That is not accurate. I don’t believe I said anything remotely like that because I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide, and I don’t think we can solve this carbon climate problem unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions very soon.

e360: They also write that you are convinced that human activity is responsible for “some” global warming. What does that mean?

Caldeira: I don’t think we can say with certainty whether we’re responsible for 90 percent of it or we might be responsible for 110 percent of it. But the vast majority of global warming, I believe, is due to human release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

2) The misrepresentation of Global Warming as a religion

From Superfreakonomics;

Any religion, meanwhile, has its heretics, and global warming is no exception.

Hummm…. its always easier to make a disagreeable point by labelling the people who will disagree with you, as heretics. Works well for the right wing when they label Obama as a socialist first and then oppose health care reform. The idea of Global warming being a religion is totally disingenuous and misleading. By taking an unqualified talking point of the Global Warming denial brigade and using it without a shred of irony, Levitt and Dubner show themselves to be fairly unequipped to be to handle this touchy issue with any sort of grace. Disgracing your opponents with brash categorization, devalues your opinion.

They also might want to watch the company they keep;

3) Trumpet the “little-discussed fact” that the average global temperature has decreased in recent years

As the Associated Press released this week;

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs? In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

The ‘little discussed fact’ is indeed a falsehood. A short lived recent decline that has been blown out of proportion.

Yet the authors have never had a ‘moral or policy perspective’ while writing Superfreakonomics.

I’ve only mentioned three, but there are many other objections to the Chapter. A great overview of these objections can be found here. The biggest problem is that Levitt and Dubner have always claimed a sort of moral ambiguity when it comes to their positions and findings, yet in regards to global warming they seem to be pushing some sort of disillusionment campaign. If they want to have a debate on GW and its remedies go ahead but, don’t try to push the topic off as ‘rouge investigation’ or outside the box questioning. You disenfranchise that position when you misrepresent people and misrepresent communities. I still look forward to reading Superfreakonommics but in my mind this last refuge of unbiased observation has been tarnished.

“When I looked in her eyes they were blue,

but nobody home”BPSDB

I thought I was done with this particular tar baby and would just leave it to Brian to keep track of the ongoing discussion of Superfreakonomics, but like others (eg here and here) I just can’t seem to shake it off. Actually there are some good reasons to revisit it, so please bear with me … or jump right to “what you can do.”

• He’s right

• It’s bad, seriously bad

• Popular sentiment

• Why it matters

• What you can do

He’s right

An interesting exchange took that took place on a forum a couple of days ago raised an important question generally, but with reference to Superfreaknonomics specifically. As is too often the case the more general discussion will have to wait while we deal with the Superfreaks.

On the forum in question Michael Tobis suggested that the blogosphere had a qualified victory with Superfreakonomics in managing to get the factual message ‘out there.’  Robert Grumbine quite reasonably asks  “But just what has been achieved?”

My take on it is, he’s right (cf Tevye).

I do believe we have managed to achieve something, while also agreeing with Grumbine that we need to understand exactly what, and what it means. The baseline for judging whether we have “achieved something” was the ‘do nothing’ scenario. I agree with Michael Tobis that saying nothing would have be taken as de facto accepting the Superfreakonomics version of climate science as credible. That was not an acceptable possibility.

I think it is also fair and reasonable to also ask what we might have done instead, and what effect that may have had. Not that I have any ideas, but you never get ideas for alternatives if you don’t ask yourself every time.

I certainly don’t believe that we have hurt book sales. At best we may have shifted them somewhat, probably even helped sell more books since controversy never hurts sales.

What we have achieved is that when people search the internet for the book title the front page of the search gets at least some articles that are critical of it. Not enough of them, and not in the top 5 hits, but at least some are on the front page. The average person stands a reasonable chance of being made aware the the book has significant problems with it’s treatment of climate.

It’s bad, seriously bad

The climate chapter of the book is bad …  really bad. The detailed critiques abound (and as discussed before) so I won’t repeat them; just to note that we’re not talking a few casual errors or some minor misinformation, we’re talking full on ignorance.

