Indexed: Drop & Devour

Here is the latest offering of Indexed drawings from our regular guest poster Jessica Hagy. Her past posts are here, her own blog here, and her new book here.

If the past is any indication of the future, then at least one commenter will write something to the effect of: “Huh? What are these drawings doing on the Freakonomics blog? They don’t belong here. Because Freakonomics is about [fill in the blank], and not about [fill in the blank]. Get rid of these!”

And then someone else will write something like: “Shut up. Jessica Hagy is brilliant, and if you weren’t such a numbskull you would know that.”

And the rest of us will sit back and be nearly as entertained by the comments as by Hagy’s work.

Hagy Indexed
Hagy Indexed

Tony

Just adding to the noise by saying thanks for these Indexed posts. I always enjoy reading them.

james

Its not that I don't get them, they make some intresting observations. This is all fine and good.

But Why does miss Hagy have her own blog, if we continuously see cross posting here?

If we recall the post about the time's top 25 blogs
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1725323_1727246,00.html
We'll note that indexed does better than this blog according to them. (6 vs 9)

So If I wanted to read indexed why come here?

In specific I'm reading this because I'm looking for content other than indexed.

Is it that miss Hagy is lending blog cred to the suffering freakonmics blog? or are we just running out of ideas? How come there is no guest freaknomics post on the indexed blog?

There seems to be a trend of lending and trading content across the different blogs listed under the Google reader's thinkers section. As one blog refers to another we get meta-posts about others posts, but the actual kernel of discussion gets lost in the redirections.

Minus the Language hat guys. I never know what he's talking about. :P

Read more...

Jon

I don't think A & B are independent. Rejection of a lover can be based on logic.

Also to consider: tooth fairy visits are partially dependent on candy consumption. Tooth fairy visits are also a function of age of the population under consideration - with most of the AUC between ages 6 and 12 years. The plot does not account for the non-candy related visits.

Mike

Erik-

The candy consumed on Halloween is surely the independent variable. The amount of tooth fairy visits the following month depends on how much candy is eaten the month prior.

The only way candy consumed could be influenced by tooth fairy visits is if the profit earned is used to purchase more candy... but that's getting a little beyond the humor of the drawings, no?...

Gary

at Josh #10 - I'm quite sure one can (at least in theory) have more than one cavity in a tooth...

Merr

I enjoy the Freakonomics blog, but I have to admit, I skip all of these posts. I don't find them to be interesting or entertaining. I actually only checked this one out to see what other commenters have to say.

Erik

Both economists and Jessica Hagy draws incomprehensible graphs. (I mean, what's up with the dependent variable on the horizontal axis?)

joshu

The tooth fairy to candy should have the curve reversed as the proportional effect of more candy is reduced once cavities set in and there is a max cavity limit equal to the number of teeth.

wilhelms

Both Freakonomics and Jessica Hagy search for mathematical relationships where people might not ordinarily look for them.

Miriam

They do belong here, because they are an understandable representation of concepts found in economics, particularly about the rationality of humanity.

rob

DJH - why exactly do these not belong here? They seem to fit the only description of the blog that I could easily find: "The hidden side of everything".

DJH

That you try to preempt criticism of these pictures' inclusion on this blog, suggests you already know they don't belong. I love this blog, but honestly ... I still have no idea why these drawings are here, not to mention that don't get them at all.

Oh, and to those who might follow Will's example (#2) and say "shut up" ... such a response doesn't establish any meaning for these drawings or their relevance here. A rational, cogent, meaningful response would be much more useful, not to mention more mature.

bb

re: #4 - Charles D

Shut up. Sheep are brilliant, and if you weren't such a numbskull you would know that.

Charles D

Excellent job Mr. Dubner, you've proven that people are easier to herd than sheep.

Ed

Since when does the tooth fairy visit people because of cavities?

Will

Shut up. Jessica Hagy is brilliant, and if you weren't such a numbskull you would know that.

bb

re: #1 - cf

Shut up. Jessica Hagy is brilliant, and if you weren't such a numbskull you would know that.

Erik

Clarification: It's economists that mix their axises.

cf

Huh? What are these drawings doing on the Freakonomics blog? They don't belong here. Because Freakonomics is about [fill in the blank], and not about [fill in the blank]. Get rid of these!

Daniel

Dubner's predictive abilities are mesmerizing.