4 stars for entertainment value and good writing. And a lot of great examples of freakonomics.Pro:This book is highly entertaining and has a lot of great examples in it. I really enjoyed it and I always love concrete examples in books. It's a new science and I really like it. I will definitely read more about the science of freakonomics.Con:Who are the writers? As great as they are at finding interesting examples of tv's, prostitutes and terrorists and economics as bad are they at understanding basic psychological mechanisms in single individuals. Are they religious? Are they extremely libertarian? Are they social constructionists? Why do they know nothing about evolutionary psychology and nothing about genes? I could write a book about all the mistakes they make in the book. And many of them are simple mistakes like; correlation is not equal causation. Like the example where they advice people to train a lot in their favorite sport because that's what correlates with your child's success in that sport. What about a factor that could account for both of your passions in that sport? Genes! Do genes not exist? Why ignore them time and time again in this book? And why conclude things without having any basis for doing so and without even thinking or naming other influencing factors? These mistakes make me question all of their other examples validity. Come on guys! How hard is it to get an evolutionary psychologist to read and correct big mistakes in your otherwise great book? Hell, I'll do it for free... there are a lot of basic misconceptions. Keep to macroeconomics, you are great at that. Most of this book is interesting but it is really a discussion of human behavior based on statistics. I wouldn't really call this economics. The first two chapters are by far the best. The problems with this book arise from smaller sections and statements that the authors didn't bother to research. For instance they quickly say high cholesterol causes heart disease. They are just repeating the same sales pitch that's been around for ages. In reality though it's not true and there isn't a shred of science backing it up. The authors should have actually looked at studies of cholesterol levels and heart disease. They also mention fluoride saving billions in dental bills, when in reality it's never been shown to help dental health and it actually can cause fluorosis of the teeth. This increases dental bills. There is also evidence that it causes brain cancer in children. Again this adds costs to society. A larger section is one mentioning the polio vaccine. They say the vaccine eliminated polio and people have heard this by those standing to profit from the vaccine and those that sell the organochlorine pesticides that actually caused polio(and are still causing it in many countries). But historically no cases of polio were tracked or documented until organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides gained wide usage. Once these pesticides went into wide use in the U.S. we had our first polio epidemic. This is also why polio was a summer disease since that's when the pesticides were sprayed. Then what happened at the same time that the polio vaccine was introduced? We banned these pesticides. This worked out nicely for selling the vaccine in the U.S.. But the rest of the world still has yet to ban these pesticides and every country that still uses these pesticides has polio. The other point to make is that the vaccine wasn't widely used until 1957. At that point the polio rate had already been cut to 1/10th of where it was over the last ten years. The FDA had been pushing to phase out DDT (one of the more common OGC pesticides). It's tough to pull the veil off the eyes of people on a subject like this so I see why it's more than the authors could tackle. But since they didn't look for the facts they shouldn't just repeat the story lines right out of Pharma's PR department. There's plenty of information out there. Most of it official government information. They just had do take the time to look, which they didn't. This makes me wonder about other parts of the book that I know less about.
It wasn't until I read "Think Like a Freak" earlier in the year that I became aware this book existed. It has been years since I read "Freakonomics", but it felt like the return of an old friend, just not as welcome as the last friend. Don't get me wrong; it was good, but it took awhile to warm up to it. I really disliked the whole section on prostitution, and that's how the book started. It just wasn't very interesting at all in my opinion and I am sure some may disagree. Some of the other stories seemed like a rehash, and maybe they were covered (though with much less depth) in "Think Like a Freak". I know I had heard the story about doctor's not washing their hands in college, high school...somewhere. PProbably what saves the book is the section on climate change. Just when you think you heard it all, some top scientists come along and put things in perspective. Some very interesting viewpoints that make solar energy and wind energy seem silly. And I have been talking for some time about how there needs to be a way to stop hurricanes, and sure enough, a very interesting plan is outlined in the book. So how does this all tie into economics? Basically, everything is governed by who benefits, what's the cost, etc. And that's sometimes what stops great ideas in their tracks. You'll just have to read the book.
—hheck
As one might suspect, “Superfreakonomics” picks up where “Freakonomics” leaves off. Well, kind of. In reality it feels more like a cash-in, the irony of which I’m sure is not lost on authors Levitt and Dubner. The subject matter probably would’ve fit their blog, but hey, they published the book, and I bought it (at a drastic discount, mind you).The general points are not lost – an alternative name to the book could be “People Respond To Incentives”, although that isn’t quite as catchy. But, as it’s demonstrated, it’s quite true. Whenever a rule is passed trying to limit one’s income, be on the lookout as to how these individuals will try to make it up (or in fact increase it). You will almost never find somebody reacting to such a law saying “Well, gee, I guess I should try to live on less”.The examples in the book are telling – why Indian families prefer to have boys, why prostitution works in some areas but not others, and what might inspire a terrorist to think otherwise.Another theme repeated in the book is that to look for an explanation, one needs to avoid the idea of good/bad. As a wise man once said:“Morality is what an individual thinks should happen. Economics explains what actually happens”.
—Jessica
What can I say? I'm a sucker for books that are a mie wide and an inch deep.
—Josie
В разы скучнее первой книги.
—zallys