How bad? like actually using Happer as an alleged credible source and consequently screwing up 200 year old science that you can find in How and Why Wonder Books for ages 10 and up. … That bad.  Adam Siegel captures it very well with “the truthiness-laden pages of Superfreakonomics“; ie there are not that many outright falsehoods per se, but the parsing and presentation are carefully constructed as to leave the naive reader far more ignorant and misinformed than they had been.

Over at Deltoid Hank Roberts brings up an important point in Superfreakonomics defense, sort of.

““The only significant error,” he [Caldeira] wrote to Romm, “is the line: ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.’ That is just wrong and I never would have said it. On the other hand, I f&@?ed up. They sent me the draft and I approved it without reading it carefully and I just missed it. … I think everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing.” If that’s accurate…”

Hank Roberts

If it’s accurate then it does muddy the issue somewhat.  Since Caldeira”never would have said it” it begs the question as to where they got their version of Caldeira’s views from, and whether they were knowingly misrepresenting him.

On the other hand they do seem to have exercised due diligence in offering it to Caldeira for comment, and they cannot be faulted for not making a correction that no one asked for.

—-

UPDATE: 19:40 EST. OK, it’s even more complicated and nuanced than that … you judge “Caldeira explains the “right villain” episode”

—-

Romm has kept up the pressure:

• Coauthor of Superfreakonomics apologizes to me
• Myhrvold jumps the shark — and jumps ship on Superfreakonomics
• Interviews support my reporting on Superfreakonomics

Two critiques of the authors “rebuttal” that I shouldn’t have missed (can’t read everything):

• Superfreaking lame response on global cooling issue
• Superfreaks latest defense: they weren’t answering the most important question about climate change

The upshot seems to be that it’s contrarianism for it’s own sake, and not particularly well done contrarianism at that:

Levitt and Dubner just parachute into the field of climate science and offer some lazy punditry on the subject dressed up as “contrarianism.” There’s no original research. There’s nothing bold or explosive. It’s just garden-variety ignorance.

Bradford Plumer, “Does “Superfreakonomics” Need A Do-Over?“

• Superfreakonomics: How did they get climate change so wrong?
• Contrarianism without consequences
• Rules for Contrarians: 1. Don’t whine. That is all

Popular sentiment

On the plus side sites that do not typically discuss climate change are talking about it, and some of it is good (eg Superfreakonomics Panned For Getting Global Warming 100% Wrong). The axiom that any publicity is good publicity cuts both ways.

On the minus side, on too many sites it is not in an intelligent or informed discussion.

Take Are You A Real Scientist? Find Out Now! for example; amusing enough in it’s way, with the humourous flow chart and all, but it’s the usual climate change Denier fraud of pretending that the few dozen industry shills and cranks who propagate blatant frauds are somehow “real scientists”, whereas the millions who actually do climate research and/or base their conclusions on actual science are merely Al Gore puppets. For all I know this site may even be a generally intelligent one (I barely skimmed the other posts to ensure it was not a typical Denier site), but on the climate issue as seen in Superfreakonomics it is pure mis-informed Denierism.

Or “Eggheads Get All Riled Up Over Global-Warming Theories in SuperFreakonomics“; you can tell where that is going. Not  ’scientists’ (credible), but “Eggheads” (nerdy idiots). Not ‘object to obvious errors and misrepresentations’ (reasonable), but “Get All Riled Up” (irrational). Not ‘climate change science’ (fact based), but “Global-Warming Theories” (speculation). The actual article is not so bad and not nearly the hack job that the title would suggest, but I’ll bet it’s the tone of the title that it’s readers remember.

And then there are those who not only think that they now understand climate change, but that there is a cheap and effective solution. “Superfreaky solution to global warming” pretty much tells you what the article itself says, with absolutely no awareness of the huge problems and risks involved. How could they know? the book certainly doesn’t address them intelligently.

