Steven D. Levitt

Stephen J. Dubner

Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of violent crime? These may not sound like typical questions for an econo-mist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to sports and child-rearing—and whose conclusions turn conventional wisdom on its head. Freakonomics is a groundbreaking collaboration between Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning author and journalist. They usually begin with a mountain of data and a simple question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics. Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives—how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they explore the hidden side of . . . well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Klu Klux Klan. What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a great deal of complexity and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.

A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Freakonomics Rev Ed

Katheryn

"Researchers found that an instances were the woman was denied. An abortion should often resented her baby and failed to provide it with a good home. Even when controlling for the income, age, education, and health of the mother, the researchers found that these children were more likely to become criminals."

Interesting ideas delivered in an easy to read manner. Makes you think.

Throckmorton

Monicap

listened to the audiobook, mostly while cleaning and organizing. therefore, I wasn't paying SUPER close attention, but I still think it was an interesting book, the conclusions may be less than relevant as this book was published more than a decade ago and the data sets used are outdated, but still some sound conclusions and thought patterns.

for instance, this book highlighted the difference between causes and indicators of effects--a child with many books at home tends to score better in school then a child who reads often, because the books in the home are indicator of a high socioeconomic status, and reading more is not necessarily a cause of academic success.

interesting stuff

Assume nothing, question everything. This is the message at the heart of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner's rule-breaking, iconoclastic book about crack dealers, cheating teachers and bizarre baby names that turned everyone's view of the world upside-down and became an international multi-million-copy-selling phenomenon. 'Prepare to be dazzled' Malcolm Gladwell 'A sensation ... you'll be stimulated, provoked and entertained. Of how many books can that be said?' Sunday Telegraph 'Has you chuckling one minute and gasping in amazement the next' Wall Street Journal 'Dazzling ... a delight' Economist 'Made me laugh out loud' Scotland on Sunday

Freakonomics

Apurva Chitnis

Listening to this audiobook was like eating McDonalds for hours and hours on end... but only the chips - no vaguely beneficial protein or fibre allowed.

There's certainly a lot of interesting ideas in this book: the power of statistics when applied to social problems, and the power of incentives in guiding human behaviour. Steven writes very well, similarly to Malcom Gladwell. This makes it a fun, moreish read.

But looking back, I don't have a single take-away from reading this other than a vague memory of thinking "ooh, that's nice" a lot. Whilst I know for certain that McDonalds chips will make several appearances again in my life at some point, I also know that I won't be rushing to read anything else by these authors.

(and if you're still looking for some mental fibre, I can suggest Peter Turchin's work)

Dani

Light, enjoyable read that offers lots of insight into modern society and the work behind it.

Coleman McCormick

Levitt and Dubner look at several different social phenomena in Freakonomics, each from a perspective that is definitely interesting and thought-provoking.

This book is similar to Malcolm Gladwell's works in that it's the literary equivalent of internet linkbait: interesting topic, controversial points-of-view, and quick reading. I'd like it better if they went much further in-depth, and maybe turned their attention to more historical subject matter.

eris

Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? How much do parents really matter? These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to parenting and sports—and reaches conclusions that turn conventional wisdom on its head. Freakonomics is a groundbreaking collaboration between Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning author and journalist. They set out to explore the inner workings of a crack gang, the truth about real estate agents, the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan, and much more. Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, they show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives—how people get what they want or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing.

rumbledethumps

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 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.

exactly like the podcast series. understand this economics quantify-everything mentality after taking microecon.

Xin Ma

The legendary bestseller that made millions look at the world in a radically different way returns in a new edition, now including an exclusive discussion between the authors and bestselling professor of psychology Angela Duckworth. Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? Which should be feared more: snakes or french fries? Why do sumo wrestlers cheat? In this groundbreaking book, leading economist Steven Levitt--Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and winner of the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark medal for the economist under 40 who has made the greatest contribution to the discipline--reveals that the answers. Joined by acclaimed author and podcast host Stephen J. Dubner, Levitt presents a brilliant--and brilliantly entertaining--account of how incentives of the most hidden sort drive behavior in ways that turn conventional wisdom on its head.

