MovieChat Forums > Freakonomics (2010) Discussion > is it just me?

is it just me?

posted 12 years ago by filmography4
4 replies | jump to latest

I loved the point that humans look for patterns/meaning when
often there is none. Correlation does not mean causality.

Then they present the abortion theory almost as fact (When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth).
But if it were true, crime rates would never rise again (while the law is in effect) but any statistician will tell you that what goes down will inevitably go back up.

So all I took from this is never trust statisticians :)

[–] bos-14 11 years ago

If you watch that segment again you'll see that he never claimed that to be the only causality. More close to about 50%

No comment

[–] dave4248185 11 years ago

No, it's not just you. I noticed that this film DOES contradict itself. Remember when they talked about Sumo Wrestlers and CEOs as being dishonest? They said whenever there's a financial incentive, cheating will be rampant. Fair enough. But then about 20 minutes later they talked about getting high school students to get better grades......by PAYING them. Scuse me, won't that just mean even MORE cheating in schools?... According to your earlier theory about financial incentives? And also, why present the abortion/crime theory,....... then back away from it? "We're not advocating abortion as a crime preventer" Sure sounds like you are. And you've made a good case. Why the waffling? This film likes to throw out some wild explanations and anecdotes without really taking a stand on anything. That's not journalism....it's gossip.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

1. Yes, greater incentives increases the likelihood of people trying to cheat. But they have to get away with it too, and it may also increase the likelihood of people simply trying harder, which is what they wanted. So you're wrong.

2.

This film likes to throw out some wild explanations and anecdotes without really taking a stand on anything. That's not journalism....it's gossip.

It's neither you moron. They aren't journalists. It's about statistics. A good scientific analysis isn't going to make moral conclusions. They played by the book here, you just haven't read it.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

But if it were true, crime rates would never rise again (while the law is in effect)

Unless a new factor were to come into play. And being real life, that's virtually guaranteed. So...you're wrong.

but any statistician will tell you that what goes down will inevitably go back up.

This is simply the stupidest sh!t I've read on this board so far. Don't try to speak for statisticians. There is no such statistical rule that "what goes down must come back up." That's so ridiculous I spent some time wondering if you were trolling. Incidents of Polio never went back up. Incidents of carriage accidents have never gone back up. Incidents of you getting an education don't seem to be heading back up. If you affect a change, the universe doesn't magically come up with a roundabout to circumvent it like a TV show that has to come up with an excuse for a 6th season.