In the “more intelligent and informed” department we have things like Yoram Bauman (here and here) which is critical of Superfreakonomics and his articles are getting positive attention (eg here).  Yglesias praises Bauman as he “avoids attacking the superfreaks with any kind of strong language, name-calling, imputations of bad faith, or, indeed, real sense of urgency.” Most of that is positive, but the latter, the lack of a “real sense of urgency” is both accurate and a concern. The trouble is that these critiques are … well …  tepid.

The fact is that anyone not familiar with climate science is unlikely to appreciate just how inexcusably bad the chapter is. For the most part the problems are things that a bright high school senior should be expected to have gotten right, so it’s a shock that Dubner and Levitt got them so wrong.

I can see it leaving the public wondering if it isn’t a tempest in a teapot. It is so easy for people to fall into the mindset of ‘Bold new visionaries’ that the authors are, what does it matter that they got ‘a few details wrong’? It’s the Catch 22 of it not seeming important if you don’t ‘yell’, and sounding hysterical if you do. As an aside I have to wonder how much “name calling” and “bomb throwing” there would be if something this appallingly stupid had been written about economics.

Needless to say, the Denialosphere is having a field day as Deltoid documents in “What Do Superfreakonomics And Senator Inhofe Have In Common? No surprises there, but it adds to the noise that to the uninformed can seem as if the book has some credible support. How is the average person to know that Senator Laughing Stock from Hee Haw and Patrick Michaels are not credible sources for the time of day, much less climate science?

Why it matters

“Why does this matter? Because there’s a titanic battle going on over whether and how to reduce carbon emissions, and this soon-to-be bestseller tries to convince people that we don’t need to do so.”

Eric Pooley, Freakonomics Guys Flunk Science of Climate Change

“Remember the tobacco lobby tactics ? “Doubt is our product” was their motto and modus operandi. The Superfreakers build doubt about the Science of Climate Change into their presentation right from the start.”

Jo Abess, Superfreakonomics – Ooh Baby !

["Where there's smoke, the climate change Denial lobby" for more on climate Denierism and the tobacco lobby.]

Tom Olson compares Superfreaks (very unfavourably) to Katharine Hayhoe’s upcoming “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions.” No doubt, but let’s face it, what are the respective readerships going to be like? In his review Tim Harford noted that “In the end, a book such as SuperFreakonomics stands or falls on its entertainment value. And on that count, there’s no doubt: it’s a page-turner.” There’s the rub, many more people are going to read Superfreakonomics than intelligent discussions of climate a science.

Make no mistake, I’d love everyone to read it if they understood the basic science. There’s nothing like reading Denier dreck to really appreciate just how appallingly vacuous and idiotic the Deniers are.

Unfortunately many of those who read Superfreakonomics are going to be left with the impression that they actually learned something. In fact they would have learned more and better science from a kiddy site, but they won’t realize that.

Which brings me back to my original point, that we need to make sure that people are seeing the critiques of the book so that they at least know that the content should be regarded with suspicion (ie actual skepticism, what a concept!).

What you can do

When it comes to moving a post up in the search engines, links matter – a lot. Pick one or more of the critiques that you particularly like (or one of the compendiums) and get the some link out there. You can do this by:

• posting them to a blog or site if you have one;
• tweeting them;
• share them on social networks like  Facebook and on forums;
  
• voting them up on any news sharing site that allow voting (eg Science &/or Earthblips, Stumble, Buzz, Digg, Care2, Reddit, etc;
• posting them to one or more of the above sites if they are not already there.

It matters, it really does, so please do it for at least one article by anyone that you liked (it also helps people to discover your favourite blogs – you will be doing some people a favour). Take two minutes right now and do it … please? 

UPDATE: Freakonomics comes in for some more well deserved flack in the Associated Press global cooling story posted here.

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 364 … still no evidence.

IMAGE CREDITS:

super freak eyes by Magalie L’Abbé

All my girls by rustykeller

Voldemort should see a dentist by kevindooley

170809-095 CPS by hha124l

home oxygen mask by Yankee November

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

• The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
• The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.

