Veteran FBI Agent Keith Slotter has chosen to discuss Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s “Freakonomics“ and “SuperFreakonomics ", on his list of the top FiveBooks on his subject - The FBI and Crime, saying that:
“…The crime theories in these books are controversial. For example, they say that abortion stopped a whole new generation of criminals from being born. And that is because they say abortion is most prominent among the lowest class people…”
The full interview is available here:
http://thebrowser.com/books/interview... ( )

Another book title that is so long that I must remark: Need I say more? Not sure of the validity of all this info, but it is definitely a fun read. ( )

If you liked Freakonomics, you'll want to read Superfreakonomics. More of that freaky economics is included. I was surprised by the amount of gender-related stories that were in here. The reason behind improvements in the fate of girls and women in India. If it's better to have a pimp or not if you're a prostitute. Why at one point in time, in one hospital, it was safer to have your baby delivered by a female midwife than a male doctor. And other stories like that.The style is highly readable, occasionally funny, and just pulls you along until before you know it, the book is done.Which is the main problem. The last big chapter is about global warming, and I didn't see how that had too much to do with the economics they'd been talking about in previous chapters. It almost felt like they were trying to preach their newfound viewpoint. I found it much less interesting, much less compelling. And I think partly that had to do with the global warming not being grounded as much in human behavior. We didn't learn any neat insights into the motivations of human beings.At the end of that chapter, I was ready to get back to an interesting people-focussed story. But.. the book was done.There's only 200 pages unless you count the footnotes. And I was almost so hungry for more, just one or two stories more, something, that I considered reading all the footnotes. But I was also annoyed at the authors for it being so short and them taking up my time with the global warming stuff (which would've been fine, btw, if I'd read it in another book, because it was interesting in a different way), that I didn't read the footnotes. Rather, endnotes, I guess I should say.So, good, but ultimately unsatisfying. ( )

The sequel to Freakonomics, an intriguing look at the economic reality around us, this, too, is a lively, fascinating book. Are all the suppositions made in the book true? The detail of study doesn't allow indepth examination (the TV market growth in the 50s related to increasing crime rates of the 70s doesn't seem to include any other demographics of those children other than television viewing, for instance).
The good, the bad, the intended and unintended . . . and the cheap and easy we seem to avoid. ( )

This follow up to Freakonomics brings up some more of the interesting statistical and economic questions that we often don't consider in everyday life. I was a huge fan of the first book and I only find this one slightly less informative and entertaining. The main difference between this and the first book is one that many other reviewers have noted. It looks more to the solutions to problems that are suggested by economic theories rather than simply illuminating the way the world works. Still, it's definitely a good pick if you enjoyed Freakonomics. ( )