17 Burst results for "Steve Levitt"

"steve levitt" Discussed on The Peter Attia Drive

The Peter Attia Drive

07:48 min | 3 weeks ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on The Peter Attia Drive

"I very self consciously said i'm going to go to chicago and i'm going to get to know the enemy from inside for a couple of years before i go back to harvard and what i had anticipated. Is that the thinking that goes on at chicago. It looks like it's really simple. The it looks like one could learn. And i thought look. I am good at economics. Secondly but i i tell you even twenty five years later. I'm still not very good at the kind of deep thinking that is done in chicago economics and i love it and i think it's powerful but i'm still more of a spectator than an actual different. I really got co-opted into the spirit of chicago. But in some sense i will say that i've always been probably unreasonably over competent in in my own ability and and i was very young i was like i was going to do what i was going to do. And i thought i could do a better kogyo than anywhere else. But i will say it was. It was unusual so at that time. I think it must have been seven or ten years since someone who had a lot of options had chosen to go to chicago economics over another place including the business school which was really getting most of the town and one of my advisor so i told one of my advisers at harvard. I was going to go to chicago in. He said if you do that. I will never speak to you again. And i said why and he said because if you do that it shows that you are so effing stupid that you're not worth me wasting my breath and It was inter that that was how weird it was to do that decision. But i did it and he was happy to top never stopped talking to me and i think he would agree. Probably do the right thing. It's funny now. 'cause it used to be there these enormous differences between departments now. I think they're all kind of chicago. Harvard mit stanford princeton. I mean there. Yeah they're like all these great departments we've all like blurred the lines together in that so different but you know but but at the time there really was a distinctive personality. That for me was really really special. I'm so glad. I did it. And i think it's been a huge beneficiary of it. Do you think the field is better that the elite ten programs have become more homogeneous. Or do you think it did more for the field. When you had these very distinctive schools if thinking in stanford had its way of doing it in chicago. Had its way and harvard. Had its way such a hard question. I remember maybe five or ten years into coming to chicago milton. Friedman came back and he was bemoaning. The fact not usage cargo was becoming more like other places but really that what was distinctive about chicago. What's called chicago. Price theory was basically dying out now. Awful that was and one of my colleagues super smart colleagues. Casey mulligan said milton. I thought to believed in markets science and me like like pricier is losing. And i thought wow that is exactly right and even milton. Friedman end. didn't really believe in markets when markets moved against them. It's sort of used to be that way medicine right. There is a very clear line between east coast medicine and west coast medicine and there was there was a very different way. Cardiac surgery was done in. Minnesota ursa stanford verses boston. I mean those were so different and they produced remarkable innovations. I think you're right like i think. These diversity of approaches are useful because the number one. There's data right. it's like let's let's especially take more than cardiac surgery. Where you real data look you know whether people are living here dying and so you actually can figure out whether one is better than the other so in that world for sure. I think this diversity of us is really really important. You might say look. It doesn't have to be across department. It could be within department right. You have one brilliant surgeon innovating in this way or that way. But i do think in general that it diversity abuse is good and it's especially good in a dynamic world right because in a world that static it's kind of like doesn't matter as much but but when something radical happens then often one model is much better situated and the other to deal with whatever this radical occurrence happens some new disease or some. I don't know maybe maybe radical things tend not to happen so much medicine but sometimes radical things happen in the economy again. I don't know how to do. Your listeners are macroeconomics. I think macroeconomics is a case where chicago style macro more or less one and so all of the world macro now looks a lot like what would going on in chicago. Forty years ago and think that's been a problem. Because i think there isn't this diversity of thinking that puts you may be in a better situation. As different kinds of macroeconomic problems arise to have a range of possible approaches and solutions to it. So i think it probably would be better if there were greater differences between the departments. But it's one of these things. Where like the facts of life are that. It's impossible to maintain equilibrium because there all sorts of private forces. That are pushing for this homogeneity. That there's no easy way to fight it in some sense and give you wish it would happen. It's hard to see how to make it happen. Let's go on to talk a little bit about the colleague of yours outside. The world of economics steve governor. How did you guys meet dumpster. Approach me to write an article about me for the new york times. this is after. I'd won the clarke medal but well before freakonomics and i really was incredibly hesitant to accept the invitation. Because i didn't. I didn't really like to be written about. There's no. I don't think the sell so i didn't really wasn't business of trying to market myself and in the end i have this. My mom though really likes it. What i'm in the newspaper and on tv and stuff. And so i feel. I remember thinking god. I'll take this hit from a mom because we'll make my mom so happy if there's a piece about me the new york times magazine and then dumber came out. Any was unlike any experience i ever had with a journalist. I honestly think he had read every academic papers of a red. I mean i'm fifty papers. And he came out and ended out interviewing me for. I don't think i'm exaggerating. If i say maybe twenty five hours over three days and there was a salad. So i would. He would ask me a question. I would answer it and as soon as i answered it. He would ask me another question and this went on for twenty five hours and it was unbelievably painful to me because it was a lasting wanted to do and i thought he was going to say for three hours. Not twenty five and one of the notable things about it is that i literally did not ask him a question for the first twenty four and a half hours and i only thought of him is like this parasite that was like sucking alive altering and after twenty four and a half hours. I actually had the thought to say well like who have you written about before. And he started talking. He's fantastic stories. Here's the only guy who had been able to interview the unabomber and he had been in a rock band like him. He was really interesting. And i learned something there which is looking especially when you're tired of being asked questions asked questions yourself. It's almost always more interesting to ask questions and answer them. But still we parted. And i would have said i would never see that guy again. Not friendly in any way there was no like meeting of the minds or anything but he did write a piece about me in the new york times that people loved and he gets.

