Freakonomics
A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
A couple of months ago I stumbled upon this book by way of Amazon’s suggested products. I figured it looked interesting enough. And I’m not an economics buff, but Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubman changed my mind about that.
With parts named What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?, How is the Ku Klux Kan Like a Group of Real Estate Agents?, and Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?, how can anyone go wrong in wanting to read this book?
Levitt has came under a lot of heat in recent years with his rebellious take on why crime suddenly took a dive in the ’90s, a time when it was predicted to increase to an all-time high. His answer: Abortion. He argues that the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion legal in the U.S., sent crime skydiving in the ’90s because the people most likely to be criminals weren’t being born. And he has some compelling data to back it up.
Interested now?
What really gets the economist and journalist (Dubner) rolling is the idea of incentives. The reason people take action or become inactive is because of the incentives. Would a schoolteacher cheat for students taking the SATs? Would a sumo wrestler (probably the most prestigious sport in Japan, I read) let someone else beat him in a match? It all comes down to incentives.
The authors offer an entertaining read, and a side of economics that isn’t typically seen. Levitt claims to be the worst economist because he’s bad at math. So, he must take a look at the things most economists never bother with.
Even if you’re not interested in economics, this book will allow you to think outside the box about the way the world works. Plus, the name of the book is cool.
Wow, that theory about abortion is very intriguing. I’ll have to see if the book is at the library.
Hey, brother. I missed that I didn’t get to talk long today. I was going to call tonight, but I got to working out and the time just flew. Miss you!!! by the way, I’m not finished with the book yet but it is super great! love you
Michele sent me over, Justin.
I read and reviewed this book a while back, Justin. I really like the arguments in it but still was a little pissed off by the business side. The economics of it, if you will. The book is regularly priced but was essentially just a padded version of the article that appeared in New York Times Magazine. As a result, I felt ripped off after reading it. But I admit the writing and examples in the book are quite interesting.
This is quite a site you have here. I’m very impressed. It’s funny, I hooked up to the Stanford VAX while in high school (with a telephone coupler) and to the SDSU VAX with my very first computer, a Commodore 64 and a 1200 baud VicModem. I have taken Pascal, Fortran, assembly and, of course, basic coded on punch cards. I even did the course work to take the MCSE tests under NT 4.0. I could put together a network! Yet, somehow throughout all that, I missed catching and riding the HTML and web design wave, Funny, huh?
It’s ok. Turns out I can write too!
Thanks for visiting my humble blog,
Mike
Well that made me want to read more….I will certainly keep my eyes open for that book in future, very interesting indeed..thanks
Here via michels
This is a great book. I haven’t read it cover to cover but I skimmed through a lot of it. It has some really interesting theories. Great read.
I also found the book to be very eye opening. I’m generally a fiction reader, and generally *not* interested in economics–so for me to like it was a big deal.
I really enjoyed the book. However, I’m getting to a point where I want to switch back over to fiction. I’ve got to finish Citizen Cyborg before I make the switch.
it is a great book indeed, I have read it in german (yes they did even bother translating that to german :p) and I must say, I particularly enjoy the story with the drug dealers, what a great write-up!
I loved the story with the drug dealers. Even as a hopeful journalist, I don’t know if I could’ve gotten myself so deep into the mix though. It seems a bit scary.
It’s the same type of overly simplistic rationales and cheaply drawn conclusions that were used to justify racism, slavery, sexism, you name it throughout history.
Levitt and Dubman came up with a gimmick, an easy way to avoid having to do the complex research and examination of statistics their field requires. They matched an outcome they found attractive to a query and have been preaching this and making money and names for themselves out of it.
What you all should be contemplating is how easy it is for you to buy into the stereotypes promoted in the book, how easy it is to avoid having to think critically and do the work that would blow their overly facile premises out of the water. In short, you show yourselves to be no different than the slave owners, the pimps, the fascist thugs of history.
Actually, I found the research to be quite compelling. There is an extensive list of research (20+ pages) in the “Notes” section at the end of the book. Obviously, all the factors of certain issues were not presented because they were taking a stance on a particular side of those issues.
All of us are not falling blindly in line, buying into stereotypes. We’re presented with facts and opinions, and we make the judgments ourselves. This book simply gives us another argument, another viewpoint to look from. It does not mean that we, or the writers, did not think critically about the issues presented.
Freakonomics is an interesting read. It’s up to the reader to decide what they think of its contents.
Freakonomics has to be one of the most interesting books I have ever read. Besides the examples given in the book, the relationships between cause and effect have an entire new meaning in my perspective when observing the world around me.
My 2 cents…try “cadillac desert” & or “grooming gossip & the evolution of language” if you liked Freakonomics.