Colleen

3 Stars

Since I have been neglecting my nonfiction reading this year, I have been trying to add in some various nonfiction to balance out my reading list. Freakonomics was one of the books I selected. I have mixed opinions about it. There were parts of it that I found interesting. However, the overall tone was a little too self-inflated and at times condescending, and the writing lacked cohesion. The overall result was underwhelming. To put it harshly, this is the sort of book that people who normally have no interest in economics or sociology read in order to feel well-informed and well-read. Or because it was a best seller and everyone else was reading it. 

Part of the issue was the co-authorship. You have Levitt, the aggrandized "rogue economist," and Dubner, the journalist for the New York Times Magazine, who would have you believe that the sun shines on every golden theory haphazardly spawned by the great Levitt. There is no doubt that these are both smart guys. But that did not make me enjoy the book any more. The writing had an awkward manner. At times it sought to appear objective, but many other times Dubner waxed long and loud about Levitt's genius and gumption to defy typical economic thinking. So the book overall was stuck gawkily between impartially relaying facts and seeming more like an odd memoir recounting various subjects that Levitt investigated. Sections attempt to keep both authors out of the story only to reinsert them awkwardly at random times, mainly through the New York Times exerts, as if to make sure you do not forget who the authors are and why you should be listening to them. 

As I mentioned, the topics were interesting but scattered. Dubner may have repeated over and over that Levitt did not have a grand unifying theory but the book still could have been more cohesive. Have you ever had a conversation with someone whose attention span is so short that they zip through an alarming number of arbitrary topics before finally circling back to the point? Usually by the time they get to the point, their audience no longer cares. That is how I felt at times while reading this book.

The authors spend a lot of time bashing economists whose work focuses on one area, who have a "grand unifying theory." Dubner greatly emphasizes that Levitt's freethinking refusal to lock onto one area is what makes him a "rogue economist." While focusing research solely on one thing can easily result in tunnel vision and skewed results, I am not convinced that skipping along subjects like a child with ADHD garners good results either. Certainly, things rarely have only one cause whether it is history, economics, or sociology. Life is complex. So as much as Levitt and Dubner attempt to boil everything down to the simplest terms and draw analogies between random subsets - such as teachers and Sumo wrestlers - there is often no clear-cut, clean answer for why things happen. And of course, it is much easier to seem confident about causes when you are only looking backwards. It was completely overreaching to call him a "rogue economist." This work was not nearly as groundbreaking as they build it up to be. That moniker seems more like publicity spin than a true reflection.

The book contains a lot of exerts from New York Times Magazine articles that Dubner previously wrote concerning Levitt. Copy-pasting articles previously written (even if they are about the same subject) is such a lazy way to write a book. It also contributed to how choppy the book was. Magazine articles are written differently than a book, and plopping them into your book and then adding filler around them does not add up to a well-rounded, well-written book. So my comments about the writing lacking cohesion are not just about the subject matter skipping around. No, they are much more about the lackadaisical writing. 

The book does start out strongly. Although it is weird when Dubner writes about himself in third person. But sadly, the introduction is the strongest part. The quality of the book slopes down from there. To put it his statistical terms, there is a strong correlation between the point in the book and the quality of the writing, and it is a steep downward slope. So though the introduction intrigued me, the middle gradually lost my interest, and the book finishes with the weakest section. The last chapter was basically long lists of names with brief observations regarding the statistical occurrence of those names in certain socioeconomic demographics. However, after slugging through several repetitive lists of names, the authors then state that occurrences of the names themselves are meaningless, rather they are merely economic indicators. In layman's terms? Different names are common in certain demographics. The names themselves are do not lock people into certain fates, but rather they can loosely predict their economic status later in life. Basically, if you have a name that is most common among poor people, you will most likely grow up to be poor, not because your name makes you poor but because your name means your family is most likely poor and you are not likely to rise above their economic status. 

So the introduction is the best part, however it was basically an abstract outlining the subjects that would be discussed in depth later in the book. But it was a very long introduction that went into quite a bit of detail about some of the topics which made the later parts repetitive. For example, the part about crime rates was explained thoroughly in the beginning, but then they circle back around to it and go into even more detail. They slowly eliminate the other potential causes but act the whole time as if the true cause was a big surprise - asking "so what was the real cause?" over and over. This might have worked if they had not already spent a fair amount of time explaining in great detail what their opinion of the clear-cut cause was. But they had, so it became frustratingly repetitive.

