Adversity In Dubner And Levitt's Freakonomics

495 Words2 Pages
Thesis: Although some may argue that adversity is essential for uncovering innate talent, it is impossible for adversity alone to accomplish this; solely relying on adversity to bring out a certain character is a detrimental move that can ultimately lead to immoral decisions and negative impacts on both mental and physical states.

In Freakonomics, Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt delve into schools from a teacher’s point of view, in which teachers are constantly under the pressure to secure both their jobs and reputations through corrupt methods.
“If the entire school does poorly, federal funding can be withheld; if the school is put on probation, the teacher stands to be fired.” (p. 23)
“The Chicago Public School system embraced high-stakes
…show more content…
43)
Adversity is a prominent factor in third-world countries, where citizens lack certain necessities of life, such as clean water or adequate shelter; however, these citizens are often pitied by others, rather than praised for their outstanding character or uncovered talent.
When we think of starving children in remote places of the Earth, rather than commenting on their developed character born from adversity, we pity them because we see them in a lower state than us.
Relying on adversity has strict limits; going beyond this limit will harm the subject, rather than promoting a notable personality. Adversity = not dependable
Alternatives to using adversity to develop character => alternatives that do not have the risk of negative impacts

Conclusion: Adversity is one method to develop character, but there are far healthier and more positive alternatives to eliciting talent or developing a respectable personality, such as constant, effective practice or positive reinforcement. Utilizing adversity to improve character is a risky play that can often result in eroding of moral values or other mental
Open Document