Casey mulligan three hours twenty five hours fifty papers seven five Forty years ago chicago twenty five milton ten years harvard Friedman Harvard first twenty four and a half h twenty five years later new york boston one Minnesota
"steve levitt" Discussed on The Peter Attia Drive

The Peter Attia Drive

06:44 min | 3 weeks ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on The Peter Attia Drive

"Next week him jeff thomas from still friends with and he taught me how to look at the world strategically and it was weird. I never did that before. It never occurred to me to do it. But then i got to grad school. And i did have a fundamental understanding while everybody else was really busy working on problems. That's an essentially. These were all gone straight a.'s whole life and they've figured well what worked for me before. That's what i gotta keep on doing in grad school. Because that's going to get ahead. And i looked at and partly it helped that i knew no math and i was completely over matched and i was like the worst i. I'm not exaggerating. When i say that my classmates sat down about a month into it and my friend austin goolsbee. Who's now gone famous. As part of the obama administration later told me that they went through the list of people in the class and try to who is least likely to succeed. And i i would to unanimous choice. I was going to be the worst one. But i had a great approach. Which is i understood that you had to create research had to go from being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. And i also was kinda still You know i have to say. I wasn't internally motivated. So what i did was. I said well look. Who's at the top of the hierarchy. I met as we'll try to be that guy and it turned out that that was macroeconomics. At mit at the time so for the first semester i tried to be macro economist and it became so clear to me so quickly that i never going to be a macro countess. I always thought that. Nobody had intuition for macroeconomics until i started talking to some of the people who actually understood oh the exchange rate between the euro and the dollar goes up. And that's going to trickle through. And how second affect immigration i. My god made no sense to me. I was smart enough. I've always been smart enough to fail quickly. So i realized i couldn't be calms. The theorists. were number two. And so i've tried to be theorist. I actually spent a little longer. Being a theorist actually wrote a couple of papers being a theorist and again it became really clear to me that i didn't have what it took to be a theorist so then i said well kinda the only thing left is doing data analysis and it turned out. I should have been smart enough to know that from the beginning. Because i was a weird kid. The only thing i'd like to do was sit my room and essentially study data. Like as i look back on it. This weird i was when i was maybe eight i asked for received a pocket calculator as my my birthday present and it was overjoyed. When i was maybe like nine i graduated to a scientific calculator and my pastime was i was into baseball. Is i would go through. An i would fight manually typing into a scientific calculator. I type in a column of of wins for a team and then one by one i would type in each of the statistics like the team batting average or the team number of triples and compute the partial correlation between those two. And then what. My dad one. But dad came home from work. He would ask me what the correlations were between the variables computer day like now is how i spent my time. It should have been obvious to me. That's what i want to do. And the other thing i did. I would use data to transfer problems. Like when i was in college. I i became obsessed with the racetrack. And i would try to use dated a win at the racetrack which wasn't very good. But like i should have been obvious to me that i that i should have gravitated to doing empirical research. But but i didn't. Because i was still caught up in this idea of steph so finally i just said look i'll do it. I'm good at. But honestly i was so far behind the people around me. It was an interesting experience. It's kind of a silent but it's interesting. I been used to be in good and most of the things. I did in academically and happens for almost everyone where you get to a point where you look around and you realize you were the dumbest person in the row and hugged. Do that is really important and strangely. I don't know why that was roughly the greatest feeling. I've ever had in my life when i looked around and i always the dumbest person room. It was sent a joy. It was really interesting somehow. I think maybe. I had felt pressure my whole life. Once i was dumbest person in the room. I felt like wow. I can do whatever i want like. I don't you know i can. It's just it was such a joy to be around people and it freaked me up to be myself and instead of trying follow the crowd. I started doing what. I liked. What i and i thought. Well what do i like. And i said well. I don't know. I like watching the tv. Show cops i love to show cops. I watch it every day. Well why don't i do research on. I somehow like found myself. And i began just studying the things unliked and much to my amazement. Even though no other economists were really studying those questions. I really thought it was. It was a one way ticket to getting a phd. And then doing something of academics. Because you know why would it be the case that if these were topics else research they'd be interested but i didn't i knew i couldn't compete on a level footing with these amazing people around me so i had to compete on in my own space and my shock people liked it you know and they were excited about it. Got published in good journals. I honestly i look back in time. So lucky to have been so far below the bar that i didn't try to do what i think most people do and what i had intended to do which was to try to figure out what i should be. Because that's what other people are. And i just myself and it was such a great lesson and i've really practiced myself ever since looking. Sometimes it works sometimes. It doesn't but the great thing about life is when things don't work you can take a different path and sell side. Just try to be myself. And and i stopped doing stuff when being myself isn't a good recipe for it so when you got to chicago. That must have been another difficult decision because chicago is a powerhouse in economics. Right you could have taken your sort of offbeat approach to economics and gone someplace. That is where you're not going to be surrounded by a bunch of nobel laureates. So why did you. I mean we're you so secure in your off the beaten path. Approach that you said. Hey i might as well go to another cold winter city and the around smart people but i but not have to compete with them. I mean that was the decision like there. I had a lot of choices. And i loved cambridge and i had been at harvard and mit. And and i've really. What happened is i give him a couple of presentations at chicago. And i have been shocked at how different the questions. I got work and i. I really went to chicago. Because i wanted to get to know the enemy and at that time so gary becker. Whoa one of the most influential economists of the last fifty years and since passed away but was a real mentor me. He was demonized. I when i first met him. I expected him to be a monster and it turned out really wasn't he was super smart and he asked great questions. And and so..