The authors avoid responsibility by saying economics are separate from morality and politics. That data is data and fact. But that's not really the reality. All statistics can be manipulated and frequently are. All data is subject to personal bias. Dubner and Levitt warn readers about how often statistics are manipulated and how people should be cautious of what data they hold true. But then they expect readers to take their data and conclusions completely at face value. Certainly they build some compelling arguments, but they rest easy knowing that most people will never take the extra step of researching any of their data or questioning what they just read. It boils down to a lot of "everyone else is spinning data to fit their needs, but we are the good guys who only give you unbiased truth, so you should listen blindly to us and only us." Oh, it is done more subtly than that, but that is the bottom line. 

They spend a lot of time talking about differentiating between correlation and causation, but seem to fall into the very problems that they warn others to avoid (or allude that others frequently fall victim to). When it boils down, you have to take the authors' word that their data and conclusions are valid. And while they build some compelling arguments, there clearly is just as much personal bias at work as with any other researcher. Here is a quote:
"The typical parenting expert, like experts in other fields, is prone to sound exceedingly sure of himself. An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue, as plant his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert who’s argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemise his homespun theory into conventional wisdom." But really, that is exactly what Levitt has done: his flag may say "Rogue Economist" on it, but he still seems to be following the same actions of his contemporaries and planting his flag firmly by his opinions. Some of the data just did not feel as solid as they lead readers to believe. They throw out controversial ideas but hide behind the data. Even when I found his conclusions logical or ostensibly agreed with Levitt, I still found his attitude irritating. I am one of those odd people who enjoys reading about why things are. I like reading death statistics and economic theories. I like to read as much research on a topic as I can - from multiple viewpoints - so that I can form my own opinion. So there were some areas of the book that threw up red flags when it gauchely trampled over other people's views. For examples:
"Women's rights advocates... have hyped the incidence of sexual assault, claiming that one in three American women will in her lifetime be a victim of rape or attempted rape. (The actual figure is more like one in eight-but the advocates know it would take a callous person to dispute their claim.)" This is actually a topic I have heavily researched. The fact is that the statistics on attacks on women vary greatly. This is because the majority of sexual assaults and other physical violence against women go unreported. The exact percentage of unreported assaults is obviously unknown and therefore has to be estimated. Hence why the data varies so much. But Levitt and Dubner staunchly declare that feminists hype the numbers up to sensationalize the issue and that the only reason most people do not call them on this alleged misrepresentation is that they are afraid of being seen as "callous." I think Levitt is the callous one for downplaying and important issue by using his own skewed data and belittling those who do not agree with him. Nearly all statistics revolve around extrapolating conclusions from data based on samples of the population. It is clearly impossible to get the true data because that would mean interviewing every woman in the country and being able to get honest answers from them. But the authors would still have you blindly believe that their view is the only logical and correct one. This is just one example from this book of the authors' personal bias and how they expect the readers to follow their opinion without question while confidently declaring that their opinions are facts. 

In subject matter and format, this book was too similar to the works of Malcolm Gladwell but not as well written or as symmetrical. The cover even has a plug from Gladwell promoting it. However, I found Gladwell's books to be much more engaging and less biased and would greatly recommend reading them over Freakonomics (which is a terrible title if I did not mention that before. It is clearly just another attempt at trying to make Levitt's work seem more groundbreaking that it is.) 

This book is sort of about economics, but mostly it is a series of random observations and data. What could have been an interesting look at socioeconomics came across as condescending. Regarding Nature vs Nurture, Levitt comes down almost completely on the side of Nature arguing that genetics and other predetermined factors will almost completely eclipse any Nurturing factors. Read his section about adoption if you do not believe me. He declares that in all measurable ways, a child's future is almost completely predestined before birth by what already is - by genetics, by the parent's education level, socioeconomic status, etc. But once a child is set down a path, little the parents do will change it. They allow for odd cases of outliers who defy expectations (and tries to end with an example of that) but the loudest message is of the finality of history repeating itself. The book offers no real solutions. It mostly just wanders around looking at some things, pulling the rug off the dirty spots of society and then running away to leave someone else to clean up the mess. Because apparently, economists only need concern themselves with why something happened not how to fix things.

