The apt name would have been F**konomics, for the book hovers around the passing of abortion bill in USA. How can somebody write a book of 200 pages out of nothing is a mystery to me. What intrigues me more is that many newspapers had wrote great things about this book, a perfect case of hype creating a best seller.
All gas no substance. And nothing to do with economics rather than some stupid black-white demographics and some obvious facts. Thank God, I'm through with this.

The overarching point of this book is absolutely correct: conventional wisdom and what we perceive to be logical often is not. Our society is wrapped up and smothered in incorrect, dysfunctional assumptions that continue to rule our world and ruin our lives. Bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, fear, and the way people in power use these tools to divide and conquer us is at the root of all of our problems.

That being said - everything else in this book is mediocre to bad. The writers make repeated assumptions and statements that are just flat out wrong. They make interesting points, and their comparisons are often thought provoking, but they could have used more of their own medicine.

This book is clearly written by economists. Economics is one of the most useless, garbage ideologies ever created by humans. This is, of course, my opinion - but this book, I feel, only serves to prove that opinion. Over and over again the authors try to narrow down causes to one thing or another. They try to find the factor that changed everything. The abortion/crime essay is the clearest - abortion being legal is NOT the only factor that led to crime going down. There are thousands of factors that all contribute to everything that happens. Economists like to boil things down to numbers - instead of looking at people, looking at the complexity of life, they want a simple answer. There are no simple answers.

In the book the authors do, occasionally, note that just one thing is not the cause - but they then go back on this again and again by making ridiculous statements, ie:

"What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v. Wade? Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor and sometimes all three." This sentence gives the image of the typical woman getting an abortion to be a poor teenage girl. They don't say that's the majority, but the implication by choosing this example is that it's the norm. This is absolutely false - Planned Parenthood has plenty of information on this - the most common type of woman who gets an abortion is a woman who has already had a kid(s) and accidentally got pregnant and didn't want another kid. No stereotyping, no images of teenagers making bad choices, etc.

Then there's this gem:

"Black Americans were hurt more by crack cocaine than by any other single cause since Jim Crow"

I almost stopped reading the book there. That is so wrong, so offensive, so ignorant it is utterly ridiculous. There is NO SINGLE CAUSE of anything! This reductionist economist bullshit is exactly why I hate economics. And if there was a single cause - it wasn't fucking crack. It was racism, or structural racism, or criminalizing of young black people, or economic segregation, or reagonomics, or zoning laws, or re-districting, etc. etc. etc. Crack ruining black communities is, in actuality, a myth. Yes, it's a problem, yes, drug addiction in all forms is terrible, but this myth that crack just fell on black communities like a nuclear bomb leaving nothing behind but violence and death is just plain false. Additionally: the crackdown on drugs came BEFORE crack became an issue - it was a political device pre-dating crack used by Reagan to get votes from ignorant white people who feared black people. There are many books documenting this.

In short: there are interesting points in this book, and the overall point is absolutely true. We all fall into believing bullshit that feels like it's obvious but is not. It's up to us individually, and as a society, to always seek the truth. However - the truth is not provided in a 20 page article as a single answer. If only the authors took their own ideas further the book might actually be worth something.

I’ve been hearing about this book since forever. I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand- it asks some very interesting questions and draws some very interesting inferences. It makes fascinating and, I think, important connections. The writers are also unpretentious and readable.

However.

I have some questions.

Question #1: The authors claim that “women’s rights advocates have hyped the incidence of sexual assault, claiming that one in three American women will in their lifetime be a victim of rape or attempted rape. The figure is more like one in eight- but the advocates know it would take a callous person to publicly dispute their claims.”

Oh, really? What are you basing this off of? Police reports? Surveys? How do you know?

See, I’m a woman. I’ve been sexually assaulted. Out of my, oh, 15 female friends, almost half have been sexually assaulted in some manner so far, and most of those female friends are upper-middle class (lower rates of sexual assault than working class women). If 1 in 3 were true, it would hardly surprise me; I wouldn’t even be surprised by a 1 in 2 estimate.

Now. How many of those friends have reported it to the police? None. How many would answer it honestly in an anonymous survey? I don’t know the answer, but I’m quite sure some would not.

So you see, I’m a little suspicious at the certainty with which they say “That's definitely wrong, it's 1 in 8."

