It was really interesting watching and learning about economics, specifically how they play a role in the life of a high school student. I found the portion about incentives really interesting. I was surprised that more kids did not bring up their grades. I also wonder if the incentive amount increased from $50 to $100 would the letter grade of the student also increase. For example if the student raised their grade from a D to a C with a $50 incentive would it go from a D to a B with a $100 incentive, is there any sort of pattern or ratio.
I like how you pointed out the incentive thing about the kids, because thats what stood out to me too.
Pretty interesting, huh? Money is a pretty powerful thing, in a good way and a bad way.
One thing there really struck me was the scene about the government. Where they are talking about politics, and how they react in situation. So there conclusion they tried to come to in this scene, was the government for the most of the time, think they are making or have a really good idea and it will benefit everybody, but in reality it just not does end up good, even though they can predict from the start.
My point with this, is that people is different, and that is the main reasons why it is complicated for the government to get to there goal, because there will always be a big group of people there will disagree,and those people will start getting the other people to change opinion.
That....was extremely deep, Casper. People are always going to disagree with others no matter what. That's how this world is. You truly understood this, man - you really did.
What struck me during the Freakonomics documentary was the part when high school students were rewarded with money, if they are able to maintain good grades at the end of each month. I found it to be a really interesting experiement to be performed because it somewhat motivates a student to do well during school by maintaining good grades. At the end, they are rewarded with money, which are one of the things that everyone likes and wants. But one thing I thought during this part of the documentary was after the experiment is over, would the student continue to maintain good grades? There wouldn't be any money rewarded no more, and some students that participated in the experiment might have just taken advantage of the money by just getting it. But if the parents rewarded their child for having good grade even after the experiment, I think that would be a really good thing for the student.
This struck me as well. It is crazy to think that kids need money as a motivator to do well in school. While I have heard of parents giving their kids money for, let's say an A+ on a test, a school doing this is absurd.
I thought it was really interesting to hear about the different perspectives in the freakonomics movie. The piece that talked about “black names” versus “white names” and how they affect your future was intriguing to see. They pointed out that “black names” were less likely to get a job when compared with the same application as a person with a “white name”. I think it is sad, that just based on a name, a person may be less likely to get a job. It really isn’t fair to the child, since the parents named them. Despite there being the option of changing your name, people may not want to change it after being called the same thing for most of their life.
I agree, because they didn't have that choice for their name. Also people with names that are so called a bad name, then sometimes the way that person name may sound like who they are, but in reality they could be just the opposite of who they may sound like.
I found two things to be very interesting during the Freakonomics documentary. The portion about incentives was a little shocking because kids did not bring up their grades even when they were bribed with money, and other things that kids fin fascinating. I also wonder if the incentive amount increased from $50 to $100 would the letter grade of the student also increase. I was also intrigued when they brought up "black names” versus “white names” and how they affect your future. Strangers said that “black names” were less likely to get a job when compared with the same application as a person with a “white name”. I thought it was pretty pathetic that just your name can predict someone getting a job or not.
One part of the Freakonomics video that I remember particularly well is the section about the study on incentive and how it works on teens' grades. It was incredible to me that the money was not a good enough incentive for some kids to at least ATTEMPT to get their work done. I believe that it is one thing to try to complete your work and fail and another entirely to not even try to complete the work given. Especially since it seemed that the students were in a lower income area, I believed they would have had even MORE incentive to try harder for the money. Of course, this method did work for some kids, but not at all for others. I can't help but wonder why?
Great post, and I wonder that too!
Great post! It is crazy how little effort some put. It's hard to understand.
The part where they talked about black names vs. white names surprised me because we discussed this exact thing in biology. We read a paper saying how your name can have an effect the way your future turns out. This surprised me because in the documentary they say that your name has nothing to do with they way your turn out. It was interesting to hear an economic side on this theory versus a scientific side.
Another thing that struck me was the incentive study. They had a school where when they met the standards they would be rewarded with money and a party. It surprised me that some kids still didn't care about their grades where with some kids it gave them a reason to work hard in school. I liked when the kid said that he disagreed with "money can't bye you happiness". I agree with what he said. I feel as though money can not necessarily buy you happiness but it sure can make life a lot less stressful. Money is a big part of life whether we like it or not.
