Lesson from Freakonomics

One thing I thought was interesting in Freakonomics is how the bagel man quit his initial job in an office room and took the risk of just selling bagels to companies all around as a full time job.  He had no idea how much of a success he would have in this idea but was willing to give it a shot. In the end not only did he make more money than his original job but he learned a lot about the patterns of people who had paid for the bagels and the ones who didn't.  He was able to test all sort of incentives in order to figure the question of why people were willing to pay or steal a bagel that was only one dollar.  A lesson I learned from this story was that more one respects you they less of a chance they would steal from you.  Also that it is tough to make the right choices when no one is watching you but it is surprising of the number of people that will still act appropriate or in this case pay for a bagel.

Summer Surprises

I was personally ever surprised at how much I enjoyed Freakonomics. I had expected a boring book about basic economics, but instead what I received was an interesting book about hidden things that influence our lives. The book was easy to get into, it was entertaining, it didn't feel like a burning professor talking to an inattentive class, and the little anecdotes made it funny and a little but personal. It was a pleasant surprise for me. It just goes to show that shouldn't judge a book by its cover (literally in this case). The book was very good and made me want to pick up the sequel.

The Economics of Behavior

Throughout Freakonmonics, Levitt and Dubner observe "the hidden side of everything" and question what actually happens in our world. One of the things I noticed that kept reoccurring was behavior and actions of people and how they affected the world around them.

In chapter 1: the overall controversy/topic is how teachers cheat on their own students state exams to gain better reputation or get more money. To me, this is still incredibly ironic, since teachers have always been saying that cheating does no good in school and in life. But if that's actually true then why DO teachers cheat? Or what made them make this decision to cheat? Their action to do this lead those teachers to some dire consequences, like being fired, which completed altered their lives for not only that moment but for the future of any other job they get, their reputation has permanently been stained.

On the other hand, in chapters 5 and 6: the topic is the overall role and effects of parents on their children. what I found most interesting about this was the fact that even when parents (and most others) think they are doing the right thing to help or benefit their children, but in reality they might actually be hurting their future reputation. Even with something as little as a name; Levitt and Dubner explored how the different variations of names can affect their total years of school education. I had never actually thought about how two people with the same name, but different spelling, differed in lifestyles, or how the parents settled on a variation of a name and not the original. Also, Levitt and Dubner claimed that books in the home played a key role in the future of a child's success; if there are books in the house the child grows up in then they will have better test scores latter on. This is just another decision a parent would have to make if they wanted to create a better future for their child.

Heritage

I've always know that where you're from can have an impact on who you are and your mannerisms, but I never really knew what huge effect it can have on people until I read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell .
He showed just how large the impact could be through the example of the first officers and flight engineers, who came from a culture that had great emphasis on respect for people who are considered your superior, which ultimately caused several plane crashes. At first it may seem a bit ridiculous that they didn't just speak up when they realized that the plane was going to crash, but then I thought about it, and how I could see a little bit of myself in that. Vietnam's culture also has emphasis in respect for superiors, specifically elders. I realized that when I greet elders in the Vietnamese community and my grandma I  bow to them as a sign of respect, an say a very formal greeting. This is something that I was raised to do, and something that I have done for so long that I don't even notice that I do it anymore. So you never really know just how deeply your heritage impacts who you are.
You can't choose you heritage, but you can go against it like the first officers and flight engineers from Korean Air, and change your habits, you just have to work at it. This is reassuring news since its a nice though that you can decide to change and be something other than what your heritage has, in part, made you.

The Power of Information

             I thought information asymmetry was one of the most interesting topics in Freakonomics. I have the term "knowledge is power" many times before but I never thought too much about it. However, after reading about the power knowledge gave real estate agents or business men I understood why people say it so often. 

            People are often afraid to sell their homes themselves because they are afraid of pricing it too high or too low. They believe that real estate agents will help them sell it for as much as possible. However real estate agents often manipulate information. One of the most interesting facts I saw was that when real estate agents are selling their own homes they will keep their houses 10 days longer and usually make $10,000 more than when they are selling someone else's house. A few studies have actually shown that using a real estate agent to help sell your home will not actually lead to higher average selling prices

           

            When someone has more information they typically have more power. Businessmen can use information to disguise debt or manipulate their profits. They can also trade information about the stock market. This has led to many scandals within large corporations over the past decade. 

            

             Until reading this chapter of Freakonomics I had not thought about how powerful information really was. Having more information will usually give someone more control and can be used in both positive and negative ways.  

Summary of Dark Tide

I found the nonfiction novel, Dark Tide, written by Stephen Puleo to be a very interesting and stimulating. It is about a molasses tank built in the heart of Boston right near the harbor. The tank itself could hold up to 2.3 million pounds of molasses. This truly was a fascinating structure that was extremely important to the economy and society of Boston during the early 1900s.

Molasses was very important during the early 1900s as it was not only a food but was a ingredient was used to make weapons and ammunition, which was very important during the time as World War I was going on in Europe. It was also used in the slave trade as a way for the U.S. to get slaves from Africa in exchange for molasses. This tank was very important to big businesses including its supplier USIA or the United States Industrial Alcohol as it made them a lot of money.

Since the tank was so important for making money the USIA wanted it built as soon as possible even if it meant that not all of the safety requirements were made. Everyone liked the idea of building a molasses tank except anarchists. They hated the tank because it supplied soldiers fighting in the war with weapons and ammunition and anarchists hated the war itself. The tank was built and it instantly made tons of money. The tank did not last very long as it eventually collapsed. The disaster caused 2.3 million pounds of molasses to spread all over the city of Boston in all directions. The wave of molasses killed 21 and injured many more. It destroyed buildings and the railroad system leaving wreckage everywhere.

The cause of the collapsed tank remained a debate for several years. Some believed that it collapsed because it was built incorrectly from the day it was built. Others believed that it collapsed because an anarchists put a bomb into the tank which caused the tank to explode. Eventually the debate went to court and after years of argument a final decision was reached that the tank collapsed because the tank was not built correctly. The rivets were built wrong, the steel plates were not the right size, and the "factor of safety" was too low. Eventually USIA was held responsible for the disaster.

Dark Tide vs the other books

Being in both AP History as well as AP English, I was forced to read all three books: Dark Tide, Freakonomics, and Outliers. As well written as Freakonomics and Outliers were, I would have to say I thoroughly appreciated the set up of Dark Tide the most. Dark Tide made it seem as though I was reading a story. Freakonomics and Outliers, to me, simply had too many random facts being thrown around and connected to other random facts and studies. When reading, I don't like to be told facts, I like to explore them. It took me a long time to read Freakonomics and Outliers because they seemed too confusing and they skipped around too much for my liking. I also tended to mix up the facts in the two books while writing in both AP blogs and I had to constantly look back between the two books which took a lot of time. By the time I reached Dark Tide, I was so done with school work, I was ready to quit school before it even started. Once I started reading Dark Tide, I couldn't stop. The first day of reading I suddenly found myself on page 70 (which for me is a personal accomplishment since I am the slowest reader ever). Everything in the book seemed to flow together quite nicely and orderly. The prologue caught my attention as I realized that the book wasn't just a bunch of facts being thrown at me. It was a story of different people; different experiences. Reading it reminded me of watching the movie "Vantage Point" because it gave different points of view and different daily lives which all connected eventually.

Ignorance is Not Always Bliss

             One of the main reoccurring attitudes in Dark Tide was ignorance. From the very beginning of the novel the ignorance of the USIA, Jell in particular showed. Jell refused to acknowledge the fact that the tank was faulty. All he cared about was making money and looking good in front of his bosses. Jell was clueless as to how to construct a tank of any magnitude, let alone one so large and he did not even care enough to test the tank. When I first started reading Dark Tide, the expression "ignorance is bliss" came to mind. Before Jell admitted to not knowing how to build a tank I thought he was just being greedy. He wanted money, but as the book went on the ignorance showed more and more. Random people throughout the story mentioned their concerns for the tank and nothing was ever done about it. When the tank finally collapsed the bliss disappeared. Jell could no longer pretend that he did not know the tank had problems. He then had to prepare to testify and admit that he knew nothing. The USIA tried to continue to be ignorant of the situation, denying any claims of the tank being faulty and blaming anarchists.
              If the USIA had just admitted to the faulty tank, they could have temporarily shut down the tank to rebuild it, and still remained a credible company. They probably still would not lost as much money and they would have been able to keep the tank on the harbor. They would have made even more money before prohibition started. Ignorance may be bliss in some cases, but in the case of the USIA, their ignorance cost them their credibility as a supplier and a lot of money on top of that.
            

