HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of…
Loading...

The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World

by Tim Harford

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
7271812,906 (3.78)4
Recently added bydonnambr, whacim, kmleng, Maha.Almojel, eppish, LionHeartBeard, private library, piersanti
None
  1. 00
    Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond (espertus)
    espertus: For those who enjoyed the last chapter of The Logic of Life "A Million Years of Logic" and would like a book-length discussion of why some geographic areas became so much richer than others
Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 4 mentions

English (16)  Spanish (1)  Hungarian (1)  All languages (18)
Showing 1-5 of 16 (next | show all)
Well-written, but the writer's style was a little annoying (clearly, he "knows everything"). ( )
  piersanti | Sep 28, 2014 |
Revealing surprising, optimistic, well-argued, and funny. Cities are the centres of creativity & wealth (no surprise) but also of efficiency, ecological efficiency and tax revenue. How minorities (eg farmers in rich countries, ) bag all the cream: it's not worth any individual's while to try to change things. How Malthus proved wrong just as he published: population take-off produces invention and productivity take-off. Lovely mix of data from classroom experiments to socioeconomic large scale surveys and where it's shaky or speculative he comes clean about it. I'm a long term fan of his Radio 4 stuff ("More or less"). His underlying thesis - we are "rational", even unconsciously so, is totally convincing and rather cheering. It is quite distinct from "homo economicus", an academic abstraction rightly derided. Why can't more economists write like this! ( )
  vguy | Aug 25, 2014 |
Tim Harford, you're breaking my heart, and more importantly, you're undermining my faith in quantitative economics. I am a passionate fan of your BBC radio show, "More or Less." What could possibly be more entertaining than a topical radio programme that uses statistics to fact-check the politicians, especially if it occasionally measures things in whales and/or Wales? Sure, I don't have the same faith in rationality that you do--well, not without completely bending the meaning of "rationality" out of joint to allow for irrational influences such as spite-motivation--but I accept the premise. I greatly enjoyed your previous book, The Undercover Economist, and that book was just as insistent on human rationality. But what I can't cope with is this book's betrayal of the primary credo that separates idle speculation from science.

Mr. Harford, what, oh what, happened to your belief in the rallying cry of "More or Less?" What happened to "correlation does not imply causation?"

The Logic of Life is, of course, well-written and entertaining. The premise, that humans are rational agents, so apparently irrational actions must have hidden rational motivations, is a fascinating approach to studying and understanding social systems. The issues that Harford covers include the effects of marriage and divorce ("Is Divorce Underrated"?), how monetary reward is used and misused to encourage labour ("Why Your Boss is Overpaid"?), how the structure of a neighborhood can encourage or discourage crime ("In the Neighborhood"), how racism can create a "rational" vicious cycle ("The Dangers of Rational Racism"), and more. And yet I think this book betrays the very foundations of quantitative analysis.

For example, he takes a study about speed-dating, in which it was demonstrated that relative differences in attractiveness of partners mattered far more than absolute differences, to conclude that we as humans will all "settle" for what we can get. It's a nice theory and it does have the empirical backing that Hartford mentions, and he even cautiously notes that speed-date behavior may not precisely correlate to marriage behavior. However, he does not point out the most important potential issue with the study: that the set of individuals who choose to speed-date are emphatically not a uniform sample of society. One might imagine that individuals who choose to speed-date are far more desperate to form a relationship than the general population and therefore are predisposed to "settle." He claims, "it is official: rich men are a turn-on and rich women are a turnoff," using as evidence information from online dating data and the "fact" that we "Find lots of women in places where there are lots of rich men: that is, in the cities....areas with high male salaries are areas where a lot of women live, especially young women. Consciously or not, plenty of women seem to have decided they would rather compete for scarce wealthy males." (This last is laughably insubstantial "proof;" consider the sheer number of contributing factors that are ignored. Correlation confused with causality? Never.) And just in case these massive jumps in logic haven't yet managed to raise your blood pressure, he also asserts that young black women tend to be single mothers because (a)they tend to only marry within racial lines, (b)black men in prison means less black men available in the marriage market, and (c)black men out of prison use their additional bargaining power to avoid marriage. Ye gods.

According to Harford, the increase in women pursuing higher education and higher-powered jobs are motivated (solely, apparently) by marriage markets: "I'll show that supply and demand in the dating market motivates people to work, to study...we'll see that in places where men are scarce, women respond by staying in school longer." First, women seek to "increase their attractiveness in marriage prospects" by getting jobs and education. He then invokes the garbage gender-role theories promoted by evolutionary biologists: that "In the African savannah, then, our rational male forbears wanted young and beautiful forebears while our rational ancestors down the maternal would have preferred high-status males." and that Homo sapiens beat out the Neanderthal via division of labour into gender-based roles. In this division of labour, men specialized as breadwinners (hunters) and women as homemakers (gatherers). A woman discarded by a man could no longer benefit by specializing in these tasks. Divorce, therefore, galvanized women to pursue education and job opportunities, and this in turn gave them more bargaining power. I found this theory tantalizing, but it involved far too much soft reasoning and jumps in logic to be presented as "fact." By simplifying all motivations to a single utility (marriage prospects), it implies that all women pursue higher education to gain bargaining power and additional security in marriage.