I found Freakonomics to be actually very interesting. What struck me personally was the experiment with high school students where they were rewarded money for good grades. This is very relevant to my life because my mom is always trying give me motivations and incentives to do better in school. I used to be bribed to get high grades but after awhile the trick starts to lose its magic. You could see in the video how some kids were doing better than others. Usually it was the kids that were already passing that kept up good grades, whereas kids who were used to failing didn't know how to apply the incentive to their behavior. This would be an interesting thing to keep studying. I wonder why they, and even myself, start to give up even with such a valuable reward.
Those are some really great points you brought up and I'm interested to know as well!
Freakonomics was really interesting about all the different topics they talked during the video. What struck me about the video was when they were talking about names and wondering if names decide your future. They came to the conclusion that names do not decide if you will grow up to be successful or not it depends on your environment that you are raised in. I also connected it to when Sophia C's dad came to talk about names and what they mean.
I really like the connection. I forgot about that part and Sophia's dad also talked about this strange area of psychology! Really clever connection to classwork!
I enjoyed this movie because it gave us an understanding of how chance works in many examples. My favorite part was the names having an effect on your life. I was curious to see how that would end up. But it's your environment that affects your life. I learned more information about Sumo wrestling. I thought that they just ate to get big and then they fought. They have intense workouts to stay Sumo fit. There was more to winning the match. I found that very interesting! I can't wait to learn more about economics!
Something that I was thinking about throughout the movie is that the common theme of all the topics in the movie is incentives. They are behind everything. From the sumos to the bad parents, every action is influenced by incentives. I don't think that this has to necessarily become an "Achilles' Heel" of sorts for people, in the same sense that our need of incentives doesn't imply an inherent greed. It's just the way we work, our brains to work to serve and better ourselves. The way that is accomplished is through the completion of actions that serve to a self-improvement. I think that developing a self-awareness of the need for incentives can actually be helpful. People can analyze the paths before them and think about which supply the greatest incentives (which is basically the Choice Model).
I really enjoyed how you pointed out the themes in the movie, as well as how our brains work to better ourselves.
I love the connection to our economics unit that were doing in class!
As a whole, I found Freakonomics fascinating. The patterns that they found, and the conclusions made from those patterns seem like something you would never be able to pick out, yet they do it all the time. Something I found really interesting was the last segment they did, on bribing the 9th graders to do well in school. I thought that a much higher percentage would do better when given the incentive of money. The boy they were following certainly seemed excited at the prospect of being paid to get high grades, yet when it came down to it, I think its interesting how he still let himself fail. I feel like that story was a good way of showing that just because something is predicted to happen, even by professionals, and seems to happen in other situations, doesn't necessarily mean its going to happen. The economists in the video thought they would see a dramatic rise in the number of students passing, but they were disappointed. I feel like its just as important to be aware of the possibility of being wrong as the possibility of being right.
I couldn't agree more about the level of interest in this movie! Why do you think a much higher percentage of kids should have gone for the money? What do you think they could change to get better results?
This was actually my second time watching Freakonomics. I really do enjoy the movie, I find it enlightening in the way that it helps you to look at things from a different perspective, and you end up learning that things may not always be what they seem (just as all of the "economics" things we've done in humanities so far). The second time watching it I was less intrigued by all the information, since I already knew what was going to happen, and was rather more critical of it. Because I was not distracted with the shock of the points being made, I felt as though I could think more rationally about it. Most of the points in the movie, (I can't think of one that doesn't do this), rely on correlation rather than causation, which was (perhaps contradictingly) briefly covered in the movie as well. Yes, the points they made were fairly valid and are mostly probably true, but we can't know for sure. It goes back to what I said in some of my other reflections- it's scary to see information that belongs in a scientific article elsewhere because it is not held to the same degree of scrutiny and corrections can't necessarily be made in the future, so people might be mislead.
This is not the first time that I have watched Freakonomics but every time I've watched it I have always been caught on the name section. I am always surprised by the way people who believe stamping a different name on their child will make them stand out in any way that is positive. The other segment that always catches my attention is the one about the Sumo wrestlers who are cheating. The way those same principals apply in other situations is always fascinating to me.
