Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of violent crime?
These may not sound like typical questions for an econo-mist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a ty...moreWhich is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of violent crime?
These may not sound like typical questions for an econo-mist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to sports and child-rearing—and whose conclusions turn conventional wisdom on its head.
Freakonomics is a groundbreaking collaboration between Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning author and journalist. They usually begin with a mountain of data and a simple question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics.
Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives—how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they explore the hidden side of . . . well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Klu Klux Klan.
What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a great deal of complexity and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking.
Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.(less)
Hardcover, Revised and Expanded Edition, 336 pages
Published
October 17th 2006
by William Morrow
(first published 2005)
Recommends it for: People Who Appreciate the Value of Social Science
I guess some people don't like this book because it's not centered around one theme. Instead, it's more about the seemingly diffuse academic work of one of the authors Steven D. Levitt (the other author is a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner). Levitt is something of an economist but more like a social scientist using the tools of Microeconomics applied to other fields that happen to catch his interest (often having something to do with cheating, corruption, crime, etc.). In the back of the book he m...moreI guess some people don't like this book because it's not centered around one theme. Instead, it's more about the seemingly diffuse academic work of one of the authors Steven D. Levitt (the other author is a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner). Levitt is something of an economist but more like a social scientist using the tools of Microeconomics applied to other fields that happen to catch his interest (often having something to do with cheating, corruption, crime, etc.). In the back of the book he mentions how he considers himself a student of Thomas Schelling who is kind of like the father of Game Theory (strategy theory?), except much more of a 'man of ideas' than what one might think of when one thinks about game theory today, which is much more mathematical.
Anyway, as for the book itself, I thought it was really great. I really like what Levitt is doing as far as using the tools of Microeconomics in other fields. One of my intellectual heroes (I only have a few) is Kenneth Waltz who did the exact same thing in the field of International Relations in the '70's and wrote the seminal book The Theory of International Politics, which pretty much the single-handedly invented defensive (neo) realism. More generally, I think Economics is probably the most formalized of the social sciences and the one to which others should esteem. A lot of the Political Science field concerned with both voter behavior and how legislatures work is now pretty formalized as well, and, I, for one, think this is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could think it's not (good) unless they a)think the scientific method cannot be used to analyze human behavior; or b)have a visceral aversion to mathematical languages. Actually, I am one of the latter, but I, at least, see the value in having a formalized language to work with.
As for the book itself, there's some maybe-controversial things in there like Levitt did some work that showed that the legalization of abortion in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) was one of the main reasons that crime in the U.S. dropped in the '90's and continues at the same rates today. He stands behind it pretty hardily though and it doesn't seem like he has a moral agenda at all. Some might argue that the best writers are those who are best able to disguise their moral agenda, but considering he writes about all kinds of not-very-serious things like how sumo wrestling in Japan is probably corrupt as far as matches g,o and there's stuff in there about how real estate agents sell their houses for more than they sell their customers' houses (which, may or may not be surprising), I really don't think he has a hidden pro-life agenda.
Anyway, there's a bunch of stuff in there (the book), hence the 'freak' in Freakonomics. It's well-written. It's not dry. It's written for a lay audience. I recommend it. Read it and feel the power of social science! ;-)(less)
This was an interesting book. I say it was interesting because I started liking it (a lot) when I first read it, as time passed I liked it less and less. In that way I call it a candy book, tastes good at first but leaves you worse off for reading it.
In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothe...moreThis was an interesting book. I say it was interesting because I started liking it (a lot) when I first read it, as time passed I liked it less and less. In that way I call it a candy book, tastes good at first but leaves you worse off for reading it.
In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis. I wanted more. It was like reading War and Peace and discovering that you read the abridged version and in fact the book wasn't 100 pages long. This disappointment may have come from my engineering background and my strong desire to really understand economics. This book didn't offer any of that, only a titillating glimpse of the economics.
In some regards one may think my single start rating is to harsh. As mind candy this book was quite good. I did enjoy reading it at the time. Whats more, it did encourage me to study real economics. I am currently enrolled in a masters program in economics and this book did play a very small roll in that decision process. However, as I learn more about economics I realize how shallow the book in fact was.
While this is not the forum for a comprehensive review of the topics presented in the book, or an analysis of how good the economics in Freekanomics are, a review in "Journal of Economic Literature (Vol XLV, Dec. 2007 pp 973)" quotes Livitt as saying: "There is no question I have written some ridiculous papers." The article then goes on to quote a paper by Noam Scheibler(2007) describing Livitt's comparing some of his papers to the fashion industry. "Sometimes you write papers and they're less about the actual result, more about your vision of how you think the profession should be. And so I think some of my most ridiculous papers actually fall in the high-fashion category."
MichaelGood grief. You arguing this so fervently made me go back and re-read that chapter, wondering if perhaps I really was missing something. But no, I s...moreGood grief. You arguing this so fervently made me go back and re-read that chapter, wondering if perhaps I really was missing something. But no, I still think you missed the point, which was not to shock people into the revelation that drug dealers still live at home. I mean, the title of the chapter was "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" Key word there being WHY. That alone makes it clear we are past the point of being surprised they live at home.
But first, to your argument: To put it simply, there are plenty of scum who don't still live with their mothers, and plenty of good quality people who do. Even in this case, one has nothing to do with the other. Your logic, while pieced together cleverly, is not really relevant and more importantly is completely off the point of the book.
I think perhaps you missed that this was based on the “conventional wisdom” of the 90's? It was talking about how it was presented in the media, in movies, by the police. The conventional wisdom certainly was that drug dealing was one of the most profitable professions in the inner city. And once again, the point of the question wasn't about how drug dealers were actually broke and living with their mothers, it was another example of how quickly we as a society (maybe not you, because you're so smart), come to conclusions on information that is not accurate, complete, or relevant. In other words, disproving conventional wisdom by using real data.
I personally gave this book a good review (in which I also confess that critical thinking is not something I exercise enough of myself) because I thought it did a good job of pointing out how we often make judgments and decisions based on inadequate, incomplete, or inaccurate information, and how we then feel so righteous about those decisions. It’s the definition of prejudice, except we don’t even realize we are prejudiced. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can appreciate the value of a book like this if you go into it without being willing to let go of your prejudices.
Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, but your comment made it seem that your intense hatred of drug dealers (which I have no problem with) clouded your ability to understand the message of the book in general. Your follow-up comment reinforces that perspective, as you continue to rail against drug dealers (again, no disagreements with your sentiments), rather than look objectively at what the authors were trying to share.
And your final comment, whether true or not, is definitely irrelevant to the point of the review. You're like a TV lawyer discrediting a witness in an attempt to distract from key information they want people to ignore. But it's ok, I can take it.(less)
Mar 08, 2011 03:30pm
I'll let the scumbag argument go, you win on that one. My "intense hatred" of crack dealers is not really as intense a...moreMichael,
I'll let the scumbag argument go, you win on that one. My "intense hatred" of crack dealers is not really as intense as it came across! Just trying to prove a point.
To the point about conventional wisdom. I fully disaree with the author's case that conventional wisdom was that dealing crack was a lucrative profession (in the inner city or otherwise). I don't agree that the media, police, etc.. portrayed them that way. I lived through the nineties and I have never seen a crack dealer on the street and thought "what a rich and glamorous job". The same goes for any of my peers that I've spoken to. That's where the theory lost all credibility with me. Yes, the title of the chapter was "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" but the secondary protion of that question was "when their profession is supposed to be a rich and glamorous one" (or something to that effect, I borrowed the book from the library so I can't reference it specifically). Sure, the upper echelons of drug dealers were living glamorous lifestyles a la Pablo Escobar, but they were the exception, not the norm. Without the "when" portion of the question, the "why" is irrelevant. If it's common knowledge that crack dealers aren't rich and glamorous, then it's not even remotely surprising that the reason they live with their mothers is that they can't afford to move out...hence why I found that chapter of the book to be extremely obvious and futile in it's point.
The very title of the book is "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything". So, I expected to read a book that would open my mind to facts that had been right under my nose that I had just failed to notice previously. And I think the book failed in that regard.