jeff thomas chicago each Next week gary becker one first austin goolsbee nine obama one way ticket last fifty years first semester second eight nobel about a month two cambridge harvard
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

03:15 min | 1 year ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Hello I'm Steve Levitt Stephen governors Freakonomics caught this week I've taken the reins of the show to look at how we can update America's high school math curriculum and weather changes have been so hard actually had the students doing regressions that's Sally set off an economist at the university of California San Diego and a former ninth grade math teacher I asked them to go out into the world and collect data on two variables they thought were related like height and shoe size and then to plot those points on an X. Y. plot and then find the best fit line in those data and calculate the slope of that line so that was actually a really interesting project because students that were really disengaged from my class actually it's sort of sparked some creativity in them I remember I had one student this girl Jamie who had no interest in my class Jamie's main interest was offering to give me a make over and the interesting thing about the project was my high achieving students chose kind of boring projects like height and shoe size or age and height or something like that Jamie actually her project was on the relationship between hair spray use and hair damage which was a topic that was close to her heart and it kind of show that she could bring some of our own interests into math which I think until that moment she thought was just completely boring and had no relation to anything she would be interested in life in addition to being an economist and teacher Sally set off also happens to be my cousin if you've seen the Freakonomics documentary Sally is a tireless redhead running an education experiment in Chicago heights which we paid kids to do well in school since then she's earned her PhD in economics gotten tenure at UC San Diego and become one of the leading voices on the economics of education when I graduated from college I was really interested in education and educational achievement gaps and so I wanted to start off by teaching school I started off in a large public high school went from there to a charter school in east Palo alto unfortunately I wasn't a very successful teacher they didn't say I was fired I was not re hired I think a lot of the reasons that they let me go had to do with things like classroom management my class seemed a bit out of control part of that was just that I was young and I didn't know how to manage the students they weren't scared enough of me part of that I think was to some extent that I was doing some non traditional teaching on Fridays that we do something called function Fridays I would play the song bring out the funk and I would have this little box right put candies and then they had to try to predict how many candies that come out based on how many candies had gone in and out I'm fryer demonstrations and if they correctly predicted the function they got the candy this call seem to think you're teaching style was from hurting his kids do you have any idea whether it actually turned out to be true what was interesting is after I left the school I heard from a colleague of mine that when the scores came in in the summer my students had actually done really well and everyone was shocked to that my students to perform so well on that test and there was some saying so I guess probably wasn't as bad of a teacher as we thought she was.

