ADI IGNATIUS: I’m Adi Ignatius.
ALISON BEARD: I’m Alison Beard, and that is the HBR IdeaCast.
ADI IGNATIUS: Alison, it’s been attention-grabbing to reside via the evolution in economics. Within the 70s and the 80s, you had this early explosion of behavioral economics led by folks like Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler. After which 20 years in the past was the Freakonomics phenomenon. So that you had Steven Levitt, an economist, and Stephen Dubner, a journalist, who wrote a ebook that popularized all of this pondering that tried to point out the hidden facet of every thing, what really motivates us as financial actors. And the sector took off behind this primary tagline that standard knowledge is mistaken. Are you a fan?
ALISON BEARD: Yeah, completely. I imply, that was the ebook that made economics cool. Everybody wished to learn it, everybody wished to copy it. And I do assume it modified the best way that firms take into consideration client conduct and in addition the best way that managers considered getting one of the best out of their workers.
ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah, I feel that’s proper. I feel it opened our eyes to numerous phenomena that weren’t instantly clear. I feel it additionally modified academia in some methods, that professors noticed the success of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, of Freakonomics and thought, “Nicely, wait a minute, I can do analysis that can also be broadly related, that has well-liked attraction, and I could make a reputation for myself.” So I feel the ebook has really had a profound influence.
So 20 years later, I spoke to Stephen Dubner, the journalist a part of the duo, and we talked concerning the ebook’s legacy. We talked about what they received mistaken, what they received proper, and why and the way we will discover the hidden facet of every thing. So right here’s that dialog.
ADI IGNATIUS: All proper, so Stephen, welcome to the HBR IdeaCast.
STEPHEN DUBNER: Thanks a lot. Respect it.
ADI IGNATIUS: So congratulations, the ebook is 20 years previous. It has had an outsized affect, I’d say, on American tradition, on international tradition. Levitt, I suppose, was an early member of that technology of economists that sort of shook up the occupation, making use of information units that both didn’t exist. We had been kind of into the info period at this level, or had been inaccessible or didn’t appear seemly for economists to make use of that basically checked out what really provoked client conduct, particular person conduct. So how did the economics occupation reply to him after which to him and also you when the ebook got here out, and particularly when the ebook offered so many copies?
STEPHEN DUBNER: I feel there was a variety. So there have been some individuals who had been irate with Levitt. There have been individuals who felt that he was displaying how the magic, the regression analyses get carried out. And I feel they weren’t so blissful about that.
After which there have been numerous economists that we began to listen to from perhaps six to 12 months later who acknowledged that the success of Freakonomics was really actually good for them too. And it got here in a pair types. One was my mom, or my mother-in-law perhaps extra typically, has no concept what I do. Thanks for writing a ebook that she will be able to learn that kind of explains it. In order that was one.
The opposite was economists acknowledged that since this was a ebook that turned extremely popular and it did have a basis in how an instructional economist goes about doing his work, that it could most likely drive extra college students to economics at universities. And whether or not our ebook did that or it occurred to coincide with a giant surge in economics majors, I don’t know, however there was a giant surge and due to this fact it did, I’d say, enlarge and perhaps enrich the marketplace for economics professors.
So I feel anytime you do something that’s excessive profile, it doesn’t even must be well-liked, however excessive profile, lots of people, their first intuition, they’re virtually skilled. Should you’re a journalist, in case you’re an instructional, in case you’re a sure sort of cultural critic, you’re virtually skilled to search for the failings or to search for the methods by which it may possibly’t be pretty much as good as everyone’s saying it’s. So I get that.
Why it captured the general public’s consideration the best way it did is difficult for me to clarify. I’ve numerous half-baked theories, most likely none of them are very right, however I largely dwell within the gratitude area after which let’s get on with it. How can I take advantage of this chance, this platform, to do extra work that I love to do? And Levitt felt the identical for him.
ADI IGNATIUS: So a part of the attraction of the ebook, and actually the purpose of the ebook is that there’s a hidden facet to every thing. However isn’t that additionally dangerous and virtually conspiratorial? I imply, aren’t one of the best explanations often or typically easy and easy?
