Leaving aside the controversy that has arisen from the ideas on geoengineering that have been included in the new publication by S.Levitt and S. Dubner, I think that most of the stories and the applications of economics thinking are informative. So while Elizabeth Kolbert has gone at the authors with hammer and tongs, I am convinced that the authors make a simple and correct case by stating the fact that the menu of solutions ought to be expanded beyond the fixation with a reduction in carbon emissions. I still have not made up my mind whether SuperFreakonomics is really better than its predecessor. One only has to make the decision whether it is worthy of spending the cover price on. My view is that it is definitely worthy of the sum since I do not own a Kindle 2 yet.
To my mind, besides annoying the environmental activists who have reduced the issue to a near dogmatic one, the book has also bettered the first by posing a challenge to its readers. The best chapter is the one covering the forensic work conducted by one Ian Horsely and Steven Levitt in trying to identify individuals with connections to terrorism from a data-set of a financial services institution. By describing the variables considered in whittling down the numbers in order to focus on the most likely suspects, it makes the reader really peer into the minds of both men. They go ahead to justify why indicators such as the purchase of life insurance is a valuable one for the algorithm and why other factors are not particularly helpful. Having considered a number of metrics, the authors describe how a certain variable "X" dramatically sharpened the algorithm and led to a group of 30 individuals with a high probability of involvement in terrorist activity.
The only clue offered is that the variable "X" is a qualitative one that measures the intensity of a certain banking activity. I have spent time trying to think about what this variable is and have not convinced myself that I nailed it. As far as trivia go, this is one that would capture the attention of many book clubs. Its only a pity that unlike the trivia questions appearing on the Amazon site, this one cannot be confirmed by the authors. On the other hand, anyone who is bright enough to deduce what it is would probably draw algorithms that would be useful in other ways. So I will keep thinking and will post my guesses here with the reasoning behind it. No terrorists need fear yet!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
What guesses have you come up with so far?
i personally believe variable x to be that the so called terrorist will most likely always make his withdrawals in the morning, and most likely many of these a week, possibly up to 7.
but thats just so i have closure.
what would draw you to that conclusion?
How about frequent balance checks? whilst incommunicado to avoid suspicion, the only way to know if financing has come through is to check for it. Given the circumstances they may be a little more eager then the average punter in checking their money.
Correction....that would be balance checks without any simultanious transacting
Anonymous, you have thought up one point that made me have to respond. I think it is either the answer or very close to it because it is likely that an account kept specifically for funding terror activity will not have lots of positive balances. As a result, the operator of the account will have to check regularly to confirm whether the expected tranche has arrived and most of these will not be employers checks or something close to that.
Although I am not sure myself, I would agree on the frequent balance checks argument. Cited from the book "While not unusual in low intensities among the general population, this behavior occurs in high intensities much more frequently among those who have other terrorist markers". As for me, I only check my balance account 3-4 times a week which I consider low intensity. If I put myself on their shoes, I will most likely check it 3-4 times a day maybe more due to the intense nature of the job. Even though they are terrorists who do not have a heart, I think they can still feel nervous right? Yeah i think we are close to that.
Variable X may be, 3rd party deposits to the account, and subsequent withdrawal of almost all funds. It could also be receiving wire transfers...
They also say it indicates intensity ans already cite the fact that money often comes in one bulk sum and then is slowly used over time. So the deposit or transfer argument doesn't totally line up. I wonder if they do internal transfers to others, but that would surely attract attention. Very curious about this...
variable x behavior
it must be an increase in the frequency of checking the account balance immediately before a deposit
it seems the withdrawal part would have variations by individual, and for the most part the account is as secure a place as any, so i think the worry is when the money comes in
the worry would increase because that is when the most risk of the mission being scrubbed or cancelled or interrupted is, so the variable x behavior would be typical of ALL individuals worried about their being exposed, and only confirming the eventual deposit actually happened would bring satisfaction
frankD@kapilaco.com
Post a Comment