Steve Levitt
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

07:26 min | 1 year ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"He there I'm Steve Levitt the other Freakonomics guy I mean exams professor at the university of Chicago and I'm sitting at Debbie's chair today for an episode I'm particularly passionate about how math gets taught in US schools and white needs change a few months ago my team used the Freakonomics Twitter account to gather some data I might have thought that most of what we are teaching kids right now in high school math is pretty useless so deftly where it recording it so would you justify saying your name and what your job is my name's stocking March I'm going on a research analyst at the university of Chicago definitely recently earned her PhD in education at Cambridge in the UK before that she was a Stanford undergrad majoring in Russian language in medical anthropology she also was a world class rower representing the US twice on the hundred twenty three national team so we've been putting together a survey that we sent out to Freakonomics listeners we asked our survey respondents which subjects they use in their daily life traditional math and data related so trigonometry geometry calculus verses more data related scales like analyzing and interpreting data and visualizing at to what percent of people say use calculus and a daily basis about two percent said that they use calculus on a daily basis and almost eighty percent said they never use that okay I would think cactus will get used more than three non thing Jon J. although they'll be hard if only two percent of using it but what percent use trigonometry geometry yeah less than two percent of respondents said that they use trigonometry in their daily life but over seventy percent of them said that they never use that and have a gentry gentry was a little bit better there were about four percent of respondents who said that they use geometry daily but again over fifty percent so that they never use it so it's a pretty sad day when we're celebrating the use of geometry because four percent of the people report the user and if you think about it who's responding to our survey right though these are people who love Freakonomics and listen to the podcast if there's anybody who might actually you expect the use math on a daily basis you might think was Freakonomics podcast listen I can't imagine if you took a of random subset of US population out vanishing smiled all these numbers would turn out to be so that's really designed not disappointing because we knew it's gonna be true but it's it's embarrassing it's embarrassing that we keep to Malcolm that nobody pretty much is using now what we find when we asked about some the tailored to think what about simple things like I've always thought we should teach excel in the schools that do people actually use excel or is it just my imagination yeah close to seventy percent of people said that they use excel or Google spreadsheets on a daily basis we ask people how often they visualize and present data to make an argument so if you include those who say they you visualize data daily weekly and monthly you're gonna get over seventy percent close to seventy five percent of people okay great so but we didn't just ask them what they use we also ask them what they wished they had learned more right so tell me which of the traditional math topics were people hoping that the I got more of in high school nine virtually so how about the data skills I mean we don't hardly teach dataskill so my guess is people are gonna want more that that's what our promise was is that what the data tells yes on every single one of the data related questions we asked over forty percent of people said that they wish they had learned more but the ones that really stood out were how to analyze and interpret data discover hidden insights we had a close to sixty five percent of people say that they wish they learn more about that wish I'd learn more about that that's most valuable school in the world yeah and on top of that we had sixty percent he said that they wish they'd learned more about how to visualize and present data to make an argument so those two definitely go together okay great so this is reassuring because here we are often this wild goose chase of trying to change the minds the decision makers are Americans about math but the data support us which is good it make an argument that you need more data and its case and it would be good to be able to say that the data support what we're trying to do yeah it is it's overwhelmingly convincing that people believe data related skills are important to get by in work today so we have compiled a set of data that will allow us to not just I think it's really important when you're trying to convince people not just to assert something to them but to really show them but what you also need is you need to really understand the institutions and the incentives and that's not something I know very much about but that's something I think you know a lot more but to tell me who makes the decision how does curriculum get set in the U. S. in education systems in public education the people with power those on the state boards of education so each state will have a state board of education there typically six to ten people on the board and they're the ones who make those decisions about the curriculum what gets taught how testing is done so literally this set of six to ten people have the power to set the guidelines say for whether or not data courses are required that's correct so what you're implying is that each state sets its own standards there is the common core curriculum which are set of standards set out for all states to a doctor if they wish to most states have but again it's up to the state to decide which standards to adopt how they adopt and how it gets taught and it's a common core it is our friend or foe when we're trying to push data the common core does have a set of standards around statistics and probability they do recognize that we're in a changing world but they're continuing to focus our place more emphasis on those traditional math subjects okay so there are these state boards of education who have all the power and so it seems to me what you're saying is if we can get in front of those boards and we can convince see even one of them of the wisdom of what we're doing they can flip a switch other that's probably way too simple and put into motion a whole series of events which will lead in that state to the teaching of data being part of the massacre them I think taking a step back state boards are always inundated with requests for changes that they should be making to the curriculum to the testing and a common responses well what am I supposed to take out to make room for this one thing state boards of education could do is to implement a data proficiency course instead of algebra two we see that algebra two has become a choke hold for a lot of students that's preventing them from continuing on and meeting those graduation requirements and a number of states have even put in waivers to allow students to opt out of algebra two and take other courses is there something out there that schools could use that could actually teach kids data and the way we're managing there is a curriculum out there it's called introduction to data science it was created by academics at the university of California Los Angeles in partnership with the LA unified school district.