STEPHEN DUBNER: I feel numerous instances they’re for positive. We tried to level out when the traditional knowledge is “mistaken” or perhaps partially mistaken, we tried not a lot to simply play Gotcha and say, “Oh, have a look at you being a simpleton for pondering X causes Z like that.” What we tried to do is have a look at the entire ecosystem round that exact piece of standard knowledge and have a look at the way it was created and who had been the consultants who created and printed and promulgated that standard knowledge.
Did they’ve their thumb on the size or a horse within the race in any method? The reply to that query is sort of all the time, sure. I really feel we’ve all the time been fairly constructive concerning the methods, even after we critique them, as a result of people are, I feel we’re a fairly nice species, however we’re fallible. So even after we imply properly, we regularly mess up just a little bit. We would have an intention to create some nice piece of coverage, some pro-social coverage, perhaps it’s within the schooling area or healthcare area. After which whenever you collect the info 10 years later, you see, “Oh wow, not solely did it not produce the positive factors we thought, however it really sort of backfired. There have been some unintended penalties.” However you don’t go throwing these fees round willy-nilly. You wait till there’s knowledge and also you attempt to measure the impact.
ADI IGNATIUS: With none proof, I’d say that the success of Freakonomics, the success of Malcolm Gladwell’s writing, and I interviewed Malcolm on this podcast a short time in the past, was partly a reason behind sort of a reenergizing of the economics occupation, and definitely the behavioral economics occupation. However I additionally assume there’s a disaster in that space in social science analysis, and definitely in enterprise and office associated analysis the place you’re seeing a slew of retractions fabricated and shoddy knowledge, after which this complete community of proper of self-appointed arbiters who’re able to attempt to replicate and to denounce the scholarship.
So I feel you’ll have unwittingly contributed to that since you made these items accessible, as a result of folks understand in case you produce an attention-grabbing counterintuitive discovering, you’re going to get press protection, you’re going to get consideration, you’re going to promote books. And that’s created an incentive that in case you’re a skeptic or a cynic, you’re pondering, “Nicely, persons are placing their finger on the size with the info to attempt to give you this stuff.” I’d be desirous about your tackle that as a result of unintentionally you’re a part of this sort of new world of scholarship that may be extra well-liked and could be extra profitable. So speak about that and the stress to get it proper given these circumstances.
STEPHEN DUBNER: I imply, to begin with, I’d say that the incentives to get consideration for your self or your work are as previous as humankind. Should you have a look at yellow journalism from no matter, 100, 130 years in the past, and I got here up as a journalist. So all these axioms are drilled into your head canine bites, man, ho-hum. Man bites canine, nice. Native TV information, if it bleeds, it leads. Is it consultant in any respect? No, it’s not consultant in any respect. Once I got here up as a print journalist, I used to be on the New York Instances. We wish to say that TV is named a medium as a result of it’s neither uncommon nor properly carried out. So all of us have been-
ADI IGNATIUS: Nicely, after which keep in mind when USA As we speak got here out, someone mentioned that is for individuals who discover TV information too complicated.
STEPHEN DUBNER: So the incentives to get consideration like that, whether or not you’re a producer or a producer of reports, a producer of analysis, et cetera, I imply, they’ve all the time been very, very sturdy. It’s humorous as a result of folks did single out little tidbits from our ebook, they usually did grow to be cocktail social gathering fodder. Do you know that clean, clean, clean. And it’s humorous, we didn’t deal with it like that after we wrote it. I feel the primary chapter started with this story a few high quality gone mistaken at an Israeli daycare middle the place mother and father had been coming late. So the college instituted a high quality in order that the mother and father wouldn’t come late, however the high quality was comparatively small. What occurred was that extra mother and father started to be late as a result of they figured I may simply pay this small high quality, a couple of {dollars} and truly get in an additional sport of tennis or no matter.