RATING FACTORS:
Ease of Reading: 4 Stars
Writing Style: 3 Stars
Consistency: 3 Stars
Attention to details: 3 Stars
Level of Captivation: 3 Stars
Originality: 3 Stars

RECOMMENDATIONS:
If you liked this or want something similar but better, try Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking or The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference both by Malcolm Gladwell

Steven Levitt        

Gavin

We and others have noted a discouraging tendency in the Freakonomics body of work to present speculative or even erroneous claims with an air of certainty.


- Gelman and Fung

Entertaining but misleading. Levitt's proper work deserves admiration, for its ability to make dry econometric bs exciting, and for its willingness to push strong counterintuitive policy based on the available evidence. But presented without the error bars, like in this book, it's not to be relied upon.

The most important claim in this, that legalising abortion caused a big permanent fall in crime rates two decades later, is (to my surprise) actually much the same status as it was 20 years ago: plausible, contested, surviving its errors, unsure.



Go for 'The Undercover Economist's or 'Filthy Lucre' or 'The Armchair Economist' instead.

David Melvin

A very thought-provoking book that repeatedly challenges the "conventional wisdom".

I loved it! As someone who loves data and loves learning about everything under the sun, Freakanomics is exactly my kind of book. Reminiscent of Adam Ruins Everything, it takes a variety of topics and breaks them down into bite sized bits of data and information, explaining how they collected it and what the data says. The bonus material at the end made me extraordinarily happy as well. I would recommend this book for anyone who listens to Adam Conover, readers of Cory Doctorow, and readers of Charles Soule. 

Nelson Zagalo

Freakonomics (2005) de Steven Levitt é um livro impressionante não pelas interpretações polémicas e conhecidas, mas pela forma intuitiva e rigor científico que Levitt fala dos dados.

Análise: http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/2...

Abby

Fascinating, varied, bizarre, and enthralling. Great for short attention spans who want to read a book that challenges their mind and makes them think out of the box. Loved it!

Pamela M. Minkovska 

The book gave me food for thought and I loved it, but all the aspects commented would be much more fulfilled if there were other examples and not only US related ones. History is the best teacher and other countries have so much more to tell.

The style was good and still something was missing. I guess it was the subjects that were chosen as there was no actual introduced reaisnign behind. Still, I congratulate the authors because they manage to give the treader another point of view many avoid.

Amrith Harijayanthan

Sebastian

Sarah Escorsa

This book as less to do with economics than it has to do with statistical analysis which, to me, is its main flaw. I had vaguely heard of the book when it was first published and, given the good reviews, I thought I'd give it a try, thinking it was actually about economics. I guess I should have read the synopsis beforehand.

The book has no unifying theme and is simply a series of uninteresting interpretations of various statistics. I found it completely anecdotal and really fail to understand why it has been such a success. 

The other annoying thing about this book is the perpetual references to Levitt's supposed greatness and sheer brilliance. It gets to such a point the whole thing becomes entirely ridiculous.

Definitely not recommended reading!

Shafel McDowall

As an economics student I found this book interesting. Would recommend even for non-econ students.

Melody Izard

Reason's for economic conditions that might not be what you expect.

Becky

This was so interesting. I love books that make you think a bit. I was a bit wary that the book was about economics, but it completely wasn't what I expected. It wasn't my usual kind of book, but I'm glad I read it. I recommend it to everyone.

Rohit Gupta

A great book that amazes you initially with its causality stories. But later on it gets informational and in the end bores me.

Steven Ovadia

Levitt and Dubner maintain the book (and Levitt's research) doesn't really have a single thread, but it seems fairly obvious Levitt is very interested in the realities of poverty versus the perception. I think if they could have pulled out that thread and framed the various chapters in those terms, they would have had a much more impressive work.
This is a cool book, but without a unifying theme, it comes off a little bit goofy -- like the work doesn't have a greater value beyond entertaining us in vignette form.
If they had taken the trouble to define the theme and show how the various chapters work together toward helping us understand the factors of poverty in America, it would be a more fulfilling read.

Lance Willett

Thought-provoking and insightful. Most useful not for specific stories but in challenging ourselves to think critically about everything we think we know about the world. Oh, and the basic principle of the books is "people respond to incentives."

Freakonomics Rev Ed A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Reviews

Highlights