Techniques of the Author

After reading Dark Tide, by Stephen Puleo, I fully understood the disaster that was the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919. But looking further over my notes and the book I noticed some techniques the author used to get his point across. Puleo used techniques to bring the book from simple facts and weave a story that lets the reader become immersed in the history of the flood. Keeping them guessing and thinking what might happen next.  Two of these main techniques were foreshadowing along with giving a real life and emotions to the characters to those who perished.

The first technique, foreshadowing, is displayed through out the book but the most prominent one occurs in the prologue of the the book. Puleo foreshadows very strongly with the character of Issac Gonzales, a worker for the United States Industrial Alcohol Company, and a man who worried his night life away over a molasses tank. The foreshadowing comes into play when when Issac checks on the tank in the middle of the night and releases some of the molasses into the harbor next to the tank. He says he has, "semi-consuous mind pictures," of the tanking collapsing and flooding Commercial Street killing many. He agonizes over the small openings dotted over the tank letting the molasses flow free. He even goes as far as to tell the boss, Mr.Jell, about his worries but the man does nothing. This gives the reader the idea that the tank has the greatest possibility of collapsing and flooding the streets. How clique is it anyway, a man warns a group but all of them skeptical deny his claim later to perish at the same fate the man warned them about? Issac Gonzales speaks the future from his agonizing fears. 

The other technique would be Puleo giving emotions to those static figures in history who just died as a consequence of the flood. These characters lives are laid out before the incident to draw the reader into wondering about the future of the character. What role do they play in the disaster that was the molasses flood? Some of these characters would include George Layhe, Martin Clougherty, and small Pasquale Iantosca. George Lahye was a fireman of engine 31 whose life was going well at the age of 38 and died as a result of the flood. He was trapped under a pool table and was only able to hold his up out of the molasses for three hours before his muscles succumbed and he drown. Martin Clougherty was a survivor of the flood who had a good establishment called the Pen and Pencil Club and holding onto a bed-frame survived the flow of molasses. Lastly small Pasquale was a young boy of the age of ten who would take a bucket down to the tank to collect some of the dripping molasses for his low income family. He was swept right away and crushed under the weight of a freight car crushing every bone in his body so he was unrecognizable. By Puleo telling us the background of these characters we become emotionally invested because the reader knows they truly lived and wants to see what fate brought them. 

Overall Puleo techniques kept me reading the book. I was first frightened with the thought of reading non-fiction but it was pleasing and easy to read. The fact that there were real characters with a story made it flow and the foreshadowing kept me in to see if I predicted right. 

My Opinion of Dark Tide

Before reading Dark Tide, I expected the book to be only about the molasses spill and the events that followed. When I first started reading the book, I realized that I needed all the background information for me to connect to certain parts of the book. At the beginning, when Puleo was describing the speedy building of the tank and the lack of safety inspection, I immediately assumed that the tank burst due to how fast it was put up and the lack of care to do it. Then, when I was reading the section about the Italian anarchists, I then found myself second guessing, thinking that maybe the anarchists were planning on blowing it up like they did with everything else. When the tank finally came down, I like how Puleo used about 10 different points of view to describe the tank's demolition. It helped the reader get a feel on how some people reacted or were affected than others.

After the disaster, I expected a lot of people to die in the disaster, but only 21 people died. I thought I was going to see numbers in the hundreds, but that was not the case, becuase when the tank fell apart, everyone in the immediate area had gone to lunch, so there weren't a lot of people around. The effects it had on Boston and the rest of the country did not surprise me becuase that was really the first national disaster to happen.

The four year court was amazing. I can't believe it took them four years to come to the conclusion that USIA was at fault for the tank disaster. The amount of witnesses and the amount of information that was collected was surreal. It took Ogden another 10 months after the case ended to state his final say of the case. Also, the amount of money USIA had to pay (which was about 650,000 dollars) was such an immense amount of money. In today's standards, that number would be in the millions. This book was a decent and accurate representation of the molasses disaster of 1919.

Comparing Levitt and Dubner to Gladwell, my response to Outliers and Freakonomics

After reading Outliers and Freakonomics, I see a strong connection between Gladwell, Levitt, and Dubner. The three authors all have a similar curiosity about them, in that they each have persistence in asking questions about the data behind the data and asking why things are the way that they are. For instance, Levitt and Dubner did agree with most of the given reasons for the 1990’s crime drop, but they did not rest there. They continued to dig deeper and search for other possible answers to the crime drop, leading them to the Roe v Wade abortion decision.
Gladwell displayed his idea of the road to success through software innovators like Bill Gates and Bill Joy, along with industrial entrepreneurs like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Gladwell almost entirely shot down the idea of rags to riches besides few cases like Andrew Carnegie. It is encouraging that people do not need to be geniuses to be successful. Outliers showed that one must be an opportunist (among other things) to be successful. If you don’t enjoy what you’re doing then you will not have the motivation to practice for 10,000 hours in order to achieve success. One also needs the motivation from others in order to push to continue to make strides toward a goal. What if Bill Gates had never met Paul Allen? Would he still have enough motivation and support to work those long evenings in the computer labs?

What Makes a Perfect Parent?

While reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner something that stood out to me was how experts have deemed what makes a parent perfect. As Dubner and Levitt went through a list of 16 factors eight of which were strongly correlated with high test scores and the other eight not so much. As they listed the factors i was making guesses on which ones were strongly correlated and i was about half wrong.  The eight factors that were strongly correlated with high test scores were: (Dubner, Levitt, 168-169)

The child...

Has highly educated parents

Parents have high socioeconomic status

Mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child's birth

Has low birthweight

Parents speak english in the home

Is adopted

Parents are involved in the PTO

Has many books in his home

Most of the list i predicted in being strongly correlated with test scores but some that stood out to me that were not strongly related were:

The Child's family is intact

The Child's mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten

The Child's parents read to him nearly every day

These were the three that stood out to me the most in the non correlated list. The child's family being intact was astonishing to me because I always thought children coming from a broken home would have a harder time learning and getting better grades. As this study shows though that is not true. Family's without an intact family are actually just as likely to get high test scores. The other two are common things that parents do because they think it is bettering the child. Having the mother quite work for a couple years to be with her son or daughter and help in the development of their kids. It really does not matter though in this study it suggests going to work in those years and making money rather than being home with the child. Reading to a child every night is what most parents do at a young age to make sure their brain is developing in a strong way to get them ready for schooling and testing. This also does not matter and to be the perfect parent it isn't so much about being concerted cultivation it is much more about the natural growth of the child.

The Trouble With Geniuses: IQ's

               While reading chapter three and chapter four of Outliers I began to get stuck on the idea about how once you pass a certain point of intelligence it doesn’t matter. I was thinking does that go the same way for being unintelligent. Is there point where it does not matter how dumb you are too? If someone only needs to be smart enough but not the smartest, then what leads other to success? I think that question shows a lot about how opportunity has to do with success. I did think that hard work was what made you successful, but after reading Outliers I can see how opportunities shape success.  

               Gladwell began to talk about how it would be assumed that anyone with a really high IQ has the greatest potential, but that goes along with the idea that opportunities lead to success and that achievements are less about opportunity than talent. With the idea that IQ has a threshold, Malcolm Gladwell was trying to show how once someone reaches a certain level of intelligence, their success is not impacted. Then other things begin to matter. The IQ’s are different numbers, but once the reach the threshold it does not matter. The opportunities make the difference. I still think hard work has a lot to do with it, but then I was thinking that to reach some opportunities you need put in hard work.     