The Telegraph (UK) MIXED: Essentially, Superfreakonomics consists of more of the same. This might get wearying were it not for the fact that Levitt and Dubner’s zeal for statistical anomalies is as undimmed as their eye for a good story. … Sex, as you will have gathered, looms quite large in this book, at least at the start; Levitt and Dubner know the importance of softening up their readers with a bit of smut before hitting them with the heavier stuff. Their research into Chicago prostitution reveal that prostitutes’ wages have plummeted in real terms in the last 60 years. … What, you may wonder, has this got to do with people responding to incentives? Unless I’m missing something, the answer is absolutely nothing. Yet perhaps this is the wrong way to read Superfreakonomics. Perhaps it’s best to forget any ideas of cohesion and just lie back and let Levitt and Dubner’s bouncy prose style carry you along from one peculiarity to the next.

WSJ blog POSITIVE:  “SuperFreakonomics,” by the economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, is not only a book with mind-blowing ideas, innovative research and quality investigative journalism, it’s also a story about creativity and what it takes to get the mindset to turn conventional concepts upside down. The authors have found their stride with “SuperFreakonomics.” As good as the first “Freakonomics” was, I found this read much more enjoyable and interesting.

The Guardian (UK) NEGATIVE:  The genius of the original book lay in its ability to turn hard data into stories as interesting as the best anecdotes. This book treats mildly interesting anecdotes as though they were substitutes for hard data. … The real problem is that there is too much of people like Allie [one of the anecdotes] and too little of Levitt. We hear something of his latest research – about how drink-walking is more dangerous than drink-driving, or why children’s car seats may be no safer than seatbelts. But we don’t hear nearly enough and too many questions are left unanswered; for instance, whether more people die walking home drunk because they are simply so much drunker than people who still think they can drive. … Superfreakonomics is not a bad book, but it’s not a patch on the first – it has very little of the charm or the originality. Yet in their rather smug preface, the authors say that they believe the second book “is easily better than the first”. Can they really think this?

Financial Times (Tim Harford) POSITIVE: This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better. … In the end, a book such as SuperFreakonomics stands or falls on its entertainment value. And on that count, there’s no doubt: it’s a page-turner. … More revealing, though, was that I’d folded over at least a dozen pages, resolving to go back, follow up the references, and find out more. This is a book with plenty of style; underneath the dazzle, there is substance too.

The Independent (UK) POSITIVE: Levitt and Dubner, in this “freakquel” to their wildly successful 2005 book Freakonomics, offer another collection of “things you always thought you knew but didn’t; and things you never knew you wanted to know but do”.” Such as, why it’s more likely that you’ll die as a drunk pedestrian than a drunk driver, and how monkeys can be taught to use money. So it’s great fun. … Would I recommend this book to an economics teacher? Yes, provided they were comfortable discussing with their students what might be described as “adult themes”. Some of us were brought up to understand the laws of supply and demand in terms of how they affected the market for apples, cups of tea, or cars. Not our freakonomists, who instead turn to the market for paid sex in Chicago, then and now, to stimulate the reader.

LA Times POSITIVE: Thank goodness they are back — with wisdom, wit and, most of all, powerful economic insight. … The examples the authors use in “Super Freakonomics” won’t disappoint, though these are now more concentrated on edgier topics. Prostitution, terrorism and the altruistic indeterminacy of just about everything form much of the landscape in this book. Topics are simultaneously interesting and profoundly disturbing — in other words, freaky. … Surprisingly, the book left me hopeful that we can tackle seemingly intractable social problems. Human ingenuity is clearly in no short supply in “Super Freakonomics,” and we can thank Steve and Steve for making Le Freak still chic.