It’s like low cost childcare. That was the sort of story that folks would like to retell us, which was high quality. It was high quality. However we instructed that story, which was based mostly on a analysis paper by, I need to say it was Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini. The entire level of telling that story was to present a extremely tiny instance, a tiny scale instance of some {dollars} of how incentives work. So when folks speak about incentives, particularly economists, the primary consideration is often monetary incentives. And we had been making an attempt to create a framework or an argument that there are all types of incentives that we’re all all the time responding to. I’ve a powerful incentive to burnish or defend my repute. There could also be ethical or social incentives that matter so much to me, greater than monetary incentives. So I suppose I really feel like we weren’t simply dropping one-liners to get consideration, however this ebook of ours was stuffed with tales linked to, like I mentioned, larger concepts or larger themes.
When it comes to the bigger concern that you simply elevate about educational fraud and the replication disaster and so forth, the incentives of the researchers and the incentives of the colleges to guard analysis which may be dangerous are so sturdy, and that’s as a result of the colleges are run by legal professionals, and legal professionals are extraordinarily, extraordinarily threat averse. So I hate, hate, hate the fraud. I’ll say this. We additionally coated the sort of whistleblowers and the do-gooders, if you wish to name it, Ivan Oransky at Retraction Watch does superb work. The three guys at Information Colada, they’ve carried out so much and really selfless work and work that attracts consideration to them for being the whistleblowers, which isn’t what they need to do. There are lots of people combating the great combat there, however once more, the incentives are large.
There are tons of, perhaps hundreds of primarily faux educational journals that exist to supply paid publication to students or can be students, however particularly second or third tier students. In order that’s a joke. It’s a horrible scenario. Those self same journals may also cost college libraries an enormous quantity to drive them to hold the journal. So it’s very, very murky in there.
One factor that all the time attracted me to economists, I’ll say, is that I don’t need to say that financial analysis is prima facie extra sturdy than psychology analysis or sociology analysis or anthropology analysis. However I’ll say this, the economists that I’ve interviewed and gotten to know over time, which might be within the not less than many dozens, most likely tons of, and numerous psychologists as properly, not less than within the many dozens, and I actually respect numerous their work.
The analysis feels very completely different. There’s much more knowledge in an economics paper. Should you actually need to faux an enormous knowledge set, you could possibly, however you’d be loopy to strive as a result of the best way that the peer evaluation works. The opposite factor I really like about economics papers that I want the opposite social sciences would copy is whenever you’re an economist and also you write a paper for publication, you say, “Right here’s my thesis, right here’s my knowledge, right here’s my methodology, and right here’s my chief discovering. Right here’s what I’m going to argue on this paper, and right here’s how I’m going to argue it.” After which they may usually say, “Now I’m arguing the X causes Y, however there are others who may’ve thought prior to now or may assume sooner or later that A causes Y or B or C. I’m going to undergo these and clarify why I don’t assume these are dependable solutions or why they perhaps carry a small piece of explanatory energy, however not as massive as a bit that I’m about to present you.” I discover that to be an unbelievably helpful train. It additionally takes two, three, 4 years to put in writing a paper like that. So it’s a really labor-intensive factor.
ADI IGNATIUS: There may be the essential query, causation versus correlation. And that appears to be the place amateurs journey up or journalists journey up or journalists can get duped or one thing like that. And in case you purport to point out that the consumption of Pop Tarts is driving up the value of oil, I’ll run that story, however you most likely have a causation correlation drawback there. How have you ever discovered to use rigor to that query?
STEPHEN DUBNER: Yeah, it’s a terrific query, and it’s actually exhausting. I imply, the extra complicated one thing will get, the more durable it’s to say with any sort of certainty that you realize that X causes Y. And we do attempt to illustrate within the ebook, and definitely in radio applications ever since then, how simple it’s to fall into a foul correlation, causation lure. One instance we wrote about perhaps in our second ebook was about polio, which was a extremely horrible however attention-grabbing illness, the best way it was approached. And I consider the trigger continues to be primarily unknown or the origin trigger the best way it unfold got here to be recognized. However as soon as the vaccines had been out there, that query turned much less pertinent.
However there was a idea at a sure level since polio tended to spike in the summertime, and lots of people would maintain their youngsters out of swimming swimming pools and issues like that. There was a idea that the consumption of ice cream precipitated polio much like your pop tarts and oil perhaps.
