A Django site.
July 28, 2008

Doran Barton
fozzmoo
Fozzolog
» Book review: Freakonomics

I've been wanting to read Freakonomics for many months and I think I've picked it up at a bookstore or grocery store at least a half dozen times without purchasing it. Finally, a week or so ago, I got it.

I guess I'll add yet-another voice to the choir that resounds there is not a unifying theme to this book. But, that's only a minor complaint.

FreakonomicsFreakonomics is written by award-winning economist Steven Levitt and award-winning author Stephen J. Dubner. Without really knowing these two guys very well, I got the impression the end result (the book) is a combination of Levitt's geeky love of statistics and causal relationships and Dubner's pop-culture awareness. Either way, it's pretty good writing.

The book examines a number of surprising statistical relationships in unusual fields of study. For example, the first chapter asks, "What do schoolteachers and sumo-wrestlers have in common?" Yes. What? I've been wondering that since I was 10... not.

Each chapter asks an unusual question and then proceeds to break down the evidence until it arrives at the answer- and it's usually not one you expect.

Most people, when they think of economics or statistics, they immediately grab a pillow and a cup of warm milk. This book, on the other hand, is not a sleep-inducer. While there are a small number of data tables given, the reader does not need to dive into the data to understand what the authors are presenting. In fact, in the one case where data was used more heavily, the authors broke the data down row by row to explain their position.

I found myself reading the chapter on children's names ("Would a Roshanda by any Other Name Smell as Sweet?") out loud to my family because its findings (and predictions) were just fascinating to everyone.

The treatments on crime ("Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?" and "Where Have All The Criminals Gone?") really do an excellent job of making swiss cheese of what we call "conventional wisdom." Whether the results Levitt got from his studies are completely true or not, I think these chapters could be required reading for all kids because it really inspired me to wonder how much of what believe is factually true?

My biggest complaint about this book is that it ended too quickly. The edition I bought is the "revised and expanded" edition, which means the authors have reorganized the main chapters and have added some additional materail at the end of the book which includes articles written for the New York Times in conjunction with the book and a smattering of blog postings. While the extra material was somewhat interesting, I still felt the book was just too dang short!

Stephen Dubner's website states that he is working on another Freakonomics book with Levitt. I hope the next one is bigger because I think they've only touched the tip of the iceberg here.

In the extra material, the authors write a bit about "peak oil" and some of the problems with the theory from an economist's perspective. I hope they give this subject much more attention in their next book considering the price of oil was only about $60/barrel when they wrote about it and has since peaked at nearly $150/barrel since then.

February 6, 2008

Hans Fugal
no nic
The Fugue :
» On Voting your Conscience

I took an American History course from an Economics professor, and I remember clearly the sinking feeling in my gut when he discussed two-party politics. I've never much cared for the two-party system, but he had a very convincing argument that the two-party system is pretty much an inevitability. What's more, the two parties are more alike than not. I don't have the knowledge or eloquence to convince you like he did me, but I can say that it all comes down to the normal distribution (you know, bell curves). The two parties differ on a few points, polarizing points that people are passionate about (abortion, gun control, Iraq, etc.), but are otherwise very similar.

I think we're seeing that right now in the presidential race. I think we also see it in technology (I think it's part of the reason Windows is so entrenched). I think it's a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because the top of the curve is more likely to be kind of right than very wrong. That is the fundamental tenet of democracy, after all. It's a curse because the masses have a whole lot of inertia and better, more perfect policies and candidates often don't stand a chance.

Whether you believe all that statistical mumbo jumbo I'm throwing at you or not, you probably have had that sinking feeling of wondering whether your vote matters. You look at the state where you live that overwhelmingly votes opposite your preference, and wonder why you should even show up to vote since your vote "doesn't count".

Well, you're right and you're wrong. Sure, you may be right on the money that you voting for candidate A won't keep candidate B from winning your state or county or district or nation or whatever. But it's not all about winning. Winning is of course your first hope. But even in losing your vote can make a difference. Statistics are collected. Not just collected, but analyzed. Analyzed by the people who want to be reelected. Analyzed by the media. Analyzed by who knows who else. Isn't there a difference between winning by a slim margin and winning by a landslide? Don't you think the winner in the former case might be more receptive to opposing views, knowing that the scales could easily turn in the next election? If libertarians (for example) make a decent showing in an election, even though it's only 1/4 of the votes, don't you think the elected officials will take a closer look?

Your vote does matter, whether or not it is decisive in the outcome of the election. Also, it's important to vote for who you think is the best candidate. Do you like Ron Paul but don't believe he has a chance at winning? Vote for him anyway. If you live in a place where your vote may indeed be decisive, then you may want to vote strategically if you feel there is a "lesser of two evils" situation. But if you feel, even slightly, that your vote won't be decisive, then vote your conscience. Only when people vote and vote their consciences, can the truth about how America feels about candidates and policies come forth.

Be heard. Be involved. Get over yourself. So your vote isn't decisive. Whoop-de-doo! Your vote does matter.

December 18, 2007

Dennis Muhlestein
nonic
All My Brain
» Key Website Statistics: New Visitors and Conversion Rate

There are a few key statistics that every website operator selling a product or service should track. Of course, these are useful for other types of sites too, but when you’re attempting to sell something, you need to know where to spend your time and/or money to be most effective. Unique vs New Vistors A lot [...]