Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent ...
These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life -- from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing -- and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: Freakonomics.
Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives -- how people get what they want or need especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of ... well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan.
What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter.
It has some interesting points but you don't need more than 25 pages for them.
It might be interesting for people from USA.
Not to mention the lack of accuracy at some points, I even doubt some conclusions they offer are right.
I picked this book up when I walked by a bookstore by chance. I wondered how the author, Dr. Steven Levitt, explained some social phenomenon by economics. This book gave me another point of view, although I don't think that it is an absolutely rightI picked this book up when I walked by a bookstore by chance. I wondered how the author, Dr. Steven Levitt, explained some social phenomenon by economics. This book gave me another point of view, although I don't think that it is an absolutely right angle....Continua Nascondi
For a team that has a 35 percent chance of winning each game, the chance of losing its next 19 games is about one in 4,000.[...]It takes about 12 or 13 years for these two bad teams to have a total of 4,000 chances for a 19-game losing streak.For a team that has a 35 percent chance of winning each game, the chance of losing its next 19 games is about one in 4,000. [...] It takes about 12 or 13 years for these two bad teams to have a total of 4,000 chances for a 19-game losing streak....Continua Nascondi
The chance of losing a game is then 1 - 0.35 = 0.65.
IF we assume that each game's outcome is independent from the others (as in repeated coin tosses), then the probability of losing 19 consecutive games is 0.65^19 = 0.0002788. It's comparable to 1/4000 = 0.00025, but it's actually approx. 1/3586.
With 324 games per year, it would take (3586/324) = 11.07 years, approx. 11 years and 26 days. Not exactly 12 or 13 years.
Anyway, all the above is dependent on the independent events assumption - if you believe or can prove that!