By David Stokes | 12:23 p.m. | Comments (14) | Miscellaneous | © 2010

« Read Previous Entry   Read Next Entry »

14 Comments »

1. I wonder how probable is for a person both to win the lottery and to die while drunk walking. The chances of winning the lottery are already extremely low, and only 1,000 drunk pedestrians die in traffic accidents in a year.

   Comment by Christine Harbin — January 29, 2010 @ 12:46 p.m.

2. This person also lived in Sandusky, Ohio, which is where my Aunt Sue lives. I wonder what the chances are of them knowing each other.

   Comment by Christine Harbin — January 29, 2010 @ 12:55 p.m.

3. I don’t think SuperFreak was right, at least according to my google machine.

   http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html

   http://cheeptalk.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/drunk-cycling/

   Comment by Andrew Hanson — January 29, 2010 @ 3:39 p.m.

4. Hey, look what else the Google machine has!

   http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/what-bothers-people-about-superfreakonomics/

   http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/the-rumors-of-our-global-warming-denial-are-greatly-exaggerated/

   http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/

   http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/the_high_points.html

   http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-climate-critics-of.html

   http://timharford.com/2009/10/superfreakonomics-reviewed/

   http://economics.com.au/?p=4496

   http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/10/tubes.html

   http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2009/10/21

   Yay, Internets!

   Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 1, 2010 @ 1:01 a.m.

5. I think only the first one had to do with the drunk driving v. drunk walking debate (Levitt’s defense). Most of them had to do with the global warming/geoengineering analysis.

   Comment by Andrew Hanson — February 2, 2010 @ 4:02 p.m.

6. That’s why I pasted it at the top.

   Ezra touched on the climate chapter briefly, too, so the climate links also seemed relevant. I also included a couple of general review links from economists because of their notable absence of “shoddy” stats critiquing.

   Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 2, 2010 @ 4:27 p.m.

7. Are you suggesting that, because some economists have reviewed SuperFreak without criticizing its statistical methodologies, such criticisms are unsound?

   While I enjoy reading Freakonomics, I think those who take the ideas too seriously place a tremendous amount of faith in our ability to explain causal relationships in data, especially when it comes to human behavior. They clearly don’t give due respect David Hume’s problem of induction . If you haven’t listened already, this is a decent discussion on “truth” in economics:

   http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/roberts_and_han.html

   Comment by Andrew Hanson — February 2, 2010 @ 5:18 p.m.

8. Not at all, but “shoddy” implies carelessness, perhaps even negligence. The methodology may be wrong, but other people who employ statistics on a professional level either didn’t notice or find it worthy of remark as being obviously wrong. Ezra’s loaded terminology only helps his case with people who are already prone to agree with his analysis for other ideological reasons.

   Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 2, 2010 @ 8:19 p.m.

9. It’s more important to me whether the reasoning was sound. I’m not concerned as much about whether the statistical methods are popular or conventional, or whether other professionals in the field use similar method. As you have noted previously, conventional wisdom is often misguided.

   I also disagree that thinking that either drunk driving or drunk walking is safer is a disagreement of ideology. That seems to be a disagreement about empirical fact. I am also unfamiliar what either party’s stance is on the issue, and I follow politics reasonably closely.

   I don’t know where Levitt or Dubner stand politically. I do think that there’s good reason to believe that their argument that drunk walking is a superior alternative to drunk driving is a pretty, shall we say, “shoddy” argument. Levitt and Dubner’s incentives are to craft arguments that sell books; sometimes, the truth is rather boring.

   Comment by Andrew Hanson — February 2, 2010 @ 11:01 p.m.

10. I haven’t read either Freakonomics book, and I only skimmed both Ezra’s critique and Levitt’s defense. I have no investment in either view, and don’t much care about the issue. I do, however, care about calling out cheap shots for what they are. That includes both Ezra’s and your insinuation of an underhanded motive on Levitt’s part. There’s no evidence that I’ve ever seen indicating that he’s given up some measure of rigor in exchange for sensationalism.

    Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 2, 2010 @ 11:32 p.m.

11. Cheap shots? I have no incentive to take a cheap shot at Levitt or Freakonomics. I liked both their books, and am an avid reader of their blog. I think they get a lot of things right, and often have novel ideas to share. I happen to think they got this particular issue wrong. I don’t think drunk driving is a better alternative to drunk walking. The issue isn’t driven by ideology. I think that the authors used an invalid form of reasoning and (unsurprisingly) arrived at a false conclusion.

    Not sensationalism, but Freakonomics has certainly developed a market for contrarianism. It would be naive to suggest they are not incentivized to adopt contrarian positions. I am not suggesting that the invalidity of Levitt’s reasoning is intentional; I am sure he is very confident in his analysis. I happen to think the objections to his reasoning are valid ones.

    Comment by Andrew Hanson — February 3, 2010 @ 5:57 p.m.

12. Again, the loaded terms that first Ezra and later you used impute carelessness or negligence. Using that type of terminology entails more than a critique of methodology, it’s an unjustified attack on character that implies the opposite of the notion that Levitt “is very confident in his analysis.” Rather, it suggests that he might know better but doesn’t care. That’s a cheap shot, regardless of who’s right about methodology.

    Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 3, 2010 @ 6:26 p.m.

13. A cheap shot is a blow to the groin when a you’re not looking. Objections to the form of reasoning being used aren’t cheap shots. It is certainly your right to prescribe what language is and is not appropriate to characterize a poor form of reasoning. I find those concerns to be rather trivial. “Shoddy” can be used merely to imply that something is second rate, without necessarily being intentionally devious or even negligent. In any case, I am more concerned with the substance of the arguments that the diction.

    Comment by Andrew Hanson — February 3, 2010 @ 8:07 p.m.

14. “Objections to the form of reasoning being used aren’t cheap shots.”

    …

    Clearly, we’re talking past each other.

    Comment by Eric D. Dixon — February 3, 2010 @ 9:32 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment