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 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.

I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.

Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.

The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.
_________________________
[Update, Jun 26 2022]

In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling:

a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging,

b) the Rapture will occur first.

3 stars - It was good.

The authors make very interesting points and will have you challenging the way you think about different accepted cultural truths. For the most part they also do not repetitively reiterate their points, though the last chapter on names was a bit long in the tooth (otherwise the book would have scored higher).

I'm interested in reading other books by the author duo and hope they continue to keep tackling controversial topics while supporting a new way of looking at old debates. To me, their work is more sensical, intriguing and built upon stronger arguments with less repetition than the more popular author, Malcolm Gladwell. To be fair, I have so far only read one book by each, but it is a clear preference.

-------------------------------------------
Favorite Quote: Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work, wheareas economics represents how it actually does work.

First Sentence: Anyone living in the United States in the early 1990s and paying even a whisper of attention to the nightly news or a daily paper could be forgiven for having been scared out of his skin.

Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner didn't impress me as much as I thought it would. A book about economics and finding correlations in things you wouldn't necessarily surmise, Levitt and Dubner seem to be really arguing that the defining indicator behind these studies is incentive. Perhaps it's my background in Psychology, but a lot of this seemed common sense to me. There were some parts I really enjoyed though. The two chapters I found to be the most interesting out of the whole book, were two towards the end. The chapter on What makes a good parent (i.e. What factors of the parent affect the child's success in life?) and A Roshanda by Any Other Name (i.e. Is black culture a cause of racial inequality or is it a consequence?).

The chapter on parenting is interesting, and in some ways, not too surprising. Kids that have a lot of books in their home tend to do better in school. Kids born of a low birth weight tend to not do as well. If we think about it, a parent with lots of books cares about and might be more invested in their child's education than one without books, which of course, would lead to the child having better test scores. If we think about it, the child with the low birth weight is probably one with a teenage mother or one who doesn't take of herself as much, maybe a smoker or drinker, thus leading us to believe that she doesn't care about the child as much either. Some of the other factors they looked at that I found interesting were whether the child was adopted, whether the mother was over 30 when she had the child, whether the child went to HeadStart, whether the child frequently watched television, whether the child was spanked, and if the parents were involved with PTA. Some of the results were surprising. I won't give them all away, but they were always what you might expect.

The chapter about racial inequality relating to names that parents give their children I found fascinating. They talked about a father who named one son Loser and one son Winner and how they turned out as adults. They talked about a young black girl named Temptress, how she got to be named, and how she ended up court. Were these children just living out their names or was there a bigger factor at play here? A black Harvard professor named Roland G. Fryer Jr. decided to dedicate his life to learning more about it. He looked at where the parents lived, how they paid for their hospital bills, and what their favorite T.V. shows were compared to white parents. They sent in the same resume to different companies with the only difference being names on the resume. The typical white name was more likely to get a call back for an interview. Why? Was it because the interviewer was racist or was it was because that the socioeconomic status of the person who typically had that kind of name tended to not be as reliable?

Fryer looked at how likely black parents were to name their kids another popular black name and how likely they would name them something completely different. He looked at the same for white parents. Even among very popular black names, there was little overlap with white. He found that the parent that was most likely to give a child a distinctive black name was an unmarried, low-income, under-educated teenage mother from a black neighborhood who has a distinctively black name herself. Fryer thought it was her choice in solidifying her position with the community. But think about it, how would a black child get treated if it was named something typical white? And think about how you view names when you first hear them? I have to admit I have preconceived notions about names as well. Before I met a member of my husband's family who had two children, I was told their unusual names were because the mother named them using a combination of the mother's and father's names. I immediately asked where they lived, because I wondered if I was going to a bad neighborhood. And I asked if her husband was black. I was right on both accounts, except that she wasn't married. Both of her children were from two different black fathers who were no longer around, and she lived in government housing. So am I racist? Or am I just basing my assumptions on statistics of past experiences? My husband said it was only because I haven't ever really been around black people. I said that wasn't true, I had dated some. He asked me where I had met them, I said college, and he said, well, those don't count, they're different. But why? Because they were educated? Are educated blacks somehow less black because they're educated? I just met black woman at a book club and we immediately hit it off because we both love books and because I found out she home schools her children, something I am doing as well. We immediately made plans to get the kids together. I don't know how educated she is, but she seems intelligent and she obviously cares about education. But is my experience with blacks biased because all the ones I know are educated?

I also noticed something else extremely interesting. In Fryer's study, he did surveys and for his sample found the top 20 "Whitest" Girl/Boy Names and the top 20 "Blackest" Boy/Girl names. I have three boys, and two of their names where on the "Whitest" boy names list, and my third, one with a slightly more unusual name, came very close to being called Colin, which was also on this list. Am I unconsciously trying to say something about my children? Or have I unconsciously realized the success rate correlation in names and was hoping they would be more successful due to their names? I honestly don't know. I just find the whole topic fascinating. But I hope I haven't opened up a can of worms. More than likely if anyone reads this whole review I'll undoubtedly offend someone. I've never been a very politically correct person and I don't mean to offend, I'm just a naturally curious person who wants to understand more about the world. This subject has come up in our home recently as well, because I've been teaching my 5-yr-old about Martin Luther King Day. We've had worksheets and lessons about it, and I've had to find ways to describe slavery that my son would understand. Then I started to wonder. Am I teaching this the correct way? Will his curious mind, perhaps like mine, say something one day to offend? But I have no close black friends to ask. I want to know. What do black people want us to know? Should we always use the term African American? What do they want us to teach our kids about MLK? How do we change the misconceptions in culture? Maybe if I end up becoming good friends with this woman I met, I can ask her. Hopefully she'll be open enough to forgive my ignorance.

Well, that was a tangent, but it was started because of this book. I enjoyed this book in parts and in others I was bored. I went for a Bachelor's in Psychology and quit when I only had three classes left to get the degree. I just really didn't enjoy it. I've had to take many classes on the subject of Psychology and statistics. And what people need to remember when reading this book, is that it's just statistics. Levitt and Dubner use the words "more likely" and "less likely" often for a reason. There is no way to prove direct cause and effect relationship on these topics. When I wrote papers in college for my classes, for every study I found on any topic, inevitably I could find a study proving the opposite or at least something with a different outcome. That being said, that does not mean statistical probability does not have merit. It most certainly does, as long as it's taken with a grain of salt. Knowing that even if A + B might = C, there could possibly be a factor Q, which was not seen or not taken into account. I also noticed some of the references they used for their research was stuff they had written, take that as you will. In the end, it's an entertaining book, and the conclusions Levitt and Dubner draw can account for the popularity of this book. Just the idea that abortion could be linked to the decrease in crime is reason enough to read it.

Sure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap.

He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives.

Ultimately I have a problem with the unquestioned, unaccoutable role of the public intellectual. Leavitt dances around with his PhD on his sleeve, but is never subject to peer review or any sort of academic criticism. I think it's irresponsible.

Capitalism’s Economic illiteracy 2.0…

Preamble:
--"probably the best-known economics book of our time"
…This is how (real-world) economist Ha-Joon Chang described Freakonomics (2005), before critiquing its entire premise (see later).
--I was reminded of this when re-reading Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007). I was thinking how Klein’s book might be the best-known anti-capitalist book of our time, so I did some quick searches to see how books on “economics” and “capitalism” ranked on Goodreads in terms of number-of-ratings. You can see a longer list in my review of Klein’s book:
-838,472 ratings: Freakonomics (the most ratings of any “economics” book I could find).
-46,867 ratings: The Shock Doctrine