I can see some wiggle room to say “This 1 in 3 claim has not yet been substantiated, as it is difficult to establish actual records on this sort of information; perhaps we should not be repeating this statistic so zealously.”

I don’t see any room to say “that’s wrong, it is 1 in 8, despite what these bleeding heart Bambi-saving women’s advocates would lead you to believe.”

Question #2 centers around the authors’ attempt to explain away those studies that show resumes with traditionally “black-sounding” names get significantly fewer interview requests than identical resumes with traditionally “white-sounding” names. They show some data demonstrating that names we think of as “black-sounding” are actually just names given by parents with low education; because black Americans tend to have poorer access to education, there are going to be more black DeShawns than white Deshawns, so we begin to call Deshawn a “black-sounding” name. A man named DeShawn is more likely to come from a lower-income background, therefore, and have less education. The authors say that’s really what makes employers less likely to request an interview from Deshawn than Jonathan.

I can for sure get on board with the possibility that someone named Deshawn is more likely to come from low-income/low-education background and is therefore less likely to do well in life for those reasons (of which his name is also a symptom, not a cause).

That said. Do I think employers associate DeShawn with a low-income/education background because they believe that’s what it denotes? Or do they think DeShawn sounds black?

Ask a random person on a street if they think a DeShawn is more likely to be a high-education black man or a low-education white man.

Think they'll say the former?

Yeah. I’ll take that bet.

That’s why I suspect the disparity in hiring practices with traditionally black or white names is due to race, not income/education. It doesn’t matter why people are more likely to name their child DeShawn, it matters at how the world views people as more likely to name their child DeShawn. I feel like this is a major, major point the authors miss in this section.

On the other hand, things I liked:
That chapter on names was quite interesting for other reasons. It notes explicitly a trend I had sort of noticed in the back of my mind, just from interacting with the world and lots of people with names: names popular with high-education parents will, 10-20 years or so down the line, be almost exactly the names most popular with low-education parents. The high-education parents start the trendy names, and then low-education parents mimic them eventually (for example, Amber, Heather, Brittany, and Kayla were, in the 80s, very “high-end” names, used by high-education parents; now, they’re used predominantly by low-education parents; in the interim, they were “mainstream” names running somewhere in the middle).

It’s also especially interesting to read this book in 2017, a decade + after this book was written. The authors offer predictive lists of 2015’s most popular/mainstream names, based off high-end names of 2005, when the book was published. And damn they were accurate. They gave 24 names each of girls’ and boys’ names that they thought would be on 2015’s most popular list. For girls, for instance: Ava went from #9 to #4. Avery, 67 to 16. Eleanor, 264 to 60. Ella, 23 to 18. Emma, 2 to 1. Fiona 374 to 219. Maeve 694 to 450. Phoebe 425 to 287. Quinn, 683 to 97. You get the point.

Also, I found the causal link the author draws between abortion legalization as of Roe v. Wade and the unexpected drop in crime in the 1990s credible and compelling. While it definitely, if viewed normatively, has a bit of a eugenics vibe about it that uneases one, I think that, rather, it’s actually rather affirming, in light of how he puts it at the end of the chapter: What this link really demonstrates is that “when the government gives a woman to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in a position to raise the baby well.”

کتاب اقتصاد ناهنجاری های پنهان اجتماعی نوشته استیون لویت به بیان خود نویسنده کتابی ایست که موضوع واحدی ندارد ، و اثر و اصولا ادعایی هم در بهبود کیفیت زندگی مادی انسان ندارد ، اساس کتاب او بر مبنای شک است .
آنچه نویسنده به دنبال آن بوده است پیدا کردن رشته ای مشترک در کاربردهای امور روزمره است ، این که مردم در دنیای واقعی چگونه رفتار می کنند ، مساله ای مهم که آقای لویت تلاش کرده با تلفیقی از علم اقتصاد ، آمار ، جامعه شناسی و رفتار شناسی به آن پی ببرد .
هدف نویسنده در زیر سوال بردن عقل متعارف است ، پرسیدن سوال های بسیار تا هر فرد برای هر موضوعی با تکیه بر هوش و شناخت خود به ایده یا راه حلی برای آن برسد .
اگرچه بیشتر موضوعاتی که استیون لویت به آن ها پرداخته اصل و ریشه غربی دارد و برای مردم در جوامع شرق ممکن است کمی عجیب به نظر برسد اما کتاب در مجموع در تلاش برای نگریستن متفاوت و خارج از عقل متعارف برای خواننده فارغ از هر جامعه یا ملیتی ، نسبتا موفق بوده است .

