Ending of Freakanomics...

This chapter started off very interestingly but started to drag a little bit towards the middle. It dealt with names and how they correspond to a child’s life.

 

            In the previous chapters the authors wrote about how parents don’t really have influence on their child’s life and how conventional wisdom is generally wrong; this chapter was no different. They stated that there are certain trends among various different racial groups in name choices.

 

            I found it very true about both the most common black and white names they mentioned. I also very strongly agreed with some of the more outlandish sounding names that some black girls’ sport. Names that are very strongly black related are generally given to a child to ‘confirm’ them with their predominately black neighborhood. I believe this to make sense but sad. The book stated that if a black wanted to study calculus or ballet that they would be considered ‘acting white’; if pursuing what one desires leads to the wrong group, is it wrong?

 

            I think its somewhat tragic that maybe the reason I don’t see many blacks in higher level classes is not because they are not capable, but because it is not socially acceptable. What happened to bettering oneself and one’s own race? What happened to the ideals MLK taught? Why now do black discriminate amongst their own if one of them decides they like astrophysics instead of basketball? Is that such a bad thing? It’s a horrible waste of potential. If more blacks would pursue some of these desires and if it’s was viewed as okay to pursue them, maybe stereotypes would be abolished.

 

            The main theme of this chapter was that it does not depend on the name that someone has that determines success, moreover it depends on the type of parent who would name their child the name they receive. If a parent has lower education or is in a lower socioeconomic status, they are more likely to name their child a certain name, same holds true for higher education and social status. Upto a certain point, success is I guess predetermined. One must of course work hard in order to earn the things they want, but some people have better chances than others.

 

The epilogue to the book about the two paths to Harvard really ended the book well. The two paths were a black kid who was abandoned by his mom and beaten by his dad and a white kid who grew up rich in a nice neighborhood who ended up being the unibomber.

Life is too screwed up to put generalizations on it. 

-Bluey OUTTTTTTT

What Makes a Perfect Parent?....Idk but reading this chapter doesn't help

This chapter was a little grueling to get through and I had to slowly trudge along. I was looking for something a little more interesting after the last chapter being so statistically filled, I wanted something with more of a hook. I did not find what I was looking for. 

This chapter was about what makes a good parent but honestly 3/4 of it was so contradictory and confusing I had trouble staying awake or following the reasoning behind the authors. They started a paragraph with a reason and then ended it with a question contradicting it and then explained the contradiction in the next paragraph and it kept going back and forth back and forth for what seemed like forever. 

The last ten or so pages however did kind of break it down better. They spelled out the main factors for a child scoring well in their first few years in school and the correlation to the parents involvement.

What they found was that most factors that influence young kids to do better on their tests isn't what their parents do but what they are. For example if the parents are smart the kids too will be intelligent. I was kind of interested in this point because I've always noticed that some families are just all very intelligent and the kids follow the parents. Also it kind of did seem to be like well if your parents aren't smart you're kind of screwed aren't you kid? But the truth is, which they lightly touched upon is work ethic really matters, but I supposed not until you're older. 

I also thought it was interesting the correlation the book showed regarding adoption. It said that parents who put their children up for adoption had lower IQ's therefore their kids scored lower on their tests. It seemed that parents really do matter, but age? How does age matter?

One factor they also mentioned was that mothers who waited until they were 30 to have their first child were more likely to have children score higher on their tests. I always thought that mothers who had their kids as they got older had an increased chance of having a baby with a mental disability. I suppose that would be older than 30, but it totally does make sense that a mother would wait until she was 30 because then that could mean she was working on her career. The mother also could  have been a recovering drug addict and finally got clean and had a baby. A lot of these statistics are kind of silly I think.

Honestly these correlations are pretty stupid because the bottom line is that if parents have high IQ's then their kids will too. That's it. I was getting sick with how the book was dancing around that for so long. I understand it was to lead us into the traditional ways we do and then showing us the truth, it just annoys me. 

Thank you authors for your godly knowledge. You better have written the rest of the book much better because you are seriously lacking here. Come on now!

-Bluey OUTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Abortion=less crime?

This chapter discussed a lot about the crime rates in America during the late 80’s and the reason they decreased throughout the 90’s.

There were several reasons that were given in the beginning of the chapter and I could not tell which were the real reasons and which the media created. I liked how the chapter started though. I thought it was ironic that because the ruler in Romania banned abortion in the country all these unwanted babies were born who ultimately threw him out of power. The very people he virtually created hated him for their existence. It sounds like it should be in some type of movie, but it was real. I thought it was kind of a depressing and true take on life.