               I think that the same goes for being unsuccessful because you still could be working hard, but if you don’t take the opportunity then you will not lead to success. Then how does luck play into success. Some opportunities may come from hard work, but most likely they will be a lucky chance. 
               By chapter four Gladwell talked about how the one thing that affected the IQ’s were family background. In my life I think that is true for me because of the kind of household I grew up in, my family would make sure I got my homework done and got good grades. When I got older I hit a point where I would do that on my own, but I learned from my parents. I also think that for someone who doesn’t have a great background they might not have the highest IQ, or it could be the opposite and they would try to learn from their parents mistakes. Malcolm also talks about the community and environment and how it can affect intelligence, and I think that it is by a chance that you will grow up somewhere, but it is what you do with the opportunities. I’m still not sure if I feel that success comes from hard work or opportunities, I think that it is a combination or both that is needed. 

Dark Tide: A Reflection

Going into Stephen Puleo's Dark Tide, I was expecting the justification for calling this event a disaster to be a high number of deaths resulting from the 2.3 million gallon molasses tank failing and flooding the streets of Boston's north end. So for that reason I was surprised to see the total number of deceased civilians was 21. This is not to say their deaths were insignificant, but after the 86-page preamble to the tank bursting during which the rampant overcrowding in the north end was described, I predicted the death toll to be in the hundreds.

After reading that a major contributor to USIA's success branched from producing munitions during World War I and alcohol prior to that, I figured that perhaps the disaster would be an economic fallout for the city after such a tremendous loss of product. Yet again though, I concluded this was not likely to be the reason due to the end of the war and the passing of the 18th amendment, prohibition.

Later in the book, I encountered what I thought was the most likely contender for why this flood reached disaster status. Following the tank's failure, there seemed to be a spike in anarchist related terrorism that followed. There were bombs planted and detonated in, "Boston, Washington, New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Patterson, New Jersey" (Puleo 150). In addition, there were strikes in several different trades ... even the police struck in some cities.

Then of course there is the culmination of all these factors wrapped into one. The deaths, injuries, damages (which cost  over a million dollars, a fact revealed during the four year trial which eventually held USIA liable. The trial was a massive expense to the city as well), anarchist activity, and economic impact all together are certainly more than enough to qualify this molasses flood as a terrible disaster in Boston's north end.

Concerted Cultivation vs. Natural Growth

After reading both Freakonomics and Outliers, I faced the decision of whether parents mattered or not. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner gave off the idea that they in fact didn't matter as much as people believe and the things they do for their children cannot determine their success. Meanwhile, in Outliers Gladwell analyzed the over protective or controlling parents of the high class who practiced concerted cultivation in order to see their child succeed. What stood out to me was the fact that both books had proof or studies to back up their opinions yet they stood on different sides. So who was right? Is it better to leave kids on their own to determine right or wrong or lead them there on a tight leash? This is the question that I tried to answer the whole time while reading.

I think the concerted cultivation, as much as I hate to say it, sees more success in their children. These are the parents who as Gladwell explained plan their child's birth date in order to give them an advantage at becoming a professional athlete or force them to practice their instrument for hours until they master it. Usually those who practice concerted cultivation are the ones who were successful in their own life or careers and they want their children to shadow that. Although its been said that sometimes the children of these type of parents are the ones to rebel, trends have also proved that they have been the most successful. This is because they are given opportunities to succeed unlike those who experience the parenting style of natural growth.

Athletes and Their Birth Dates

While reading Freakonomics, Outliers, and Dark Tide I came across many different pieces of information that really made me stop and think. But the thing that stood out the most to me was part of the chapter "The Matthew Effect" in Outliers. In this chapter Malcolm Gladwell talked about the correlation between professional athletes and their month of birth. 

Gladwell first looked at Canadian hockey teams and found that  40% of players were born between January and March, 30% born between April and June, 20% born between July and September, and only 10% born between October and December. But why does the month that someone is born in have any effect on how successful they are at hockey? It's really as simple as the cutoff date for age-class hockey. In Canada the eligibility cutoff is January 1. As Gladwell writes on page 24, "A boy who turns ten on January 2, then, could be playing alongside someone who doesn't turn ten until the end of the year - and at that age, in preadolescence, a twelve-month gap in age represents an enormous difference in physical maturity." Since those born at the beginning of the year will be more mature they will have a better chance of getting picked for extra coaching and ultimately go further with their hockey career. 

A similar thing happens with European soccer. In England the cutoff date is August 1 but in International soccer the cutoff date is now January 1. In most cases, a majority of the players on a team were born in the three months after the cutoff date. Here Gladwell used the example of the Czechoslovakian National Junior soccer team and found that, once again, a majority of the players were born in January, February, and March. Of course this does not mean that there is no chance of one playing soccer with a birthday later in the year, it's just less likely.

Part of the reason this section stood out to me was because I am a big soccer fan. I started to wonder if the same thing happened with other soccer teams. So I did some research on our own soccer team, the New England Revolution. I found that out of the 29 current players 7 were born between January and March, 10 between April and June, 4 between July and September, and 8 between October and December. Looking at it this way, the only months that really stand out are July through September with only 4 players having birthdays. But looking at it month by month, all the months  either have 1, 2, or 3 birthdays, except for May which has 6 players with birthdays. It appears that for Revolution soccer players it does not really matter what month you are born in, unless you are born in May in which case you might have a slightly better chance of making the team.

Character analysis: Martin Clougherty from Dark Tide

Martin Clougherty was the owner of a Boston night club owner who lived in the shadow of the gigantic molasses tank. In the early morning of January 15th 1919, Clougherty thought to himself about how he finally earned enough money so he could move away from the north end and into a nicer home near Revere. He was looking to go his accountant later that day to "hammer out the details" of selling the Pen an Pencil Club and his mothers home so he could buy the house. Little did he know that just hours later, the house he was planing on moving from would be washed away from its footprint by a wave of molasses from the collapsed tank- with him and his family inside.

Martin Clougherty was a brave and selfless human being. It takes a strong will to get through what he had to. Moments after he and his family were immersed in molasses, he managed to pull himself out and go back in to retrieve his sister, through many feet of thick sticky molasses, out of pure selflessness. His mother was not as fortunate as Martin or his sister, and later died by being crushed in the collapsing building. Steven Clougherty, Martins brother dug himself out of the molasses, and suffered from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, from being thrown around in the building by the massive wave of molasses. Martin did not worry about his own issues, like his mother dying or not having a home to sleep in anymore. His only concern was his mentally damaged brother. Martin sent him to their cousins house to hopefully recover, but when that didn't work, Martin paid for him to be put into a mental institution to help cure Stevens PTSD. It was a tough decision, leaving his brothers stability in the hands of someone who wasn't family, but Martin thought it was best for his dear brother. Martin promised he would visit Steven. Steven later died, a few months later. 

With the loss of a brother and a mother, Martin still moved on staying strong and still caring for others and that shows will power. Watching his own brother whither away and still being able to face him everyday until he died takes strength to be by Stevens side though it. Martin did not fall down and just stay there, he got back up and carried on, remembering the love he had in his heart for his mother and brother. 

The Matthew Effect

When reading the book Outliers, I had come across many different and controversial topics. Many of which I had taken the initiative to do further research. But the topic that stood out most to me was that discussed in the first chapter of the book called "The Matthew Effect". In this chapter, Gladwell argues that success comes from what the individual knows and is capable of.

Throughout this chapter, I came to notice that Gladwell seems to challenge or go against the saying, "It's not what you

know, it's who you know." What I mean by that statement is that he argues successful individuals do NOT rise from nothing, but have certain qualities and mental and physical advantages. By using these advantages, the individual then uses these advantages to help them learn and work to understand things that others cannot.

After reading this explanation, I then asked myself the question, "Who could apply to this description on a real life basis?" The first person I thought of was the Boston Celtics SF Larry Bird. Larry Bird had grown up in a nice part of Indiana called West Balden Springs. He had both a father and mother, that had been by his side in whatever dream he had wanted to aspire. Also, his father and built a basketball court right in his backyard, giving him the advantage  to practice his skills, making him an all around better player. When he came into the NBA, many analysts had taken notice to not only his skill set with his shooting and dribbling skills, but his basketball I.Q was much higher than that of his teammates. Those who don't understand what I mean by that, it means he had made good ball distributing decisions on the floor in order  to not only put points on the board, but to set his teammates for open shots at the basket. So by making this connection, I came to support Gladwell's point of view on "The Matthew Effect".