Washington Post (blog – Ezra Klein) NEGATIVE:  Super Freakonomics is getting a lot of flak for its flip contrarianism on climate change, most of which seems based on incorrectly believing solar panels are black (they’re blue, and this has surprisingly large energy implications) and misquoting important climate scientists.  But before people begin believing that the problem with Super Freakonomics is that it annoys environmentalists, let’s be clear: The problem with Super Freakonomics is it prefers an interesting story to an accurate one. … It’s terrifically shoddy statistical work. You’d get dinged for this in a college class. But it’s in a book written by a celebrated economist and a leading journalist. Moreover, the topic isn’t whether people prefer chocolate or vanilla, but whether people should drive drunk. It is shoddy statistical work, in other words, that allows people to conclude that respected authorities believe it is safer for them to drive home drunk than walk home drunk. It’s shoddy statistical work that could literally kill somebody. That makes it more than bad statistics. It makes it irresponsible.  But hey, it makes for a fun and unexpected opener.

And don’t miss The Guardian’s parody:  Some decisions are very easy. Like the one to cash-in on an unexpected bestseller. But some are very hard. Would you rather drive home pissed from a party or walk? Sayonara if you choose to walk, because you’re far more likely to be run over by all the other people driving back from the party pissed! … Does it seem odd that so many top sports stars are born at the same time of year? Almost certainly not, because Malcolm Gladwell already covered this in Outliers earlier this year and it wasn’t interesting then, as it was just a spin on educational year cohorts that most people already know. But here’s the twist: a study by Captain Nemo from the Nautilus Institute shows that 99.9% of all readers won’t remember where they read it first, so we can claim this factoid as our own.  [And much, much more...]

Seen the film? The blue dress Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) wears to the work colleagues wedding. The dress she dances with Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in before stomping all over his heart on her rooftop. According to an interview with 500 Days‘ costume designer Hope Hanafin, the dress came from Western Costume – a North Hollywood outfit that “[f]rom the birth of Hollywood to the new millennium … has dressed virtually every major star film has known.” I’d like to see you beat that claim.

Leafing through the ebook (sorry, the paperback haven’t reached our shores yet), I can’t help but notice that Dubner and Levitt grossly misinterpret (even misrepresent) the research of others. I am not disputing their matter, I am simply disputing their representation of other peoples work.
 
The chapter starts with the ‘global cooling’ article and claims that 30 years ago a scientific agreement was reached that the planet was cooling, as opposed to contemporary understanding that the planet is actually warming up.
 
I think they are wrong.
 
Today, a whole suite of climate research programs being researched (many with the backing of tertiary institutions and governments and MNC’s) includes a platitude of scientists and many peer to peer reviews. These researches agrees that global warming is real, and that the cause is human. To the sceptics, you can discredit this study as a big scam, as I did with my earth hour email preceding this.
 
As I understand it, in the 70’s, a few scientists who had a cooling hypothesis conducted that study (notice the plurality) and that these scientists, coupled with media frenzy in support of their theory kept this myth going. A website (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) debunks this myth. Quite isolated study actually.
 
The book argues further:
 
Do the future benefits from cutting emissions outweigh the costs of doing so? Or are we better off waiting to cut emissions later or even perhaps, polluting at will, and just learning to live in a hotter world? The economist Martin Weitzman analyzed the best available climate models and concluded that the future holds a 5 percent chance of a terrible-case scenario.
Haha.
Weitzman’s paper (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/REStatModeling.pdf) says exactly the opposite of what superfreakonomics is trying to prove:
 
The conventional economic advice of spending modestly on the abatement now but gradually ramping up expenditures over time is an extreme lower bound on what is reasonable rather than a best estimate of what is reasonable.
 
The correlation of importance in representing correctly what other peoples work/action and the credibility of your own is very much related. Freakonomics was nice, superfreakonomics, (at least in the climate chapter) seems to discredit themselves.

***

The eye doesn’t see what the mind doesn’t know

***

Potentially useful ways to spend a few minutes over Diwali weekend:

1. While this dates back a few months, Felix Salmon’s piece on the pitfalls of placing too much faith in the Gaussian copula speaks to my earlier thoughts on Mandelbrot’s financial work. Those looking for an erudite summary of what went wrong should read it.