I thought that this movie held my attention because there were different areas of focus that was constantly bringing in new perspectives. I thought that the high school motivation segment was especially interesting because while it did give kids incentive, some just did not improve, which is probably because their habits were already established by this point and without any other major force to support students, they were going to succeed based on their previous outlook on school. It was interesting to compare this to one of the economist's daughter's situation. His daughter was a much younger age, more susceptible to behavior change and manipulation, and because of monitory incentive she moved towards the intended result compared to some of the high schoolers. But, living situations and parents could also be a big factor in how effective these kinds of bribes are.
I loved that their was always new perspective too.
I wasn't there for the first part of the movie. However in the second part of the movie when the school offered monetary rewards like $50 if they met the standards and then and additional chance to win $500. I really thought that was a very likely way to try and persuade students to do better in school. Personally if it were me I would try so much harder if i was going to be rewarded with money. However in the movie they went into detail on two students one where the monetary incentive really didn't do anything in fact the students grades got worse. I think this is just a special situation where the student really didn't care about anything aside from his social life and nothing was going to change that. Although in the other situation the student did try to get his grades up to earn that $50 and get his name in the drawing. and it worked in the end. When I first hear of this bribery I had a hypothesis that was much different than the outcome. I thought that the students would raise their grades almost immediately, this was not the case. Anyways I thought the movie was very intriguing.
I reflected on the monetary rewards as well, and like you stated, the grades didn't improve immediately, and some not at all. In the movie they were looking into trying this approach with younger kids and I wonder if that would have a better result than high school freshman.
I thought the part where schools were offering money for students to get there grades up was interesting and I connected it to a CRE I wrote recently about motivation. One of the big topics in the article I read was that we shouldn't motivate people by rewards, because when they loose that reward, they are suddenly unmotivated. I agreed with this at the time I was reading the article and writing my CRE, but after watching this movie I realized that kids had to be motivated by something, and the threat of not going to college and finding a career just wasn't enough. I don't know if money is the perfect solution because of the negativity of the rewards in the long run but I also feel that these kids do need some reward to push themselves to get better grades.
I also thought that learning about the cheating in sumo wrestling was really interesting, and how they could look at the data without ever seeing a match and determine if someone was cheating or not.
As I was watching freakanomics, I was surprised by the idea that the name you are given at birth can forever shape how your life is directed. They fill you on the advantages whites have over blacks when it comes to school and job searching. if you have a name like Peter, you are most likely to be considered in a Job App rather than somebody with the name of Marquis or Tyrone based on the assumption that the name fits the color of ones skin. I was also surprised by the fact that one would cheat in a sport that has honor as its main focus and pride. When they discussed Sumo Wrestling, they talked about how you have to win eight of your fifteen matches to advanced to the next round of a tournament you are in. If a fighting has already qualified for the next round and has nothing to lose, there is a big chance he could purposely lose to his opponent who might need the win. That shocked me because like stated before, that is very dishonoring.
The part in the documentary that amazed me the most was when they were giving kids money for getting good grades. I think that's a really great way to get kids who may not take grades very seriously to work harder to get their grades up, because not only will it benefit them right there (getting free money) but it will also benefit their future in a positive way. I don't remember if this was mentioned in the documentary, but somewhere said that most kids/young adults don't usually think about the future but instead think a lot about what's going on right then and there and sometimes don't make smart choices, such as deciding to play video games instead of doing homework/studying. The whole money-bribery/reward sort of thing is overall a pretty good idea, but unfortunately it can get expensive.
I agree with your point here. The idea of giving lower-performing students money and special treatment could give them a very good future and lessons for life. But, as we saw with some kids, they still didn't want to work hard to get that money.
I was struck by a lot of things while watching the video, and one of the first things was how names affect the rest of a person’s life. The fact that people with unique or African-American sounding names are less likely to get a job interview than people with normal white-sounding names was very shocking. It’s not the person’s fault that their parents gave them what name they have, and their name may not reflect anything about their personality or how they work at all. Another thing that struck me was the students being given money for keeping their grades up, but for a different reason than what I think most people would be struck by. I was shocked by the fact that some students, even when given a fifty dollar incentive to keep their grades at a C or above still didn’t work to bring up their grades as much. The one kid there was sitting in his room playing video games, enjoying his $50 incentive to work, yet not doing any of the work he should have been doing.