Responsibilities of the People

This summer I learned a lot through reading the selected books. Through the many vast and intriguing topics, the one I would like to focus on is set in Dark Tides. When reading the book, I was confused at the lack of communication between the people of Boston and USIA. I decided that the people should partly be responsible for the explosion for their lack of getting involved, even when the danger of the tank was spelled out for them.

                In the building of the molasses tank, there were clearly some major mistakes. To name a few, Arthur Jell, the man responsible for the construction of the tank, did not have the tank inspected by a professional, only had the tank filled with six inches of water in the water test, and ignored warnings from one of his workers about the leaking of the tank.  This molasses tank was also built in one of Boston’s most congested neighborhoods, that being the North End. Now my question is, if the tank is built in such a busy area, wouldn’t some of the Bostonians have noticed the dangers of the tank?

               

                There were several quotes that I picked up on through the beginning of the book that made it clear that the danger of the molasses tank was noticed by the people, for example when Van Gelder was delivering the molasses to the tank “it was a strange and chilling sight that he and his crew members saw…It was one thing for a tank to leak a bit; he had seen it dozens of times… But the steel tank in Boston… leaked more molasses through its riveted seams than any other he had ever seen” (Puleo, 46 and 47.)  Another example of the tanks danger being noted by people of Boston would be when a stableman commented on what was occurring inside of the molasses tank, stating that it “Sounds like the molasses is bubbling or boiling, or doing something” (Puleo, 70.) There were also other workers who enjoyed leaning against the tank and feeling the vibrations on their backs, claiming that it was almost as if the tank was “bulging in and out” (Puleo, 70.) With all of the danger regarding the tank that was noticed by the people of Boston, only one man spoke out. This man was Isaac Gonzales.

               

Gonzales was a nervous wreck about the molasses tank. He worked there, and often found himself running in the middle of the night to release some of the molasses into the harbor. He made several complaints to his supervisor Mr. White and his boss, Arthur Jell about the major leaks in the tank and also some rusty steel flakes that he had gathered from inside of it. With all of his pleas about the tank not being safe, Gonzales was dismissed by Jell who felt that the tank was safe enough because, well, it was still standing, wasn't it?

Through the entire book, no Bostonian made any comment to authority about how dangerous the tank really was, besides Isaac Gonzales, and they had to pay the consequences.  Imagine how differently things may have ended if more than one person took a stand about the safety of their city in terms of the tank?

Ethnicity and Effort

There was so much information in the summer reading on so many diverse and interesting topics, and given such a broad prompt, it was difficult to decide what topic(s) to address. Because of my strong interest in mathematics, I decided to write about a chapter from Gladwell’s Outliers, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests”. I was encouraged when I learned that Asians do not in fact have an “innate proclivity for math”. I also learned however that that did not suggest that we all are on an even playing field for mathematic aptitude. It seems that much of The Asian mathematical prowess is a result of two factors. One they have no control over and one that they do.

The way Asian languages are constructed is much more logical and consistent. So, right off the bat, in the area of mathematics, Asian children are at least a year ahead of children in the West. Gladwell further points out that, “The regularity of their number system also means that Asian children can perform basic functions, such as addition, far more easily”. And, because their system is so sensible and “transparent” they have a better attitude about math. An easier system, a better attitude, no wonder Asians excel in Mathematics.

There is in fact more to it than that. While Asians are “lucky” because of the way their language is constructed, we have learned that it takes a lot more than that to become successful. Asians work harder. It is as simple as that. While their “built-in advantage” may be the foundation for their achievement, it is their “wet-rice” mentality that actually makes them successful.

I am a firm believer that hard work will make you successful. It is great to have the advantage of other catalysts but the bottom line is that you have to work hard. And, if you want to be an expert in a certain area you have to work “much, much harder”. This point leads directly to the concept of “10,000 hours”. This “common sense” approach to success is encouraging. So, although many of Gladwell’s theories about success have merit, let’s not take too seriously where or when we were born, how our language is constructed, who our parents are, or what our I.Q. is; let’s just work hard.

 “Sheer effort enables those with nothing to surpass those with privilege and position.” ~ Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Home Stretch

We officially have one week until the beginning of school.  You should be done with your reading by now.  I hope you have enjoyed the choices.  I also hope you have benefited from this work.

Over the final week, I would like you to do one last assignment.  It will be a post only.  You are not required to comment on other people's post.  However, you are certainly not banned from doing so.  There have been many strong conversations throughout the summer, there's no reason why it should stop now.

Your final post is your own creation to make.  I only require that it be original and that it be inspired by any one or multiple of the summer reading choices or the summer reading experience.  This should be completed before the beginning of school.

Take care and see you all first period Tuesday.

"Magazine Looks at the Science Behind 1919 Molasses Disaster"

I was reading The Boston Globe today and I found an article revealing the science behind how a molasses flood is much more dangerous and destructive than a water flood of the same size. Scientist Ferris Jabr analyzes the science behind molasses, like how the substance is "non-Newtonian" fluid, meaning its viscosity changes due to temperature. Examples of the same type of fluid would be ketchup, toothpaste and whipped cream. Jabr claims that property the molasses has makes it more dangerous than a tsunami. He says the molasses moved quickly at first, demolishing buildings, then became slower and more viscous. The sticky liquid trapped people, causing them to stay in place "like a gnat trapped in tree sap" said Jabr. Due to the stickiness of the molasses, clean up took weeks, as opposed to a flood clean up which would have taken about half that time. 

See the full article at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/13/molasses-disaster-boston-north-end-showed-lethal-power-thick-substances/nbhChG332PTOLTAnd7L6DL/story.html

Controversies of Life

 The topic of my choice is abortion. This topic is one of the most controversial topics within the U.S. Much like what Troy said, it divides the country into pro-life and pro-choice groups who each feel strongly about their position on the topic. One big pro-life argument has to do with God. This is why the topic is so controversial; it involves a "higher power" who, depending on where different people stand in spirituality, knows best. Since most of the the pro-life activists believe life begins at conception, abortion is considered murder, and is a sin, therefore, against God's wishes. Abortion might also be considered controversial because it involves an "innocent" human being who hasn't had a chance in life, and can't speak for him/her self. Many people have extremely different thoughts and standings on the abortion controversies.
The authors of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, are likely to have included the topic of abortion in their book because they wanted to show the long term effects of the controversial court case Roe v. Wade. Like they said in the book, no one has ever blamed the crime decrease on the legalization of abortion and they wanted to show the link between the two. Maybe, they thought including something controversial would get more people to read and buy the book, or maybe they just stumbled upon it in their studies.
I, myself, have no preference on abortion. As much as I hate humanity, there are some aspects of abortion that I am able to disagree with. The world is over populated, and without abortion, it would be even more crowded and aggravating, but on the flip side, I always love to see what could-have-been. For example, what if one of my friends or someone in my family was supposed to be aborted? What if an aborted child could have been the next Einstein? But what if an aborted child could have been the next Hitler? No one knows what could have been; we only know what is. I am a big supporter of women's rights and I believe they have the right to swing which ever way they please concerning the abortion controversy, but they should keep in mind what could happen in both sides of the argument. Their child could end up contributing to the crime rate in America, or they could turn their life around and become a self-made millionaire. Aborted or not, the thing will impact someone's life greatly.