--Now, if you know me, you’ll know why I’ve avoided Freakonomics for so long.
…It reminds me of the grueling process of trying to learn about the real world when your entire vocabulary is Orwellian… when you cannot even formulate coherent questions. We should pause here and reflect on how significant this barrier is.
--I remember walking in circles amidst the prominently-displayed glossy covers which I started with, including:
-ex. Malcolm Gladwell: a salesperson rather than a serious social theorist: Outliers: The Story of Success; Gladwell’s blurb is on the cover of Freakonomics: “Prepare to be dazzled.”
-ex. Steven Pinker: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is referenced in the book.
--Such a popular book was indeed a breeze to read, but harder to review. If I could find satisfaction in unpacking Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, then it’s about time I cross off the most popular “economics” book.

Highlights:

1) Economics illiteracy 2.0:
--The best propaganda must start with a kernel of truth, as a lure (ex. Jordan Peterson acknowledging the “chaos” and lack of meaning/values in modern society).
…Thus, Levitt (the economist in Freakonomics) tries to distance himself from:

a) Mainstream economics (i.e. Neoclassical economics, which is never named):
--We can think of this as “Economics illiteracy 1.0”. Levitt correctly disparages this school of thought as a bunch of math/econometrics/theory that do not ask (I would say avoid) interesting questions (esp. critical framing).
--Levitt still seems to describe this as a “science” (misleading) with excellent tools (also misleading), applied to the monetary world of stock markets/economic growth/inflation/taxes which Levitt claims to avoid. If the tools are excellent, it’s strange how Levitt avoids applying them to the listed topics (imagine studying “economics” and saying, nah, don’t care about these. What a relief, that would make my studies much easier!).

b) Freakonomics (i.e. Neoclassical microeconomics):
--This is “Economics illiteracy 2.0”. If you read carefully, the authors admit their book is actually “applied microeconomics” with a hearty dose of marketing (“rogue”, “unorthodox”, “Freak”).
--Such rebels, a journalist for the New York Times Magazine marketing an economist from the infamous Chicago School of Economics (such a credible tradition, including the “Chicago Boys” “free market” economists in Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship). Director of the Becker Friedman (yes, Milton Friedman) Institute for Research in Economics.
…Winner of the John Bates Clark Medal which the book describes as “a sort of junior Nobel Prize for young economists”: firstly, the “Nobel Prize” in Economics is infamous for being a fake Nobel given to mostly pro-finance shills; secondly, John Bates Clark was the infamous Neoclassical economics pioneer in the US who justified inequalities (during the robber barons “Gilded Age”!) as natural law based on their contributions, departing from Classical rent theory (thus, “Neoclassical” is “anti-Classical” according to Michael Hudson/Anwar Shaikh etc.).
--Given such mainstream biases, Freakonomics mentions “capitalism” only twice (and never defined), (1) in the context of Adam Smith (and the rise of capitalism, long ago so readers cannot contextualize), and (2) tossed in (with zero context) when mentioning information asymmetries.
--With the big picture of economics left opaque, Levitt focuses on (1) individual behavioral incentives and (2) data analysis to explore “everyday life”/“how the world really works” (including pop culture/sports/crime)/“everything”. This is why Ha-Joon Chang questions the entire premise of this “economics” book, in Ch.1 “Life, the Universe and Everything” of Economics: The User's Guide
--The root of “economics” is described as how people (individuals) get what they want. The problem with starting from the individual/micro is the structural/macro rules (esp. economics) are not assessed (in terms of how they are socially constructed/alternatives). So, even if Levitt focuses on cheating/corruption/crime (which indeed are avoided in Neoclassical economics), it’s from the individual level so the structural incentives seem vaguely inevitable.
--This book is actually dealing with psychology/sociology topics (thus, asking interesting but misplaced questions) using crude tools described in an economized manner. For an actual intro to real-world economics, see: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails.

…see comments below for rest of the review…

I initially gave this book a high score because it is entertaining, but:
-1. I must agree with other people who point out that the whole pretense of "freakonomics" as an amazing new science is completely bogus. Some economists keep trying to appropriate other fields like sociology, epidemiology and psychology and then pretend they invented something.
-2. I did not go look up facts from this book, but I did for the sequel and found that the authors were playing fast and loose with reality, so their credibility as scientists goes way down.

