Superfreakonomics Analysis

The two authors of Superfreakonomics, Levitt and Dubner, argues if a human is purely self-giving in the third chapter of the book. They exemplify numerous experiments and cases and then conclude that human is both altruistic and apathetic depending on incentives human face and environmental conditions. Levitt and Dubner begin an argument with a murder crime of a woman called Kitty Genovese. Genovese was attacked by a man in a residential area and died because of the bystander effect. As New York newspaper reported, 38 people saw the murder but no one called the police or stop the assailant. This murder case astonished so many people and some people blamed the 38 residents, thought they're indifferent. Then, writers mention the rise of crime in the USA and analyze three reasons of this situation: the policy of releasing prisoners, post-war baby boom and violent TV show. (98-99) When I read this case, I feel angry about the 38 residents and think they're indifferent. At the same time, I also wonder why the residents are so apathetic. Maybe they thought other people will help Genovese; maybe they didn't
The two main experiments, Ultimatum and Dictator, indicate that human is not so indifferent. Writers also mention an example of organ transplant to prove human are self-giving because although the US government ban organ deal, donators still contribute their organ willingly. (112) After proven human is altruistic, List found some factors would influence human action. Scrutiny, environmental conditions of experiments, what human thought when they donating all are the factors. So List redesigned his experiments called Classic dictator to show human still have a strategic reason when they help others. (118) Finally, List concluded human are either apathetic or altruistic depending on the incentives and environmental