What struck me in freakonomics is how much incentive plays into almost anything if you are trying to encourage them. Loving support and encouragement is no longer the key, I suppose, it's money or material items. This was in grades as well as potty training, so that means it works on the older as well as the extremely young. Not just that, but it seemed like even incentive wasn't enough. One of the student that would get $50 for a grades that are a C or above doesn't even do the work to earn the C. He uses his classmates work and turns it in, learning nothing but getting the grade anyways. If a $50 incentive and more isn't enough to have some students do their work, what is?
When we started this movie I was expecting something a little bit dull, however I was pleasantly surprised by how interesting Freakonomics are. It made me begin to question what I believe I know and wonder what is hidden just off stage of society. I was enthralled by an ancient cultures ancient cheating, I personally believe with history or age come wisdom. Yet that may just be what we are told so that we don't question the old. Later on I was stunned by the experiment of paying kids for grades. I did a CRE on this being tested in Europe, in Europe however it worked when tested on extremely low class schools. The kids rose to the occasion to earn the money, some even giving it to there families to help pay the bills. Showing and learning unselfishness, dedication and drive in/because of the study. This arises the questions: What caused this differences between countries? or Was it the studies differences? In conclusion the movie enlightened me, warned me and arose questions, three things crucial to intellectual growth.
Those were the questions I was left with and agree with what you said. I believe that it's all in the lifestyle and the way the kids are treated outside of school which causes the bad grades. Most kids with careless parents tend to do worse than kids with parents that care because they are always on their children's back more often.
The part in the movie freakonomics that struck me the most was how money was involved to bribe teenagers into getting passing grades in school. This struck me because it didn't work as well as the experiment was thought to work. This shows how lazy kids are when it comes to school. The kids were getting paid to do homework and try in school and most of the kids couldn't even do that. I can connect this with High Tech High because we have to have a C- to pass the grade, and at least this shows if we are eligible to move on or not. Using money to get someone to do something can and will work depending on what it is and how much the person is offering. These teenagers were not doing the work to get their grade up which did not allow them to get the 50 dollars. Another thing that was affecting them and doing the work was their life style. Some off the kids didn't even care because they were to busy messing around or had something 'more important'. If these teenagers would just focus on school and try harder they would understand that it's worth it and will be rewarded for their grades.
Something that struck me during the video we watched, was how people could get judged by their name, or made fun of because of it. I thought it was interesting how if your African American then people aromatically will think that you live in the the ghetto part of town, or can't be as good as someone else at something there trying to achieve. Another part of the video I thought was interesting, was how when the sumo wrestlers could cheat at the match, but it wouldn't look like it to the crowd. For the people that watch it a lot, could tell when they were cheating just from watching them for so long and seeing the different patterns from the wrestlers.
The section where they examined Japanese culture and the corruption that can be found within. Japanese culture is based on honor and reputation, this creates pressure for every to make it to the top. When there is pressure there is usually cheating. For sumo wrestlers, many do each other's favors to help one another for a price in return. Everyone wants to be at the top and the ones who make it are the ones who cheat. Looking at the two sumo wrestlers who were murdered. They were killed because they did not want to cooperate with the system. The honest stay behind while the cheaters advance. It's sad things work like that and is a negative that comes along with human selfishness.
I completely agree with you Mr. Salazar. I have the same opinion on this given topic, good job!
Freakonomics. This has been, what I think is one of the most valuable things we have watched in school. It made economics start to click. (Which is a huge thing.) I found the film very engaging and quite frankly fascinating. The part that resonated with my personally is with the sumo's act of やおちょ.(yaocho.) That was something had slightly heard of already, but to delve into the history and the facts behind it blew my mind. I had previously thought sumo was the purest sport in the world, but I realize that is what most in the sumo realm want to be thought. And it is the same with other sports too. What really sends me for a reel is the fact that when this was being investigated two men died, and then nothing happened. Again, I knew the police force had corruption: they mainly keep up public appearance, but I hadn't even thought about why. They just choose to go into the cases where it will be sure to solve and they know who the criminal is. The hard and nearly impossible are ruled out as something else and that is horrifying. If I were murdered, or if my friend had been brutally killed, I would want to search every detail of the scene until the jerk was caught. This didn't happen for the two men that died in the same hospital, on the same day, with the same problem with their lungs. Coincidence? Highly unlikely. The boy who was beaten to death'a case was also alarming. Everything about yaocho is concerning, but it is apart of the sport.
