Comments on: It Appears That Superfreakonomics Was Right http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Thu, 24 May 2012 12:24:42 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5210 Eric D. Dixon Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:32:15 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5210 "Objections to the form of reasoning being used aren’t cheap shots." ... Clearly, we're talking past each other. “Objections to the form of reasoning being used aren’t cheap shots.”

…

Clearly, we’re talking past each other.

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5209 Andrew Hanson Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:07:52 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5209 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5208 Eric D. Dixon Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:26:08 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5208 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. 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.

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5206 Andrew Hanson Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:57:09 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5206 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5195 Eric D. Dixon Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:32:05 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5195 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. 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.

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5194 Andrew Hanson Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:01:22 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5194 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5192 Eric D. Dixon Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:19:08 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5192 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. 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.

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5187 Andrew Hanson Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:18:26 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5187 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 <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/" rel="nofollow">problem of induction</a> . If you haven't listened already, this is a decent discussion on "truth" in economics: www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/roberts_and_han.html 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

]]> By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5186 Eric D. Dixon Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:27:45 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5186 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. 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.

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5185 Andrew Hanson Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:02:17 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5185 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric D. Dixon http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5159 Eric D. Dixon Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:01:17 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5159 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! 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!

]]> By: Andrew Hanson http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5136 Andrew Hanson Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:39:56 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5136 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/ 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/

]]> By: Christine Harbin http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5132 Christine Harbin Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:55:27 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5132 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. 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.

]]> By: Christine Harbin http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/it-appears-that-superfreakonomics.html/comment-page-1#comment-5131 Christine Harbin Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:46:56 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=12889#comment-5131 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. 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.

]]>