Bagel Crimes and Honesty

Bagel theft may not seem to be a controversial topic, and it pales in comparison to more controversial topics such as cheating teachers, and the unforeseen benefit that legalizing abortions had, but there are deeper things that can be discovered about human nature, morality, and honesty from something so simple as paying for a bagel that you take from a break room.
  We all like to think that we are good and honest people, but when we are given the chance to do we sometimes cut corners, or do dishonest things when the situation is considered trivial or others might not notice our actions?
The author discusses this because something like not paying for a bagel is a crime that usually goes unnoticed, because it's not the type of thing we think of when we think of crime like burglary or murder. It's one of those unrecorded middle class crimes in the daily life of the working man.
This is presented by the story of Paul Feldman the "Bagel Guy", who started the business of leaving bagels in offices with a box with a suggested price on it. He collected data on what his collection rate was, and with that data he was able to see many trends on how different aspects of life correlated with bagel collection money.
He saw how their moods could effect their generosity and honesty in giving money to the bagel guy. The stress of holidays such as Christmas caused some people to pay less or not at all for their bagels.
There's also morals to the bagels since Paul isn't there when the bagels are taken or when the money is put in the basket, so people may see this as a way around their morals since they can't actually see the face of the person that they are cheating out of money, and there is no way for him to find out exactly who took a bagel without paying. And since bagels are relatively cheap the cheater may see this as just a trivial thing, and not worth the guilt that would be reserved for bigger offenses.
A similar thing was done at a church that I attend where after mass there would be baskets of donuts with a donation box beside it. Even though the setup is very similar to the bagels, the situation is different as the people who are taking these donuts had just come from church, and morals after church are much more high than any other time.

After reading about the Boston Molasses Flood, I realized that it shared a few similarities with the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant leak in Japan, in late 2011. This disaster was triggered by the Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami. Once the earthquake occurred and the tsunami was created; equipment at the Fukushima Plant began to fail. This is obviously similar to the Molasses Disaster because of the fact that the molasses tank and its supporting materials failed which is what led to the streets of Boston being flooded with molasses.

Also, two of six total boiling water reactors located within the nuclear plant were due for maintenance at the time of the disaster. This is similar to the collapsing of the molasses tank because much of the tank needed to be repaired or replaced when it finally collapsed. If the molasses tank had been fixed as soon as the errors were noticed the entire catastrophe most likely would not have occurred. And if the two reactors had been properly maintained perhaps not as much radiation would have leaked from the plant once the disaster struck.

Finally, the two disasters are similar because they both called for immediate evacuation of nearby area after they happened. Some people were killed by the molasses flooding through the streets and it took temporary evacuation to clean the streets. The area surrounding the power plant had to be evacuated because the chemicals were extremely dangerous.

Boston Molasses Flood vs. Karachi Factory Fire

            The molasses flood that occurred in Boston in 1919 and the factory fire that happened in Karachi, Pakistan last year are similar in a few ways. In September of 2012 a fire broke out in a textile factory in the garment district of Karachi, Pakistan. The fire killed almost 300 people. The Boston molasses flood resulted in the death of  21 people and the injury of 150 more. Both disasters could have been prevented. Local residents and even employees voiced their concern of the leaking molasses tank before it burst. In the Karachi factory a 2007 report claimed that the factory needed better fire protection. Over the next few years the owners refused many inspections of the factory. Many of doors were locked shut and most windows had metal bars on them when the fire began. In Boston rescue workers arrived quickly and soldiers aboard the USS Nantucket also helped save those trapped in the molasses. However in Pakistan firefighters did not arrive until 75 minutes after the fire broke out, and by that time it was too late to save most of the people still trapped in the factory. the fire was believed to have begun when a boiler exploded and ignited chemicals being stored in the factory. The cause of the flood in Boston was the poorly constructed and maintained tank. Both of these disasters caused many deaths but were preventable.    

The Great Molasses Flood and the Central Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion

                On April 17^th a Central Texas fertilizer plant exploded killing fourteen people and forever changing the lives of a whole community.  The explosion occurred in the small town of West, Texas but was heard and felt from miles outside of the town.

There are many aspects of the explosion that can compare to the Boston Molasses flood such as the devastation left in the accidents’ wake. Both accidents resulted in millions of dollars in damage and the emotional toll of the people who lived in both communities. Another similarity between the two catastrophes was the death toll. In the wake of both catastrophes the death toll was not extremely high with 21 deaths resulting from the molasses flood and 14 deaths resulting from the plant explosion. In both disasters the damages were similar, with a lot of property damage involving houses and businesses alike.

The major difference between the two disasters is the cause. The Texas Fertilizer plant explosion was ruled as an accident whereas the Boston Molasses Food can be traced back to faulty rushed construction and the ignorance of those in charge of the tank.

Molasses Disaster vs. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

 While beginning to read "Dark Tide" another national disaster that came to mind was the Gulf of Mexico Oil spill that accrued in 2006 which was considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.  When comparing the two disasters what is obviously similar is the destruction they both had in the United States. The molasses flood filled the streets in the North End of Boston killing 21 and injuring over 150.  It caused high speeds of molasses to sweep through the streets damaging the foundations of buildings and houses on the streets. On the other hand the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill had a large impact on the ocean and animals in it unlike the molasses flood.  The explosion of the oil rigs released over 4.9 million gallons of oil and took the lives of 11 people. Another difference was that the oil rig wasn't capped for 87 days allowing oil to continuously flow because of the great difficulty it took to fix it.  Since there was so much oil in the water it was impossible to remove all the oil so there is still reminisces of the spill washing up on the shores of Mississippi. The molasses flood was able to be removed off the streets in about two weeks.  The
molasses flood brought tragedy to the city of Boston while the oil spill damaged the ocean floor and
effected over 8000 species of animals.  One similarity was that there was nothing people could have done to prevent the explosions but in both cases people wondered if the explosions could have some how been preventable. People in Boston knew the molasses tank would eventually burst but the oil explosions was a freak accident. Finally, both accidents cost millions of dollars to clean up.



. 

Abortion and Crime

In the chapter “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?” , Freakonomics’ authors Levitt and Dubner discuss the crime rate in the 1990’s in America and try to find out what caused the crime-drop. They mention that other sources credited the drop to innovative policing strategies, changes in drug markets, tougher gun laws, and a strong economy, among other things. Dubner and Levitt rule out a majority of the reasons other sources said caused the crime-drop.

            Dubner and Levitt then raise an interesting topic, when they consider abortion as the main cause of the crime-drop. The authors allude to Romania’s 1960’s dictator prohibiting abortion, saying that it allowed the birth of unwanted children which may have led to more criminals and Nicolae Ceausescu being dethroned. Once Roe v Wade ruled abortion legal in the United States in 1973, women were able to avoid giving birth and raising unwanted children. The authors say that unwanted children tend to grow up in houses with only one parent or in other bad situations. With to-be mothers having abortions, these babies that would probably grow up to be criminals weren’t being born.

            Abortion is one of if not the most controversial topics discussed in Freakonomics. Peoples’ views on abortion are always center stage; a prime example would be during elections. Campaign advertisements today tend to make the opponent look worse rather than promoting his/her self, and the most common commercials involve the candidate’s views on abortion and Roe v Wade.

            After reading Freakonomics, I agree with Levitt and Dubner that the statistics on abortion directly correlate to the crime-drop in the 90’s. However, I think that many other factors like the ones I mentioned earlier also played a role in the drop. I believe that it is very controversial to site only one reason as the cause to such a complex problem.

Public Bigotry

When I first came across the word "bigotry" in Freakonomics, I had never heard of it before and had to look it up. To be a bigot basically means that one is so infatuated with their own ideas and prejudices, no one else's is relevant. Usually this has to do with ethnic prejudices and racist opinions. In the book, Paula Deen's charge of public bigotry was used as an example.

I think public bigotry is very controversial in this part of the book because even though it is only one celebrity being caught and charged for it, there are plenty of people who have the same unjust beliefs. As much as people would like to deny it, racism is still a problem to this day. The only difference now is that it isn't politically correct to judge upon race so people try to hide it. People with such beliefs may hide it from everyone or just from those who they know will disagree. Just because racism isn't socially acceptable anymore, people still carry those feelings. Although most cases of public bigotry aren't as straight forward as Paula Deen's remark using the N word, people are still finding trends of racism. In chapter 6 when Levitt and Dubner examine how a name can effect a person's life or opportunity whether they are black or even if their name just sounds black. Having people with prejudice beliefs in charge of companies, businesses, government or basically anywhere is hindering social progress. Could the world be missing out on new inventions or ideas that come from black people just because one person goes out of their way to make sure they are never noticed? Obama becoming the first black president in 2008 was still a major revelation in our country and the fact that so many people were against the idea of having an African American lead our country proves that racism is still a major factor in people's everyday decisions.