Take another example; the section on real estate agents. Did you find it enlightening to find out that real estate agents kept their houses on the market for a few weeks longer than they did for their clients' houses? I certainly did not. And that had nothing to do with me being "so smart". It had everything to do with the fact that I have bought and sold a couple of houses through the services of a real estate agent. By applying some fifth grade math percentages to the information that the real estate agent provided to me about their commission, I was able to figure out that selling my house for $10K more (by keeping it on the market for a couple of extra weeks) would only result in a couple of hundred dollars' increase in the agent's commission. Then again, the same could be said for any salesperson working on a commission. The longer that they have to work to make a sale, the less valuable that sale becomes to them. Again, the book failed to show me the "hidden side" of real estate transactions, as the publishers claimed that it would.
Maybe I'm the wrong demographic for this book. Maybe a lot of the topics covered here are more obvious to those in an older demographic. I found the book made some good, quirky points at times but never really "freaked me out", as the title of the book indicated it would. And, in the end, I felt let down by it overall. Your assumption that I didn't like the book because I simply didn't understand it is way off base.
I've read other books in a similar vein and have enjoyed them much, much more. Have you read anything by Malcolm Gladwell? I read "Outliers" a couple of years ago and I found that he did a much better "job of pointing out how we often make judgments and decisions based on inadequate, incomplete, or inaccurate information". Yes, I realize that Gladwell endorsed Freakonomics. That was one of the reasons why I picked up the book in the first place. However, I disagree with endorsement.(less)
updated
Mar 10, 2011 08:18am
I am indebted to airport bookstores. And I am thus indebted to such an extent, that I can confess to arriving early for any flight departing from an airport with a bookstore for the sole purpose of securing a few additional minutes to browse books. If it were not for the practicalities of travelling, I would probably have bought this book much sooner than I did for I had been securing extra minutes in airport bookstores just to read through another chapter long before I actually bought it.
...moreI am indebted to airport bookstores. And I am thus indebted to such an extent, that I can confess to arriving early for any flight departing from an airport with a bookstore for the sole purpose of securing a few additional minutes to browse books. If it were not for the practicalities of travelling, I would probably have bought this book much sooner than I did for I had been securing extra minutes in airport bookstores just to read through another chapter long before I actually bought it.
You see, my travels are laden with a heavy debate: shall I pack my extra suitcase with books or groceries? I resolve this by alternating. For one trip to the Outside, a spare duffel bag will be dedicated to books and I will shun all opportunities to visit grocery stores just to preserve that determination. On the next visit, I will carry a spare cooler (rather than duffel bag) and splurge on leg of lamb and cheeses free of artificial coloring. The ultimate effect of this system, however, is a backlog in possessing the books I'd like to read.
Finally, however, the fates aligned. I was travelling to Iowa on what I expected to be a gloriously grocery-focused trip. But my cooler broke as I was carrying it to the truck that we would drive to our local airport. There wasn't time to fix it. I was sad, of course, as I had been anticipating all the pork I was going to return with from Iowa. But I consoled myself with all those Iowa cookbooks I could now carry, and resolved not to prolong any lamentations over the cooler. And, oh, did I find myself lugging around a heavy library - such hours did I spend in Powells (there was a 1 week layover in Oregon) and Iowa City's bookstores. The day before we left Iowa, Nate told me about how much he enjoyed this book. His description renewed my interest, and I committed myself to buying a copy before we left. But, alas, we ran out of time. We didn't make it to a bookstore. It was sadder than the last-minute loss of the cooler. So when we arrived in Chicago, and had a few minutes to wait for the connecting flight to Alaska, and our gate was right next to a book kiosk, and I was pretty sure there was just enough room in my carry-on to squeeze in one more book - it was this book that I grabbed.
I raced through it. Loving each chapter. I really can't recommend it enough. A fun read, for those who like to be entertained by books. Informative too, for those that like to read for knowledge, thought, and/or discourse. But what elevates it to favorite is that it alters perception and challenges assumptions. For what it's worth, I have no regrets that I carried this book rather than Iowa pork.....and I can think of no finer testament to a good book. Then again, most of my entertainment these days revolves around pickling turnips. So if turnips aren't your thing, feel free to take my recommendation with a grain of salt....but you should still read this book.(less)
Levitt makes the lofty claim that economics is not swayed by moral sensibilities - it's a pure numbers game of course! However, not knowing much about him beyond his affiliation with the University of Chicago and what was written in the book, I can surmise that he is conservative, or at least what today would be inappropriately labeled "moderate." Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily...or at least I don't view it that way. Does it affect his conclusions? Absolutely. Levitt assume...moreLevitt makes the lofty claim that economics is not swayed by moral sensibilities - it's a pure numbers game of course! However, not knowing much about him beyond his affiliation with the University of Chicago and what was written in the book, I can surmise that he is conservative, or at least what today would be inappropriately labeled "moderate." Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily...or at least I don't view it that way. Does it affect his conclusions? Absolutely. Levitt assumes his assertion that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the drop in crime experienced in the 1990s is the most controversial in the book, but I was not bothered by that conclusion at all. What did raise my ire a bit was his statement that "Minorities commit more crimes." Perhaps the pure numbers seem to show so, but upon closer examination and more careful thought, one might conclude that minorities are simply arrested and convicted more often. In many cases, Levitt does delve into the deeper "behind the scenes" reasons for why things happen, but in this glaring example, he delves no further than to admit that poverty might have a link to crime commission, and with more minorities in poverty more of them commit crimes. Might it also have a link to crime conviction? The white suburban kid who can afford a long and arduous defense, or whose father knows someone who can get the kid out of a jam, has a much better chance of having his case dismissed than a poor minority kid assigned a public defender (not to say that public defenders don't do good work - in fact many of them are some of the most amazing lawyers out there). Suffice to say the system is stacked against people in poverty and minorities, and Levitt fails to fully acknowledge this in his discussion of what causes and helps prevent crime. I wasn't so much angry as I was disappointed. When one of the brightest minds in our country can't see beyond his own prejudices, where is the hope for the rest of us? Levitt might be a genius, but he is woefully culturally incompetent. (less)
EwlewisElise you should reasearch Disproportionate Minority Contact. This a field that many justice systems are attmpting to address. I believe you basic pre...moreElise you should reasearch Disproportionate Minority Contact. This a field that many justice systems are attmpting to address. I believe you basic premise of minorities having greater contact with the justice system is accurate, however, some of your conclusion are pure observations and not substantiated. Love the insight nontheless.(less)
Aug 04, 2011 12:07pm
EliseEwlewis - thanks for the recommendation! I agree that my conclusions are based only on articles I've read and what I've observed generally in my work...moreEwlewis - thanks for the recommendation! I agree that my conclusions are based only on articles I've read and what I've observed generally in my work as a Legal Aid attorney representing people in poverty - I definitely don't claim to be a sociologist. I'll be sure to check out that book.(less)
Aug 04, 2011 02:50pm
Sure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap.
He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives.
Ultimately I have a problem with the unques...moreSure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap.
He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives.
Ultimately I have a problem with the unquestioned, unaccoutable role of the public intellectual. Leavitt dances around with his PhD on his sleeve, but is never subject to peer review or any sort of academic criticism. I think it's irresponsible. (less)
An engaging read but not necessarily the scintillating, mind-blowing experience it had been hyped as.
Levitt and Dubner present their arguments well and their style makes the at-times daunting subject matter easier to approach and thus easier to digest. I don't read much non-fiction (for example) and even less stuff about economics but I found this book quick to get through and I was able to take away their message without having to labor through it.
That said, a few point...moreAn engaging read but not necessarily the scintillating, mind-blowing experience it had been hyped as.
Levitt and Dubner present their arguments well and their style makes the at-times daunting subject matter easier to approach and thus easier to digest. I don't read much non-fiction (for example) and even less stuff about economics but I found this book quick to get through and I was able to take away their message without having to labor through it.