If I could give this book less then one star I would. I tried so very hard to finish reading this book full of BS facts but eventually got so tired of hearing things that just are not true but the author "claims" to be fact, that I quit reading it. I almost finished but couldn't do it in the end. Some of the things the author talks about seem like they could be truths but the majority of it is not. Don't waste your time.

Update: I don't recall the specifics as this was over a year ago that I "attempted" to read the book. I don't remember how far I got through it before I stopped reading. I can recall that many of the data and ideas presented about crime statistics and correlations were not accurate. The book put claims on cause and effect in regards to violent crime. I knew that the correlations were no more then the Authors conclusion based on one view of statistical data use. The use of statistics is often (many times not on purpose) biased. I have studied and been in law enforcement since 1990 and have worked serious felony level crimes since 1999. I know from experience and studies that some of the ideas he presented as "fact" were not fact but more of an opinion that can be easily concluded when someone does not look at the entire data of violent crimes.

A közgazdaságtan az a buborékszemüveges kockagyerek az osztályban, aki bármit, de tényleg bármit megtenne, hogy kúlnak tűnjön. De hiába kapálódzik, a többiek jobbára kinézik maguk közül: nem is tudomány ez, gondolják, csak jóslás, ráadásul még unalmas is. (Más kérdés, hogy 20 év múlva az érettségi találkozóra ez a srác fog égőpiros Lamborghinivel érkezni.) No most ami Levittet illeti, valóban életrevaló kísérletet tesz az előítéletek eloszlatására, bár ehhez szüksége van egy újságíró (nevesítsük: Dubner) segítségére. Kettejük együttműködésének eredménye a Freakonomics* c. kötet.

No most az efféle szövegek kulcskérdése, hogy a szerző(k) megtalálja(-ják)-e az üdvös egyensúlyt az anekdoták és az adatok között. Mert ugye vicces anekdotákból bárki tud többé-kevésbé szórakoztató valamit rittyenteni, csak épp három nap alatt elfelejti az ember, hogy egyáltalán olvasta. Ugyanakkor hiába van tele egy adott szöveg releváns információkkal, ha két oldal után úgy érezzük magunkat benne, mintha víz alá nyomnák a fejünket. Az alkotók, ezt ki lehet jelenteni, megtalálták az egyensúlyt, könyvük kellemesen elszállt, ugyanakkor valódi tudást közvetít, izgalmas elegy - az ember hajlamos eltekinteni tőle, hogy valójában minden, csak nem forradalmi.

A Freakonomics ugyanis kábé pont azt csinálja, amit a közgazdaságtan úgy általában: fog egy hipotézist, megkeresi a hozzá tartozó adathalmazokat, az adathalmazokból kibányássza azokat, amelyek korrelálnak egymással, majd levon bizonyos következtetéseket. Amiben Levitt kicsit több, mint kollégái, az tényleg csak annyi, hogy szélesebb perspektívában gondolkodik, olyan kérdéseket is feltesz, amelyeket mások nem, és olyan adathalmazok korrelációját is leellenőrzi, amelyeket mi nem kötnénk össze a témával. A folyamatban részt vevő változókra (nevezhetjük őket embereknek is) ható ösztönzőket szabadabban kezeli, vagyis nem ragad le a piszkos anyagiaknál, hanem el tudja képzelni, hogy bizonyos dolgokat absztrakt jutalmakért (jó lelkiismeret, pozitív önkép) teszünk meg. De amúgy ez egy botegyszerű kötet, ami semmiféle alapvető szemléletváltást nem hirdet, hacsak nem számít szemléletváltásnak annak kijelentése, hogy a közgazdaságtan sokkal több mindenre ráhúzható, mint ahogy azt hittük.