One of the most interesting topics in Freakonomics, is that of bad assumptions in causality. These are made when people consider causality regarding a particular event, and they making assumptions that are affected by factors such as self-interest, prejudice, common sense, etc. The book shows that when the right questions are asked and their answers are searched in a bigger context, some unrelated causes may happen to trigger the original event. An example from the book is how crime rate had fallen in the US during the mid-90’s after years of increasing and contrary to the most predictions. The authors noted that legalizing abortion in 1973, which is totally unrelated to crime, is what mainly led to the fall in crime rate. They argue that most unwanted children who are most likely to have criminal tendencies, were not born anymore because of the said legalization. Most people would assume that crime rate had fallen because of the strong economy or because of new police strategies or whatever. But when you look at the bigger picture, the real chain of events may begin to materialize. The book helps knowing how to differentiate good assumptions from the bad ones. A very helpful tool in this is the study of incentives.

People respond to anything according to their incentives. An incentive can range from money to something as vague as inner peace. In the previous example, treasury people will want to believe that a strong economy helped bringing crime rates down. The police chief will most likely convince himself and other people that his new police strategies are the major contributor to the fall. Some may think that God intervened and helped. This may seem a very simple idea, but when it comes to everyday life, everyone’s incentive is not that clear. An example to this is that of real estate agents. The book demonstrates how real-estate agents will in all likelihood convince you to sell your house at a price that they would not approve if they were themselves the owners of your house. Their explanation is quite simple and plausible: When you're the owner of the house, an increase of 10000$ means a mere couple of hundred dollars for the agent, whereas that is not the case when the agent is the owner.

I’m not an expert in the field, but I believe that statistical analysis and its implications are not always applicable on the individual level because it cannot make cut and dry conclusions, and we don't like that individually. Maybe it can help us be more observant, but that has significant side effects, with the most probable one being confusion. The authors claim that the book will help people individually, but I think it can be of much help to corporations or groups.

Another problem I've realized is the correlation of data, which may lead to contradicting outcomes as happened in this very book. In one study, the authors show that parents with high income are most likely to raise a successful kid. Yet, in another study near the end of the book they show that the parents’ economic status does not affect their child’s success in life at all, since other factors may be at play. I know that in statistics, it is very natural that individual cases may contradict with one another which is something inherent in the nature of statistics, but when entire statistical outcomes contradict, I think the method used can fairly be deemed inefficient.

This was much more enjoyable than reliable, except for the last chapter about names which I believe was a total waste of time. I think that rather than providing anything new, the book is a practical training about a much older wisdom, the maxim of Cassius, which was quoted by Cicero: n  Cui bono?n

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is a non-fiction book that crunches data to answer relevant questions (that appear funny on the onset) related to the human psyche and behaviour.

It is a book by the nerds for the nerds. If you feel lost seeing a lot of numbers and calculations, this may not be the book for you.

Will be definitely picking up the next book in the series.

Verbose, repetitive, contradictory: a book of 200-pages that could be condensed to 3-5 pages.

Titles that vary from scintillating to insulting, yet are followed by a chapter that doesn't support the title bar.

Anecdotal stories, mistaken for data or hypothesis. Interpretations and hypotheses are drawn from data that could still be interpreted in multiple ways.

The book claims that it will link the unexpected, but frankly, links the obvious, with many "well duh" moments.

Needless generations of lists that help bulk out the book, but provide little further benefit for study.

Each chapter begins with unnecessary aggrandisement of the author for the statistician, that jars the flow of the book.

Overall, a good demonstration of why "social sciences" are in no way close to being "science", and instead should be termed social philosophy.

Everything I hate about popular science - alternating between over-simplified, patronising, naive or simply annoying, but worst of all, blatantly refusing to take account of the political and social implications of its findings, and being proud of it.

