Imagine this: industrial farmers running around their corn mazes, laughing, giggling, and thinking about all of the subsidies they will be receiving shortly. As you step out of the maze there is going to be a fence and behind that fence will be all of the (very few) pastoral farmers. The expressions on their faces will probably be disgusted, they think to themselves, “wow, they don’t even realize what they are doing…” The industrial farmers have now invited their government friends to join the party, subsidies are being thrown in the air. “It’s subsidy party” one of them shouts and like piñata the subsidies are thrown, the industrial farmers run around frantically trying to get at least one piece of “candy.” The industrial farmers look at the unwanted guests behind the fence, very confused as to why they didn’t try to get on the guest list… Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore "hidden-in-plan-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.
For some reason whenever we see a number we automatically assume it is correct. In the movie Freakonomics they question these original numbers, by using different new numbers. Levitt and Dubner who are well educated use other well educated people who have similar ideas on economics to further making a point. Through statistics and data though it is easier for the mass to comprehend exactly what point they are trying to make. For instance, Steve Levitt and other economists from University of Chicago decide to experiment in a High school in Chicago. “Incentives matter…if you have a good idea of people’s incentives, you know how they are going to act.” (Levitt) They focus on two kids who start with more or less similar grades. The African American student seems much more entranced by the bribe they are giving them. If they get above a C in every class they get $50 that month. The Caucasian student is less enthusiastic. By the end of the experiment though the African American student gets the $50 dollars and improves his grades, while the Caucasian student gets worse grades. Although their experiment only showed an increase slightly in the some of the students the incentive did work for a number of people. If money isn’t the right incentive to use as a bribe that may be a reason why it didn’t work for some students. However, if students are given a push to work harder, maybe there isn’t harm in that at all. School is defiantly a huge discourse in this country, since we are a nation who struggles in this field maybe if students had more realistic goals they would be more likely to succeed. If people were given a incentive to eat better, maybe they would. People are not completely oblivious to unhealthy food however, regardless of all the information until they are confronted personally how much of a change are they really going to make?
The authors of this book/narrators of the movie use an array of tools to make sure all of the pieces fit. They used the tool of bribery as I mentioned in my first argument. In other words, they give an incentive to try and see if it makes the people push harder to succeed. They look at how the crime rates dropped from the 1980's to the 1990's, why this happened, what the media said happened, and then conclude what probably really happened. They compare the statistics of the track record of wins and loses for the sumo-wrestlers. They see how it makes no sense that on the final stage people who have consistently won all of the sudden loose. They figure out that our names are only a part of who we are. That where we grow up and the encouragement we are given are much more crucial to our success. However 33% more people were hired in the job market probably due to the fact that they had stereotypical caucasian names, so the people hiring could assume their race. The touch upon the subjects that are so normal to us we don't think about. They show us that if we questioned these subjects we may uncover truth that surprised us. Dubner says: "What if this thing everyone thinks is so, really isn't so..." I don't even if think it has anything to us being scared of the truth, I just feel like we think things happen in life that we cannot control, so why bother trying to figure out what is so wrong with it? "Is it possible to free ourselves from our delusions?" (Yukki 10/14/10) In regards to that question, we won't ever be free until something so drastic happens that we probably won't be prepared for or see coming. If we were more informed by the alternative points of view of all these core subjects, if our delusions were one day ruptured we may be able to not be so shocked by the truth revealed. In regards to food though, people are not going to change. They will believe what they want to believe. Even if all the evidence is laid right in front of their eyes, on their plates, in their stomachs, in their fat, they are going to keep living... because we usually think we are right. We don't want to admit that someone else may have a good point. Humans hate being wrong but how can we all be right all the time? It is impossible, so the real question is, who is right?
This movie touches on more than just the problem of economics. It is a bold clear example of how oblivious our nation is. We are judgmental and ignorant, we get so aggravated if someone tries to question our ideas. We can't begin to understand how they don't understand them at the same level as we do. Is there any solution to this huge mess? Everything we say is a contradiction of what someone else is saying. All of us live so differently, have different morals. There is nothing wrong with difference but what is right anymore? What is our best bet to having a long life. If the people informing us and backing up our ideas are giving false explanations than who can we trust? Is the only way to solve this to live the way you want to, and if it doesn't go as smooth as you anticipated than there is only so much more you can do?
No comments:
Post a Comment