Sorry for the delay to those who have been desperately awaiting my latest book review, but I was out of cellphone range (hurray).
I read Freakonomics (Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner) a couple of years ago. I had been meaning to read it for a long time before I finally got round to it, because I was put off by the title to be frank. In the introductory explanatory note to Superfreakonomics the authors admit to the alarm expressed by their publisher over the first book: “…you could hear the sound of palms smacking foreheads: ‘this pair of bozos just delivered a manuscript with no unifying theme and a nonsensical, made-up title!’” Such was the success of that book the publishers did not even blink at the title Superfreakonomics.
Freakonomics was of course controversial for the suggestion that the dramatic reduction in the crime rate in the United States could be traced back to the landmark Roe v Wade decision. I seem to recall the theory was that fewer children were born into the kinds of environments that tended to produce the drivers of crime.
This time the authors take on a range of subjects from prostitution, suicide bombers, apathy and altruism and climate change. Their approach encourages the reader to look at things a different way – whether you agree with their conclusions or not, it is an entertaining read.
My favourite chapter is on apathy and altruism, largely because it reinforces my view about the impact of television and the effect that it has had on the generations born since its insidious takeover of the lounges of the modern world. But that is only a small part of a chapter that revisits the Kitty Genovese case (where 38 witnesses allegedly did nothing while she was murdered in the street outside her apartment building) and also the experiments on altruism which failed to repeat the results in a live situation contrasted with the laboratory results where people knew they were being tested. It appears that we might just be a little more altruistic when we know or think we are being watched.
It’s all good fun and does make you think. Here’s the link to their flagrant self-promotion!
That sounds like a great book, I might read it
Read Freakonomics first – then Superfreakonomics. Interested in your feedback!
Deal!
I haven’t read the first one but got the second one for Xmas. It’s a very good book. Easy to read and thought provoking. Still have 100 pages to go and love every page.
I just (finally) read “Freakonomics” and I thought it was rubbish. So rubbish in fact that I didn’t read the last chapter (or any of the additional material that comes in the second edition). The list of gripes is long, but in brief, it’s constantly contradictory, many of the assumed truths are extreme stretches or indeed completely counter to research (a polite way of saying bullshit), and its unsubstantiated claims are wrapped up in a weak, or more often than not, devious argument structure that the author has the audacity to warn the reader to be aware of when dealing with people he deems to be “experts”, which develops into a constant anti-intellectual whinge.
Frankly it irritated me so much I think I’ll make a point of not reading the sequel and either recycle my copy of “Freakonomics” for scrap paper or perhaps sell it for far less than it’s worth. Any takers?
seem to recall the theory was that fewer children were born into the kinds of environments that tended to produce the drivers of crime.
In summary; As abortions became more commonplace throughout the USA, proportionally more women from lower socio-economic groups/classes/areas had them. Those children who were now NOT being born were statistically more likely to go on to a life of crime, so the pool of potential criminals declined.
… reinforces my view about the impact of television and the effect that it has had on the generations born since its insidious takeover of the lounges of the modern world.
That’s a harsh, Lianne. I’d thought that you would have taken more out of the positive impact TV has had on women in India?
It appears that we might just be a little more altruistic when we know or think we are being watched
And on the flip side, we’re probably a lot LESS altruistic when we know the experiment (ie; prisoners dilemma) is designed to prove that too!
Both books are excellent. You may not agree with all their conclusion but they provide lots of interesting data, and make you think about how the incentives may have worked in different areas.
this sort of book is no substitute for proper research. Research with our cousins eg chimps shows how altruism is an integral part of their society though it has its limits.
this sort of book is no substitute for proper research
Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics are books based upon reasearch undertaken and published in some of the most influential and respected journals on the planet. They ARE proper research.
@Phil – my reference to the insidious impact of TV was in relation to my strongly held opinion that TV offers a major threat to the values parents try to instil in their kids – these values are undermined on a daily basis on the TV screen. Superfreakonomics offers a host of reasons why the asssociation between TV and the crime rate may come about. I think they are worth considering.
With regard to the education of Indian women through TV – of course TV is a powerful medium for educating people. But when you think about how the power of advertising means children put huge pressure on their parents to buy things they may not be able to afford, you can see it cuts both ways.
@Dorothy – some of the material on altruism is based on research which occured outside the laboratory setting. I think that is still valid research.
@Phil – I would be careful, I attempted to check his references and due to the poor referencing used (which is to say, completely non-existant) this is not very easily done. The striking fact is that he quotes papers written by himself more than anything, and without access to said journals and the time to do it, one could not accurately judge the quality of his research. I guess that answers why he makes it difficult in the book to check his facts then. Remember too that from what I could tell his work is exclusively published in journals of Economics – hardly the first place to look for accurate social studies and scientific undertakings, but that’s exactly what he’s undertaking in “Freakonomics”.
@David Farrar – lots of interesting data? Ok, maybe some interesting data at best, but the book seemed to be incredibly light on data and sticks largely to repeating information and sometimes even the guts of entire sentences over and over. The little data that is provided is then used to construct over-arching theories to explain certain social phenomenon, which is a clear fallacy – the argument does not support the conclusion. See: The entire chapter about gangs and crack.
Regarding incentives, the most interesting thing about that (in my opinion) was more that it was further evidence to why economics should not be used to explain social phenomena and economists should stick to the economy. Ok, that’s perhaps being a little disingenuous – I’m not arguing against incentives, I’m just extremely cautious of them being used in the ways that they are in “Freakonomics”; it all does fit very nicely into the paradigms of 80′s and 90′s-era New Zealand social policy documents.
Sam,
…without access to said journals and the time to do it, one could not accurately judge the quality of his research.
You need to keep in mind that this is a book written, I believe, with the primary purpose of making aspects of behavioural economics accessible and readable to ‘non-economists’. It’s never going to have all of the data in it to the n-th degree, because that’s not how a book works.
Consider; Is ‘A brief history of time’ a poor quality book because Hawking doesn’t provide ALL the calculations?
I believe your objection is akin to saying: My cellphone doesn’t contain all of the records for Alexander Graeme Bell’s experiments, therefore I cannot confidently use it to make a phonecall.
Also, a quick Google search will bring up a lot of the papers Levitt’s written. Some might be gated behind subscriber sites, in which case I’m sure you could find a copy at your local University economics-department library.
Of course, Phil, it’s written for a mass audience, which is exactly why I was siding with Dorothy who said that the book is no substitute for actual research. I was cautioning against treating the book as if it was proper research which you seemed more than willing to do, which, I might add, is utterly unrelated to the cellphone thing.