• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Freakonomics inno
 

Freakonomics inno

on

  • 615 views

This presentation contains 6 questions which are answered for last round of Freakonomics competition in the technical fest - Innovision of our college NSIT, University of Delhi

This presentation contains 6 questions which are answered for last round of Freakonomics competition in the technical fest - Innovision of our college NSIT, University of Delhi

Statistics

Views

Total Views
615
Views on SlideShare
615
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
2

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Freakonomics inno Freakonomics inno Presentation Transcript

    • Team- Tushar, Nitin andNilayan Das GuptaNSIT, University of Delhi
    • Why do you press harder on thebuttons of a remote control whenyou know the batteries are dead?
    • • It Works!- Even though people don’t know the scientific theory behind it.. More pressure on the switch can reduce the contact resistance a little, thereby reducing the voltage drop across the switch by a very small amount.• Behavioral conditioning -Probably because back in the day, a remote might have acted like the batteries were dead, but in fact the button was just missing the spot its supposed to hit on the circuit board in the remote.• Laziness- Watching television discourages brain activity, and often makes people very lazy, not wanting to go to shop• Denial- Our brains believe that there are a few more clicks left and that the possibility of the batteries going dead cant possibly happen in real life.• It’s light years away You see, remote controls dont usually need the batteries replaced as much as any other battery powered device in our home because it only get used when we are changing channels or adjusting the volume.• Anger- Frustrated that the remote is not working in general, and the current channel is boring/ irritating• For example, someone waiting for an elevator might press the button multiple times in frustration, - time and efficiency
    • Is it more likely that a tall CEO is more successful? Does height equal power?
    • average CEO in the U.S. is 6 while the average man in the U.S. is 59". 30% of CEOs are 62" or taller. Hollywoodhas also courted the tallest. Will Smith who has achieved success like few is 62". Old Hollywood Gregory Peck was64". Clint Eastwood is 64". Pierce Bronson (of 007 fame) is 62". No short bond men ever! Keanu Reeves is 61"
    • Statistically speaking, the taller you are, the more money you make. Each inch is worth about$789 more per year. Someone who is six feet tall is expected to earn $5523 more per yearthan someone who is 5-feet-five.
    • • Le Gourmet Gift Basket CEO Cynthia McKay wears 3-inch heels even though shes 5-foot- 9 in bare feet.• Why? For the same reason that 6-foot-3 Don Peebles, CEO of The Peebles Corporation, the nations largest African-American-owned real estate development company, puts his hand on the shoulder of shorter adversaries and crowds into their personal space when negotiating a key deal.• A 2005 study in Finland found that baby boys who were taller than average by their first birthday earned more 50 years later. The last U.S. president who was shorter than the average man was 5-foot-7 William McKinley 106 years ago.• "If someone cant look me in the eye when they make a statement, or are passive, I downplay their credibility,• Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania argue, based on their research, that tall men who were short in high school, earn like short men, while short men who were tall in high school, earn like tall men. Arianne Cohen, author of [external link] The Tall Book, says that tall people are 90% more likely to ascend to the CEO chairs of Fortune 500 companies. And the preference applies equally to female executives as to males, with the average height of prominent female CEOs being 59".• With height, you can intimidate people, by directly looking in the eye• Height gives confidence• It is always connected to being better, phrases like “scaling new heights”, “towering”A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 feet (183 cm) tall, which is approximately 2-3 inches (7.5 cm) taller than the average American man. Fully 30% of these CEOs were6 foot 2 inches (188 cm) tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.
    • Why is it that when men andwomen ride in cars together, men are far more likely to drive?
    • A poll of 3,000 readers of an Australian magazine revealed only 15 per cent feltcomfortable letting their wives or girlfriends drive the car.About half of respondents pointed out that their partners drive poorly andmany admitted they were embarrassed seeing their partners drive----They usually maintain it, and are possessive about the it----Lack of remembering places----Comment heavily, hence, even women want them to drive to save all thebickering
