Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

This book begins and ends with a comment about "unifying themes" and discards any need for them. Subsequently a series of unrelated curiosities are subjected to economic analysis, yielding interesting and indeed boggling results. The most controversial analysis reveals the impact of Roe v. Wade on the crime rate. The economic interest involved in Sumo wrestlers who take a dive we can easily extrapolate to other sports arenas -- World Cup soccer comes to my mind. I especially applaud Levitt's debunking of "experts," child psychologists, and marketeers who hawk their products while shamelessly twanging our heartstrings. I know it's easy to cheer for those we agree with, but this guy does his regression analysis in an extremely readable show more way, and analyzes things I'd never thought much about, like drug dealer board rooms. I suspect co-author Dubner's contribution has been to supply some kind of unifying thread anyway, via questions like "What do schoolteachers and Sumo wrestlers have in common?" The final one-two punch surprise ending, where Levitt shamelessly abandons all pretense of scholarship for showmanship, seems to have Dubner's thumbs all over it. But it still packs a wallop. Steven D. Levitt's voice is a clarion tenor in the swelling chorus of bahumbuggery. show less

I've had this book on my shelves for ages, and I finally got around to reading it after my husband picked it up to see what it was all about. Who knew economics could be so fascinating? The book is clear and easy to read, presenting a random assortment of concepts, facts, and figures based around Levitt's own personal research to answer questions like "What do sumo wrestlers and grade-school teachers have in common?". You'd be shocked at the connection.

The most interesting (and controversial) chapters in the book dealt with Levitt's research and analysis on the substantial reduction in crime in major American cities that occurred in direct correlation with the legalization of abortion. He says some shocking things, but the evidence he show more presents is pretty clear... anyway, I'll leave it to you to read the book and see what he says. The least interesting chapters, for me, came at the end of the book when he did some analysis on popular names, but I think that's because my sister and I were discussing something similar recently and came to similar conclusions (and neither of us are economists).

On the whole, a very quick and fascinating read. show less

Freakonomics was a blast to read, both entertaining and thought provoking. The authors (an economist and a journalist) sift through a ton of data and come up with some interesting relationships. For instance, they say Roe v Wade has a lot to do with the decline of crime in the early 1990s. Prior to Roe v Wade, wealthier and better educated women were able to get abortions. Once abortion became legal, poor, uneducated, unmarried women were able to get abortions. Having fewer children born to mothers who don't want them and can't properly care for them translates to fewer criminals being born and thus a lower crime rate. The authors say that other factors also contributed to lower crime rates (more police, more prisons), but Roe v Wade is show more the most significant explanation. Some of their conclusions seem a bit wild but everything is backed up with data. If you liked Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, you'll like Freakonomics. show less

A "rogue" economist goes rogue by applying statistical analysis to sociology.

The premise of the book is that we can all be guilty of making assumptions about causes, and we should instead look at the data. People will often lie, but the data never does.

But, what they fail to acknowledge is that they themselves are constantly making assumptions about the data. The data may not lie, but the interpretation of that data is certainly not objective.

I found myself shaking my head on just about every page at their tendency to oversimplify complex issues. (Apparently, Roe v Wade is the primary reason for the decline in crime during the 90s, for example.)

I can see why this book might be popular: it's a lot of nice stories that are wrapped around show more a simple answer to a troubling question. It gives the illusion of truth, and the comfort of certainty. Unfortunately, complex issues rarely have simple answers. show less

Steven Levitt doesn't study what you'd expect for an economist. He takes economic principles like incentive and regression analysis and applies them to every day life with questions like, "How can you show that teachers are cheating on their classroom's standardized tests?" and "What contributed to the drop in crime in the 1990s?"

The answers to these and other questions are often surprising and always interesting. Because each chapter focuses on a different topic, nothing is explored in depth. This made it a perfect audiobook for my commute, because I didn't get lost in detailed explanations. Levitt and Dubner explain their analysis clearly and use a lot of anecdotes or analogies to get their points across, rather than a detailed show more statistical breakdown. This is also the book's greatest weakness, however; because no one subject is explored in great depth, I'm left with more questions than before, and am not satisfied but the general treatment received here on subjects like parenting and baby names. I became mildly annoyed by the chapter intros quoting from Dubner's previously published profile of Levitt and the repetition of the different between correlation and causation, but these were minor irritants in an overall enjoyable book. The audiobook is well read by Dubner himself, but I am going to take a look at the print version because it has a chart not included in the audio version and the lists of baby names with their variant spellings. show less

It took me years to get around to this book. The last time I saw the book in person was when it was confiscated from a classmate by a teacher in the 8th grade. I resent feeling obligated to do anything, but I felt obligated to read this book after studying economics as an undergraduate. I'm less interested in the content of the book than the trend it started.