This is an interesting book with some startling hypothesis, and frankly I liked it a lot more than I expected. It was written by an economist (Levitt) with a hyper curiosity and a journalist (Dubner) who found the economist refreshing in his world view and his inventiveness. Nothing in this book is about economics as we generally know it. Instead, it’s about “the riddles of everyday life.” It’s about “how the world really works.” It’s about “the hidden side of everything.”
The book’s central idea is “if morality represents how people would like the world to work, then economics shows how it actually does work.”
Some of the chapter titles seem to be silly on the surface, but as you read the chapters, they make sense:

“What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?” (Cheating!)

“How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real estate agents?” (Information!)

“Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?” (No money!)

“Where have all the criminals gone?” (Not born!)

The book is well written and presents its arguments well. I will admit to occasionally skimming when it got a bit bogged down in statistics, but fortunately that wasn’t too often.

A couple of startling arguments stood out, especially in light of the current threat to Roe v. Wade.

“Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years – the years during which young men enter their criminal prime – the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion lead to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, lead to less crime.”

“What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she’s in a position to raise the baby well. If she decides she can’t, she often chooses the abortion. But once a woman decides she will have her baby, a pressing question arises: what are the parents supposed to do once a child is born?”

All these so called “pro-life” fanatics (really forced birth fanatics) should think about this when they are screaming about dead babies and rising crime rates. Maybe, just maybe, if they stopped forcing their world view on others and let us make our own decisions about our lives, the world would be a better place.

A different, fascinating book.

This book is a good example of garbage in, garbage out. The demonstration of critical thinking is good on a superficial level. But that it where the good stuff ends. The background facts used to perform their logical analyses suffer from gaps in relevant facts to downright misinformation. Even worse is the impression given that the background research is astonishingly thorough and accurate. It is not. Don't take their word for it on anything. A quick Google search yields rebuttals from true experts in the various fields that effectively point out flaws in their quotes, facts, and logic.

I love that they promote the ideas of critical thinking. I love that they promote the idea of thorough research and questioning the status quo. I love that they promote use of numbers and statistics to explore ideas in an attempt to find the truth. But I wish that they were providing as good of a demonstration of the principles as they claim to be.

Their conclusions are then presented as irrefutable, as if they are a magic bullet of the truth, rather than a heartfelt (presumably) effort at finding truth, subject to revision based on refined thought or background research. And then there is the assignment of cause to correlation...... In at least some cases, I am not convinced that it is truth that they are after so much as their own agenda (on oh so many levels).

Do as they say but better than they do!

For a book that aspires to "redefine the way we view the modern world," the authors are supremely irresponsible. They put on a "freak" show of data (their term choice) to make a sensation and lull the lay economist into thinking they've learned something. I read several reviews of this book and it appears people who know about the subject are appalled by their poor analysis, contrived conclusions, and use of unreliable research to make sensationalized claims.

Maybe I'm stating it a little strongly, but it has been over two years since I read this book and I'm still angry about one of their premises. The authors proposed that crime rates went down due to the increase in abortions some 15 years earlier. Yes, they claim society is better off without the kids whose parents apparently didn't want them ever having a chance to grow up to be the miscreants they'd be destined to become. That may be a correlation but it is a huge stretch to claim it is a cause and effect. (The decreased crime rate is much better explained by Strauss & Howe in Generations , by the way.)

Why I gave this book 2 stars instead of 1 is because it does succeed in drawing interest to economics.

ما حقیقت را با آسودگی و بی دردسر می خواهیم. همینطور با چیزی که تا اندازه ای زیاد با نفع شخصی و رفاه فردی هماهنگ است یا با چیزی که تلاش زیادی نمی خواهد و سبب دگرگونی های ناپسند در زندگی نیست. ما همچنین آن چه را سبب بالا رفتن اعتماد به نفس می شود به آسانی می پذیریم. رفتارهای اقتصادی و اجتماعی پیچیده هستند و گاه پی برده به ویژگی های آنها کاری نشدنی است. پس به آرمان هایی دست می یازیم که مانند تخته ای شناورند روی آب و همین ها اندازه ی فهمِ ما را از مسایل نشان می دهند. چنین است که اگر اصول اخلاقی دنیایی آرمانی را پی می گیرند اما این اقتصاد است که دنیای واقعی و رفتارهای حقیقی را نشان می دهد


هفتم اردی بهشت 1400 خورشیدی