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? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of ...
of violent crime?
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 turn the conventional wisdom on its head. Thus the new field of study contained in this audiobook: 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 explore the hidden side of . . . well, everything. The inner working of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The secrets of the Klu 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, and Freakonomics will redefine the way we view the modern world.
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 right
I found the ideas interesting enough and easy enough to follow - not exactly taxing reading, but worth taking a look at and it makes you think a little about the way the world is. Bathroom/holiday reading stuff with the added extra of giving the
..." impression you might be reading something worthwhile!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.
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!