Sofia’s review of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything > Likes and Comments
115 likes · Like
EW this author sounds umm... Biased? Disgusting? Incorrect? Conceded? I literally love your reviews they're so funny. Can you do a review on All the Bright Places? I've read it before but I'm having such a hard time rereading it could you give your perspective?
Sounds like a book to run from. I don't think I can take a chance on this one if I ever come across it just from what your review states.
Can't believe a book like this gets published and has such a high rating, is infuriating.
I wish there was haha smiley. People with iota of brain will understand that the authors are not presenting arguments on different subject but just throwing statistics and inferring from it.
The author comes off as some kind of Ben Shapiro type speaker. Acting like his own opinions & personal bias are actual fact when they are not.
I don’t think he does say reading books and taking your child to museums has no impact; he states that, when other variables are taken into account, it had little impact on test scores. Test scores are only one measurement of a child’s progress, and he acknowledges this. The biggest indicator of who reads every night to their child and who takes their child regularly to museums is the parents’ socio-economic background and education level: this is because lack of disposable income means getting to museums is more difficult and those on lower incomes tend to often work longer hours; those with low literacy levels are less likely to read to their children regularly. This is a statistical analysis; is about probability, not suggesting that there aren’t parents in low income brackets or with low education that do these things and have an impact. It is just that statistically, the vast majority of people who do these things regularly are not in that demographic. This is why it is really important for there to be funding for school trips and reading programs, and adult literacy projects. It would be interesting to compare these statistics with the beginning of the 20th century, when there was a big push on literacy, public libraries flourished and many places of work had book groups. Over time, libraries have been subject to reduced investment but they have also been given the reputation of being boring, stuffy and elitist. This has not been driven by libraries but by popular culture which stands to gain from people spending their time and money on other things. A recent report stated that the average age that a UK child gets a mobile phone is seven years old! It is far cheaper to get them a stack of library books, every two weeks, but if you are a parent who works when the library is open or you have awful memories of having to read at school, are you more likely to get the free books or use some of your hard-earned cash on a phone? These are the sorts of decisions the book is highlighting, which have a bigger impact and show us why the statistics are as they are. What I do think comes across in this book is the impact of poverty - and that is something we can do something about, if we choose to fund things properly.
I’m just starting the book but unless he actually said ones socioeconomic standing is the impudence then I’ll play devils advocate for a minute & say the most important part of raising a child IS “who u are”…the way u conduct yourself, ur vices, how u handle stress, ur tastes & values - they all have a far greater impact on a child than what u do or say. It’s akin to the saying “do as I say, not as I do” which doesn’t work with children.
Things are internalized & become part of our makeup at a young age. We often respond to stress the exact same way as our parents, develop many of their mannerisms, mental states, and vices (unless actively trying not to)- so being a well-adjusted adult who works to improve parts which may be unproductive or damaging will have a greater impact on a child’s upbringing than reading them 1,000 books ever could.
I just want to enjoy what Laura said because I think Sofia misrepresented the book. First, the main author was Dubner, it was him praising Leavitt in the chapter headings not Leavitt praising himself.
Second, the author made it clear that he wasn't trying to teach how to be a perfect parent. Like Laura said, he did point out a few misconceptions about what causes kids to have higher test scores based on test scores data.
Third he never argued that "nothing a parent does matters in the slightest." For the sake of repetition, he argued that many of the things parents do to try to help their kids in school don't have an observable impact on test scores.
For the record, I didn't love the book either. I just want to be fair in my critique of it.
*echo not enjoy. Really wish Goodreads would let you edit comments to correct typos haha
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Valerie
(new)
Jul 12, 2022 08:54PM
EW this author sounds umm... Biased? Disgusting? Incorrect? Conceded? I literally love your reviews they're so funny. Can you do a review on All the Bright Places? I've read it before but I'm having such a hard time rereading it could you give your perspective?
reply
|
flag
Sounds like a book to run from. I don't think I can take a chance on this one if I ever come across it just from what your review states.
Can't believe a book like this gets published and has such a high rating, is infuriating.
I wish there was haha smiley. People with iota of brain will understand that the authors are not presenting arguments on different subject but just throwing statistics and inferring from it.
The author comes off as some kind of Ben Shapiro type speaker. Acting like his own opinions & personal bias are actual fact when they are not.
I don’t think he does say reading books and taking your child to museums has no impact; he states that, when other variables are taken into account, it had little impact on test scores. Test scores are only one measurement of a child’s progress, and he acknowledges this. The biggest indicator of who reads every night to their child and who takes their child regularly to museums is the parents’ socio-economic background and education level: this is because lack of disposable income means getting to museums is more difficult and those on lower incomes tend to often work longer hours; those with low literacy levels are less likely to read to their children regularly. This is a statistical analysis; is about probability, not suggesting that there aren’t parents in low income brackets or with low education that do these things and have an impact. It is just that statistically, the vast majority of people who do these things regularly are not in that demographic. This is why it is really important for there to be funding for school trips and reading programs, and adult literacy projects. It would be interesting to compare these statistics with the beginning of the 20th century, when there was a big push on literacy, public libraries flourished and many places of work had book groups. Over time, libraries have been subject to reduced investment but they have also been given the reputation of being boring, stuffy and elitist. This has not been driven by libraries but by popular culture which stands to gain from people spending their time and money on other things. A recent report stated that the average age that a UK child gets a mobile phone is seven years old! It is far cheaper to get them a stack of library books, every two weeks, but if you are a parent who works when the library is open or you have awful memories of having to read at school, are you more likely to get the free books or use some of your hard-earned cash on a phone? These are the sorts of decisions the book is highlighting, which have a bigger impact and show us why the statistics are as they are. What I do think comes across in this book is the impact of poverty - and that is something we can do something about, if we choose to fund things properly.
I’m just starting the book but unless he actually said ones socioeconomic standing is the impudence then I’ll play devils advocate for a minute & say the most important part of raising a child IS “who u are”…the way u conduct yourself, ur vices, how u handle stress, ur tastes & values - they all have a far greater impact on a child than what u do or say. It’s akin to the saying “do as I say, not as I do” which doesn’t work with children. Things are internalized & become part of our makeup at a young age. We often respond to stress the exact same way as our parents, develop many of their mannerisms, mental states, and vices (unless actively trying not to)- so being a well-adjusted adult who works to improve parts which may be unproductive or damaging will have a greater impact on a child’s upbringing than reading them 1,000 books ever could.
I just want to enjoy what Laura said because I think Sofia misrepresented the book. First, the main author was Dubner, it was him praising Leavitt in the chapter headings not Leavitt praising himself.Second, the author made it clear that he wasn't trying to teach how to be a perfect parent. Like Laura said, he did point out a few misconceptions about what causes kids to have higher test scores based on test scores data.
Third he never argued that "nothing a parent does matters in the slightest." For the sake of repetition, he argued that many of the things parents do to try to help their kids in school don't have an observable impact on test scores.
For the record, I didn't love the book either. I just want to be fair in my critique of it.
*echo not enjoy. Really wish Goodreads would let you edit comments to correct typos haha