The book is essentially a narrative explanation of some of Levitt's papers mixed in with some interesting illustrative anecdotes. Among the papers were ones on the pyramid scheme that is drug dealing, cheating teachers/sumo wrestlers, name analysis and data analysis on longitudinal studies of childhood education. Included are lengthy chapters on Levitt's famous crime paper along show more with the controversial thesis that abortion was the causal factor behind the crime drop of the 1990s. For anyone interested in the topics, I would suggest reading the original papers, which are as interesting as the popularization. Levitt is an impressive empirical economist by any means and his teasing out of various explanations is both creative and brilliant. The book is less brilliant or creative in my opinion, other than a clever way to make a lot of money. I thought the most interesting fact from the book was the fact that Levitt was had dinner with both Amartya Sen and Robert Nozick, and Nozick stood up for Levitt's lack of unifying theme. (There was also a pretty funny dig at John Lott, who the book accuses of posting under fake names reviewing Lott's own class). A point of minor annoyance, for book that disparages the blind confidence of experts, the book leaves little nuance and drops much controversy (mostly over the crime paper) though it's hard to tell if this is from Levitt or the reporter (or a clever use of a bad incentive?).

What's more interesting is the trend that the book represents and I also would venture to guess started. Levitt's work is an expansion of Becker's application of microeconomics to non-traditional fields such as race, family, and sociology (the imperial empirical field). This has contributed to the confusion of what economics is exactly (a conversation I've spent countless awkward minutes having), which the popular imagination usually associates with finance and explicit markets. This book itself probably contributed to the imperial march of economics (I would argue this is a good, but that's another conversation). I imagine that this is the book that spawned the countless imitations of popular nonfiction that sums up academic papers. I have no hard data on it, but I find it hard to imagine that books like Misbehaving and Predictably Irrational would exist without the runaway success of Freakonomics (part of some evidence that suggests this is the close association in the public mind between Levitt and behavioral economics despite the fact that Levitt is more in the mold of Becker). show less

Предполагам, никой от вас не е дотолкова глупав, та да вярва, че това, което говорят по медиите и това, което повечето хора вярват, е всъщност фактическото положение на нещата. Но всички ние имаме определен начин на мислене, приемаме дадени твърдения за факти и някои изводи за очевидни, без да си правим труда да помислим върху тях…

Във Freakonomics, икономиста Стивън Левит и журналиста Стивън Дъбнър дават следния show more пример – вие имате две малки сладки дечица и съседите ви от двете страни имат деца на приблизително същата възраст. Едните съседи имат басейн и вие често пускате вашите деца да ходят на гости, за да се къпят в басейна. Не ги пускате да ходят у другите съседи обаче, защото бащата е бодигард и ловец и има в къщи пистолет и ловна карабина – и вие се страхувате, че децата може някой път да се изплъзнат от вниманието на родителите, да се заиграят с оръжието и да се наранят.

Защото огнестрелното оръжие е опасно, а басейните са безопасни, нали така? Грешка – всяка година в домашни условия 100 деца се самонараняват с оръжие, но над 500 се давят в басейни (в САЩ), при това басейни имат много по-малко хора – съвсем просто изследване на броя нещастни случаи с деца, разделен на броя на домакинствата с огнестрелно оръжие и домакинствата с басейни показва, че има 200 пъти по-голяма опасност детето ви да се удави в басейна, отколкото да се застреля при игра с пушката.

Само че хората не осмислят проблема по този начин – за повечето от нас басейните са всекидневни, слънчеви, приятни и желани – виждаме ги често и ги асоциираме с приятни преживявания. Докато пушките са метални, страшни, миришат странно – повечето хора виждат пушка рядко и я свързват със смърт и опасност.

Същото поведение наблюдавам и аз, когато практикувам две от хобитата си – стрелба с въздушна пушка и с лък. Хората се плашат от пушката и се принуждавам да излизам извън града с нея, но сами пращат децата си да ме молят да пострелят с лъка и нямат нищо против да го правя зад блока. Пушката е въздушна, не е мощна и е изключително точна – шансът да уцеля някого случайно докато стрелям в мишената си и да го нараня е практически нула. Лъкът от своя страна е реплика на 66 паундов прабългарски боен лък – може да пробие човек от 50 метра и не е прецизно точен, така че вероятността за нещастен случай е много по-голяма. Но, както казах, пушките са страшни, метални и по филмите убиват, а лъковете притежават определен забавен и екзотичен образ…

Подобен начин на мислене е съвсем естествен и се среща много често – един пример е страхът от ядрената енергия въпреки, че има повече смъртни случаи от перки, отколкото от избухнали реактори или изтекла радиация, както и страхът от ядреното оръжие, въпреки че то практически не е използвано и само наличието му предотврати Студената война да се превърне в трета световна. Но перките са „екологични“ и обичайни, разбираме как действат, докато ядрената енергия е мистериозна, навява мисли за филми с мутанти и бомби, войни и смърт.

Стивън Левит и Стивън Дъбнър са си поставили за цел да използват икономическия начин на мислене, за да дадат отговори на различни житейски въпроси от други области. Freakonomics не дава безкрайно много информация – само посочва десетина примера на изследвания на Стивън Левит, но те кара да погледнеш с други очи на най-различни проблеми, които ежедневието ти поставя и те кара да се замислиш по-дълбоко за причината нещата да се случват. Freakonomics е книга за любопитния ум, който не приема конвенционалните и общоприети отговори, а търси истината чрез нетрадиционното вглеждане във фактите. show less