So you’ll be able to see why, particularly within the second, particularly if issues are going sideways, particularly if persons are scared, you’ll be able to see why folks connect themselves to what appeared to be causal relationships which are solely correlational at finest. What we tried to do is absolutely simply present the homework.
So in most likely the sort of most excessive profile and highest stakes instance of a causational argument in Freakonomics was based mostly on a paper that Steve Levitt written with John Donohue earlier about how the legalization of abortion led to a technology later a lower in crime as a result of it made out there abortion to girls whose kids would’ve been born into circumstances which are extra prone to make them bother, decrease earnings, unstable households, unstable circumstances. Apparently, one factor that I feel we wrote that folks virtually by no means hooked up to that or keep in mind from that, is that it didn’t essentially imply that that lady that might be mom wouldn’t have a toddler.
It was typically a timing factor, and {that a} youngster would typically come later when she was higher set as much as have a child and to lift that child productively. So it was actually an argument about how unwanted-ness is a driver of an final result or a life that’s extra prone to have bother in it, whether or not it’s crime or whatnot.
However after we wrote that piece of the ebook, and this was actually drawing on a really, very, very intense and sturdy analytical paper that Steve Levitt had written already with John Donohue, we once more entertain all types of different potential explanations. And then you definitely marshal what Levitt would name a collage of proof to make your declare really feel as if it’s about as substantiated as it may be. So for example, one easy maneuver in that thought course of can be to say, “Okay, if the legalization of abortion represented federally nationally by Roe v. Wade in 1973 led to a lower in crime 15, 16, 18 years later, what do you do to get one thing outdoors that pattern set of 1973 a change is turned on?”
You’re all the time on the lookout for a spot the place a change may’ve been turned on earlier or later, or a special sort of change was turned on, or one thing else got here in to offer for you what they name an instrumental variable that’s clear. Within the case of abortion, one piece of proof from that collage of proof was that I consider was 5 states had beforehand individually as states legalized abortion. So okay, now you’ve received a special instrumental variable to play with, and you’ll have a look at in a spot like New York or California, did crime start to fall sooner than it did elsewhere as a result of there was availability to abortion earlier? And the reply was sure.
So whenever you’re making an attempt to make an argument, whether or not you’re a politician or a enterprise individual, no matter, I like individuals who present their homework. After which after I’m interviewing them, I wish to say, it is a very primary query. I’d encourage everyone to ask on a regular basis, what’s your finest proof that the argument you’ve simply made is true? And in case you don’t have any proof, then I can most likely assume that you simply’re simply BSing me or making it up. Should you supply me proof that’s based mostly on a survey on the road of 18 folks, I’m going to say, “Nicely, that doesn’t sound very dependable both.” Should you’re going to say your proof relies on administrative knowledge from a giant state in India from the Sixties, I’m going to say, “Nicely, yeah, that’s numerous knowledge, however it’s from a very long time in the past.” So yeah, you bought to poke and examine the info as finest as you’ll be able to if you wish to make an argument that one thing is definitely causal. And that mentioned, making causal arguments is absolutely exhausting, and that’s why science is difficult, and that’s why I like scientists.
ADI IGNATIUS: So one distinction between now and when the ebook got here out, when the ebook got here out, you could possibly disagree with the methodology. You can speak about correlation versus causality, however I really feel like we kind of agreed then that there have been verifiable information that might be analyzed and picked aside. I don’t assume we’re in a submit reality period as a result of I feel we’ve got extra knowledge at our fingertips than ever, however someway within the political divide that we’ve got, persons are comfy with the concept of there being alternate information and dismissing inconvenient information as someway faux or someway made up. I fear about that so much as a journalist, as you’ll be able to think about.
However I suppose I’m curious – you’re in the end some fact-based set of numbers, circumstances that may be analyzed, however is the world open to fact-based rationalization at this level?
STEPHEN DUBNER: Yeah, I’m with you. It saddens me. It frustrates me. It scares me how simple it’s for folks to assume no matter, to place it actually principally that one thing is true if it’s demonstrably not true. Now, granted, it’s exhausting to show that generally that one thing is demonstrably true. I suppose I’ve responded to that by, look, I don’t assume I’m the individual that’s going to have the ability to repair that drawback. I feel there are hundreds of thousands of individuals on the earth who’re struggling to repair that drawback. And I don’t know in the event that they’re doing very properly both, however it’s simply not one thing that I feel I’ve a specific expertise for.