There's no denying that the amount of racism in this country has decreased over the past decades but it still has not ceased completely. The hidden racist views are almost just as bad as if they were to be spoken because even though they know it's wrong, they still cannot let go of the hatred and judgement. Personally, I believe racism stems from ignorance and too much pride. Until people realize that and are willing to change, racism will surround our lives and public bigotry will become an even bigger problem as racism becomes less accepted.

Abortions Control on Crime

As i read Freakonomics I could not stop talking to my co workers and family about how Levitt and Dubner looked at topics in ways that people just do not look at things. It makes so much sense its astonishing how experts do not think like they did. As they explained how the drop in crime was so dramatic and no expert predicted nor new what it was caused from brought so many questions to me.

So as Levitt and Dubner went through the top ten reasons experts wrote about in magazines that were the cause of the crime drop rate all made sense to me and were logical in why experts said why they caused the crime drop. But the authors looked at all these alleged causes and discarded then all and took a different view on the case. As they realized that abortion was a major factor in the 1990 crime drop it makes a ton of sense because of the babies who would have been born into the lifestyle of many typical criminals. This abortion situation is very controversial because it is a topic that has been discussed and argued for years between pro life vs. pro choices is a topic that can bring heated conversations because of some background such as religion and culture.

I completely agree with the authors and the view of the book because to me the babies that would have been born without the abortion would have lived hard lives (single moms, low income, teen mom, unsafe environment). While this abortion situation is very controversial i think that it is correct to have an abortion in situations where it would be unsafe to have a baby that would grow up ill nurtured or in a dangerous situation. The way the authors looked at this topic in Freakonomics was very interesting to me and kept me turning the pages and i could not put the book down because alls i wanted to do was see if the questions i had were correct.

The Role of Parents

"If morality represents the ideal world, then economics represents the actual world." (Levitt, and Dubner, 210) This statement appears to be the definition of the book Freakonomics, the contents and claims of this book analyze topics that are considered controversial. One of these controversies, the role of parents: as explored in chapters five and six, grasps the attention of the readers because of the idea that parents can be the determining factor for how their child turns out in the future. Whether the parents are supportive or not, either case could lead the child down the wrong path in life.

The reason this topic is considered controversial is that most parents obsess about making sure their kid(s) grow up successful, yet those same parents assume that whatever choices they make towards their children will positively impact them and that the choices the parents make to benefit themselves will have no effect on their kids. This is a false assumption, or even a fantasy, that most parents will make the mistake of theorizing. The whole idea that what the parent does HAS to be right, is the basic fuel for determining what choices to make as a parent of children. One example from the book is "The child has many books in the home." (Levitt, and Dubner, 175) referring to what factors are correlated to test scores, this is actually a decision to make as a parent: 'Do I want my child surrounded by forms of knowledge? Or do I want him/her to be surrounded by visual pieces of work?' As claimed in chapter five, Levitt and Dubner explored this correlation to understand the link between test scores and this claim.

The most likely reason that Levitt and Dubner decided to cover this topic is that of how absurd it would sound to most and also how oblivious people are to this trend. As previously mentioned, many people believe that each parent has their own way of parenting and there is no set specific method of raising a child, yet there are certain actions that some parents think would not affect their kids but they do like giving them a 'high-class name.' For the sake of forcing others to look beyond the general surface of life and for questioning specific aspects of it, this topic was realized, presented, and analyzed.

I think the intentions both authors have in this book are amazing, to make an attempt to see the world differently is beyond powerful. I think that such controversial topics in this book propose a dramatic realization to the audience of how we accept the world as opposed to how we see it and feel about it.

Deadman Walking

Reading Freakonomics opened my eyes to a number of ordeals that I simply accepted in the world of today. I understood the fight for abortion, I understood that selling cocaine could land you in jail, and I understood that guns could both hurt and aid. But in chapter 4, Where Have All The Criminals Gone?, a major issue that is disputed even now a days came about. Levitt and Dubner approached the subject of the increased use of capital punishment.

A big issue in the U.S. is the constant questioning of the option of execution in states. People believed for decades that this capital punishment helped drive down crime. Citizens thought that the agent of fear of death dropped the crime rate in early 2000. But Levitt and Dubner revealed two very interesting facts that steered this belief into new territory. The first important fact would be that there were only 478 executions in the entire U.S. during the 1990's with prisoners on death row having an annual execution rate of lowly two percent. Shockingly members of the cocaine organization Black Gangster Disciple Nation has a higher percent of death at seven percent. This shows that men who are locked up for the purpose of their death have a higher percent chance of living than a man who is on a street corner in Chicago with forty dollars worth of drugs in his pockets.

The other fact revolves around the math that involves the death penalty. Levitt supplied the readers with the statistic that for every 1 criminal that is executed there are seven fewer homicides that might have been committed. Using this formula with the 2001 homicide rates it showed that execution, death penalty, only had a four percent impact on the total number of homicides that single year. This can show that the death penalty has little to any influence on the works of criminals who have homicidal or an other illegal intentions. With it costing nearly $25,000 a year to keep someone incarcerated on death row, it seems to be pointless in its purpose and long sentences.

The frightening part about this amount of information was that the threat of death doesn't stop the criminals of the United States. When it shows that a homicidal crime committed by a criminal has only a 2 percent chance of death the odds are in the criminals favor. Wasting the countries money on the criminals who are incarcerated, starts the debate of whether execution is worth it or should prisoners be sent to a regular prison. The people of the country then question if it is morally right to kill the criminal that killed another. Is this how the crime rate was lowered, with the lowering of moral? In relation I believe that the authors brought up this matter in this specific part of the book to show that execution has little effect on the country as a whole, only in the crime percentage. They don't take sides on the matter accept for the subtext that ask a question.  If the fear of death is not enough, then what will it take to create such a big drop in crime the next time it peaks when abortion is already legalized?

When Warnings Are Ignored

On April 24, 2013, an eight-story garment factory building in Bangladesh collapsed killing 1,129 and injuring more than 2,500. It is considered to be the deadliest structural failure in modern history. Like the molasses tank in Boston cracks in the Bangladesh structure were discovered and reported but the warnings were ignored.  Supervisors of the garment factory declared that the building was safe and demanded that their employees come to work even though the people in the shops and the bank on the bottom floors had evacuated.   Although the cracks had been discovered just the day before, for months architects had highlighted other potential risks associated with the structural integrity of the building. In addition, the top four floors had been constructed without a permit. The factory manufactured apparel for companies like The Children’s Place and Walmart.

It would be interesting to note the net worth of the USIA in 1919 and Walmart in 2013. It is even more interesting to know that most of the people in both the North End and in Bangladesh were living in poverty. If Isaac Gonzales were alive today he probably would not believe that companies are still sacrificing people for profit.  

The Importance of a Name

While reading Freakonomics there were many things that stood out to me, from teachers cheating for their own benefit to the business of drug dealing. But for me the most controversial topic I came across was the importance of you name. I never really thought much about someone's name, it was always just a way to identify a face. A sound, really, to identify who you are. In the chapter "Perfect Parenting, Part II; Or: Would a Roshanda By Any Other Name Smell As Sweet?" Levitt and Dubner explores how important a name really is.

The first thing I came across that really surprised me was the differences between "white" names and "black" names. On page 189 they talked about a study where a researcher sent two identical resumés, one with a "white" name and one with a "minority sounding" name. Generally the resumé with the "white" name would get more interviews. But why is that? The resumés were identical. Wouldn't it make sense to interview both? It's simple, different names have different connotations. An employer usually looks for someone with an education and no criminal record, often they assume someone with a "white" name is exactly what they are looking for whereas someone with a "black" name would be more of a risk. People do not only discriminate against someone's appearance but also what they assume their name implies about them. But as this book shows, things are not always what they seem.

The other thing I found surprising in this chapter was how the standard spelling of a name usually signified parents with a low education. The example Levitt and Dubner used was the name Jasmine. Mothers who spelled it like "Jazmine" generally had 11.94 years of education whereas those who spelled it like "Jasmyn" generally had 13.23 years of education. Someone's name may not necessarily reflect what they are like but what their parents were like. High education parents tend to go with more unique names that then become popular with other high education parents. After a few years low education parents will start using these names and the high education parents begin using different names.