2. Another article from a few months back (thanks for the link Chai) that is mighty interesting; has there ever been a study of this breadth?

3. Information on the work of Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson, recipients of this year’s Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (can’t we just dispense with political correctness and call it the Nobel Prize in Economics?); its a mere 14 pages, making for quick reading.

4. Sambit Bal is right on the money: Younis Khan does deserve better and its high time that the PCB got its act together.

5. Ehud Olmert was at the University of Chicago yesterday, speaking at the King Abdullah II Annual Leadership Lecture (think about how many things are wrong with that statement, right there). Given that this came on the heels of a John Bolton lecture- organized by the Chicago Friends of Israel and Campus Republicans- people might be forgiven for thinking that the liberal left had vanished. Not so: people from around the city journeyed down to Hyde Park to protest Olmert’s speech, covered by ABC7 News.

6. A good read on an obscure cricketer.

7. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner get taken to the cleaners for gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations in their follow-up to Freakonomics, Superfreakonomics.

8. Finally, President Obama wishes everyone a Happy Diwali as well:

Incidentally, Kalpen Modi (aka Kal Penn aka Kumar from the Harold and Kumar movies) posted that to the White House page.

Smile.

Thursday, September 24, 2009, Washington’s Blog: 

Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt will tell the House Committee on Financial Services today that it would be helpful to ban SIVs. In his prepared remarks, Levitt says:

Clearly, a series of other rules – banning the use of off-balance sheet vehicles, to name just one – would move information about major institutions into the public sphere, making it possible for market participants to price risk appropriately and for a systemic risk regulator to demand fresh infusions of liquidity or higher margin requirements if needed.

Posted by TheLCster

O’Reilly tries his best to talk over Professor Levitt, an avowed Republican conservative. So right off the bat, O’Reilly was not able to dismiss him as a liberal or Democrat. I agree that all conservatives and Republicans are not racially biased against the President. But it was humorous to watch the Professor read off racially-tinged signs at Fox’s News’ 9/12 demonstrations in Washington, and ask O’Reilly why the Republican party was not discouraging this right-wing fringe behavior.

Dr. Jeremy Levitt

Here is the link to the article written by Professor Levitt, that got O’Reilly’s attention.

President Obama, Race and the Unpatriotic Right

There’s something thats fundamentaly wrong with this film. The fact that it’s “not a love story” really limits it somewhat. I didn’t come across a bad review of the film when it was finally generally released across the country about a month ago and many have gave it five stars and so-forth. There’s no doubting that, because it’s a genuinely good film and the way it chops and changes it’s chronological order so much adds to it’s charm and it manages to achieve a disorganised but cutsey feel by doing this. However, and this is a big however, as a viewer, I didn’t react well to the whole depressing break up part because it was just painful.

I felt Tom’s pain when Summer drifts away from him and it’s rather odd that the film left me feeling heartbroken – which now makes me feel a bit pathetic now I’ve written it down – but I think the writer’s have perhaps tried to be a bit too clever with the story. Conventional films of this genre tend to follow the same theme as normal themes – boy meets girl, girl and boy fall in love, boy and girl argue, girl breaks boys heart (or vice versa), girl/boy realises mistake and then happy ending as they get back together. However (500) Days does the unthinkable and fucks with this tried and tested formula.

The very beginning, the deep-voiced narrator warns us that this is not a love story. But there’s no denying it, it really is a love story and one of the most painful I think I’ve ever watched. The way that you see Joseph Gordon-Levitt falling in love with Zooey Deschanel makes it appear that you’re falling in love with her too. It’s incredibly disconcerting to be a part of this through the talents of the cinematorium. The way the film skips from the beginning to parts at the end don’t brace yourself for their inevitable end but instead just made me dread the moment when Summer (Deschanel) drifts away from Tom (Gordon-Levitt). By the end I wasn’t happy for how the film turned out and how both parties had moved on but I felt robbed of this perfect romance as if somehow I was a part of it. And I hate it when films make me feel like that.

