Today’s Wall Street Journal carries this article by Charles Forelle: “Why Game Shows Have Economists Glued to Their TV’s.” It cites, among others, Thierry Post, professor of finances at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, and Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. “There is no doubt that these are real people making real choices for high stakes, and we rarely get to observe such pure decisions,” says Thaler.
Search This Blog
- Previous Post:I take back most of the good things I wrote about James Frey
- Next Post:Those Poor Realtors
FREAK Shots:
About Freakonomics
Stephen J. Dubner is an author and journalist who lives in New York City.
Steven D. Levitt is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago.
Their book Freakonomics has sold 3 million copies worldwide. This blog, begun in 2005, is meant to keep the conversation going. Recurring guest bloggers include Ian Ayres, Jessica Hagy, Daniel Hamermesh, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Justin Wolfers.
Annika Mengisen is the site editor.
Comment of the Moment
Naked Self-Promotion
Freakonomics is bolstering book sales at airports because it’s sexy, reports TheBookseller.com -- with or without its Turkish cover.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
Archive
Recent Posts
November 18
(18 comments)
Would a Market for Organs Punish the Poor More Than They Are Already Punished?
Below is a fascinating statement issued by Physicians for a National Health Program, “a membership organization of over 15,000 physicians [which] supports a single-payer national health insurance program.”
You should read the whole thing but, in a nutshell: The people who receive donated organs in the U.S. nearly always have health insurance, while a significant fraction [...]
November 18
(21 comments)
Larry Summers for Treasury Secretary
Larry Summers
There is a lot of speculation about whether President-elect Barack Obama will choose Larry Summers to be his Treasury Secretary. But some people are openly opposing Summers’s appointment, in part because of controversial comments he made about women in science.
It’s a close question, but I’m hoping that Obama appoints Summers. I have three reasons:
First, [...]
November 18
(8 comments)
Boston Legal Way Classier Than Beauty and the Geek?
Thanks to all the readers who wrote in last week with news that Freakonomics was mentioned on the TV show Boston Legal.
It happened at the end, when the William Shatner character and the James Spader character were having their ritual end-of-the-episode scotch, musing about law and the world.
Alan Shore (Spader): Well, it’s possible [...]
November 18
(20 comments)
Is France Due for Riots?
Photo: cicilief
In my last post, I offered several reasons why the urban riot has gone out of style in the U.S.
However, France will not be spared the sword. I predict that the world will watch French cities light up in youth unrest in 2009, 2010 at the latest … 2011 for sure.
I have been [...]
November 18
(113 comments)
A Beet Paradox
Photo: Darwin Bell
Beets are the new broccoli. Or at least they will be after Obama takes office on January 20, as the president-elect recently revealed his distaste for this vitamin-laden root vegetable. And Obama is not alone: Even as beet salads have become popular in trendy eateries, most American kids I know also reject the [...]
Stuff We Weren't Paid to Endorse
1. Go to Hulu.com. 2. Choose Arrested Development. 3. Start with Season 1 and then watch every episode of all three seasons. 4. You can thank me later. (SJD)
I can scarcely tell a scarlet tanager from Scarlett O’Hara, but The Life of the Skies had me transfixed from the first page. Jonathan Rosen -- who happens to be a friend of mine -- writes with astounding insight, wit, and compassion. The story he tells here is the best kind of odyssey, an outward journey that ends up highlighting the beauty and daring that live inside of us. Here's a Times review of the book, and here's an earlier blog post about the book and the power of suggestion. (SJD)
Even if you don’t have a son fighting in Iraq, even if you don’t read poetry, even if you think you are immune to the power of a mother’s lament – pick up The Warrior and read it right away. Fran Richey has written some of the most powerful stories I’ve ever encountered. It is obvious that her life was changed by living these poems; yours may well be changed by reading them. (SJD)
From the Opinion Blogs
Necessary Steps
Inching Along the Edge of the World
In his last walk of the series, the author manages to avoid stepping out into thin air.
Abstract City
New York Cheat Sheets
All New Yorkers develop tricks that allow them to stay ahead of the pack in daily life. Here I offer some of mine in a couple of handy charts.
Feeds
5 Comments
pure decisions? don’t you think the producers have given some instructions to the players? play to the crowd, pretend that you make take the deal, try to go one “no deal” further than you really feel comfortable… Can you imagine if people just started taking deals one or two turns in? the ratings would crash
— jasoncainArizona Republic syndicated the story here.
It is an interesting show from an game theory perspective but I question any conclusions drawn from the contestants decisions because of the possible bias from the casting people who may lean towards risk averse individuals in an attempt to get good ratings.
— merrickOops - I meant non-risk averse.
— merrickI can’t speak for the US, but in the Dutch version, the contestant is selected in a life show by means of quiz questions from an audience of 500 and do not receive personal instructions. And some do stop in the early rounds and without affecting the rating because the show continues to be a blockbuster for the 5th year in a row.
Surely, there can be selection bias, as in every lab, field or natural experiment, and I can imagine that the contestants could be less risk averse than in real life. However, such a bias doesn’t make the show useless for all purposes. For example, a biased degree of risk aversion doesn’t explain why the risk aversion of contestants falls following prior losses.
And if a show that requires no skill, knowledge or strategy, involves very large stakes and with a known and simple probability distribution can’t tell us anything about risky choice, then what can? The level of the equity premium? Student choices with 10$ at stake?
— Thierry PostHere is the link to the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113703499178844535-lMyQjAxMDE2MzE3MjAxMzI0Wj.html
— Thierry Post