A kötettel kapcsolatos általános problémák, úgy hiszem, két dologból fakadnak. Az egyik Levitt azon alapvetése, hogy a puszta adatoknak nincs erkölcsi minősége. Ha az jön ki, hogy az abortusz engedélyezése a hetvenes évek Amerikájában közrejátszott a bűnözés zuhanásában a kilencvenes években**, azzal semmit sem kíván mondani az abortuszról mint morális döntésről - egyszerűen leírja a következtetéseit, te meg kezdjél vele valamit. Ezzel szerintem semmi gond nincs. A másik lehetséges probléma pedig a közgazdaságtan sajátos jellegéből adódik. A közgazdaságtudomány ugyanis speciális tudomány abból a szempontból, hogy nem tud laboratóriumi körülmények között kísérleteket elvégezni, tehát ha bizonyítani akar egy hipotézist, keresnie kell megfelelő adatcsoportokat, amelyeken keresztül megteheti ezt. Magyarán ha azt állítom, hogy azok az afroamerikaiak, akik hagyományos "fehér" keresztnevet kaptak szüleiktől, sikeresebbek, mint akik nem, keresnem kell egy kazal kimutatást, statisztikát, dokumentumot, és ezekből kell összefésülnöm valamit, ami bizonyítékra hasonlít. Sajnos minél speciálisabb egy hipotézis, annál nehezebb megtalálni a hozzá passzoló adathalmazt***, következésképpen jogos a felvetés, hogy Levitt állításai bizonyos szituációkban talán kontrollmérésre szorulnak.

Ezek tehát a (lehetséges) általános problémák. A személyes problémám meg csak annyi, hogy a könyv utolsó harmadát nyugodtan el lehetett volna hagyni. Itt a szerzők nem tudtak ellenállni a késztetésnek, és összegereblyézték az első kiadás után megjelent törmelékeiket (cikkeket, bloggbejegyzéseket, stb), majd hozzácsapták az egészhez. Csak épp lesüt róluk az esetlegesség, az, hogy voltaképp meg nem gondolt gondolatokról van szó, amelyeket még emészteni kellett volna.

Különben meg jó.

* A kötet magyar címe ("Lökonómia") kicsit irritál, igyekszem kerülni a használatát. Értem, hogy a fordító eléggé meg volt lőve a magyarításával, de azért na.
** Ez amúgy a szerzők legtöbb vitát kiváltott tanulmánya. És egyben a legizgalmasabb is, mert tökéletesen illusztrálja Levitt módszerének sajátosságait, amikor két, egymástól csaknem két évtizedes távolságban lévő adatcsoportot vet össze. Ez másnak eszébe sem jutna, de Levitt képes kilépni a keretből - ez az ő skillje.
*** Nyilván az internet, a "big data" rengeteget segít abban, hogy ez a probléma idővel nem létező legyen.

The Basics:

Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find facts to back up various assertions rather than relying on conventional wisdom.

The Good:

As a person who is sick of the inability of most people to have a rational discourse on any even vaguely politicized topic, and a self-proclaimed skeptic, it’s nice to read anyone who endorses looking at hard data to make judgments about possibly controversial issues. Levitt does a nice job of not only proclaiming the advantages of this sort of rational outlook, but also of showing that when you actually examine the data, you sometimes get surprising results. Furthermore, he takes the time to point out that there is a difference between correlation and causation, and that many people mistake one for the other. Again, a nice touch.

The actual questions that Levitt asks are all fairly interesting, though some will appeal to certain readers more than others. In addition to cheating sumotori and strange names, Levitt also examines cheating teachers, the economics of crack dealers, and the effect of abortion on crime. Crime, in point of fact, seems to be Levitt’s greatest interest, and I wonder if he might not have been better served by writing an entire book on the relationship between economics and crime, as opposed to trying to touch on a number of different subjects that are all largely unrelated. It might have made for a tighter, more focused book.

