MovieChat Forums > Freakonomics (2010) Discussion > Winner and Loser, Dubner and Levitt's st...

Winner and Loser, Dubner and Levitt's stupidest argument


In the film, and in a recent Podcast (and maybe even the book, can't remember it's been many years) they mention as a means of dismissing the idea of names are a determining factor in someone's life course that there were two brothers, one named Winner, and one named Loser. Loser ended up with a fine and stable life as a cop with a family, and Winner ended up a criminal.

What is ironically stupid about this example is that they thoroughly fail to even remotely connect the names to the premise, and they fail to see what they are entirely famous for seeing. I could go on a long rant about the Welfare State, how providing free money makes people lazy, stupid, and dependent, while deprivation and necessity breed self-sufficiency and success. But I'll spare it for a more available argument. The Boy Named Sue factor.

We are to believe from the duo who claim to "see the hidden side of everything" that the name Winner should rightly produce a winner, and a name Loser should produce a loser. Each living up to their name. Well they don't see one of the most obvious sides of this issue. If you name a kid Loser, he's going to have to go out of his way to prove himself. He's going to have to get strong, thick-skinned, and more adept at engaging people than the average person because he will always be at a disadvantage. To make friends, Loser has to skillfully maneuver past his own horrible name that would give rise to taunting and exclusion. By the time he is an adult, Loser has learned life lessons that people who can enjoy being wallflowers don't learn for years. Meanwhile Winner doesn't have to do anything. He can just literally lean back in class and give a sh!t-eating grin and say "That's right, I'm Winner." and no amount of failed exams, missed homework, or lost fights would change that. He could sit back and still have the default of appearing to be better and more dynamic than others. Making him a terrible child and an even worse adult.

Using Dubner and Levitt style logic, we should expect Loser to be more successful than Winner. And he was. So Dubner and Levitt using him as an example to disprove the idea that names matter is contradictory.

reply

Also thought the same after they gave the outcome of their lives.

It's true that initial thought would be Loser becomes a loser and Winner becomes a winner. But when you actually think it through, there's a good chance life will be as you described for them. No guarantee of course, but that's a highly probable outcome.

reply