Thinking about his interactions with bribing his daughter was also something of value. Even as a child you use subtle skills reconsidered by economics. For the girl with her candy. My brothers did something similar like the potty training girl but with Neopet Stuffies. It is interesting how kids change their plan to get what they want faster. It is clever
Allthough I only watched half of the movie I thought what I did see was incredible. Throughout the entire movie they were making links to things that I never would have thought could connect at all. It was like an entire movie about correlation and causation in the real world. The part regarding this that struck me the most was when it talked about abortions leading to lower crime rates. I would never have believed that these two things are remotely connected to one another but after giving incredible examples and real logical data, all of their points sounded very believable. Just being able to learn about all of these different things and their connections to economics was very interesting and eye opening as well. It was also really neat to learn how much economics plays into our lives whether or not we realize it.
So true! I thought this was one of the most interesting points as well. And you bring up a good point that using real live, INTERESTING, examples is a great teaching tool.
Like many of my classmates have states, I found the grade-based incentive program at the high school to be most fascinating. At a school with such a high dropout rate, researchers looked to incentives to help turn around the problem. After investing nearly $50,000 into the grade payout service, though, the researchers only observed about an 8% increase in students passing their classes. They then pondered the idea that maybe it was too late for the high school students to be "bribed" and that their money would be better spent at a lower grade level. I found this, by far, to be the most interesting portion of the documentary. By investing a small amount of money, schools could potentially create countless more wealth through the creation of more successful students. The possibilities for such a program are tremendous, but their are still several major issues that must be addressed and fixed before the program can make a true impact.
One piece of content that stuck out to me the most out of all of it was the theory of the crime rate in 1970's. The crime rate at the time was very high and the United States did not know how it would decrease. The theory that Freakonimcs proposes to the audience is that the crime rate dropped due to the legalization of abortion across the United States. This is very interesting to hear about and it makes sense from what they proposed. Their hypotheses is the crime rate would fall if abortion was legal because parents would abort unwanted kids which would make them not raise them into being bad kids. They proposed that if they raise kids that they would be more likely to become bad kids and cause more crime as they got older. It seems as though the hypotheses worked because 20 years later crime was at an all time low within the last 20 years. I thought this was very interesting to hear while watching freakonomics.
This was a very interesting film, some parts of the movie were a lot more intriguing than others, but there were enough surprising parts that made the viewer learn a couple of things. What stood out to me most was the name situation, this is because I did not know names played a portion in the success some people have. I had previously been aware that names are important, but I didn't know how it affected people in other places. Some names decreased some peoples chances of getting a job, or even getting into college. When people hear a certain name, they come to a conclusion on their appearance, and many times, that opinion is not very positive. There is a lot of prejudice associated with this, and I believe that it is human nature to judge quickly, but I don't think names should hold someone back from getting to know something better. The film said that if two people were applying for a job, with the same experience, the one with the better name would most likely end up receiving the job. That is what stood out to me most, and I will be a lot more cautious on what I name my future children, and pets.
Freakenomics has been interesting because it talked about a wide range of topics relating economics to motivation and people's goals. The section of the documentary on each students grades was especially interesting, I think, and because the incentive of $50 was not enough to bring some students grades up. It begs the question: what would be enough to bring their grades up? Will there be some kind of downside to bribing kids to do their work? It also, I think, further proves the point that if students just enjoyed the work they were doing school would be significantly more fun, and students would take much more from it than they do today. The documentary reveals a number of injustices in the world, such as the preference of white names to black names on individuals applying for jobs, and talks about a whole bunch of controversial topics that, really, shouldn't be controversial. These are injustices that we should be having active discussions about, because how else are we going to fix them?
Freakonomics struck me because it assigned numbers to real-life actions. It also challenged people's preconceptions and offered alternative answers to seemingly straightforward problems. In the Japanese Sumo Wrestling section, spectators don't know if a bout is for real or not because sumo wrestlers often make secret alliances off the court. Freakonomics put these stats into numbers, and found that when one sumo has nothing to lose, he will give up the win in order for the other to keep competing in the major leagues. They also uncovered how the Japanese Sumo Board covers up murders and other violent crimes to keep a pure image. This is what struck me most about the film. Freakonomics used numbers and stats to analyze, and uncover secrets about practices I never knew about.