That said, a few points:
(1) They make some outrageous claims. To their credit, these claims appear to be backed up by the data. Their rhetoric is frequently hyperbolic though. At times it takes some patience to get the point of a given chapter. The arc tends to go like this: outrageous claim > brief discussion of that claim > discussion of parallel claim > presentation of data > analysis of data > tie them together > see if you can tear down the argument via convention wisdom > oops, conventional wisdom falls under scrutiny of the data. That said, the style makes it easy to break chapters up into small read-it-on-the-can chunks; if you read it that way, prepare to bite your tongue on any given objection until you have finished.
(2) In light of #1: Levitt keeps mentioning that he's not much of an economist and even poorer with his math. But there's a lot of math in here. (Presented in a friendly, non-mathematical sort of way, but math nonetheless.) So... Is he just putting us on? Or (as A. would say) is it that "stats" aren't "math"?
(3) Also in light of #1: I would like to have seen more of the data. We get a lot of "xx% decrease" and "such-and-such quadrupled" but the figures themselves are obfuscated. There is an extensive appendix of notes at the end of the book which references specific articles; I'm assuming the "hard numbers" are in those articles. But my own background (i.e., bio-psych research papers) biases me to expect a more explicit presentation of those data. So that was disappointing.
(4) Levitt & Dubner allege at the beginning of the book that there is no unifying theme. That's more/less crap. The unifying theme seems to be: here are some microeconomics, mostly having to do with crime and/or corruption (see also: crime).
(5) The "Revised & Expanded Edition" was touted to me as essential because of all the additional articles and re-published blog posts etc. that are now included in this binding. I was a bit under-whelmed by these. They were certainly interesting and they do help illuminate aspects of the text but I didn't necessarily believe that they were essential. (The revisions vis-à-vis Stetson Kennedy's KKK research however: very essential.)(less)
There is one segment of this book that reports use of a dataset I know very well -- the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data. From what details they put into the book, it's fairly clear that the researchers did not research the reliability of the data elements they chose to use from FARS. In particular, their analysis rests on the ability to identify uninjured children in vehicles that were involved in fatal crashes. FARS has data elements for this, but t...moreYes, zero stars.
There is one segment of this book that reports use of a dataset I know very well -- the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data. From what details they put into the book, it's fairly clear that the researchers did not research the reliability of the data elements they chose to use from FARS. In particular, their analysis rests on the ability to identify uninjured children in vehicles that were involved in fatal crashes. FARS has data elements for this, but the reliability of the data in those data elements is suspect at best. If you go back beyond around 2002's data, you are missing quite a bit of data. And the data errors are not randomly distributed. In other words, it's not a usable dataset for the purpose it was put to.
It's a rookie mistake. We all make them from time to time. But, when you are going out on a limb and finding results that directly contradict the "prevailing wisdom" I believe you have a responsibility to check your work thoroughly and not just rely on peer review -- especially if you submit your work to publications where the reviewers are likely to share your ignorance on a particular data set.
In short, the way the child safety seat data were handled in this body of work makes me suspect that the entire work is similarly filled with errors that are understandable in a novice, but inexcusable in someone promoting himself as a "rogue" anything.
This book has some good lessons in how to analyze data and ask the right questions. Were it not for the grievous flaws detailed below it would have merited a much higher rating.
The fourth chapter, Where Have All the Criminals Gone?, draws a link between the fall of American crime in the 1990s and the legalization abortion in 1973, saying that crime fell due to the fact that all the potential criminals have been aborted. Whether or not this is correct, and he does provide some...moreThis book has some good lessons in how to analyze data and ask the right questions. Were it not for the grievous flaws detailed below it would have merited a much higher rating.
The fourth chapter, Where Have All the Criminals Gone?, draws a link between the fall of American crime in the 1990s and the legalization abortion in 1973, saying that crime fell due to the fact that all the potential criminals have been aborted. Whether or not this is correct, and he does provide some compelling evidence, It does not justify the murder of an innocent human being (and an unborn baby IS human: http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medica... and the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88...).
The introduction to the chapter attempts to brush off the numerous disputes people have had with this particular chapter. They paint a nonthreatening, fair-minded picture of Levitt (the author) saying, "He has little taste for politics and even less for moralizing. He is genial, low key and unflappable, confident but not cocky." (p.115) While this may be all very well and good it does nothing to address the key issue or the false assumptions he bases his claims off of.
The first part of the chapter describes the 1966 Romanian abortion ban which was "designed to achieve one of his [Ceausescu's, the communist dictator at the time] major aims: rapidly strengthen Romania by boosting its population... government agents sardonically known as the Menstrual Police regularly rounded up women in their workplaces to administer pregnancy tests. If a woman repeatedly failed to conceive, she was forced to pay a steep 'celibacy tax.'" (page 118)
Levitt is subtly attempting to demonize abortion bans (which we must recall is actually banning murder) by lumping it with the actual injustices taking place. He does not recognize what the communist regime had done was merely reverse the sides of the issue (or the sides of the womb, if you will): they were protecting the child within the womb, but not outside of the womb. Upon birth the child’s rights were being taken away because the state merely saw the human being as a tool to be indoctrinated and used for their purposes without any respect of their rights. The oppressive regime was invading the people's right to conceive when they want to, as well as the other injustices which typically follow from the communist ideal.
A government has every right to outlaw murder in order to protect its people’s right to life but it has an obligation to protect the rest of their rights as well.
Levitt describes how the communist dictator was eventually deposed the remarks, "Ceausescu met a violent death... by the youth of Romania - a great number of whom, were it not for his abortion ban, would never have been born at all." So it is more desirable to continue murdering children in the womb rather than have potential revolutionaries in our midst? Somehow the logic doesn't quite fit.
As the book describes the process through Roe v. Wade which made abortion legal he says, "The Supreme Court gave voice to watch the mothers in Romania and Scandinavia- and elsewhere- had a known: when a mother or does not want to have a child, she usually has a good reason." (pp.137-138) He then goes on to list many such reasons such as being too poor, unstable or unhappy, thinking that drugs or drinking will damage the baby's health, etc. Levitt has long since left fair-mindedness and logical debate behind and is proposing the "unwantedness" argument for abortion. If a child is unwanted it should not be born and the mother has every right to say so.
'It doesn't work for the simple fact that no one makes such an argument about children after birth. Whoever heard Planned Parenthood or the National Organization for Women (NOW) argue that it would be better to kill children waiting for adoption rather than let them suffer through an "unwanted" life? If someone's right to life truly were established or removed based simply on their "wantedness", that would be the death knell of homeless men and women around the nation.' (entire rebuttle here: http://abort73.com/HTML/I-D-1-unwantedne... ).
The book also claims, "Legalized abortion lead to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime: legalized abortion, therefore, lead to less crime." (p.139) The rebuttle: 'Imagine that, human beings being executed for crimes they may commit in the future. That's a frightening social policy. Abortion is not good for America. In the broadest sense, it teaches us that violence is an acceptable way to deal with difficult life problems. It teaches us that human beings are only valuable if they meet certain criteria, and it teaches us that the strong have a legal right to kill the weak. You needn't look far to find the connection. When the unique value of individual human life is trampled upon, society suffers. Since 1973, when abortion was federally legalized, child abuse has not decreased, child neglect has not decreased, homicide against children has not decreased. Abortion has not solved these problems, but it very well may be feeding the ideology that leads to them.' (entire rebuttle here: http://abort73.com/HTML/I-H-1-facts.html )
The end of the chapter (pp. 143-144)states it is matter of belief about whether life begins at conception or not (which we have established is false) and proceeds to consider a scenario where one newborn baby's value can be equated to 100 fetuses. Levitt then quantifies the roughly 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year as equal to the loss of 15,000 human lives to homicide each year.
While the book claims to be fair-minded it is dangerously pro-death, glorifies abortion as a crime reducer, and arrives at its conclusions on false assumptions.
(less)
MichaelAt no point did the authors make any statement in favor of abortion. Sounds to me like once you took a look at the data, you came to a conclusion tha...moreAt no point did the authors make any statement in favor of abortion. Sounds to me like once you took a look at the data, you came to a conclusion that felt wrong for your own morals and decided to lash out against the entire premise of the book. In other words, you missed the point.(less)
Mar 02, 2011 04:45pm
RuthThis is not a review of the book. It's a platform for you to voice your opinion on abortion. The author did not condemn or condone abortion - he me...moreThis is not a review of the book. It's a platform for you to voice your opinion on abortion. The author did not condemn or condone abortion - he merely said that it contributed to a falling crime rate. Your review therefore seems rather unfair.(less)
May 23, 2011 02:47am
I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 2...moreI loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.
Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.
The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.
I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.
(less)
Economics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don't need to be...moreEconomics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don't need to be so mysterious: they could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt traces the drop in violent crime rates to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from inner-city Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald's, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don't really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. These enlightening chapters are separated by effusive passages from Dubner's 2003 profile of Levitt in The New York Times Magazine, which led to the book being written. In a book filled with bold logic, such back-patting veers Freakonomics, however briefly, away from what Levitt actually has to say. Although maybe there's a good economic reason for that too, and we're just not getting it yet. --John Moe (From Amazon)
______________________________
Forget your image of an economist as a crusty professor worried about fluctuating interest rates: Levitt focuses his attention on more intimate real-world issues, like whether reading to your baby will make her a better student. Recognition by fellow economists as one of the best young minds in his field led to a profile in the New York Times, written by Dubner, and that original article serves as a broad outline for an expanded look at Levitt's search for the hidden incentives behind all sorts of behavior. There isn't really a grand theory of everything here, except perhaps the suggestion that self-styled experts have a vested interest in promoting conventional wisdom even when it's wrong. Instead, Dubner and Levitt deconstruct everything from the organizational structure of drug-dealing gangs to baby-naming patterns. While some chapters might seem frivolous, others touch on more serious issues, including a detailed look at Levitt's controversial linkage between the legalization of abortion and a reduced crime rate two decades later. Underlying all these research subjects is a belief that complex phenomena can be understood if we find the right perspective. Levitt has a knack for making that principle relevant to our daily lives, which could make this book a hit. Malcolm Gladwell blurbs that Levitt "has the most interesting mind in America," an invitation Gladwell's own substantial fan base will find hard to resist. 50-city radio campaign.
(From Publishers Weekly)(less)
+ A fun foray into seemingly dissimilar questions about society, readable
- Cumbersome transitions at times, dismisses other arguments in suspect ways
This was a good-enough non-fiction read, though I think it does illustrate the idea that a bestseller may be appealing without being rigorous. As companion pieces, read Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference and Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking; Gladwell addresses some topics in...more+ A fun foray into seemingly dissimilar questions about society, readable
- Cumbersome transitions at times, dismisses other arguments in suspect ways
This was a good-enough non-fiction read, though I think it does illustrate the idea that a bestseller may be appealing without being rigorous. As companion pieces, read Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference and Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking; Gladwell addresses some topics in common with Freakonomics and though one may also question his accuracy, he is a better writer.
Accuracy is a bit hard to evaluate here, since the methodology and statistics aren't described. My impression is that there is an over-reliance on correlation and that at times it is confused with causality. In addition, the justification for calling this research "economic" rather than "sociological," for example, seems to be the conversion of what we might understand as "psychological motivation" into "economic incentive." I'm not opposed to this, but when I consider how to design some of these correlational studies from my perspective as a psychologist, I wouldn't do anything different (other than underscore more firmly in my popular reporting that correlation is not causality). I question what appears to be mystique-building on the authors' part in this regard.
Each chapter is preceded by an annoying, self-aggrandizing excerpt about Levitt from one of Dubner's articles. I found these really offputting and was glad to learn that they have been removed from the revised edition, apparently because I was not alone in finding them irksome.
Like all reports of statistics describing a large number of participants, these reports provide, at best, generalizations about how the majority of those surveyed or observed behave (or so I assume--measures of central tendency were not reported, nor was the degree of significance in most cases). As anyone who does not have 2.3 children knows, statistical samples tell us about a fictional person. I remind you of the joke about the three statisticians who go deer-hunting. They spy a magnificent buck and the first statistician exclaims, "It's mine!" BANG! Her bullet goes two yards to the left of the deer. "No, it's mine!" calls the second. BANG! Her bullet goes two yard to the right, and the third statistician yells, "Bullseye!" This book would be more interesting, and more useful, if it told us something about the range and tails of the distribution in each study, giving the reader a better understanding of human experience, or, as our unique and individual experiences are known to statisticians, "error."(less)
There are at least two ways you can read Freakanomics – as a fun and interesting little book that uses data to tell us little things about ourselves and the world. Or, you can see it as econometrics gone apeshit and finally taking over the world. I kind of view it as both.
That said, I really enjoyed reading this. I think Levitt has developed some useful tools that can tell us some interesting stuff about the way little corners of our world are organized. I also think it is a little b...moreThere are at least two ways you can read Freakanomics – as a fun and interesting little book that uses data to tell us little things about ourselves and the world. Or, you can see it as econometrics gone apeshit and finally taking over the world. I kind of view it as both.
That said, I really enjoyed reading this. I think Levitt has developed some useful tools that can tell us some interesting stuff about the way little corners of our world are organized. I also think it is a little bit batty to think we can use economic models to prove a causal relationship between abortion laws and crime rates. There might be something there, but in order to come to a conclusion about two subjects so complex, Levitt must have had to control for so many other factors that I doubt his research is all that reliable. In comparison, the section on the economics of the street level drug trade is fascinating and probably close to accurate. The researchers were looking at a relatively small data set, sure, but I think it is still probably tells us at something useful about how that world works.
I guess what I find most interesting about this one is the effect it has had on the culture. Economics is so hot right now. Everyone is into it, it is the undergraduate degree on the rise and plenty of those kids decided they liked economics by reading Levitt’s book. I am not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, but it is definitely a trend we can track, at least in part to this book. In the end this is a fast fun and diverting read, but don’t take it too seriously, cause I am pretty sure some of these finding are bunk.(less)
After packing 5 books for my trip, I found myself sitting in the Philadelphia airport with nothing to read. My mom, instead of buying me Remember Me? or Change of Heart, handed me her copy of Freakonomics: A rough Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
Freakonomics was a great back-up book. It was witty, insightful, and really made me think. What does the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real-estate agents? Why do drug dealers still liv...moreAfter packing 5 books for my trip, I found myself sitting in the Philadelphia airport with nothing to read. My mom, instead of buying me Remember Me? or Change of Heart, handed me her copy of Freakonomics: A rough Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
Freakonomics was a great back-up book. It was witty, insightful, and really made me think. What does the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real-estate agents? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? Where have all the criminals gone? What makes a schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? How perfect Roshanda by any other name smell as sweet? parents?
Freakonomics attempts to tell us along with a few other tidbits of information, like:
“In the world of online dating, a heedful of blond hair on a woman is worth about the same as having a college degree-and, with a $100 dye job versus a $100,000 tuition bill, an awful lot cheaper.” {pg. 83}
{Forget college and law school! All I really need to do is head on down to CVS Pharmacy or Walgreen’s in order to get my MRS degree.}
“Chemistry is best left to chemists.” {pg. 109}}
“The likelihood of any given person being killed in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally smaller than the likelihood that the same person will clog up his arteries with fatty food and die of heart disease.” {pg. 151}
“Obsessive parents know who they are and are generally proud of the fact; non-obsessive parents also know who the obsessive are and tend to snicker at them.” {pg. 153)(less)
Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find fac...moreThe Basics:
Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find facts to back up various assertions rather than relying on conventional wisdom.
The Good:
As a person who is sick of the inability of most people to have a rational discourse on any even vaguely politicized topic, and a self-proclaimed skeptic, it’s nice to read anyone who endorses looking at hard data to make judgments about possibly controversial issues. Levitt does a nice job of not only proclaiming the advantages of this sort of rational outlook, but also of showing that when you actually examine the data, you sometimes get surprising results. Furthermore, he takes the time to point out that there is a difference between correlation and causation, and that many people mistake one for the other. Again, a nice touch.