Steve Levitt professor Debbie university of Chicago US seventy percent two percent four percent seventy five percent sixty five percent eighty percent fifty percent forty percent sixty percent
"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

03:14 min | 1 year ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Hello I'm Steve Levitt Stephen governors Freakonomics call out there this week I've taken the reins of the show to look at how we can update America's high school math curriculum and weather changes have been so hard to implement I actually had the students doing regressions that Sally set off an economist at the university of California San Diego and a former ninth grade math teacher I asked them to go out into the world and collect data on two variables they thought were related like height and shoe size and then to plot those points on an X. Y. plot and then find the best fit line in those data and calculate the slope of that line so that was actually a really interesting project because students that were really disengaged from my class actually it's sort of sparked some creativity in them I remember I had one student this girl Jamie who had no interest in my class Jamie's main interest was offering to give me a make over and the interesting thing about the project was my high achieving students chose kind of boring projects like height and shoe size or age and height or something like that Jamie actually her project was on the relationship between hair spray use and hair damage which was a topic that was close to her heart and it kind of show that she could bring some of our own interests into math which I think until that moment she thought was just completely boring and had no relation to anything she would be interested in life in addition to being an economist and teacher Sally set off also happens to be my cousin if you've seen the Freakonomics documentary Sally is a tireless redhead running an education experiment in Chicago heights which we paid kids to do well in school since then she has earned a PhD in economics gotten tenure at UC San Diego and become one of the leading voices on the economics of education when I graduated from college I was really interested in education and educational achievement gaps and so I wanted to start off by teaching school I started off in a large public high school went from there to a charter school in east Palo alto unfortunately I wasn't a very successful teacher they didn't say I was fired I was not re hired I think a lot of the reasons that they let me go had to do with things like classroom management right class seemed a bit out of control part of that was just that I was young and I didn't know how to manage the students they weren't scared enough of me part of it I think was to some extent that I was doing some nontraditional teaching on Fridays that we do something called function Fridays I would play the song bring out the funk and I would have this little box right put candies and then they had to try to predict how many candies would come out based on how many candies had gone in and out I'm prior demonstrations and if they correctly predicted the function I got the candy this call seem to think you're teaching style was I'm hurting his kids do you have any idea what that actually turned out to be true what was interesting is after I left the school I heard from a colleague of mine that when the scores came in in the summer my students had actually done really well and everyone was shocked that my students to perform so well on that test and there was some saying so I guess probably wasn't as bad of a teacher as.

Steve Levitt
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:31 min | 2 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"They are for, the, rest, of, us that's not. The case My freakonomics friend. And co author Steve Levitt teaches economics at the university. Of Chicago I called him up to, ask about his experience with jerks one of, my colleagues at the business school at Chicago when he first started teaching the students can be very demanding and, among their mealy demand, was they were upset that the handouts. He, had given we're not three hole punched and so they raise your hand they said professor it really, is upsetting to us that that the hand attack three hole punch and he said what. Are you talking about the handouts are. Not three hole punched I'll be back in a minute And he walked out of the room anti was outside the room around, the corner typing on his blackberry and another professor came, up, to talk to him said oh, I gotta go, back, to teaching and he said well why are you out in the hallway? If you're supposed to be. Teaching and he didn't really explain he went back into the room, and, he said to the students look I went down to the people who do the acting and. I read them, the riot act and I said if you ever fell to three hole, punch another thing for my class, I'm going to have you fired and this guy got some of. The highest ratings teacher ever. Business so he was, a jerk he was a folder but but he. Knew how.

Steve Levitt professor Chicago
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:35 min | 2 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Known for has almost nothing to do with the kind of. Person they are for the rest, of, us that's not. The case My freakonomics. Friend and co author Steve Levitt teaches economics at the university of Chicago I. Called him up to ask, about his experience with jerks so one of, my colleagues at the business school at Chicago when he first started teaching the students can be very demanding. And among their many, demands was they were upset that the. Handouts he had given we're not three hole, punched and so they raise your hand they said professor it really, is upsetting to us that that the handout time three hole punch and he said what are you talking about the handouts are. Not three hole punched I'll be back in a minute Any walked out of the room and he was outside the room around, a corner typing on his blackberry and another professor came, up, to talk to him said oh I, got to go, back, to teaching and he said well why are you out in the hallway? If you're supposed to be. Teaching and he didn't really explain he went back into the room, and, he said to the students look I went down to the people who do the boxing and. I read them, the variety act and I said if you ever fail to three hole, punch another thing for my class. I'm going to have you fired and this guy got some of the highest teacher rating teacher. Ever at the Chicago business. Go so he was, a jerk here's a foe jer but but he knew how. To.

