FReakonomics

2. How do the Freakonomics authors address the "correlation versus causation" issue? Do they pretend correlation IS causation? Do they prove that some correlation is causation, and if so, how? Or do they explicitly acknowledge the lack of proof of causation?

The authors of Freakonomics address the "correlation V.S causation" issue many times throughout the movie. They told us that if you can find out someone's incentive then you can guess how they are going act. Correlation proves causation. In the movie the authors mentioned that the crime rates have dropped because there is more police and gun control. It was more than police and gun control; it had to do with the movement of women having the ability to have an abortion. Evidence showed if a mother didn't want to keep a child it was mostly likely to have a bad reputation and end up in jail, if she kept the baby because she was willing to take care of the child , the child won’t have a high chance of going to jail.

3. What sources of evidence do the Freakonomics authors most rely on? Why is this innovative?
 

The authors from Freakonmics rely on the news and the people reactions. They look at specific categories. An example, is black and white names they sent out resumes with black names and white names. The people with white names got called back faster than the black names. This shows that they mostly look at evidence and the nominal data.

4. Freakonomics serves as an inspiration and good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices.

 

I agree with this statement because it explains why things happen in the society and how the society believes. The process of what we do to informer the people is Important because we depend on what’s given how it reacts to us.