I personally happen to be pro-choice, as in I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to keep a baby. If a person doesn’t believe that they can give their child a good life, then they shouldn’t have a baby until they change that. I mean it is common for a parent to want the best for their child and want to give them whatever they need to succeed in life. If someone has a child that they do not feel the need to provide the best for, I do not see the child living a very good life. When a baby is unwanted he or she grows up in negligence from their parents which is no way to live, especially not when the child believes his parents hate him for something he did.

I can’t even imagine being a kid whose parents hate him and he doesn’t know why. That kind of guilt would be unbearable. What kind of parent would raise their child in that kind of environment?

I can understand and do believe that a rise in abortion would lead to a lower crime rate as was stated in the book. It makes sense. If a kid is wanted and grows up in a loving environment, it is more likely that he will be a law-abiding member of society. Of course there will be outliers, a person raised in the top 1% of the population can end up a crackhead just like someone in the lower 1% and someone in the bottom can move up to the top just as well, however it is not very likely for either to happen. Also not all people who do not want their children do not make horrible parents and grow to love their offspring, but more often than not they are not ideal for parenthood.

I believe that the number of abortions is directly connected to crime levels. Although the number of abortions are much higher than the number of homicides had those babies been born, society is better because of it. I do not believe that a fetus has any rights. It is the choice of the parent if the cell should ever grow into anything more, and that’s just the way it goes.

They only related the abortion rate to the crime level, but even though abortion numbers are higher than homicides as they said in the book, there are other consequences of not having abortions. Maybe all those babies when they grow up will not create havoc, but think about one kid being neglected by his mom who didn’t want him in the first place, then think about 15,000 more or 150,0000 more. That’s a lot of suffering. What about the car theft level attributed to these babies being born or robberies or child mortality rate or the rise in homeless people or kids? These are all factors the authors failed to mention in the chapter.

Overall this chapter was a little fact and number intensive and I hope the next one is a little more interesting as chapter 3 was.

 

-bluey!

Drug Dealing, Moms; Life as we know it

This chapter of the book really got me hooked. The previous two chapters were interesting but not quite eye opening or appalling as this one was. They seem to get progressively better. 

I quite enjoyed the comparison between drug running gangs and companies in most capitalistic societies. The breakdown of the gang fully resembled a normal company with the rank in file of the gang being the everyday worker who did not really get much say in the company, the street soldiers who are the local bosses and the leader being the regional supervisor. The hierarchy of power was exactly how I picture any company in the United States or the world works. I thought it was interesting saying how young white kids in suburbia imitate black drug dealers in the ghetto while the drug dealers imitate the white kids dads' in their business methods. The way the author showed the lineage between the three made me laugh at its truth. 

I couldn't believe how systematically gang organizations ran. It was very interesting to learn that no matter what type of business dealings, people in an organization conform to a certain type of operation in order to become efficient and successful. The people at the top of the organization or company benefits from most of the labor and profit the company makes by doing the least work. Management rules supreme among men. A leader will always be respected and people will accept poorer conditions if they like their leader or are willing to follow him. I liked the whole business dealing side of things in this chapter and the story of the graduate student being part of the crack gang was really cool I think. 

I was surprised that they let him go in the beginning and let him come back and ask all the questions and all that he did. It really helped to look into the world of drug running and being in a gang. I was flabbergasted to hear that the foot soldiers only worked for $3.30 an hour while the leader make upwards of 100k to 500k depending on which level they reside. 

I am very excited for the next chapter and cannot wait to read what topic is dicussed next. I really like this book now. This chapter was by far the most interesting thing I have read all semester for this class. 

-bluey

FREAKanomics chap 1. SUMO TEACHERS ATTACK!!!!!!!!!

This reading was interesting, that is to say it has been much better than the past ones however I believe the following chapters will be better.

The opening of the reading was very interesting with the Israeli day care. It is astounding that people can feel not guilty when they leave their kids past the time they were supposed to come pick them up. I guess its not really a disappointment to the kids because they're just at day care for another twenty minutes but its more of a burden for the day care. Still though that is just the characteristic of a neglectful parent, I know ideally a parent would like to be on time to see their kid and I know that many parents are late, but as the author explained the study I was even more suprised.

The parents didn't care when they had to pay a fine of three dollars to pick up their kids late, more parents came later! It was also done over a few week period which means that the parent wasnt just very busy that week, it was on purpose. They subconciously or conciously didn't care if they were twenty or more minutes late to pick up their kids from day care. Thats ridiculous really. If I was working at the day care I would be angry. I don't know if they are getting paid overtime for waiting for all the kids to get picked up but my guess is that they're not. The parents just think that when they drop the kids at day care they don't have to care what happens. That is not the case, the kids are still theirs and they cannot alleviate all responsibility and pass it on to the staff. It was an intriguing study and a very good study to start the chapter with. The next topic of cheating and teachers with the standardized tests didn't interest me though. It made me think of third grade when we had to take these sort of tests and I just wondered if our teacher did anything like what was said in the book. The bagel man story was very interesting however.