The writing is solid; simple and easy, but solid. Despite being a book about economics, it’s not a terribly dense read, as witnessed by the fact that I finished it off in about two days. Granted, it was two days of heavy reading, but it was still two days.

The Bad:

For a book that’s so gung ho about statistics, there aren’t many statistics in here. Levitt claims that the numbers back up his research, but he rarely provides the data itself, which makes it difficult to tell how much he might be manipulating statistics to serve his own ends. It makes the book seem like it’s been dumbed down for the plebian masses, which will be very frustrating to any intelligent reader who wants to look at Levitt’s data themselves. Any reader who doesn’t feel like reading the numbers can do what most of us did in undergrad—skip the numbers sections. It’s just sloppy; I can’t imagine Levitt would do this in a formal economics paper.

The book also lacks much in the way of an unifying theme, a problem that is acknowledged within the text itself; that isn’t only sad, it’s sloppy. I doubt that a writer of Dubner’s skill and an economist of Levitt’s apparent genius (more on that below) are totally incapable of thinking of and describing some kind of unifying theme throughout this work. It just smacks of laziness, even more so when there’s a half-hearted “well, I guess you could say it’s this…” sort of thing in the epilogue. Again, I have trouble imagining that Levitt would submit a paper that was this disjointed to a serious economic publication; why should the general public be treated less seriously?

The Ugly:

The self-aggrandizement. Oh, the self-aggrandizement.

Every chapter is preceded by excerpts from an article about Levitt, which all tell us what a brilliant and unconventional economist this man is. In the introduction, we’re told that he really wasn’t that interested in writing a book, unless he got to work with this wonderful journalist who had written an article about him earlier. The cover promises that we will be “dazzled” by a “rogue economist” who explains “the hidden side of everything.”

For all of this talk of brilliance and dazzling explanations, the book doesn’t seem that brilliant. It seems like a transcript of some interesting dinner conversation with a smart guy, the sort that makes you go home and think, “hey, this stuff is interesting, I ought to go pick up a book about it.” Of course, the problem here is that you’ve already picked up the book.

The fact that Levitt wasn’t that interested in writing a book in the first place is telling; this book feels like something written by a person who needed to get the work done, but really wasn’t engaged in what he was doing. Maybe he should have waited until he was a little more motivated.

__________________________
“An incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing.”

Well that was a big surprise. When I arrived at page 7, I discovered that, among other things, the authors of Freakonomics were writing about something I had worked on in the early 2000s. I was an editor for a major educational publisher at the time and was specializing in the development of achievement tests. I am not ashamed of it. And you can’t prove a thing, see.

A major metropolitan school system happened to be looking for an achievement test to administer as part of a high stakes, No Child Left Behind testing program in their elementary schools and had decided to purchase one of the tests published by my company. It was an excellent, reliable, valid, and highly praised test of student achievement authored by some of the leading educational testing experts in the U.S. My job for this particular adoption was producing a custom version of the tests for the school system. It was a simple task for me, or should have been. All that needed to be done was to develop some new covers with the school system’s name and logo, add a forward by the school district. Then the school found a paragraph in the original test administrator’s instruction that they did not care for and insisted that I delete it. It was a very short paragraph, a mere baby, barely a dependent clause, but it offended the school system. The test’s original instructions––the instructions used around the entire country––stated that the test should NOT be used to evaluate teachers, principals, or schools and the school system fully intended to use the student’s test scores to evaluate teachers and principals.

Now here is another big surprise. A few teachers and principals cheated on the test; that is, they “corrected” answers on the No. 2 pencil scannable answer sheets before sending them out for scoring. Because, they didn’t want to be fired, that’s why. The authors of Freakonomics use this case as an example of incentives gone bad.

This book has an apple on its cover, I like apples because of its good taste. However, the inside of the apple on the cover is an orange's flesh, what's the taste of it, maybe a little sour, or sweet? It is magical and unbelievable, I think it is changed in some technological ways. Anomalous