What I attempt to do is simply apply what I sort of want to be preached just a little bit extra, which is use the individuals who know the stuff, ask them questions which are pretty well-informed. I attempt to do a great little bit of prep earlier than I interview anyone about something. I attempt to give them the room to essentially clarify themselves.
I pay attention actually exhausting in order that if they are saying one thing that both isn’t clear or folks misspeak on a regular basis in interviews, and generally I don’t catch it. After which we’re wanting on the transcript later and somebody mentioned when contained in the curve, as an alternative of when outdoors the curve and we’re like, “Oh, properly, I suppose we don’t need to use that tape.” However then we’ll name them up and say, did you misspeak right here? And in the event that they did, then we could rerecord them saying that. However that’s simply primary journalism, primary reality checking. In order that’s the world the place I got here up by which I nonetheless function in, which I nonetheless like. However then I feel it’s simply the best way you do your work and folks both subscribe to that model or not. Our listenership of Freak Radio, it’s a really attention-grabbing listenership. It’s broad and it’s very numerous, I’d argue. I imply, it is a most likely unprovable argument. I’d argue it’s probably the most numerous, I’d name it a big area of interest media audiences on the earth.
We’ve received about two and a half million people who hearken to not less than one in all our episodes each month. And the emails that we get are from folks, such a range of individuals doing so many various issues, and the best way that they give thought to the world is so completely different. And I take numerous consolation in that as a result of I feel there’s a massive neighborhood on the market of people that merely need to perceive the world higher, typically with the intention of constructing the world just a little bit higher than once they got here into it. And that’s me. That’s what I love to do too. So I’ll offer you, for example, we’re engaged on a two-part sequence proper now concerning the air visitors management system in the USA. I’m positive that if I went on Reddit for 2 hours, I may give you a narrative that might frustrate, scare, no matter, do numerous issues, and it could be based mostly on most likely little or no reality, not less than little or no major supply reality.
ADI IGNATIUS: However numerous ardour.
STEPHEN DUBNER: Numerous ardour, numerous ardour, and look, ardour is great. So what we did for that, and I’ve to say the producer on this, Theo Jacobs did a extremely, actually, actually good job of working via numerous potential sources. And the sources that he got here up with for me to interview are all terribly substantial, good and good at describing the situations they’re coping with. So one in all them is the CEO of a serious airline. One in all them is an economist who makes a speciality of transportation, deregulation, and actually is aware of the FAA inside and outside.
These are individuals who, whenever you hear them being interviewed, I’d argue that nearly anyone that’s listening to or seeing this might say, “Okay, I get it. This individual is aware of what they’re speaking about. They’re not BSing, they’re not pushing a place, et cetera.” So that could be a model of journalism or storytelling that I like doing. It’s enjoyable. It’s attention-grabbing. I consider it after I publish it. I sleep properly at night time. And look, there’s much more room for that sort of journalism and storytelling on the earth. So for anyone on the market who seems like they’re locked into this factor the place they must give you tiny little cocktail social gathering issues which are going to get them a brand new contract or an invite to one thing, I’d simply say the water over right here is sweet.
It takes just a little bit extra work. You must modify your expectations just a little bit. I grew up on a farm as a child. We used to make maple syrup and do all this out of doors work that was backbreaking and really labor-intensive. And I generally consider this sort of journalism as making maple syrup. You must go round to all of the bushes, you bought to bang within the faucets, you set a bucket, you must empty out the buckets once they replenish. You then received to boil down all that sap, and also you get this a lot on the finish of the day. And I’m like, “That was numerous work to get this a lot.” And that’s type the best way I really feel each Friday morning after we publish an episode of Freakonomics Radio. It’s one little episode in a sea of issues, however I really feel it’s perhaps not as scrumptious as maple syrup, however I feel it tastes fairly good.
ADI IGNATIUS: So let me ask earlier than we’ve got to shut. As you reread it, is there one thing, or are there issues that make you cringe the place you simply assume, “Wow, I’d not have carried out if we had been doing a ebook now? I wouldn’t do it identical method.”
