作為一部紀錄片還是比較失敗的

這個片子最大缺點就是太散，總共有6個導演，5個製作團隊來完成:
1. Intro & Transitional Segments (including Real Estate, Parenting, Cheating, Cause & Effect, Incentives) 1 director
2. A Roshanda by Any Other Name 1 director
3. Pure Corruption 1 director
4. It’s Not Always A Wonderful Life 1 director
5. Can you bribe a 9th grader to succeed? 2 directors

下面為主要內容及觀感，有興趣的可以挑相應電影片段來看：
0. Real Estate
Does real estate agent really represent your interest?
Incentives matter!!! If you can figure out what people’s incentives are, you have a good chance of guessing how they are going to behave.

1. Parenting (4』26』』-)
Levitt explains what he does in research: to figure out tricky ways to get a causality. There’s a difference between causality and correlation.

2. A Roshanda by Any Other Name
（莎翁名句：A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.）
（出自原書第六章）
Does name matter? Does name define your destiny?

Resume experiment: African American names vs. White names
View point: Name may not define your destiny but it can dictate the ways other ppl perceive you.

3. Cheating
(3&4出自原書第一章：教師和相撲運動員有何相似之處？)
Teachers could cheat.

4. Pure Corruption (24』20』』-47』48』』)
Corruption in the Sumo World with reference to Bernie Madoff (corruption in the realm of high finances)
        *誤譯：S.E.C (not S.C.C)
        很像犯罪紀實片，有點故弄玄虛之感。本可以獨立成片的題材，過短而語嫣不詳。日本文化對於西方觀眾/讀者本身具有神秘吸引力。也提到了日本和美國媒體的self-censorship，有一定自我批判的意味。

        Levitt: The only way to combat corruption is to change rules and undo corruption incentives, unleash more investigative reporters and to develop strong protections for whistle blowers.

5. Cause & Effect （47』49』』-49』10』』）
Does ice cream cause polio?

6. It’s Not Always a Wonderful Life (出自原書第四章)
Reasons why crime rates drop considerably in the 1990s?
觀感： 全片最有意思和最令人驚奇的發現。

6 most popular explanations (with authors』 verdict): More innovative policing (0%), harsher criminal policing (30%), changes in the crack market (15%), increase gun control, a strong economy, more police on the street (the last three about 10% in total).
(具體怎麼得到這些數字的沒有解釋，這也許是有經濟學家批評兩位作者是在描述計量經濟學的原因，原書中是不是也沒有解釋？)

Almost half of the drop left unexplained. Levitt’s answer: Roe vs. Wade (the legalized abortion in 1970s)
Unwanted children were not born…
「Unintended consequence of legalized abortion」

關於這個結論的爭論（譯自維基百科）：
書出版之後Boston Fed的經濟學家指出Levitt原論文中的統計錯誤，改正這些錯誤後不能得到墮胎合法化是犯罪率降低原因的結論。Levitt回應，Boston Fed經濟學家的改正由於存在嚴重的衰減偏誤（attenuation bias）也是有缺陷的，改正自己原文的錯誤後，流產和犯罪之間的聯繫較弱，但仍然統計顯著。Boston Fed的那兩位經濟學家很快提供了反駁：即使使用Levitt建議的方法來分析數據，該數據不顯示流產率和犯罪率呈正相關關係。他們很快指出，這並不否定Levitt的論文，並強調由於該數據是如此混亂和不完整，很可能甚至是無法證明或反駁Levitt他們的結論。

7. Incentives
How Levitt failed to potty-train his daughter with her favorite M&M chocolates within three days.

8. Can a 9th grader be bribed to succeed?
Interesting (but costly) experiment again!

觀感：This is the most touching part of the movie and it sort of resonates with the segment on Parenting. But again the authors』 view on parents』 role in a child’s growth is ambiguous.   舉報