Freakonomics: more abortions means fewer crimes!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ani_Ibi

Guest
I was watching an interview with Freakonomics author Levitt last night. As smooth as can be he said that he had applied all other possible factors to the lower crime rate at the end of the 80s and just couldn’t come up with a correlation. Finally he hit on abortion.

Such compelling science I have not seen since Cheech and Chong. :rolleyes:

In any case, here we have a dilemma in the popular media mind:


  1. *]Do we let ‘unwanted’ children live and then execute them for mass murder when they grow up? Or
    *]Do we take the Minority Report route and kill them before they are even born?
    Now, for Catholics, Option 1 is technically a prudential question for which the answer is yes/no/maybe, but Option 2 is always an infallibly defined question for which the answer is NO.

    But what about the rest of the planet? What kind of an un-Occam-like-cutting-tool-quandary must they be floundering around with?

    Well that’s the logic of the thing. Let’s look at the premise. I mean is there actually a correlation between abortion and a lower crime rate? Steve Sailer seems to think that this correlation is … er … total jabberwocky.
    Now, it turns out, according to two economists at the Boston Fed who have checked Levitt’s calculations in detail, that the abortion-cut-crime theory rested upon two mistakes Levitt made.
    Click to expand...
    ‘Freakonomics’ Abortion Research Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists
    Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt’s original research. He argues the programming oversight made it difficult to pick up other factors that might have influenced crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s, like the crack wave that waxed and waned during that period.
    Click to expand...
    He also argues that in producing the research, Mr. Levitt should have counted arrests on a per-capita basis. Instead, he counted overall arrests. After he adjusted for both factors, Mr. Foote says, the abortion effect disappeared.
    Click to expand...
    Yikes! Thoughts on this? Anyone?
 
As far as I know, Levitt was the first to come out with the abortion/crime hypothesis. The first study in any field is likely to have lots of mistakes, which is why you should make conclusions based on only one study.
 
I don’t think he is trying to argue that abortion is good because it lowers the crime rate. It is like saying “More murder means fewer crimes”
 
OneAugustKnight said:
I don’t think he is trying to argue that abortion is good because it lowers the crime rate. It is like saying “More murder means fewer crimes”
Click to expand...
Actually he is. And it is like saying more murder means fewer crimes. But he’s still saying it. Go figure. Don’t kill me. I’m just the messenger.
 
I study Economics and I read Mr. Levitts book. However, it’s considered, among economists, a book with plenty of sociology and very few economics.

The fact is that Mr.Levitts lacks any comparable data to support his theory. As stated by many economists, his sources are ridiculous and his comparisons are laughable.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
As far as I know, Levitt was the first to come out with the abortion/crime hypothesis. The first study in any field is likely to have lots of mistakes, which is why you should make conclusions based on only one study.
Click to expand...
No. That is not how it works. The criticism which results from the mistakes is supposed to tighten up the final product. In this case, the initial product is fatally flawed. Tightening it up will result in it’s exploding into a million disparate parts.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
No. That is not how it works. The criticism which results from the mistakes is supposed to tighten up the final product. In this case, the initial product is fatally flawed. Tightening it up will result in it’s exploding into a million disparate parts.
Click to expand...
If the original study is solid, new research will tighten it up. If it is a poorly researched article, new research will explode it. That is, of course, the purpose of research.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If the original study is solid, new research will tighten it up. If it is a poorly researched article, new research will explode it. That is, of course, the purpose of research.
Click to expand...
And of peer review. Which is why I am amazed that Congress has rejected a requirement that all science used to formulate government policy be peer reviewed.
 
steveandersen said:
Fortunately studies like this (like science in general) are not normative.

They can describe what is without addressing what ought to be
Click to expand...
Given the comments by those who have peer-reviewed this studyt, I’m not willing to concede that it describes what is, either.
 
Right or wrong, he cited a correlation, not causation. To imply otherwise is to either not understand, or to be malicious.
 
Sheeniac said:
Right or wrong, he cited a correlation, not causation. To imply otherwise is to either not understand, or to be malicious.
Click to expand...
Acutally in the interview he was citing a cause and effect.

Not only that, but Dr Henry Morgentaler picked up on this hypothesis and ran with it.

Abortion access has helped make society safer: Morgentaler
Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps, do not rape and do not murder," said Morgentaler, 82, who himself survived a Nazi death camp.

He claimed that violent crime has decreased since 1991, a trend he attributed to more abortion procedures being made available.

The most important factor is that there are fewer unwanted children, fewer children likely to be abused, brutalized or neglected … children so victimized they may grow up for a thirst for vengeance which seeks an outlet in violence," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Acutally in the interview he was citing a cause and effect.
Click to expand...
That’s not what you posted. IF it is true, it is irresponsible of him because anyone with a background in stats knows that causation is incredibly difficult to prove in the social sciences.

I found where some of the quotes in this thread came from, followed a few links, and came up with this from a blog:

“Unlike the other sections in the book, in which he does a splendid job quantifying relationships, his Roe v. Wade versus crime link is not quantified. Even in the chapter, he lists several factors that undoubtedly had a positive effect in reducing crime, but even those factors are also not easily-quantifiable, and on some of them he relies on studies that are decades old and are themselves of questionable validity.”
 
40.png
Sheeniac:
That’s not what you posted.
Click to expand...
I posted an article. And I spoke of watching an interview on tv. Two different sources.
40.png
Sheeniac:
IF it is true, it is irresponsible of him because anyone with a background in stats knows that causation is incredibly difficult to prove in the social sciences.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But, politically this sort of thing gets tremendous press and therefore a lot of speaking tours, fame, fortune. Careers are made and unmade.

The horse has left the barn.
 
You posted about correlation, not causality:

“I was watching an interview with Freakonomics author Levitt last night. As smooth as can be he said that he had applied all other possible factors to the lower crime rate at the end of the 80s and just couldn’t come up with a correlation.”
 
Even if true, the question does the ends justify the means still trumps the claim. Although if your mainly concerned about the utility, then that question might be thought as not applicable.

One also has to realize the limitation of the study. He could only factor in what he thought was relavent. Those interactions in an actual environment are very complex, and what is seemingly insignificat could be. Then you also have to throw in that people are capable of rational thought, and can change their mind on what they do.
 
Sheeniac said:
You posted about correlation, not causality:

“I was watching an interview with Freakonomics author Levitt last night. As smooth as can be he said that he had applied all other possible factors to the lower crime rate at the end of the 80s and just couldn’t come up with a correlation.”
Click to expand...
I added the information about the tv show in reply to your post. It’s a discussion. Folks are going to add information and points of view.

Oh, and I note that you omitted this part: “Finally he hit on abortion.”

Speaking about correlation: what’s the big deal about suppressing the studies linking breast cancer to abortion?
 
If you actually would read his book he analyzes it from a finalancial point of view of both pro-choice and pro-life. Economics is very scary when you put the value to a person, but we do it all the time in court cases. The main reason why the effect is so strong is because there were so many abortions.

Examining it from the uncaring cost factor, abortion, while it did lower the crime rate, did it in a very costly and inefficient manner even to a pro-choicer. If a fetus was worth just 1/10 a born human, it was still ridiculously inefficient a method of crime prevention. Just because he found the correlation does not mean that he thinks it is a good thing that it happened. That’s the entire reason of the book 'freak’onomics, stuff that’s just…well…freaky! It’s shock economics.

He references all of his studies and links to them if you bother to look at his website. I only have a BA in economics though, so I can’t properly analyze the studies and data he has fully, just cursory fact checking, but I don’t see much shakyness from what I learned in college.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top