STEPHEN DUBNER: I feel we wrote it now. The tone can be completely different. We had a extremely good time writing it. We had been typically playful in a method that I feel now would really feel a bit callow. We had been additionally youthful. I’d wish to assume that I’ve gotten just a little bit wiser, kinder as I’ve gotten older. I’ve tried not less than.
I’d say there have been only a few errors that wanted correction. One which did, and we corrected it early. It was painful as a result of it meant taking down a hero. We wrote about this man named Stetson Kennedy, who had carried out numerous work towards the Klan and towards racism within the south at nice private threat to himself. He infiltrated these Klan conferences and Klan teams and so forth. Because it seems, after we printed the ebook, I heard from somebody who had labored in some archives that intersected with this work on the Klan.
And it turned out that in accordance with our greatest studying of all these archives that got here after the publication of the ebook, that this man was proper. And so it appears as if he had exaggerated his actions or conflated his actions with another person who was an secret agent. And in order that was actually painful as a result of I needed to… he was an older man. He since died, Stetson Kennedy, and he did numerous very, very, superb work, however I couldn’t let that stand if he had exaggerated to that extent. So I referred to as him up, I mentioned I wanted to speak to him about one thing severe. He mentioned, “Come on down.” He was in Florida. I flew down there. We went to this place for lunch. And I simply laid out the argument and the look on his face, I’ll always remember, it was a really disagreeable response to have been the reason for, however he additionally didn’t admit, he simply sort of mentioned, “I don’t know what you’re speaking about. Every thing I wrote is true.”
He’d written this most likely 40, 50 years in the past. However the extra I attempted to unpeel the proof and current it to him and say, “This doesn’t match with this. This doesn’t match with this.” I used to be persuaded I used to be proper. So what we did in that case was we wrote a column for the New York Instances about how we had gotten this mistaken, why we’d gotten it mistaken, and what the reality was. It didn’t change the character of the story, however it actually modified among the information. After which we rewrote that part of the ebook and republished it for later editions. So look, no person needs that to occur. Anyone who’s written something that will get learn by greater than 20 folks, you’ve most likely had a kind of 20 come and say, “That’s not fairly proper.”
So that you do as a lot as you’ll be able to to get it proper. With each episode of Freak Radio, we analysis, we interview, we reality examine, we reality examine once more, we nonetheless make errors. After which if we make one which will get into the publication, we republish. However I feel when it comes to Freakonomics, the ebook, I prefer it. I preferred it so much. I discovered so much.
I like that it’s out on the earth and it makes folks assume. I really like – you realize, we’ve gotten hundreds of emails or letters from individuals who have been, no matter, impressed both by our books or the radio exhibits to do superb issues. Kicked off a giant kidney donation neighborhood, kicked off numerous schooling and healthcare issues. So I’m very, very proud and blissful about that. And for anyone that turned extra cynical due to what we wrote, I’m unhappy about that, however we’re not cynics. Skeptics, sure, cynics, no.
ADI IGNATIUS: All proper. Nicely congratulations on the twentieth anniversary version on conserving the franchise going for thus lengthy. And thanks for being on HBR IdeaCast.
STEPHEN DUBNER: It was numerous enjoyable. I preferred your questions. Thanks very a lot.
ADI IGNATIUS: That was Stephen Dubner, host of the Freakonomics podcast and writer of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Facet of Every thing.
Subsequent week, Alison talks to government coach Muriel Wilkins about one thing else hidden: the blockers that maintain leaders again. Should you discovered this episode useful, share it with a colleague and make sure you subscribe and price IdeaCast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you pay attention. If you wish to assist leaders transfer the world ahead, please take into account subscribing to Harvard Enterprise Evaluate. You’ll get entry to the HBR cellular app, the weekly unique Insider e-newsletter, and limitless entry to HBR on-line. Simply head to HBR.org/subscribe.
Because of our group: Senior producer Mary Dooe. Audio product supervisor Ian Fox. and Senior Manufacturing Specialist Rob Eckhardt. And due to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast. We’ll be again with a brand new episode on Tuesday. I’m Adi Ignatius.