Of course some people could argue that it is just a name and does not mean anything. For me it raises some questions, would I have been different if I had a different name? If my parents knew this would I have gotten a different name? There is no way of actually figuring out something like this but it is an interesting concept to think about.

Information Asymmetry

When reading Freakonomics, I came across several controversial topics. One of the many topics that really stood out to me was the abuse of information. As I read this section of the book located within the chapter titled “The Ku Klux Klan and Real – Estate Agents,” I found that people with more information often use it to their advantage, at the expense of those with less information.  As the book says, “Information is a beacon, a cudgel, an olive branch, a deterrent, depending on who wields it and how,” (Levitt and Dubner, 67.) This quote basically sums up the two sides of information: it can either be a very worthwhile source or a dangerous weapon that can be used against someone.

               The parlance used to describe the deprivation of information from one party due to another party abusing their privilege of said material is called information asymmetry. A specific definition of the phrase ‘information asymmetry’ is that someone, typically an expert, knows more about something than a consumer, thus gaining an advantage. This is a very corrupt system, for the expert typically has their own best interest in mind rather than being truly dedicated to assisting the consumer in the best way possible.  I also came across a crime involving experts who promote false information, and hide the material that the consumer needs. As the authors of Freakonomics put it, they “…were trying to keep the information asymmetry as asymmetrical as possible” (Levitt and Dubner, 69.)

The dishonest system of information asymmetry has, however, been curtailed by the Internet. The internet provides consumers with the ability to research and increase their own knowledge rather than relying on somebody else. I am completely against information asymmetry. I believe that it is unfair for an expert to deprive a consumer of help and information. How are people supposed to do anything in this world if they cannot trust people to help them in situations, whether it be purchasing a car or selling a house? One of the key facts about information asymmetry and the promotion of false information is the fact that it rarely is detected, thus leading to the fact that it is rarely punished. The idea just confound s me, and I believe that Dubner and Levitt decided to discuss the topic to show how greedy some people can be with specifics and also to show how the information can be easily gained through the use of the internet.

The Great Boston Molasses Flood vs. The Boston Marathon Bombings

      When I first started reading Dark Tide an interesting line in the book stuck with me while I kept reading. In the author's note Stephen Puleo wrote "To understand the flood is to understand America of the early twentieth century." I feel like this can also be said to understand many national or international incidents that happen, the history can show many factors and reasons.
      I was trying to think about another disaster while I was reading "Dark Tide" and I began to find similarities in the Boston Marathon bombing. In comparing the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919 to the Boston Marathon Bombing of 2013, I can easily say that the location was similar. During the time of the flood World War I was going on in Europe which caused controversies. The war in the Middle East is still going on, and was during the time of the Boston Marathon bombing. In both events there are people to blame; obviously the bombers are to blame in the bombings. In the flood you can put some of the blame on Mr. Jell, but also on the people of the North End who kept quiet.
      Throughout the Boston Marathon bombing many people focused on the first reactors and how immensely they helped without thinking. In the Molasses flood many people first ran like many people at the Boston Marathon did, but there were still many people who ran to help. In both dangerous incidents the danger did not scare some people. These people made a difference
      In the Great Boston Molasses Flood there were twenty one people killed and 150 people injured. In the Marathon bombing three people were killed and 264 people were injured. These numbers were different, but they were also not a huge number of casualties compared to other national or international incidents. For the most part these events were unexpected. The bombings were a complete surprise. The flood was unexpected because they did not know when the tank was going to bust, but they knew it eventually would. In both incidents innocent people were injured or killed, and a city was ruined. The damage was physical and emotional. For both incidents the aftermath was similar. There were family members and friends that had the terrifying feeling of not knowing the outcome.
            There were different things too. The places were different, although very close. Also the time was almost one hundred years different. The flood was a more natural incident; it could almost be called an accident. In contrast the bombings were not an accident and there was a motive to the bombers. There were also many other aspects to the incidents that were different.              I was not sure if I wanted to compare the flood to the bombings, because it is still a hard topic to discuss for some people, but that was also true for many people at the time of the molasses flood.  

Teachers that Cheat

I felt that one of the most controversial topics in Freakanomics was that teachers were cheating, and not the students. This was for me the most interesting part of the book because it was surprising to see that a lot of teachers do cheat. All my life, I thought that teachers would never cheat because they are considered role models and always advise students not to cheat. This chapter has helped me see what can happen and was does happen in other parts of our country.

I was thoroughly shocked when I read about how teachers would erase the student's answers and write in the correct ones. They mentioned that the reason most of the teachers cheat is to make the school look better. If they taught the kids well and made sure they were educated, then the teachers wouldn't have to cheat. Teachers always say that cheating is wrong and not allowed, but then they go off and do it! Also, when the student gets caught cheating, they receive a zero and that's it, but when a teacher cheats, they lose their job and is even sometimes mentioned in the news, which gives them a bad rep. If the teachers didn't cheat and the school received a low mark, that would surely be better that "the school with the cheating teachers"

It has also got me wondering that if it happened in Chicago schools, could it happen or is it happening in other major cities like New York, San Francisco, or even Boston. What if it was happening in a nearby city like Brockton? Who knows if its happening in Abington! You can truly never know until the teacher slips up and reveals that they are cheating.

The Power of Information

Much of Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics is centered around the revelation of controversial or unusual information. For example, their choices of what questions to ask were unconventional to say the least. Just look at Chapter 2, titled, "How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?". While at first the question may look ridiculous or even offensive to some, it turns out the two groups are similar in that they both proverbially 'hold all the cards'.

The way I see it, this chapter is simply how Levitt and Dubner prove the saying, "knowledge is power". It is revealed that statistically speaking, the Klan was not as rampantly violent as was perceived by the general public. This is not to say the acts of violence they did commit weren't brutal and unnecessary, but instead it shows how powerful cultural perception can be. Levitt and Dubner tell us, "there were actually more lynchings...when the Klan was dormant than during the 1920's when the Klan had millions of members". So it turns out that much of the Klan's 'dominance', if you will, stemmed from their ability to strike fear into the black community using mainly distorted facts. The authors briefly speak about claims the Klan made and how it is very possible these were just to scare people and weren't actually rooted in fact.

Once the two finished unveiling the Klan's secrets, the question of how it all related to modern day real-estate still remained. As it turns out, the two groups are similar on a fundamental level. Neither reveals the whole truth to people other than themselves. Obviously, real-estate agents aren't a hate organization, but they do have their own personal interests as their first priority.

Very early in the book, Levitt and Dubner make the point that people like real-estate agents are merely human and humans respond to incentives. So, the most prominent piece of controversy in this chapter was the revelation of how real-estate agents are happy to do less than their full ability just to close a deal and move on to the next client. Why? Because these agents main source of income is the commission they make from selling houses. So if they can make a faster sale by convincing the buyer the price their being offered is a good value, then they can get to more clients that way and ultimately make more money.

Cheating Teachers

From what I have read from Freakonomics the most controversial topic to me would be how some teachers cheat. Before reading the chapter about how some teachers cheat, I never suspected that teachers actually cheat in order to help themselves. If they ever cheated, I thought they would do it to help the student, but not to help themselves. I realized that the teachers that cheat can be very selfish as they are cheating because they have incentives. The incentives usually involve money or keeping their job. This topic really opened my mind to reality.

If a teacher cheated I thought it would involve giving the students hints to the correct answers, but I never realized or thought that a teacher would go into a students test and erase the wrong answers and substitute them with the correct answers. This is not only cheating, but it is fooling the students and their parents into thinking that they did well on the test when they actually did poorly.

I found it very interesting in determining if a teacher has cheated or not in the book. They took a look at the answer string and they found that a majority of the students in the class with a cheating teacher all got the same questions right. What that meant was that the teacher went into the students tests and changed about a string of 15 questions to the correct answers as it would be to suspicious if he changed all the answers. This chapter definitely opened my mind to things that could actually happen in the real world.

Do parents matter?

