|
|
|
|
|
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
Author(s): Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Binding: Hardcover
Dewey Decimal Number: 330
EAN: 9780060731328
Edition: 1
Format(s): Roughcut
ISBN: 006073132X
Label: William Morrow
Language(s): English Original LanguageEnglish UnknownEnglish Published
List Price: $25.95
Manufacturer: William Morrow
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 242
Package Dimensions:
Height: 1"
Width: 5.9"
Length: 1"
Weight: 1.05 lbs.
Product Group: Book
Address: 2005-05-01
Publisher: William Morrow
Release Date: 2005-04-12
Studio: William Morrow
Editorial Reviews
Product Description:
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? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much heralded scholar who studies the stuff and riddles of everyday life-;from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing-;and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked 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 co-author Stephen J. 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 set out to 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 Ku Klux Klan. What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, 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. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter. 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.
Amazon.com Review:
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 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
Customer Reviews Average rating - 4.0
Rating - 3 Date: 2009-01-06
Content: Freakonomics' strongest asset is its blunt force mauling of conventional wisdom and the often unveering faith that journalists, experts and ordinary folks pay it, often only to serve (sadly) their own interests. When that is the authors' approach they deliver sound arguments. That, thankfully, is the core premise of the book.
While it is too piecemeal, and cute, to be called boring, the breathless exploration of the economist's actual findings at times borders on the mundane. Much of his intesive number-crunching about teacher cheating, Sumo wrestling and (especially!) baby names and various parenting fallacies can only be considered redundant to the observant reader.
People like me (who aren't economists and who aren't familiar with the calculus of demographics and sociology) should read this book mainly because it's fairly fresh, witty and is a good example of hunting up the truth while ignoring distracting conventions, moral or otherwise.
Summary: Pretty good
Rating - 2 Date: 2009-01-02
Content: The basic premise of Freakonomics is that everything that happens leads to something else, or that one thing leads to another. It's a book about cause and effect from a social perspective. With this view, the author challenges our assumptions about the way things are or the way we actually perceive them to be. The book is written with a lighthearted tone, making its subjects and case studies seem more like fodder for a cocktail party than as questions for research. Such treatment makes Freakonomics accessible for a broader audience of readers, especially those who might not otherwise venture into learning about such a field. And what is that field exactly? The "freakier," less mathematical side of economics.
For all its great writing and its rather daring subjects, the book and the cause-and-effect relationshps the authors propose are a bit of a stretch. Abortion is heralded as being responsible for the dramatic dip in crime across America in the 1990's. It is supposed that abortion was responsible for ridding the nation of the young, lower income, less well-educated individuals who would no doubt have been responsible for perpetuating crime had they been born. Yet the author fails to account for the drop in deviance levels from other segments of the population that were around. The book makes arguments like this and others without also giving attention to plausible alternatives.
Another case in point is the authors' assumption that young people want to be dealers of narcotics because it is flashy and cool in spite of the risks and low pay associated with it. They compare it to the way a young person would want to enter a glamourous low-paying profession like publishing to have a one-in-a-million shot at becoming a super high-paid executive. (See my review for The Devil Wears Prada.) That the authors compare an industry of entertainment to the selling of narcotics is laughable, but then to also say that young people become sellers of narcotics because they want to seems even more absurd. The author points out that the sellers of narcotics in his book earn as little as $3 a day, much less than minimum wage.
It would seem to reason that a person interested in making money would try to find a job that paid more. In the face of minimum wage, selling narcotics isn't even an option ... unless you have no other place to find a job. In areas suffering from the proliferation of the trade of narcotics, one key issue in whether people decide to sell narcotics is their options for finding an honest job. How many corporations house their offices in the ghetto? How many people patron businesses housed in ghettos over those they find in a mall? How many malls are in the ghetto? And even if a person were to find a job outside the ghetto, how much more of a burden would it be to find transportation to that job, an additional cost, especially if that person is already working to earn extra money and the only ride that person has is the bus. Now, if that person is a child or a teen, the time that child spends traveling to and from that honest job miles away from his or her home then takes time away from studying. For adults, it takes time away from parenting. It takes time away from learning skills for a better job. Given the choice, thinking in real economical terms of opportunity cost and benefit, the reason people choose to sell narcotics is clear. It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with being cool.
Freakonomics is not a rigorous book. That is its major flaw. It attempts to explain some of our generation's most challenging questions, but it offers only simplified answers. The onus to dig deeper for the true causes of events falls on the reader, but the book does not actually encourage such thought. Nowhere do the authors even suggest that they could be wrong or that there could be other plausible reasons for various events. Such writing is the mark of poor scholarship and I do not recommend that it be read.
Summary: Freakonomics Is Not Rigorous Enough
Rating - 4 Date: 2008-12-22
Content: I have a new appreciation for the hidden side of economics! It read so quickly. Who knew economics could be a fun read!
Summary: Surprisingly interesting
Rating - 5 Date: 2008-12-12
Content: Levitt and Dubner really challenge conventional wisdom.It will open your eyes to how easily people just except things as fact without ever questioning the data behind them. Its a read that you really will not want to put down and definately a must read for anyone in the field of psychology, social work, or medicine.
Summary: Open your eyes to a whole new world!
Rating - 2 Date: 2008-12-09
Content: After reading this book I wasn't sure whether the author is a brilliant person, but a bad writer, or whether the author is knowingly dishonest and misleading.
The author is extremely bold and in a single sentence will discount or write off all competing theories to his ideas; he makes conclusions about topics that academics have likely spent thousands of pages and many years debating. And he does it all while providing very little data to support his views and even less data to address any competing viewpoints.
It is as if he is so supremely confident in his views that he doesn't feel the need to deal with nitty gritty details.
I am not saying that I think he is *wrong*. My problem is that I don't know that he is *right*. And, given the far reaching claims he makes, I think he needs to provide a lot more data before I am willing to believe what he says.
On top of this, there are a few points where I felt like he (or his co-author) are dangerously loose with the facts. They make the most basic of mistakes when analyzing the data. It makes you think that they are either amazingly sloppy or are intentionally ignoring the facts so they can support their argument.
For example, look at the chapter where they analyze the online dating site registrations of users from Boston and San Diego. They compare the self-reported incomes of these users with "typical Internet users" and conclude that the users must be lying since they are wealthier than the average user. But they never consider the fact that Boston and San Diego are both wealthy towns. Does this explain the data entirely? Maybe. Maybe not. But you simply can't brush off such an obvious factor that could explain the skew.
This sort of sloppiness would be unacceptable in a freshman statistics class and casts a pall over the credibility of the entire book.
Summary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
|
|
|
|