Great post! The Sumo world was very strange to me, covering up entire murders and systematic winnings/losses. What's stranger though, is that an outsider could find this corruption through match stats and numbers alone.
After watching freakonomics, I was especially taken about the segment that featured cheating in sumo wrestling. I think what fascinated me so much about this was how representative it is of Japanese government and how they address issues. I was astonished to learn how even murders were committed against people who exposed cheating in the ring.
When the film discussed the crime rate's in the 70's, and how in decades after this rate decreased, I was shocked in how they related this to abortions. I would have never thought to make this parrallel, but as I was watching the film I wondered how could economists know that these unborn children would take part in crime? Sure some of them would, but would a large enough percent of these kids commit those crimes? This I'm unsure about, but I do agree that by lessening the potential population, the amount of crime would go down, as well as alot of other stats like the number of voters, babies, deaths, and population. After seeing this part of the film, I am left wondering is relating abortions to a decrease in crime really a fair comparison?
Since reading Freakonomics last year I have been wanting to watch the movie. The movie went over most of the chapters in the book, but also contributed many more studies that were not in the book. The whole idea of Freakonomics I find really interesting in that it presents often times complex economic ideas to the average human through anecdotes and small trials. Studies such as the one about the sumo wrestlers, schools, and real estate agents all beautifully illustrated what an incentive is and how it plays into everything around us. Often times people don't realize it, but economics surrounds us and really affects nearly everything we say or do. Our lives are governed by these economic principles and freakonomics does a great job of showing just of few of the endless examples of this.
I really enjoyed this film on Freakonomics. The one thing that stuck me was the comparison between black names and white names. Based on what your parents name you, it can map out the rest of your life. Just to image my life with a different name and not be able to have the same opportunity's as everyone else is depressing.
What stood out to me the most from the video was the names. I agreed with what they said, when you think of a name an imagine of a person comes to our heads based on their names. If not an imagine, an idea on what ethnicity they could possible be. Names are really important because they could potentially help you, or hurt you in the future. All the information and facts they gave made me think about all the potential name I could give my future child, or pet. I found it interesting how they compared the black names to the white names, and they talked about how it makes a difference in the working environment and first impression.
Great reflection! I agree the name thing was really interesting, I wonder what vibe/image our names give off.
I have to say, I enjoyed the movie/documentary as a whole. Like the book we're also currently reading, it provided new insight into topics that either seem too mundane, too obscure, or too complex to warrant normal investigation. The only problem I have with Freakonomics is the way it occasionally oversimplifies ideas or omits data for the sake of coherence. I do not think that this is done for the purpose of furthering a particular idea or mode of thinking, I believe the ideas are sound enough to stand alone, it's just that I would prefer if the connections made were a little less tenuous, backed by more than conjecture and common sense. I'm just having a difficult time sometimes jumping from the data and patterns Freakonomics presents and the reasoning they give for explaining those patterns.
I thought the film "Freakonomics" was very interesting especially with deciding the names for your children. It was interesting how people with "unique" names get less job opportunities than with people with non-unique names, Jessica, Joe..etc. I find it interesting how they also said that people who are given unique names, there parents either have a bad history or something along those lines. Some names that were told are very stereotypically, like when hearing a name Tyron they automatically think that there race is African American. Another thing that caught my attention was how they put statistics on finding names that fit with popularity at school and ones who "shop at Wal-mart". It was just interesting how people can find statistics about all of this.
I Thought that the film was a really interesting look at life and events around you. I could easily see how the results they were looking for were accurate and well thought out. I found it really interesting to seeing how these topics and human behaviors can relate to the world of economics. I honestly enjoyed watching this and it kept me interested the whole time. My favorite part was when the kids were getting paid to try harder in school. I really found this movie to be a great experience and very informative.
