Freakonomics | Levitt & Dubner

What do real estate agents, the klu klux klan, sumo wrestlers, and parenting all have in common?

This English major was skeptical to find out. Nonetheless, I have had Freakonomics on my reading list for awhile now, and decided to figure out what all of the hype was about.

Never having taken an econ course in university, I wasn’t sure how technical the book was going to be. But of course with a jazzy title and the authors being dubbed as “rogue economists,” I can say that no one should be hesitant to read this book for fear of content going over their heads. If you are looking for a quick, amusing read, this is for you.

Like a crash course in common sense (for the warped), the introduction proved to be one of my favourite parts of the book. But though I appreciated the frank introduction to the difference between correlation and causation, it seemed to serve as a device in which to say see? We know the difference, and in fact, we’re teaching you that difference right now- so our assertions have to be correct because we are, afterall, the experts.

Which is not to say that I don’t  agree with a lot of the assertions they make, at least in terms of rationale. My main concern was merely that the book would be a string of shocking, unrelated revelations designed to make the reader’s jaw drop.

And some of Levitt and Dubners’ assertions do just that: drop our jaws. Abortion has reduced crime? Back it up here. Didn’t this guy just say that abortion is a moral crime? How does that saying go… Two wrongs don’t make a right? Why, by Levitt and Dubner’s calculations, it sure do. Suffice to say, their message is controversial. Controversial, but not entirely cohesive.

To be fair, the authors never promised a unifying theme. In fact, they go well out of their way to make sure the reader knows there is no such concept right from the very beginning. Still, I found myself impressed with the way they continued to reference assertions from chapters long passed, almost hinting that topics as unrelated as the similarities between the klu klux klan and real estate agents, and why drug dealers live with their Mamas, could be related.

It was a quick and easy trap to fall into. The end of the book is abrupt and well, book-ended with the same assertion: no unifying theme. Overall, Freakonomics was a tongue-in-cheek push for every day people to abandon what they might consider “common sense” and approach situations from a different angle.

Maybe we can’t truly assert that crime rates have been reduced thanks to good ol’ roe vs. wade, but it’s certainly a compelling argument. And whether or not you ultimately agree with the authors’ conclusions, it’s interesting to see how they get there.

Magazines, the Power of Print | MPA

I’m topping off a beautiful Vancouver weekend by curling up with some June 2010 issues of my favourite magazines. I’ve said it countless times, there is nothing like the ritual of sitting down with a magazine- true “me time”- and reading cover to cover.

But, I had hardly gotten far before I came across an ad that I had to rip out, press on to a hard cardboard backing, and put aside for framing purposes. Hello Magazine Publishers of America, you’ve gotten my attention:

This is the video version, from the MPA site, of the ad that so caught my attention. The video is great, but the print ad really was almost better. It epitomized why we read magazines: to learn about interesting and exciting things in a way that is aesthetically intelligent and pleasing, furthering the overall point and creating an experience.

With so much hope in publishing, there is hope for publishing. Not that I was ever worried about magazines.

Globe & Mail | It’s Your Fault I’m a Brat

I stumbled upon the article It’s Your Fault I’m a Brat in the Globe and Mail Facts & Arguments section.

I have to say, it really embarassed me. Then the comments only made it worse: everyone sure that this is yet another article set to the mass voice of my generation, insisting that nothing is our fault.

While I don’t agree with reducing all of our shortcomings to our parents’ blame, especially in reference to isolated circumstances that we must have been too young to truly remember now, I think we all run this narrative through our heads.

Whether we admit it as openly as this author or not, we all point fingers at our parents- I really don’t know why. If I am to be as honest as the author, I can admit to being as guilty of blaming my Mom and Step-Dad, the solid base that I was lucky to have growing up, even skipping my biological father, who was, at times, an unstable figure, just as much as the author. This leads me to believe that it really has nothing to do with a parent’s shortcomings, but rather it says something about the relationship that anyone has with their parents.

We are quick to judge our parents. We are quick to take credit for our accomplishments and link the disappointments to them. Sadly, I am admittedly more naturally inclined to get angry at my parents than anyone else in the world. But as I get older I have to start asking why.

Maybe it all boils down to our desire to have our parents see us in a certain way, and when they don’t, we blame them for the shortcomings they refuse to pretend we don’t have. But, shouldn’t they be keeping us grounded?

In the end, I just don’t see eye-to-eye with the author. I think we come to an age where we need to separate ourselves from our parents. We need to realize that we are not doomed to play out the same problems that our parents modeled for us. And we need to do this because a) we need to give our parents a break and b) we have to have personal responsibility for our actions as adults.

Our problems today probably have very little to do with our parents. I’m not denying that a solid foundation sets anyone up in a positive way (I give my Mom, Step-Dad, and in more obscure ways, even my Dad, credit for every good thing I have ever done or accomplished), but I’ve seen women who have come from adverse situations do great things. And I’ve seen people who come from great- seemingly perfect- backgrounds who have more problems than I can even begin to list. What can be said of that? Who gets the blame or the reward in these situations?

Though I ultimately don’t agree with the author, I really applaud her honesty. She might be a “brat” but she must have known she would take a lot of flak for writing from that perspective. The courage to express onesself honestly, in a way that makes people think and consider their own situations, is something to respect.