The actual questions that Levitt asks are all fairly interesting, though some will appeal to certain readers more than others. In addition to cheating sumotori and strange names, Levitt also examines cheating teachers, the economics of crack dealers, and the effect of abortion on crime. Crime, in point of fact, seems to be Levitt’s greatest interest, and I wonder if he might not have been better served by writing an entire book on the relationship between economics and crime, as opposed to trying to touch on a number of different subjects that are all largely unrelated. It might have made for a tighter, more focused book.
The writing is solid; simple and easy, but solid. Despite being a book about economics, it’s not a terribly dense read, as witnessed by the fact that I finished it off in about two days. Granted, it was two days of heavy reading, but it was still two days.
The Bad:
For a book that’s so gung ho about statistics, there aren’t many statistics in here. Levitt claims that the numbers back up his research, but he rarely provides the data itself, which makes it difficult to tell how much he might be manipulating statistics to serve his own ends. It makes the book seem like it’s been dumbed down for the plebian masses, which will be very frustrating to any intelligent reader who wants to look at Levitt’s data themselves. Any reader who doesn’t feel like reading the numbers can do what most of us did in undergrad—skip the numbers sections. It’s just sloppy; I can’t imagine Levitt would do this in a formal economics paper.
The book also lacks much in the way of an unifying theme, a problem that is acknowledged within the text itself; that isn’t only sad, it’s sloppy. I doubt that a writer of Dubner’s skill and an economist of Levitt’s apparent genius (more on that below) are totally incapable of thinking of and describing some kind of unifying theme throughout this work. It just smacks of laziness, even more so when there’s a half-hearted “well, I guess you could say it’s this…” sort of thing in the epilogue. Again, I have trouble imagining that Levitt would submit a paper that was this disjointed to a serious economic publication; why should the general public be treated less seriously?
The Ugly:
The self-aggrandizement. Oh, the self-aggrandizement.
Every chapter is preceded by excerpts from an article about Levitt, which all tell us what a brilliant and unconventional economist this man is. In the introduction, we’re told that he really wasn’t that interested in writing a book, unless he got to work with this wonderful journalist who had written an article about him earlier. The cover promises that we will be “dazzled” by a “rogue economist” who explains “the hidden side of everything.”
For all of this talk of brilliance and dazzling explanations, the book doesn’t seem that brilliant. It seems like a transcript of some interesting dinner conversation with a smart guy, the sort that makes you go home and think, “hey, this stuff is interesting, I ought to go pick up a book about it.” Of course, the problem here is that you’ve already picked up the book.
The fact that Levitt wasn’t that interested in writing a book in the first place is telling; this book feels like something written by a person who needed to get the work done, but really wasn’t engaged in what he was doing. Maybe he should have waited until he was a little more motivated.(less)
I read Freakonomics last year, but I've continued to enjoy it more and more as I share parts of it with my English classes. It's a great nonfiction work to bring into the classroom, and the way it's divided into independent chapters makes it easy to do so. Kids who in general do not read find this writer's hypotheses (and proofs thereof) fascinating. Kids in general classes have asked me to borrow it.
The way the Steven Levitt is a "rogue economist" is ironic. Although I'm s...moreI read Freakonomics last year, but I've continued to enjoy it more and more as I share parts of it with my English classes. It's a great nonfiction work to bring into the classroom, and the way it's divided into independent chapters makes it easy to do so. Kids who in general do not read find this writer's hypotheses (and proofs thereof) fascinating. Kids in general classes have asked me to borrow it.
The way the Steven Levitt is a "rogue economist" is ironic. Although I'm sure the term applies to his unconventional topics (Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?, How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real estate agents?), to me he's different because he truly has no agenda except to express what his numbers tell him. Usually, when an author publishes a work researching controversial topics, he/she at least has some preconceived notions (if not an agenda) in mind. He/she wants to come to a conclusion that matches his/her beliefs/impressions of the world. So immediately, some level of objectivity is lost, because the research is biased from the beginning. We're all biased, after all.
However, the more one uses quantitative, rather than narrative (qualitative) data, the more convincing the findings become. Enter the economist. Finding out whether the decrease in crime rates during the 90's has anything to do with when Roe vs/ Wade went down and exactly who was born since then, to most people, is immediately going to evoke an emotional reaction. Not this guy. He just follows the numbers and comes to some startling conclusions, whatever they may be. I'm convinced he does it with that ever-elusive "view from nowhere," and that's refreshing.
The most interesting part of this book was the introduction. Sad, but true.
Four stars for presentation. The prose is nearly invisible, which I suppose in this genre is preferable to the alternative. And the content is mildly interesting, in a "Huh. Wouldja look at that" sort of way, as though you saw a duck waddling through your back yard with jam on its head.
But insofar as it's meant to be the vehicle for a larger framework for viewing the world, this book is o...moreThe most interesting part of this book was the introduction. Sad, but true.
Four stars for presentation. The prose is nearly invisible, which I suppose in this genre is preferable to the alternative. And the content is mildly interesting, in a "Huh. Wouldja look at that" sort of way, as though you saw a duck waddling through your back yard with jam on its head.
But insofar as it's meant to be the vehicle for a larger framework for viewing the world, this book is old news. You mean shit's connected in weird, roundabout ways? Get out. Conventional wisdom is often wrong? Superficial analyses are lazy and innacurate? My head...is spinning.
Exceeds the hype! Easy breezy to read, a wealth of information that I would never have stopped to contemplate. I had just read the chapter on the KKK and the real estate agent when my car was totaled; it helped me choose a posture with the insurance adjusters that wouldn't result in a total ass-raping. The last chapter about names was simultaneously horrifying and hilarious. It is dismaying to confess, now, that I am more judgmental of people's names knowing the societal/economic trends behind t...moreExceeds the hype! Easy breezy to read, a wealth of information that I would never have stopped to contemplate. I had just read the chapter on the KKK and the real estate agent when my car was totaled; it helped me choose a posture with the insurance adjusters that wouldn't result in a total ass-raping. The last chapter about names was simultaneously horrifying and hilarious. It is dismaying to confess, now, that I am more judgmental of people's names knowing the societal/economic trends behind them. (less)
I assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up.
It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological ...moreI assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up.
It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological explanations for black criminality and low IQ scores. The writers of this book are also obsessively pro-Abortion. The only surprise was they used statistics to show you are much more likely to die from an automobile or a swimming pool than a gun. This book would probably appeal to upper middle class liberals who like to consider themselves clever and politically astute from their isolated armchairs. For me Freakonomics was a big load of garbage.(less)
One of the most interesting topics in Freakonomics, is that of bad assumptions in causality. These are made when people consider causality regarding a particular event, and they making assumptions that are affected by factors such as self-interest, prejudice, common sense, etc. The book shows that when the right questions are asked and their answers are searched in a bigger context, some unrelated causes may happen to trigger the original event. An example from the book is how crime rate had fal...moreOne of the most interesting topics in Freakonomics, is that of bad assumptions in causality. These are made when people consider causality regarding a particular event, and they making assumptions that are affected by factors such as self-interest, prejudice, common sense, etc. The book shows that when the right questions are asked and their answers are searched in a bigger context, some unrelated causes may happen to trigger the original event. An example from the book is how crime rate had fallen in the US during the mid-90’s after years of increasing and contrary to the most predictions. The authors noted that legalizing abortion in 1973, which is totally unrelated to crime, is what mainly led to the fall in crime rate. They argue that most unwanted children who are most likely to have criminal tendencies, were not born anymore because of the said legalization. Most people would assume that crime rate had fallen because of the strong economy or because of new police strategies or whatever. But when you look at the bigger picture, the real chain of events may begin to materialize. The book helps knowing how to differentiate good assumptions from the bad ones. A very helpful tool in this is the study of incentives.
People respond to anything according to their incentives. An incentive can range from money to something as vague as inner peace. In the previous example, treasury people will want to believe that a strong economy helped bringing crime rates down. The police chief will most likely convince himself and other people that his new police strategies are the major contributor to the fall. Some may think that God intervened and helped. This may seem a very simple idea, but when it comes to everyday life, everyone’s incentive is not that clear. An example to this is that of real estate agents. The book demonstrates how real-estate agents will in all likelihood convince you to sell your house at a price that they would not approve if they were themselves the owners of your house. Their explanation is quite simple and plausible: When you're the owner of the house, an increase of 10000$ means a mere couple of hundred dollars for the agent, whereas that is not the case when the agent is the owner.