Anyway, on a lighter note, this is by far the best film I’ve seen this year as it’s clever, daring and non-conforming in it’s order, which I really liked – even if it did kinda make me feel really depressed by the end of the film. What’s clever about it is that you’re made aware of the films entire plot more or less right at the beginning of the film, which is why I’m not spoiling it for you by admitting they do split in the end. But it’s how this plot is twisted and turned which is the clever part. The film’s music is also amazing and fits the kooky image that the film portrays. Whilst watching it, I couldn’t help but think of Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, as the general love feel of the film closely links with the gradual story based in (500) Days.

Finally, I know the arrangement of this blog is a bit incorrect and my use of language isn’t my best but I wanted to get some thoughts down into a blog. So there you have it.

Check back later.

Bueno, parece que llego tarde a algunas cosas, estoy leyendo Freakonomics, a pesar de que se publicó en 2004, pero tengo la sensación de que por aquí pasó más desapercibido.. de Steven D. Levitt y Stephen J. Dubner , la verdad es que lo estoy disfrutando.
En resumidas cuentas viene a decir algo que ya sabemos pero que no interiorizamos, que la realidad no es en la mayoría de las ocasiones lo que parece o lo que nos gusta imaginarnos que es. Moldeamos nuestras realidades a nuestra mejor conveniencia y aceptamos como buenas opiniones siempre y cuando se ajusten a nuestras expectativas o visiones.

Lectura recomendable, si alguien quiere seguir el blog del NY ahí va Freakonomics

En próximos posts algunos detalles

Los Angeles’s leading Latin culture and events site, LatinoLA.com, interviews Cordero and promotes their performance at the Levitt Pavilion Pasadena!

Cordero Returns With its Latin-Indie Vibes

Sweet vocal melodies blended with trumpet harmonies, meandering keys and danceable rhythms at the Levitt Pavilion, Aug. 29

By Gabriel San Roman   |   Published on LatinoLA: August 27, 2009

Cordero are making their way once more to the West Coast for tour dates in support of their latest album “De Dónde Eres,” released a year ago to critical acclaim. The band will be making a local stop this Saturday, August 29 at the Levitt Pavilion Memorial Park in Pasadena, an outside venue already conducive to becoming a street party, but before that, singer/guitarist Ani Cordero made time to speak with LatinoLA about her music….

For full interview, click image below…

Habla Blah Blah – English bilingualism with children via silly music and rockin’ classes, is proud to present a free outdoor concert starring the singers, dancers, and instructors of habla blah blah and featuring Jamey Hood, actress, singer, and children’s entertainer (formerly of the Hollywood Bowl).

habla blah blah introduces children to the sounds and words of Spanish through their self-titled music CD’s and “mommy & me” style classes.  The goal is to provide children and their caregivers with Spanish phrases that are readily applicable to their everyday life, i.e. “I’m hungry/Tengo Hambre” and “I want to play!/Quiero jugar!”  Music CD’s are recommended as class materials or can be enjoyed separately to promote Spanish-English bilingualism in the home.  While the self-titled CD’s enjoy international distribution, classes in the Los Angeles area are growing steadily with nine different locations hosting this Fall 2009.

FREE Concert this Wednesday at 7PM

By Brick Wahl

Published on August 19, 2009 at 5:23pm

On Sunday The Gathering play the Levitt Pavilion in Pasadena. Woodwind maestro Jesse Sharps tethers this bunch together, keeping aflame Horace Tapscott’s Arkestra concept (been a half-century now!) with one of this town’s most exciting younger tenors, Kamasi Washington — and with a mess of other great players, some masked dancers and African drumming. We’ve raved plenty about Washington lately, getting crowds out of their seats, hollering before his solo is near halfway done (memories of Paul Gonsalves at Newport). Sharps has matched him with vocalist Dwight Trible; the acoustics are such at the Levitt that his tremendous voice will carry clear through Old Town, wafting over the busy traffic. Eerie.

The Gathering at the Levitt Pavilion Pasadena this Sunday at 7PM. FREE ADMISSION.