Steve Levitt university of Chicago Chicago professor
"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

01:34 min | 2 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"With the kind. Of person they are. For the rest, of, us that's not. The case My freakonomics friend and co author Steve Levitt teaches economics at the university of Chicago I called him up to ask about. His experience with jerks So one of my colleagues at the business school at Chicago. When he first started teaching, the students can be very demanding. And among their, many demands was they were upset that the handouts he had given we're not three hole punched, and so they raise your? Hand they said professor it really is upsetting to us that that the, handout time, three hole punch and he said what. Are you talking about the handouts are not three hole punched I'll be back in a minute And he walked out of the room panty was outside the room around, a corner typing on his blackberry and another professor. Came up to talk to him And. I gotta go back to teaching and he said well why are, you, out in the hallway if you're supposed to be teaching and he didn't really explain he went. Back in the, room and he said to the students look I went down to the, people who do the boxing and, I read them the riot act and I said if you ever. Fell to three hole punch another. Thing for my, class I'm going to have you fired and this guy got some of the highest teacher rating ever business so he was a foe jerk here's a folder but but he, knew how to manipulate.

Steve Levitt university of Chicago professor Chicago
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:30 min | 2 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Fact is that most of us just don't like to. Admit we don't have all the answers I asked Steve Levitt why we do this Well even Iowa's answer questions I. Don't know the answer to everyone answers good but. As I've worked more with businesses I've just come to what I think is very interesting. Observation I've been in academic all my life and academics we always start. From the position that we. Just don't know the answer to a question that's. Why we invest a year or two years doing a research project we don't know the answer we want to find out what the answer is what I've found in business is, that almost no one will ever admit, to not knowing the answer, to a question even if they absolutely have no idea what the answer is if it's within their realm of expertise faking his just in important I really have come, to believe teaching MBA's that one of the most important things. You learn as an MBA. Is to pretend you know the answer to any question, even though you have absolutely. No idea what you're talking about so give you an example whenever I propose that a, company run a randomized experiment almost. Always there's tremendous resistance, and the reason is Because in order to, make a randomized experiment be, sensible it means that you have to start from the premise that we don't actually know the answer randomized experiment is away both to test whether what we've been doing, is correct and also whether there's another way of doing it. Better and people always say. Why would I run randomized experiment when I already know, the answer and consequently the. Firm's never learned anything.

Steve Levitt Iowa two years
"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:08 min | 2 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Think that was Worth the ban worth putting my name on that list if, there were a national casino ban? Registry and national self-imposed casino ban registry would you, sign up for it Now So a communists have named for the self-imposed ban that Tony Balandras signed up. For it's called a commitment. Device and that's what we're going to talk about in the first part of the hour. Today clever ways to trick yourself for trap yourself into doing something that you wanna, do but for whatever reason aren't able in order to understand how a commitment device. Works if it does, work you have to picture two versions of, yourself the current you and the future you sometimes it's the case that people know that their future version of themselves will want to follow behavior that their current version of themselves is not comfortable with. That Steve. Levitt my freakonomics friend and co, author he's an economist at the university of, Chicago so I'm going to die And I would like to, stick to their diet but I know that when someone puts a chocolate cake in. Front of me I, will lose my willpower and eat that chocolate, cake a commitment device is an attempt on the part of a person to setup constraints so that the future self isn't able to take advantage of the situation and do what the future self wants. Funds requires. The future self to behave in, a way that the current self would like, the future self to behave You remember how deceased had himself lashed to the masterpiece. Ship so we couldn't succumb to the sweet song of the sirens that is a commitment device have you ever bought an expensive gym membership to force yourself to get into shape that's a commitment device for some people marriage is a commitment device Steve Levitt being Steve Levitt has.

Steve Levitt Tony Balandras Chicago
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:38 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Steve levitt again the audit study is the one with the resumes so in the audit studies what researchers do is take identical resumes and they just changed the name the first name to that one name is distinctive to black and another name is an and they send those out to employers and see whether there's a callback and what they find every time is that if you have a distinctively black name you're less likely to get a callback so how can that be reconciled with the fact that in our data in real life data how people actually lived the names didn't seem to matter i think the answer comes in a couple of different ways the first is that just because you get a callback doesn't mean that you're likely to get a job until to the extent that there are discriminatory employers out there and those discriminatory employers are using your name to figure out whether or not you're black then indeed the worst thing you could possibly do would be to show up for an interview if you are black with a white name and have wasted all day trundling downtown to do the interview for this criminal tori employer who's not gonna hurt you anyway well that's one possibility the other possibilities that there are two different kinds of labor markets is sort of former labor market that involves resumes and applying an in really hardly anybody gets stops that way that's not the typical way people get jobs and your black knee might hurt you in that segment but it might actually help you in other areas so you can certainly imagine that within the black community having a distinctively black name would help you get along better with people signal that you're part of the community and might work in your favor in all sorts of informal networks that aren't captured in these audit data.