I’m not an expert in the field, but I believe that statistical analysis and its implications are not always applicable on the individual level because it cannot make cut and dry conclusions, and we don't like that individually. Maybe it can help us be more observant, but that has significant side effects, with the most probable one being confusion. The authors claim that the book will help people individually, but I think it can be of much help to corporations or groups.
Another problem I've realized is the correlation of data, which may lead to contradicting outcomes as happened in this very book. In one study, the authors show that parents with high income are most likely to raise a successful kid. Yet, in another study near the end of the book they show that the parents’ economic status does not affect their child’s success in life at all, since other factors may be at play. I know that in statistics, it is very natural that individual cases may contradict with one another which is something inherent in the nature of statistics, but when entire statistical outcomes contradict, I think the method used can fairly be deemed inefficient.
This was much more enjoyable than reliable, except for the last chapter about names which I believe was a total waste of time. I think that rather than providing anything new, the book is a practical training about a much older wisdom, the maxim of Cassius, which was quoted by Cicero: Cui bono? (less)
This makes a second non-fiction hit read that I am coming to years late. The subject material is fascinating and told in a clean, straightforward, and engrossing fashion. Also, it was surprisingly short. The result felt to me like being given three clocked minutes to pile my plate as high as possible at some fabulous and fantastical buffet. How could I be satisfied with what ended up on my plate? I wanted to keep geeking out on the factoidal threads, and would have welcomed a book twice the leng...moreThis makes a second non-fiction hit read that I am coming to years late. The subject material is fascinating and told in a clean, straightforward, and engrossing fashion. Also, it was surprisingly short. The result felt to me like being given three clocked minutes to pile my plate as high as possible at some fabulous and fantastical buffet. How could I be satisfied with what ended up on my plate? I wanted to keep geeking out on the factoidal threads, and would have welcomed a book twice the length.
Despite the fact that Freakonomics insists that it has no unifying theme, there are some solid takeaways. This book presents as good an argument as any I've seen that a) careful statistical assessment destroys anecdotal evidence* every time, b) humans are temporally myopic -- we're simply not good at tracing causes that go too far out of our memory or sight, and c) this is my own personal gloss on the material, but economics and statistics are the weird and wonderful place where the qualitative meets the quantitative. Trying to understand things just through numbers or just through logical notions doesn't get you nearly as far as a deft synthesis of the two.
That said, the part of the book that I found least persuasive were the bits where the camera pulled back, and the author tried to talk about what economics and, specifically, the work of microeconomics wunderkind Steven Levitt means. They come across as vague encomiums of Levitt without illuminating the subject matter much or at all.
At the end of the day (or book, I suppose), what makes the book well worth reading are the fascinating peregrinations of the mind of Steven Levitt, and any complaints you have are likely to be that you didn't get enough of it: enough insights, enough details, enough marvelous, obscure, winding revelatory discourses into our everyday lives.
*And just last night I watched the Daily Show skewer news commentators who took the recent blizzards as evidence against global warning. Being in Australia proves global warming! Being in NYC disproves it! Being out at night proves global darkening! And so on.(less)
Great book! You can easily see why it is so popular. Lots of interesting stuff. Like this:
-Legalizing abortions led to a dramatic decrease in crime across the country (they are not condoning abortion, just pointing out an unexpected consequence of it)
-Car seats: "Car seats are, at best, nominally helpful. It is certainly safer to keep a child in the rear seat than sitting on a lap in the front seat, where in the event of an accident he essentially becomes a projectile. But the s...moreGreat book! You can easily see why it is so popular. Lots of interesting stuff. Like this:
-Legalizing abortions led to a dramatic decrease in crime across the country (they are not condoning abortion, just pointing out an unexpected consequence of it)
-Car seats: "Car seats are, at best, nominally helpful. It is certainly safer to keep a child in the rear seat than sitting on a lap in the front seat, where in the event of an accident he essentially becomes a projectile. But the safety to be gained here is from preventing the kids from riding shotgun, not from strapping them into a $200 car seat." Obviously car seats are still important and are safer for the child than not using one; the author was just pointing out that they weren't the main factor in decreasing the number of child deaths in car accidents. And it isn't airbags, either. "Fewer than five young children a year have been killed by airbags since their introduction."
-School choice in Chicago study: Statistically, the students gained no academic benefit by going to a "better" school. They continued to test at about the same levels as the students who were left at their neighborhood school. What mattered was whether or not the student wanted to go to a better school.
-The economics of acting white
It was neat that he is a professor at the University of Chicago (where my husband is going to school) because a lot of his research draws from Chicago-based studies. I read the first half of this book a year ago, and then had to return it to the library. I just got it again and finished the second half. So the second half is fresh in my mind and the first half is fading. I need to read it again.
And here are some things I want to remember (My own notes. And they're boring and long.):
The ECLS Study - Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
Eight factors that are strongly correlated with test scores:
-The child has highly educated parents
-The child's parents have high socioeconomic status
-The child's mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child's birth
-The child had low birth weight (negatively correlated)
-The child's parents speak English in the home
-The child is adopted (negatively correlated)
-The child's parents are involved in the PTA
-The child has many books in his home.
The Eight that are NOT correlated:
-The child's family is intact.
-The child's parents recently moved into a better neighborhood.
-The child's mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten
-The child attended Head Start
-The child's parents regularly take him to museums.
-The child is regularly spanked.
-The child frequently watches television. (No correlation between test scores and the amount of T.V. a child watches)
-The child's parents read to him nearly every day. (So surprising!)
Obviously there are other studies that have different results; but I found this interesting and informative.
The California Name Study of the 90s: The 20 "whitest" girl names: 1)Molly, 2)Amy, 3)Claire, 4)Emily, 5)Katie, 6)Madeline, 7)Katelyn, 8)Emma, 9)Abigail, 10)Carly, 11)Jenna, 12)Heather, 13)Katherine, 14)Caitlin, 15)Kaitlin, 16)Holly, 17)Allison, 18)Kaitlyn, 19)Hannah, 20)Kathryn.
The 20 "blackest" girl names: Imani, Ebony, Shanice, Aaliyah, Precious, Nia, Deja, Diamond, Asia, Aliyah, Jada, Tierra, Tiara, Kiara, Jazmine, Jasmin, Jasmine, Alexus, Raven.
The 20 "whitest boy names: Jake, Connor, Tanner, Wyatt, Cody, Dustin, Luke, Jack, Scott, Logan, Cole, Lucas, Bradley, Jacob, Garrett, Dylan, Maxwell, Hunter, Brett, Colin
The 20 "Blackest" boy names: DeShawn, DeAndre, Marquis, Darnell, Terrell, Malik, Trevon, Tyrone, Willie, Dominique, Demetrius, Reginald, Jamal, Maurice, Jalen, Darius, Xavier, Terrance, Andre, Darryl.
Interesting stuff!
The book also gave examples of how names move from upper-class to lower-class.
This was also interesting:
The 20 White Girl Names That Best Signify Low-Education Parents (from the 90s):
Angel, Heaven, Misty, Destiny, Brenda, Tabatha, Bobbie, Brandy, Destinee, Cindy, Jazmine, Shyanne, Britany, Mercedes, Tiffanie, Ashly, Tonya, Crystal, Brandie, Brandi.
The 20 White Girl Names That Best Signify High-Education Parents: Lucienne, Marie-Claire, Glynnis, Adair, Meira, Beatrix, Clementine, Philippa, Aviva, Flannery, Rotem, Oona, Atara, Linden, Waverly, Zofia, Pascale, Eleanora, Elika, Neeka. (crazy ones!)