    • The data says women are more likely than men to be involved in car accidents ona per mile driven basis (it’s a U.S. study). Men, apparently, have quicker reflexesand, as a group, have superior spatial perception skills to women.
    • The data says women are more likely than men to be involved in car accidents ona per mile driven basis (it’s a U.S. study). Men, apparently, have quicker reflexesand, as a group, have superior spatial perception skills to women.However, the bad new is-- When men do get inaccidents, they are flat-out dangerouscompared to women. Men are far, far morelikely (by 50-100 per cent) to be in crashesinvolving loss of life.
    • Why Kolaveri di sensation had gripped the countrys imagination?
    • India’s Biggest Ever Viral HIT
    • • Money isn’t everything: Kolaveri is a great example of how promoting a song is done. And it doesnt involve huge budgets. Try to make fans, not earn them.• Have a great product: If Kolaveri wasnt entertaining, it would have flopped. Make a VOW product first.• KISS- Keep it simple, and stupid. The video isnpite of being unprentitious, unlike your Shiela or Chameli associated with most Hindi movies. Something clicked.• Touchhearts: Associate emotion, peoples emotion with product. And make it real, not those love-making nights in Paris but non-sensical lyrics and the foot tapping music.• Have an idea that connects: Apart from emotion, and song gave us lingo- Soup Boys (love fail), bouw you(rejected), life reverse gear. Something pan Indian.• Use other what others dont know. Indian media has always failed, using social media. It taught us something to use for free.
    • Why do people have fewerchildren as they get richer?
    • Larry Jones and Michele Tertilt and their paper “An Economic History of Fertility in theU.S.: 1826-1960” *ungated version], which shows that as the U.S. got richer over time,fertility fell.
    • -The Economists
    • • As people become more educated they grow richer and have less interest in family and settling down and focus more on increasing their exploits and riches.• Children are looked upon by the poor as a type of investment which will reap dividends once they mature• The poor also have a sense of longing to accomplish great feats and end up believing that what they couldnt do in their life would eventually be done by their children• According to the rich the poor appear to inferior goods while their evolved choice increasingly involves the desire for ultra worldly pleasures.In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, “There is overwhelmingempirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at mosttimes.” They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or acrosspeople at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have.
    • Is Paying Students to Performmore likely to enhance grades?
    • As you may have read on this blog, the economist Roland Fryer has done quite a bit ofresearch on bribing kids — i.e., offering financial rewards for good grades. A newworking paper from Josh Angrist, Philip Oreopoulos and Tyler Williams examines theeffect of financial rewards on performance among an older cohort: college students.First- and second-year college students in Canada were offered cash rewards forgrades above 70 and were also contacted by upperclassmen advisers “trained toprovide advice about study strategies, time management, and University?bureaucracy.” The authors found that “[t]he intervention increased the number ofcourses graded above 70 and points earned above 70 for second-year students, butthere was no significant effect on overall GPA. Results are somewhat stronger for asubsample that correctly described the program rules.” Their findings are consistentwith previous research indicating that the incentives are less successful for olderchildren.
    • Pay Day in SchoolAt the Burroughs Education Center in Washington DC, students get paid on the basis of metrics likeattendance, behavior, tests and class work. The school is part of a larger experiment to learn whetherincentivizing students with money leads to improved academic performance. -Times
    • Study by Harvard economist named Roland Fryer-VouchersAt the Takoma Education Campus, also in Washington, students line up to get their paymentvouchers. The study met with different results in each city. In Washington, one of the moreinteresting findings was that boys responded particularly well to the financial incentive.According to Fryer, this is contrary to other reforms, which tend to help girls more.
    • The kids reported doing different things with the money. Some said they weresaving for college, while others used it to buy clothes or candy. One student atTakoma recently earned $95, her highest check ever. When asked how she did it,she replied, "I tried my hardest." But what about working hard for the love oflearning? "Honestly," she says, "We are kids. Lets be realistic."