I thought that it was very interesting being able to learn about economics and how they can be used to benefit or ruin businesses. I found it interesting learning about how sumo wrestling turned out to be possibly rigged, how bribary can work to be used as a benefit, and that marketers aren't always bad people. It suprised me that sumo wrestling can be rigged so easily and even though it's been out forever and hard to touch, it saddens me what actually happens there and how people are treated. It shows that not everything that is good can always be good. The bribing also suprised me at how it can work to get kids grades up. Although it should be an incentive, some people need another incentive to do there work. Allthough I don't agree with it, it suprises me how well it can work. This video showed me a lot about economics and marketing and I was happy to learn about it
One part of the Freakonomics video that stood out to me was when they did an experiment on kids who were failing school. It was interesting to see how bribery works at any age. It was interesting to see the skater who saw the price and imagined himself with the earnings, but he even pretended that he was going to try, but then he didn't have the motivation. While in the other hand, the other boy tried a bit, but once he got the earnings he didn't want to stop earning the money and he even wanted the biggest price. It made me think what would have happened if the skater would have earned the $50 bucks by getting C's and higher. One of the guys in the video talked about his daughter beating his system of getting her to go to the restroom by herself, so that she could get M&M's. It's like our brains are programmed to try and get the reward and many times as possible. It's like all these ideas that are economics are actions that we do every single day, but don't actually pay attention to them or stop to think about how they work.
While watching Freakonomics I was really struck me was when they did the experiment with high school students. I was surprised that not every student was trying their hardest to raise their grades. Every kid could have received $50 for earning C's or higher, it like they were being paid to learn. It was interesting to see that some students quickly raised their grades while others remained the same. All the kids wanted to money but for some it still wasn't enough motivation. I thought it was really cool to see that money can't always provoke motivation you need self motivation as well to reach your goal.
I totally agree! But how do you create self motivation? And at what point would the money (if increased) be enough to motivate the "un-motivational" child?
After watching Freakonomics, the main thing that stuck with me was the high school student experiment. I'm going to be perfectly honest here and say that I'm guilty of wanting to be bribed. I do care about my school work, but like the kids in the video, I feel more motivated if I get something in return. Honestly, getting that new Attack on Titan DVD or a Sims 3 game in exchange for As or Bs sounds a lot more appealing than just doing homework without anything in return.
I'll admit that it sounds rather selfish of me to focus on something so materialistic in order to succeed - but it seems that it's a rather common thing for most humans in general to "need" "artificial motivation" in order to do something they don't particularly want to do.
It's funny because we don't even realize that there's economics involved in our everyday lives.
I thought the part about the birth control was extremely interesting. There seems to be less violence in the higher income areas, so is there better birth "control" in these areas? Why is this? Is it just the same cycle?
I thought it was really unfortunate that the first kid that they show in the money for grades part didn't end up passing the grade -- that he is thinking to just drop out. His mom even seemed like she was on board to help him achieve high grades. It seems like it wasn't coming easily for him to get good grades so when he didn't see fast and easy results the first time around, he just stopped trying. How do you get these kids to try though? Can you keep encouraging them?
This was my third time watching this movie. Don;t worry, I still love it. there are a few things that i have found striking each time. for instance the crime. this is always my favorite part. every one thinks they've done something amazing end stopped crime and lowered the issues and what not, but its traced back to just the legalization of abortion. I love this because first off nobody wanted this to be the reason, and secondly, because it shows how two seemingly unrelated things can actually impact each other alot.
I don't like economics but it would probably more accurate to say I'm not good at it. It's like studying phonics forever and never picking up a novel. However this movie had stories. I thought this movie was really interesting, the parts that I got to see. I would actually be interested in watching this in my free time.
I was fascinated by the grade incentives. If I got paid for my grades, maybe they would have been better previous years. I have never gotten any kind of allowance. I would ask my mom, how come other kids get money for chores? She told me that chores were just a part of life. I was motivated to not get in trouble, thats why I did my chores anyways (mostly). But I didn't do them any more or less than friends who did receive an allowance. Some kids might be motivated more by a later curfew because they already get allowance or have a job and their parents are strict. Other kids, like me, don't have curfew and would be more motivated by money. Incentives need to be desirable to work. Money's value varies too much to be effective as school bribes. That goes for everything I can think of. The value varies according to the person. It would weird to see the value of money in the kids life just go down. He wanted socialization more than he was willing to study. That was always true, I think, but money meant a better social life to a certain extent. Money will give you food, skateboards, and probably drugs. However, eventually the time investment wasn't worth it to him. Maybe the appeal of whatever fast food and wheels he wanted, got old. How do you create inner drive for good grades? I think it starts with a genuine love for learning. Bribes always get old, no matter what.
This article lists some key areas where companies and businesses usually get conned by their software developers or website design agency. When you encounter these red flags, it may be time to review your relationship with them and be reassured that you are not being fooled.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.