If you haven't yet begun to foam at the mouth at Harford's absolute faith in his breezy simplifications, wait until you get to the chapters on racism, where he discusses Schelling's Segregation model, "acting white," and racism in the workplace. His writing here is even less tactful than in the marriage chapters (in which home-makers are repeatedly denigrated as staying home as "baking cookies"). Before making such sweeping generalizations on delicate and emotional issues, I want to see a lot less simplification and a lot more evidence. The end result was a book that I might describe as "Freakonomics-lite," or maybe as a cross between [a:Malcolm Gladwell|1439|Malcolm Gladwell|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1224601838p2/1439.jpg] and Freakonomics. I actually think Gladwell is an engaging writer able to package and sell neat little concepts in intriguing examples and "sticky" catch-phrases. As Gladwell is not a scientist, I don't hold him as responsible for his tendency to single out a qualitative example, tell a story, and then present an idea as "truth"--all while completely failing to separate correlation from causality, and sometimes not even showing the correlation. But how can Tim Harford have published a book that does the same thing? How can he assert, with a straight face, the "truth" of those evolutionary biology theories that take a single fact and work backwards to find a self-serving explanation?

It comes down to this: I believe that cavalierly confusing fact with appealingly simplistic theory is both dangerous and unethical. I think that it is important to use mathematical techniques about the world and I fully understand the necessity of constructing simplified models. However, I think it is immoral to conclude with such absolute certainty that these theories reflect the "truth." In Harford's case, most of these theories simplify incredibly delicate, controversial, and politically sensitive issues, and they involve so many variables that it is inherently impossible to reason about them without invoking one's own biases. Much of the "evidence" Harford presents are correlations at best, and in others, he utilizes the incredible logical fallacy of arguing backwards from fact to theory without acknowledging the inherent biases in this method. To be clear, I have very little issue with the theories presented here--as long as they are presented as theories. However, Harford tends to present his points in assertive, definite language. The book is engaging and thought-provoking, but much of the content is insubstantial and lacks scientific rigour. I recommend first reading Duncan Watts' Everything is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer to fully understand why Harford's methodology is so problematic. The book completely failed to answer my most urgent question: how can a book celebrating human rationality be so inherently irrational?

So, Mr. Harford, even if you have gone over to the other side, I'm sticking to my guns. I'm going out with the battle-cry, "correlation does not imply causation!"
( )
  page.fault | Sep 21, 2013 |
better than Undercover Economist, much better than Freakonomics, worth reading again; better sourced and more detail, nuance of econ outside of finance
  FKarr | Apr 4, 2013 |
This is a book that attempts to introduce a wide reading public to the way in which economists think using the theory of rational choice. Its central argument is that even the most bizarre behaviour and seemingly mundane choices is driven by ordinary people thinking through rational reasoning and arriving at logical decisions. Of course, decisions about using condoms or frequenting a park at a risky time of day , whether to divorse or even deciding to take or abstain from drugs are often made almost intuitively or for the individual based upon experience and assumptions but Harford explains that intuitive logic.is rational and the product of careful reasoning. Logical reasoning is itself based on information and often information is asymmetrical. He applies the reasoning and thinking of an economist to everyday life. It is written in a very racy way with a strong appeal to an American readership - some of the cultural references may not be understood or appeal to readers in other parts of the world. The style is journalistic in an effort to make it accessible. It is not an economics textbook but I would recommend it to a class of first year economics students simply to get them interested in the questions that economists probe. If you enjoyed Steven Levitt 's and Stephen Dubner's Freakonomics and Superfreakeconomics you will enjoy this book but don't be fooled its not an economics textbook nor is it a serious economics monograph. But its very readable and easy on the brain. Its makes the case for economics as a social science and pushes the links say between psychology and economics and perhaps makes the discipline less of a dismal science. I liked it too for avoiding jargon and avoiding mathematical modelling. ( )
1 vote Africansky1 | Jan 25, 2013 |
Showing 1-5 of 16 (next | show all)
The premise is simple. Human beings are rational creatures who respond to incentives and rewards. No matter how bizarre a choice might seem, there is logic at work, and Mr. Harford intends to expose it.
 
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
Quotations
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Publisher series
Original language

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English (2)

Book description
Haiku summary

No descriptions found.

"In this book, Harford argues that life is logical after all. Under the surface of everyday insanity, hidden incentives are at work, and Harford shows these incentives emerging in the most unlikely places." "Using tools ranging from animal experiments to supercomputer simulations, an ambitious new breed of economist is trying to unlock the secrets of society. The Logic of Life is the first book to map out the astonishing insights and frustrating blind spots of this new economics in a way that anyone can enjoy." "The Logic of Life presents an X-ray image of human life, stripping away the surface to show us a picture that is revealing, enthralling, and sometimes disturbing. The stories that emerge are not about data or equations but about people the athlete who survived a shocking murder attempt, the computer geek who beat the hard-bitten poker pros, the economist who defied Henry Kissinger and faked an invasion of Berlin, the king who tried to buy off a revolution."--BOOK JACKET.… (more)

» see all 4 descriptions

Quick Links

Swap Ebooks Audio
6 avail.
158 wanted
6 pay5 pay

Popular covers

Rating

Average: (3.78)
0.5
1
1.5
2 6
2.5 2
3 29
3.5 17
4 59
4.5 3
5 21

Audible.com

Two editions of this book were published by Audible.com.

See editions

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 94,027,114 books! | Top bar: Always visible