Steve levitt tori
"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

02:31 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

"Steve levitt is my free comics friend and co authored he's an economist at the university of chicago john whis is a colleague there stephen miller how you doing my friend and doing great uh john's so why don't you tell us a bit about your work my primary research goes to the field and runs field experiments on issues like why do people give to charitable causes why do people discriminate against one another why do women earn less money than men list grew up in wisconsin went to college there and in wyoming than taught in florida and a few other places what i moved to chicago i became very interested in public education largely because i saw the problems of public education all around me i live just south of chicago in a city called floss more in right next to that is a city called chicago heights and in chicago heights you have ninth graders who are reading at a fourth grade level doing math at a third grade level you have poor kids who just aren't experiencing the value added the children of the affluent experience so combining fat with the fact that that sort of how i was raised myself i was raised in public education and not in a wealthy family at all if fathers a truck driver in my mother's a secretary so this was a sort of sat in that i had been raised in in i could see the problems in that setting but they really came to fruition for me when i moved to the university chicago so list levitt and the harvard economist roland frier set up an experimental preschool in chicago heights uh the demographics are about one third white one third hispanic one third africanamerican to relatively poor community and the idea there was to look at state of the art techniques for teaching kids reading writing and rhythmic dick with cognitive skills and compare the outcome to kids with another curriculum in which that emphasized non cognitive goons like sitting still and expanding working memory and executive function and things like that even though the school was a school it was also very much an experiment so our over arching theme is let's go into schools in use them not only to teach our kids but to teach ourselves.

Steve levitt john whis stephen miller wisconsin florida chicago chicago heights university chicago roland frier wyoming secretary harvard executive
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:13 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"The existing demand curve that's what got steve levitt excited about the uber date in the first place and it worked so it sounds like you found the unicorn or climbed mount olympus whatever you found in the natural world the perfect demand curve yes i wish that that were really true um we have estimated really really well a demand curve the only sad part about this so excited have estimated at demand curve is that it's actually not the demand curve i wanted estimate at all film and when i could asked me but not the one i really wanted to for public policy i can deciding hotter regulated where for instance the demand could you'd loved to have is what we call a long term demand curve so we wanna know how consumers would respond over the course of say six months or a year to changes in the pricing of over and that would give them time to respond and make other kinds of accommodations if hoover either got more expensive were less expensive the actual demand curve we estimate is really almost like a you call it an instantaneous demand curve open the app i either by it or not tough from an about how surge pricing with uber effects demand how much as it fall if at all between one point two times normal and one point five times normal with what's the shape of that decline so the lastest the of demand that we estimate overall turns out to be a number which is like a negative point six or negative point seven so what does that mean that means that when the price of lubar say doubles it means that the demand for uber only falls by about forty percent so that is wooden economists calls inelastic demand an inelastic demand is a sign that people are not very sensitive to price that would suggest to me gun not begin economists that what you're trying to use price hikes for his decree an equilibrium right to have supplied meet demand in in the right place where you want it to be so that sounds like you're not getting their numbers not getting there does that imply that surge pricing is just not going high enough to create equilibrium and if so is that.

steve levitt hoover forty percent six months
"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

02:01 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

"In terms of outfoxing the other team or at least trying to optimize your playcalling steve levitt and a colleague wrote a paper on this very topic it's called professionals do not play mini maxx and it analyzed about one hundred twenty five thousand nfl play choices we found that team systematically ran the ball too much that that given the outcome of place it look like if teams were to pass a lot more than they did things would actually get better and i can't say that it is actually causal i doubt that the nfl football teams of red our paper and dramatically changed the way they did things but i am happy to report that in the years since we wrote that paper uh there was a dramatic increase in the share of place from scrimmage that became passes versus runs when that trend hadn't been there at all prior to our writing so so maybe i should take credit for it even though um it's almost certainly impossible that i have made nfl football more efficient steve levitt has one more piece of advice for anyone watching the super bowl regardless of interest level the beauty of the super bowl is that you can virtually gamble on any aspect of it so not just the final score who will win but even who will win the opening coin toss and i remember one near you could actually bet on whether jay z would also appear along with beyond say in the in the halftime show and so if you want to have some fun you can go to a sports book you can look at you know than the literally hundreds of different betting options that are there and without even the trouble of going in and make an account at the sports book i would suggest you find a friend and you uh you divvy up the bets in you bet on you know 50 or 75 things in the end you keep track of who wins what and it can keep you busy for the entire game and if it's a sort of thing where you don't get any pleasure out of taking money from your friends that i would suggest that you find one of your enemies and you actually divvy up all the best with one your enemy so that you f.

