Freakonomics Response

2. How do the Freakonomics authors address the "correlation versus causation" issue? Do they pretend correlation IS causation? Do they prove that some correlation is causation, and if so, how? Or do they explicitly acknowledge the lack of proof of causation?

The authors of Freakonomics addressed correlation as it causes causation, because in the movie they we’re showing how something’s actions can affect the future and have a connection for example the crime rates in the 90’s, one of the authors believed that row v. wade in the 70’s had a lot to do with crime going down. And in a way they did pretent that correlation was causation because, they were trying to explain how they both rely on each other. Because with every action connects has a connection to the outcome.

3. What sources of evidence do the Freakonomics authors most rely on? Why is this innovative?

Most people when they try to show evidence of things they use statistics to prove their point, but in Freakonomics they used history and it's connection to the present. For example they sued examples on how majority of people are given an image of things in life, and if that image is showed doing something that we’re not used to seeing than it’s hard to believe it’s true. Like the example of sumo wrestling in japan, when cheating was suspected many Japanese did not believe the accusations made because sumo wrestling is seen as an honorable sport, and that was later connected to how here in the United States Americans find it hard when well known successful people or leaders do dishonest things.

I think Freakonomics does a good job at showing the “hidden-in-plain-sight”, but it didn’t do a good job at showing what exactly it was explaining, or the different arguments someone was saying. Like if someone’s name affects their lives, or what we should do to make society better. It just left us thinking that people are becoming more honest and that we’re getting better.