A story was presented near the end of the chapter about a man who wanted to cure world hunger but ended up working for the U.S. Navy in D.C. He started bringing bagels to work and ended up quitting his job and pursued his bagel making full time. I was verryyyy suprised to find that he made the same amount of money selling bagels as he did before...I guess when they say the government doesn't pay well they're not kidding ;).

The man's new business was also a test of human morality and principles. There was no customer interaction in which the person taking a bagel encountered the man selling the bagels, therefore there was no one to cheat physically. There was however the conciense of the people taking the bagels. Some people did not pay, but the economist turned bagel man accounted this on oversight, which I thought was wishful but a good way to think. I was very amazed that he got 95% return though, I didn't expect that many people to pay for the bagels, I figured more people would steal the bagels.

I do not think people are moral, they can be, however the vast majority of people will cheat and steal if they get the chance; this study however showed differently.

The chapter got me thinking about alot of things and I am interested to see what will come in the next chapter.

-bluey

Analyzing Movies

For some reason I do not heavily enjoy analyzing movies, especially seemingly innocent movies. I think that movies are for enjoyment and while we should be conscious about what the movie is saying and the ideals and stereotyping it is portraying, we should not overanalyze every single movie ever. Overanalyzing things really makes people crazy, just like reading essays about people over analyzing things.......(ahhhhh)! Not all movies are meant to be deciphered by everyone to the extreme.

The first piece about I, Robot was annoying at best. I understood the message that we should be aware of the things being thrown at us at a time while we let our guard down, but the man's job in the story really seemed tedious and like it really takes the fun out of watching movies. I believe that some movies are worthy of being deciphered such as Fight Club or V for Vendetta but not every single thing that is on the tv screen, its just not worth it. I personally think that analyzing I, Robot is a huge waste of time. I enjoyed the movie and I didn't see it as having hidden messages or anything, I just watched it as pleasure. Maybe I didn't have the analyzing eye when I watched the movie, but I mean honestly, the movie really isn't a big deal. The author seriously needs to calm down and redirect his efforts elsewhere. Some movies are interesting to decipher, such as Star Wars.

The second piece written by a student was interesting and thought provoking because it covered a broad slate of topics. I liked the connections between the movie and American behavior and ideology. I really enjoyed the Western and communism references. I always just watched Star Wars as a cool movie, but when someone compared it to other real world things, it really made me think. 

Analyzing movies lies all in the movie in which the person is analyzing. One must ask himself if what he is doing is worth the effort, in the case of the I, Robot piece, it was most definitely not, while the Star Wars piece was good. 

-Bluey

P.S. Man from I, Robot piece: Get a new job sir

Random, Redundant, Righteous

I think I have to start this blog with saying that the selections were nothing terrific....to put it in a nicely. The reading I kind of thought connected with me the most was the Why do the black kids sit together in the cafeteria. I've seen multiple videos and read different pieces in various classes throughout my education much about this same topic, why ethnicities group together. I myself being Indian did used to hang out with Indian kids back in middle school. I wouldn't say that they were my only group of friends but they were all Indian. I guess I hung out with them because they could relate to some things, which is what the book was talking about. I could say a joke and they would understand it and laugh, which was nice. Later I hung out with a group of black kids, while I was one of three kids who weren't black out of like eight or nine. The example in the book that was used was that a black girl in a mostly white neighborhood would hang out with other black girls because they could relate to what they were going through given the circumstances while the white girls couldn't. It made perfect sense, I never really actually cared enough to understand why it happened. It's not hard to understand, people stick to what they know and people they can relate to; it's the basic rule of relationships.

Most people I know, including myself had their first boyfriend or girlfriend the same ethnicity as them. It kind of makes sense, especially if they're parents kind of brought them up thinking that thats the type of person they should go after. After time though people develop their own type of person they like. When you're young its weird because I guess you don't even really think about who you're attracted to it just happens, and it's weird that we look for  people similar to us. 

The other article I found mildly interesting was the one about the Palestinian American playwright. All I have really to say about that piece is that she had alot of courage to do some of the things that she did around the time she did them. Also she appealed to me with the argument she was making about the detainees held without trial and stuff like that. The biggest problem I had with that piece however was the way she emphasized that she went to Yale and Harvard. It was impressive when she first said it but some places I feel like she really didn't need to include it like when she was saying that she was at graduate school she didn't write any pieces about Palestinian Americans or whatever, she randomly just stuck in Yale school of drama. It really didnt matter where she went. It was annoying that she stuck it in more than once and it was kind of distracting and made me angry. I lost interest in what she was saying. I guess that she needed to keep bringing it up to justify herself as a well to do minority in America. But to be perfectly honest, I really don't care. She annoys me. 

-BLUEY!