The 20 White Boy Names That Best Signify Low-Education Parents: Ricky, Joey, Jessie, Jimmy, Billy, Bobby, Johnny, Larry, Edgar, Steve, Tommy, Tony, Micheal, Ronnie, Randy, Jerry, Tylor, Terry, Danny, Harley
The 20 White Boy Names That Best Signify High-Education Parents: Dov, Akiva, Sander, Yannick, Sacha, Guillaume, Elon, Ansel, Yonah, Tor, Finnegan, MacGregor, Florian, Zev, Beckett, Kia, Ashkon, Harper, Sumner, Calder
I love learning about names so I found that chapter very interesting.(less)
I'm a little bit late to the party on this one, I realize. I'd heard so much about "Freakonomics" that there didn't seem to be much point in actually reading it. But I had a prolonged airport experience yesterday and devoured the whole thing.
I hadn't realized Steven Levitt had lost a child, and knowing that changed the way I looked at a lot of his ideas. Even thought I had heard many of the arguments Levitt makes before reading the book, I found his ideas compelling and provocati...moreI'm a little bit late to the party on this one, I realize. I'd heard so much about "Freakonomics" that there didn't seem to be much point in actually reading it. But I had a prolonged airport experience yesterday and devoured the whole thing.
I hadn't realized Steven Levitt had lost a child, and knowing that changed the way I looked at a lot of his ideas. Even thought I had heard many of the arguments Levitt makes before reading the book, I found his ideas compelling and provocative. His argument that legalizing abortion lowered crime rates is especially fascinating, but hard to decide what to do with. I guess that's the tension between economics and morality.
I also loved the anecdote about Rod Blagojevich proposing the state mail books to every child in Illinois, as this was mentioned in some of the recent scandal coverage.
The writing is excellent, and it's nice to see a first-rate journalist and a first-rate thinker collaborate in this way. It also warmed my heart to hear a brilliant economist say he's not much good at math. If you are behind even me in reading this, you should.(less)
A fun, easy and fairly illuminating read. As the title indicates an economist uses a crapload of statistics to explain random things from the abrupt drop in crime over the 1990's, to the increase in cheating teachers, to the true effectiveness of various parenting methods. As they say, "the numbers don't lie" and when you examine the various stats in an (apparently) apples-to-apples method, it's pretty compelling stuff. Of course the most incendiary point made in the book is that it...moreA fun, easy and fairly illuminating read. As the title indicates an economist uses a crapload of statistics to explain random things from the abrupt drop in crime over the 1990's, to the increase in cheating teachers, to the true effectiveness of various parenting methods. As they say, "the numbers don't lie" and when you examine the various stats in an (apparently) apples-to-apples method, it's pretty compelling stuff. Of course the most incendiary point made in the book is that it was the legalization of ABORTION that led to the aforementioned crime drop because, quite simply, women who were ultimately going to end up being bad mothers raising kids more prone to crime, DIDN'T have those babies and then 20 years later those kids DIDN'T grow up to be the criminals that they were statistically likely to become.
So it's a pretty intriguing read, though you do have to take everything with a grain of salt since the full version of the previous quote is "the numbers don't lie but they can confuse." Who knows what data wasn't used (or simply didn't exist) in various chapters. In the parenting chapter, for example, the author goes to great lengths to show that all the various things you do to make yourself a better parent (reading to your kids, staying home with them, taking them to museums) have no real effect on their academic performance... though it says nothing (and really can't say anything for lack of concrete data) about what kind of PERSON your kid will grow up to be of the kind of relationship you'll foster via these methods.
All in all though, worth the read from a purely "interesting things to think about" perspective.(less)
This is the second book I've read in my attempt to "get a handle" on economics. It's probably reflective of my overdeveloped humanities background that I need to read books to figure this stuff out, but so be it....
Anyhow, where I thought that the other book I read earlier was too shy of what you could do with economics beyond conceptualizing and measuring the GDP, this one kind of errs in the other direction, uncovering, as the title says, the hidden side of everything, bu...moreThis is the second book I've read in my attempt to "get a handle" on economics. It's probably reflective of my overdeveloped humanities background that I need to read books to figure this stuff out, but so be it....
Anyhow, where I thought that the other book I read earlier was too shy of what you could do with economics beyond conceptualizing and measuring the GDP, this one kind of errs in the other direction, uncovering, as the title says, the hidden side of everything, but for me at least, doing it all behind a screen of obscurity so that I felt like I was watching a computer in an episode of the old Batman TV show, where you input random data and suddenly it tells you where Egghead will strike next. The stories this book tells, about the data and the conclusions, are deeply interesting. But I think an attempt to achieve mass appeal needlessly sacrificed all the math from this-- I mean, I couldn't do the math, but this book doesn't even admit there's math involved-- so that I felt sort of puzzled about the conclusions, and that made me want to argue with them, and on into a vicious circle.
In other words, a good book, but another one that gives a really limited view of the field. Next, I think, is a book on investment. I'm thinking _Are the Rich Necessary".... can anyone else suggest a different title?(less)
I've been wanting to read Freakonomics for many months and I think I've picked it up at a bookstore or grocery store at least a half dozen times without purchasing it. Finally, a week or so ago, I got it.
I guess I'll add yet-another voice to the choir that resounds there is not a unifying theme to this book. But, that's only a minor complaint.
FreakonomicsFreakonomics is written by award-winning economist Steven Levitt and award-winning author Stephen J. Dubner...more
I've been wanting to read Freakonomics for many months and I think I've picked it up at a bookstore or grocery store at least a half dozen times without purchasing it. Finally, a week or so ago, I got it.
I guess I'll add yet-another voice to the choir that resounds there is not a unifying theme to this book. But, that's only a minor complaint.
FreakonomicsFreakonomics is written by award-winning economist Steven Levitt and award-winning author Stephen J. Dubner. Without really knowing these two guys very well, I got the impression the end result (the book) is a combination of Levitt's geeky love of statistics and causal relationships and Dubner's pop-culture awareness. Either way, it's pretty good writing.
The book examines a number of surprising statistical relationships in unusual fields of study. For example, the first chapter asks, "What do schoolteachers and sumo-wrestlers have in common?" Yes. What? I've been wondering that since I was 10... not.
Each chapter asks an unusual question and then proceeds to break down the evidence until it arrives at the answer- and it's usually not one you expect.
Most people, when they think of economics or statistics, they immediately grab a pillow and a cup of warm milk. This book, on the other hand, is not a sleep-inducer. While there are a small number of data tables given, the reader does not need to dive into the data to understand what the authors are presenting. In fact, in the one case where data was used more heavily, the authors broke the data down row by row to explain their position.
I found myself reading the chapter on children's names ("Would a Roshanda by any Other Name Smell as Sweet?") out loud to my family because its findings (and predictions) were just fascinating to everyone.
The treatments on crime ("Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?" and "Where Have All The Criminals Gone?") really do an excellent job of making swiss cheese of what we call "conventional wisdom." Whether the results Levitt got from his studies are completely true or not, I think these chapters could be required reading for all kids because it really inspired me to wonder how much of what believe is factually true?
My biggest complaint about this book is that it ended too quickly. The edition I bought is the "revised and expanded" edition, which means the authors have reorganized the main chapters and have added some additional materail at the end of the book which includes articles written for the New York Times in conjunction with the book and a smattering of blog postings. While the extra material was somewhat interesting, I still felt the book was just too dang short!
Stephen Dubner's website states that he is working on another Freakonomics book with Levitt. I hope the next one is bigger because I think they've only touched the tip of the iceberg here.
In the extra material, the authors write a bit about "peak oil" and some of the problems with the theory from an economist's perspective. I hope they give this subject much more attention in their next book considering the price of oil was only about $60/barrel when they wrote about it and has since peaked at nearly $150/barrel since then.
(less)
This book wasn't bad, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It's a quick read and gives the feeling of learning interesting things while also not challenging your brain too much (which after a day of reading academic works in your non-native language, is definitely a GOOD thing).
Its drawbacks are the following. The first I realize isn't quite fair, because the authors come right out and state that the book isn't intended to have an overarching point. But it simply feels disjoined and, ult...moreThis book wasn't bad, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It's a quick read and gives the feeling of learning interesting things while also not challenging your brain too much (which after a day of reading academic works in your non-native language, is definitely a GOOD thing).
Its drawbacks are the following. The first I realize isn't quite fair, because the authors come right out and state that the book isn't intended to have an overarching point. But it simply feels disjoined and, ultimately, unsatisfying without one.