steve levitt nfl jay z
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:09 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Might actually find some lost einstein's of people who could really make a huge difference to come in a knowledge on on conservative of of the economy one of the ways he might want to improve the rights convention on the rights of growth is to think about put a pool c interventions to help improve the chances of dissidents kids becoming advances so who is right the technical aptitude tests or the techno pessimists there's one thing we've learned of the years doing the show it's that predicting the future is a fool's game but a lot of research suggests it at the very least optimism is good for your health so let's go out with this from soon ish co author zach wieners it gives me a little bit of optimism as i think somewhat famously of the 19th century physics there were a lot of people that thought they'd reached the point where we were we were just figuring out the details now basically got figured out and then there was einstein and the quantum revolution given the preponderance of people in history who thought we are out of new things we should at least be a bit reticent to at the present moment decide that we are in that situation i i like to say it's it's it's very important to remember that there's a strong cognitive bias to consider that you are at the end of history because the history books all and with you but for aid given thing whether it's increasing human productivity or some sort of social or cultural institution wherever you are right now is probably the middle not the beginning or end because the middle is the big part of most things so i i think the optimist to me wants to say that the venture that was started sometime in the eighteenth century is probably still continuing were probably somewhere in the middle nice let's 3s glass to being somewhere in the middle coming up after the break steve levitt returns to answer your questions about highway merging realtors and the death penalty so he i think the death penalty is purely of his point of political beast and not a crime reduction tool that's next rate after this.

einstein zach wieners steve levitt
"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

01:54 min | 3 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Other times all of which could help alleviate the potential for disagreements among chucky cheese customers if indeed there are many disagreements among chuck adji's customers which as we heard earlier from christopher worth if doesn't seem as if there are that many we shared the police data with steve levitt asked him what he made of it especially the data from chicago where he lives now levitt you've looked at the data does one roughly one police called every three months to the chucky cheese universe of chicago strike you as noteworthy no not really i think if the police could called to a a chucky cheese once every few months um not that much in many of the calls are four things like domestic custody disputes and things which which i don't think the pair hard to earn strategies for that are who parents aren't fighting over them over the games they're fighting with the kids so i don't know dmc nevada me one thing did stand out in the data we sent over to levitt it wasn't a chucky cheese location it was one dave and buster's location the guy wei more police calls in any other place in the chicago data is that really when you go through the odds when i go to alanon you go therefore the violence or it's just coincidence maybe i'm part of the violence are far higher however escaped official statistics but the dave and buster's which i go with my kids now turns out to be roughly about four to five times as likely to elicit a police call as a chucky cheese and i think that makes sense because it's not an avid by five to nine your holds its inhabited by a bunch of fifteen to twenty four year olds in as we all know if you want to get the police involved fifteen to twenty four year old the age group you want interact with i'm steven governor and that was freaking out mix radio thanks for.

chuck adji christopher steve levitt chicago dave buster chucky official twenty four year three months
"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

02:16 min | 4 years ago

"steve levitt" Discussed on Freakonomics

"When i told steve levitt that so many people on here about productivity he was not at all surprised productivity execute everything if you can be ten percent faster and getting the same thing done and then you got ten percent of your time to do something you'd rather deep so when it comes to cannot mix if there's a single measure we should care about it's a productivity a workers i get a lot of credit to our listeners to be the think like economists when it comes to productivity and how does levitt ranking self on the productivity scale i'm actually strangely productive person and i'm not quite sure why but you give me a pile stuff to do i get it done quickly whether it's something academic or when i got a new apartment for instance i took my it for kids with me and we did all of the furniture shopping for the entire apartment for six from apartment in under two hours including the checking out in buying everything which four kids okay catch i know that would be a tricks the tell the kids that everything that's great let's do it perfect you got fifteen more minutes and they were leading let's go on today's show charles duhe it will offer many more tricks and deeper strategies to help you become more productive especially and work environment but in your personal life as well first however a warning there's actually a big attention and a difference between official team productive there's a big difference between being busy and being productive most recent book smarter faster better combines old fashioned reporting and survey of the academic literature to identify best productivity practices his first book the power of habit did the same for habit formation i had assume and the second book was sort of a continuation of the first but do hicks sees it as the opposite because the power of habit is all about these decisions that you stop making right choices the become automatic pace i so stop thinking about where is productivity is about read grabbing control over the choices instead of simply reacting to what's and my environments all the _q's around me it's about sitting down in deciding i'm in charge about what.

steve levitt hicks charles duhe official ten percent two hours