In chapter 5 of Freakonmics, Levitt and Dubner take on the effect of parents on children. While there may not be religious protesters and debates in Senate on the topic, by definition, the topic is still controversial. Parents would say that their actions greatly affect a child and how they turn out in life. Most realists, or more progressive people would say that parents do not effect their child, and peer pressure changes the child more. Parents will naturally hesitate to admit that they don't have complete control. They have to justify the $235,000 that they spend to raise the kid for 17 years (not including college). While parents do have an affect on their chid, it is not as much as they think. A lot of realists, who have become adults firsthand, would obviously have the experience to say that parents don't matter as much as they think they do. It makes sense, if parents had as much of a hold on their kids as they think they do, would kids be out doing drugs, drinking heavily, growing up to be criminals, drop out of school, or be different from their parents at all?  

The authors probably decided to cover this topic to throw some facts into the mix. They do not show extreme support for either side, so they probably did it to give people debating it more to talk about. They are basically dealing arms to both armies and sitting back to watch the battle.  Although, they do seem to slightly favor the parents, by revealing what actually helps kids and what doesn't, but, their list shows that what parents are affect a child more than what the parents do.

Personally, I think both sides of the argument have a point. Parents certainly do have an effect on their child, and while it does matter more than a realist would tell you, it is not as effective as the parents think. Kids take what parents tell them and apply it to who they are and the context they have. For example, in the book, it says that having books in the house can help a child do better in school. A house filled with books wouldn't help a child who doesn't like to read. On the contrary, a child who loves to read but doesn't have a single book in the house will find ways to get books and read. A child is not only affected by who the parents are, but who the child is, long before they realize who they really are and who they could be. 

The Oklahoma Tornado and the Boston Molasses Flood

A little over two months ago on May 21,2013, the state of Oklahoma had experienced one of the most severe natural disasters this year. The people had been prepared for the worst, but had no idea that this twister would be the most catastrophic storm in the history of the state.

For the people of Moore, Oklahoma it had been nothing less than a normal day in society. But suddenly, a twister about a mile wide, destroying over 17 miles of land, had destroyed the town . Homes, hospitals, and schools had been destroyed, leaving dozens injured. All of this had unraveled in just half an hour. With 91 people dead and that number STILL  rising, and including over 20 children, the search still continues to find people lost in the rubble and debris of this catastrophe. Lastly, the total cost of the damage is over 1 billion dollars.

When comparing this tragedy to that of the Boston Molasses Flood, one similar and the most important aspect of these situations, is how traumatized the people were in the aftermath of the situations. People had lost family, friends, and also  they had to live with the fear of knowing their loved ones could still be lost in the damage. The number of people injured  and the death toll of both situations could be considered as well. Similar to Katie, the major difference of the two disasters was the geographic location, considering Oklahoma is in the Midwest. Also, the Boston Molasses flood could have been avoidable if the renovations were made to the molasses tank, seeing as  they had been advised throughout the book. Another difference was the atmosphere of the disasters. By this I mean, the people of Boston had been taken by surprise, with no time to take precaution. While the people of Moore had taken some precaution, but were at a loss for how powerful the twister was, underestimating the power of the storm.

 

San Francisco Plane Crash vs. Boston Molasses Disaster

A few weeks ago, an Asiana Airlines pilot by the name of Lee Kang-kook was flying a plane by the name of Boeing 777 from China into the San Francisco International Airport. Flight 214 was flying smoothly up until the point of descent. Apparently, while Kang was trying to land the plane, he cause the plane to accelerate to a speed much to fast for it to land. Kang's judgement was that if they continued at that speed, the plane wouldn't be able to stop at the end of the runway. Kang pulled the plane upwards, trying to avoid impact, but it was too late. The tail end of the plane had hit the rocks at the beginning of the runway and had broken off. The plane went down in a flaming spiral onto the runway, leaving 181 of the 300 passengers injured, and two teenage girls dead.

It was later revealed to the public that Kang was very inexperienced with flying a jet like 777. However he was on his way to getting a license to fly a 777 jet. Kang had only 43 hours worth of flight experience for a 777 jet, alongside a well experienced 777 pilot. On flight 214, he was not co-piloting with an experienced pilot, therefore highly unfit to fly that plane.

The Boston molasses disaster relates to the San Francisco plane crash because they both physically and emotionally scarred hundreds of people. Not many may have been killed in either disaster, but there were many injuries in both. Nonetheless, both disasters differ because the molasses disaster was within the city of Boston, effecting a larger area of land, and destroying a mass of buildings in the city. The San Francisco plane crash happened on a runway, where the falling plane didn't hit any buildings or cause any sort of property damage. Yes, the plane will costs millions to replace, but that is a mess that is faster and easier to clean up, unlike the molasses was in Boston. It is hard to tell whether both the plane crash and the molasses flood were preventable or not. Maybe if the pilot was more experienced, the plane wouldn't have crashed, and maybe if the tank holding the molasses was better structured, the flood wouldn't have happened. Both disasters are similar in the way in which people are questioning whether they were preventable or not.

For more information on the San Francisco plane crash go to: http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-plane-crash-pilot-43-hours-flying/story?id=19598352

Abortion and Crime

It is true that many of the topics examined in Freakonomics can be considered controversial. One topic indirectly addressed in this book is that of abortion. Ever since Roe v. Wade (by the way I never knew the whole back story) this topic has divided the nation. Pro-choice and right-to-life activists have generally based their positions on the rights of the mother and religious/moral grounds respectively. This topic continues to be controversial because there are so many people who feel very strongly about both sides of this issue.

The reasoning behind why the author addressed such a controversial issue probably was not intentional. While Steven Levitt was researching potential causes for a reduction in crime one of the many things he looked for were any changes in demographics. The author probably did not expect to stumble upon this “unforeseen and long-gestating” demographic change. While I have read or heard about the connection of abortion and economic level (many abortions are performed on mothers who live in poverty) and there have been plenty of studies on the connection of economic level and crime (more perpetrators of crime live in poverty), I have never read or heard anything about the link between abortion and crime. But, if there is a link between a and b and b and c, it would make sense that there is a link between a and c .Even before Levitt raised the issue of abortion in Freakonomics, Anthony V. Bouza had said, “…arguably the only effective crime-prevention device adopted in this nation since the late 1960s.” Even though others have made the connection perhaps Levitt was the first to explain his theory. When most people look at causes or contributing factors, they often look at more immediate or direct links. This link takes almost twenty years to realize (“Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes”) and there are still so many other contributing factors.

Even if others came to the same conclusion, voicing this theory would probably not be socially accepted. During protests it would be unlikely that a sign would read “Reduce Crime, Have an Abortion”. Nor would you be likely to read “Choose Life, Police Need Job Security”. I wonder if that cause-effect relationship was found to be 100% accurate if it would help some women to justify their actions This topic continues to be a highly controversial issue on many different levels.

Another factor to consider from a purely economic point of view in this controversy is funding. Given the premise that most fetuses aborted would have been born into poverty consider this calculation. If the government spends x amount of money to support the average person living in poverty on welfare and it costs x amount of money to capture, prosecute, and punish the average criminal, then will the government eventually find it cost efficient to subsidize or help fund some of these abortions? If this theory is accurate should the government provide free birth control to poverty-ridden areas?

Considering the root of the controversy one could question why Levitt decided to include this theory in his book. After reading Freakonomics I don’t really think he is afraid of controversy. He seems to think outside the box and if he uncovers information that is controversial but relevant I don’t think he shies away from it. I actually think he might like stirring up a little controversy to get people thinking of things other than the obvious. When he comes to conclusions or develops a theory I don’t think he really encourages action one way or the other (after all he is an economist not an activist). Levitt just presents his theory, along with others, and lets the reader make his own assessment. When he determines causality he doesn’t make any recommendations he just presents data. According to Levitt, while the relationship between legalized abortion and the crime rate has not gained the greatest traction in the popular/political discussions (real estate has), it certainly has opened up dialogue. Whether it is correlation or a cause I don’t think his theory of abortion and crime will ever become part of “conventional wisdom” (unless of course it is declared illegal again) but I do think it will add another dimension to the longstanding controversy.