The second is the authors' lack of attention to systemic issues in the US that are directly related to some of the topics that they take up. In particular, I feel that systemic racism needs to be addressed in this book and it's not. On the one hand, I realize that what the authors are trying to do is to simply describe what's going on, rather than make moral judgements or prescriptions. I respect that and don't expect this book to be a treatise on the evils of systemic racism in the US, much as it would be personally gratifying for me to read that. At the same time, it feels like a rather large elephant in the room and deserves at least a little explanation as to why the authors choose NOT to address it in the context of the issues they take up.
My third sticking point is rather hard to nail down, but I felt an overwhelming male-ness and only a passive presence of women in the book. This is particularly weird because an entire chapter is spent on abortion. I realize that most economists are male, and basically every actor in this book is male, and that happens. But I had a creeping sense of the invisibility and passivity of women as portrayed in this book, and it nagged at me. It prevented me from really enjoying this book as I might have otherwise.
Overall, I feel like it is a fun read but was also filled with quite a few "no duh" moments - you don't say, people like in polls about how they are going to vote when race is part of the question? I wouldn't recommend to anyone not to read this book, but I would also recommend getting it from the library before making any kind of investment.(less)
The study of economics is not for everyone and that's probably a good thing. Most people have little to no experience with it whatsoever outside of one or two college classes that may have been prerequisites for your major of choice. It's not always an easy thing to understand and some of the results that are obtained can be difficult to swallow. Levitt, a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for the best American economist under forty and University of Chicago economics teacher, along with D...moreThe study of economics is not for everyone and that's probably a good thing. Most people have little to no experience with it whatsoever outside of one or two college classes that may have been prerequisites for your major of choice. It's not always an easy thing to understand and some of the results that are obtained can be difficult to swallow. Levitt, a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for the best American economist under forty and University of Chicago economics teacher, along with Dubner, author and writer for the New York Times and The New Yorker, use this book as a means to present some recent economic phenomena in terms that even the most lay of men can understand. Each chapter is devoted to a different economic theory that Levitt has developed and he spends quite some time explaining it in terms that are easy to grasp while making some completely wild parallels that, upon initial examination, seem wholly unfeasible. But, by the end of the chapter, make perfect sense. It's not everyday that you see schoolteachers compared to sumo wrestlers or the Ku Klux Klan likened to real estate agents. But, bear in mind that not all of Levitt's theories will be ones that you may be open to accepting. Some, despite how much proof he provides regarding their validity, are truly edgy and have already resulted in shocked disbelief from those who have read them. I felt this was a fantastic book that, despite me having no more than the college prerequisite exposure to economics, I found enthralling and thoroughly simple to understand.(less)
This is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.
The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people gi...moreThis is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.
The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people give their daughters crazier names than their sons.
The point of this book is to say that sometimes there are very interesting correlations between things that seem quite disparate. The big one (and I haven't checked, but I assume this one didn't go down terribly well with the religious right in America) was the idea that the drop in violent crime in the US was due to the drop in violent criminals and this was due to there being less people brought up in abject poverty which is due to people being able to have access to abortion and not bringing unwanted children into the world.
The comparisons between drug dealers and McDonalds as a corporate structure is now received wisdom - Obama quotes this in his book.
Overall this is a great little read and quite fun - but really, I can't think of a single book that was improved by self-congratulation.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Okay I listened to the audio version. Anything to keep me stress-free on the 105 freeway.
This book examined different variables that may seem on the surface unrelated, but in fact share a correlation. In some examples, the authors reveal situations that were connected, but not in the conventional sense. For example, many people posit that good students are the result of parents who expose them to trips to the museums, books, etc.; however, it is determined that it is the parent them...moreOkay I listened to the audio version. Anything to keep me stress-free on the 105 freeway.
This book examined different variables that may seem on the surface unrelated, but in fact share a correlation. In some examples, the authors reveal situations that were connected, but not in the conventional sense. For example, many people posit that good students are the result of parents who expose them to trips to the museums, books, etc.; however, it is determined that it is the parent themselves, not the technique that affect the child's academic success. That was kind of new to me, especially since my personal story would fall under the exception.
The chapter on teachers cheating on their student's test scores is very real (I work in education and have seen schools get their credentials revoked because of it), so I was glad that was discussed.
Freakonomics was eye-opening and got me thinking "outside of the box" (forgive the cliche) when trying to understand why some things are the way they are. Oftentimes the most obvious answer is the wrong answer. For instance, the author mentions that giving a child an "ethnic" name doesn't mean he/she will be unsuccessful, however, it may be the parents who gave the name were uneducated and poor and therefore the child may reflect that in adulthood. I have a friend who gave her children "white-sounding" names so they would fair better in life, and I laughed in her face when she told me. So according to Levitt I was right! In your face!
I found this book (the audio version) easy to digest and not way over my head which is relieving since I normally shy away from the subject of economics.
According to other reviewers "Naked Economics" is of the same caliber, so I think I will dive into that next.(less)
This was my first attempt in a while at reading non-fiction. It was a quick read, and the writing style was easily understandable by someone like myself who knows little about economics. The book is probably most famous for the chapter about how the Roe vs. Wade decision to legalize abortion caused a decrease in crime in the 90s. Not that it was the book's fault, but I felt like the premises of this argument had already been hammered into my brain through interviews with Levitt that I had see...moreThis was my first attempt in a while at reading non-fiction. It was a quick read, and the writing style was easily understandable by someone like myself who knows little about economics. The book is probably most famous for the chapter about how the Roe vs. Wade decision to legalize abortion caused a decrease in crime in the 90s. Not that it was the book's fault, but I felt like the premises of this argument had already been hammered into my brain through interviews with Levitt that I had seen on TV, words-of-mouth from other people, and reviews of the book I read prior to reading the book, almost to the point that reading the text itself felt redundant. However, one of the most interesting sections of the book was the part that dissected the organization of a crack gang in Chicago and showed how it is not unlike any other big business (with a handful of people at the top making most of the money, and the majority at the bottom making very little). I also liked the part where they discussed how a child's name is likely a reflection of his parents socioeconomic status and may affect how others perceive him, and his subsequent success, in the future. So true when I think about the people I know with the names he discussed! (However, I have yet to meet anyone named Madison) My only complaint was that the book maybe was too short, and it would have been nice to see their economics-in-laymans-terms analysis applied to more societal phenomena and conventional wisdom. Other than a few tidbits from their blog at the end, it seemed only about 5-6 topics were discussed at length. I am left craving more, but maybe I will check out their blog... (less)
[close]
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
isbn: 0060731338 isbn13: 9780060731335
format:
[close]
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Hardcover)
isbn: 006073132X isbn13: 9780060731328
format: Hardcover
[close]
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
isbn: 0141019018 isbn13: 9780141019017
format:
[close]
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Revised and Expanded Edition)
isbn: 0739482696 isbn13: 9780739482698
format:
[close]
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Paperback)
isbn: 0739462563 isbn13: 9780739462560
format: Paperback
Steven David "Steve" Levitt is a prominent American economist best known for his work on crime, in particular on the link between legalized abortion and crime rates. Winner of the 2003 John Bates Clark Medal, he is currently the Alvin H. Baum Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Graduate Sc...moreSteven David "Steve" Levitt is a prominent American economist best known for his work on crime, in particular on the link between legalized abortion and crime rates. Winner of the 2003 John Bates Clark Medal, he is currently the Alvin H. Baum Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and co-editor of the Journal of Political Economy published by the University of Chicago Press. He is one of the most well known economists amongst laymen, having co-authored the best-selling book Freakonomics (2005). Levitt was chosen as one of Time Magazine's "100 People Who Shape Our World" in 2006.
-Wikipedia(less)
“Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work, wheareas economics represents how it actually does work.”
—
38 people liked it
“Levitt admits to having the reading interests of a tweener girl, the Twilight series and Harry Potter in particular.”
—
5 people liked it
Loading...
view all 6 comments
![Freakonomics Rev Ed CD [Audiobook, Unabridged] (Audio CD)](http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-111x148.jpg "Freakonomics Rev Ed CD [Audiobook, Unabridged] (Audio CD)")
