This was a reread in preparation for a professional development workshop being conducted in my office. I don't remember when I first read it, but it had to have been shortly after the book was originally published in 2005/2006. I'm sticking with my original rating of four stars.

The book is well-written and has all the data you can imagine to back up the authors' claims. One area it fails at, however, is that the areas they are trying to tie together really have no relationship. I mean, Chicago teachers and sumo wrestlers don't have much in common, and there isn't a strong correlation between the two. Sure, they may cheat, but the "whys" are vastly different.

The one thing I was interested in finding for my workshop is the analysis of the data. Data can show almost anything if you look at it long enough. My job requires a lot of data analysis and asking questions, lots of questions. In this respect, the chapter about the young researcher living with the drug dealers appealed to me simply because he started asking questions instead of relying on the status quo or even wrong concepts. His research changed the views of a lot of politicians, and how they approached the gang/drug problem around the country.

I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in data analysis and asking, "Why?".

This book is little more than Stephen Dubner jerking off Steven Levitt, but that's not why it's a 1-star read. here's why:

"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.)"

In the Notes for this chapter:

"The 2002 statistics from the National Crime Survey, which is designed to elicit honest responses, suggests that the lifetime risk of a woman's being the victim of unwanted sexual activity or attempted unwanted sexual activity is one in eight[.]"

Here, in a nutshell, is how the National Crime VICTIMIZATION Survey collects information on rape:

Every six months, they ask everyone over 12 in a bunch of houses questions like:

"41a.
(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways -
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack -"

Followed up later with:

"29c.
You mentioned rape. Do you mean forced or coerced sexual intercourse?"

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the flaws in the NCVS's methodology here. And to use it to glibly accuse "women's rights advocates" of somehow manipulating a kowtowed public is incredibly obnoxious. While I'd guess that Levitt might be right more often than wrong, it's not worth his smug, self-satisfied style. I recommend 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre. Similar schtick with substance instead of 'hype'.

Sheer Rubbish. This is an awful book, yes I read the whole thing, like bitter medicine to a toddler, and had to see what the fuss was about.

This Amazon review nails it.  Here's my review/rant.

I'm reading this is 2012, maybe the hype in 2005 was different and people ate this kind of stuff up, even then I don't think we were that gullible at this time. There were good social science/stats books out there. This book pales in comparison to the works of Malcolm Gladwell and others.

Levitt is making something out of nothing from strange stories he heard, now he's stitching them together suggesting there's a *GASP* hidden side to everything. Because the KKK spoke in code, real estate listings are supposedly in code, and we're all being duped into spending more for our house because of the secret speak between realtors! How about consumers don't just read a real estate listings but check a place out before making the biggest purchase of their lives, one could argue there's secret speak in every industry. For his final chapter (which is in the middle of the book) Levitt's grand finale, Black people name their children differently to White people! The second half of the book is blog posts from their blog more atrocious reading from these ranting lunatics.

There's no appeal to science, Levitt is throwing a lot of his own opinion, and making wild estimations and bringing up even wilder conclusions. It's pretty obvious Levitt is a shrewd businessman, he's not just writing books, but has a well to do following with his blog, radio station and yes even movie! This is "easy to consume" garbage for the masses.

4,5/5 ⭐

“The conventional wisdom is often wrong.”

As an economics student, this really helped me to open my mind to learn how to analyse everyday situations from a economic point of view. And it also showed me a new branch of economics that has become my favourite.

If you want to learn the basics on economics, this book is for you. Some people might find it a little bit basic, but I think it should be taken as an introduction to the topic. More than teaching you how economics work, which is no easy task, I believe its purpose is to try and show how for every situation you can find an economic assumption to back it up.

What should be also taken into account when reading this book is that to prove most of his theories Levitt relies on statistics, which are part of economics as a science but not pure economics itself. Basically, do not expect to become an expert on the subject after reading it.

Anyways, I found the book pretty entertaining and well written. Highly recommend it.

Disappointed in the wordiness and round about way the authors' presented their data. The chapter introductions were so far away from the chapter contents it was humorous. I did notice how the authors' went around their elbows to get to their thumbs and tried to show a correlation, but I found sifting through the multitude of off-topic data tiresome.

Also, the way they presented their data took forever for them to get to the point. Often, they contradicted or repeated themselves or beat a topic into the dirt until I just moved on.

It was like reading a student thesis. Lots of facts and figures, great detail placed on how those facts and figures were gathered (justification), the ENTIRE story of how those facts and figures came about--including the urination ritual, colors of the buildings and other useless information. Egads!

I have the hardcover and though it shows 320 pages (through the index) the actual book information stops at page 191. The rest is "bonus" material, notes and index.

What's inside:

- Numerous ways a teacher can cheat on state testing for their students. Mind boggling.

- Great detail into the lives of a sumo wrestler. Good grief.

- Interesting info on how a Real Estate Agent can dupe a seller. Hmm.

- Way too much information about the Klu Klux Klan. Mercy! That could have been summed up so much quicker!

- The study of the college kid that practically lived with a gang in Chicago for 6 years in order to do research was interesting, at first, then it dragged out. Was it necessary to report how they urinated on the 6th floor of the building where they hung out? Was it necessary to report the color scheme of the buildings? Ugh.

- The chapters on what makes a perfect parent (I and II) were interesting. They dismantled a lot of current speculation as to putting kids into school as early as possible, reading to them as often as possible, etc will make them better students; thus, more productive citizens in society.

Moms who have kids after age 30 tend to be better parents, yet if a mom has her first child before age 30, then has another after age 30 it doesn't matter.

Found the section on selecting a child's name to be interesting, but conflicting. Lots of lists of "great names" (over and over again) followed by the story of Winner and Loser--two brothers. Guess who became successful and who didn't? Winner=criminal; Loser=detective who went by various names including Lou.

I became frustrated in this section, because they contradicted themselves (or left loopholes).

Disappointing for This Reader.

বইটা অর্থনীতির বই ভেবে পড়া শুরু করেছিলাম। কিন্তু এটাকে অর্থনীতির বই মানতে আমি রাজি না, এটা সমাজবিজ্ঞানের বই। সমাজবিজ্ঞানের সাথে অর্থনীতির সম্পর্ক আছে ঠিক, কিন্তু এভাবে বললে মোটামুটি সব বিদ্যার সাথেই অর্থনীতির সম্পর্ক আছে; পরিবেশবিজ্ঞান থেকে পদার্থবিজ্ঞান, সবই অর্থনীতির বই।

যাহোক লেখক দুইজন পৃথিবীর শীর্ষ কয়েকটা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে পড়াশোনা করেছেন(হার্ভার্ড, শিকাগো ইউনিভার্সিটি, এমআইটি, কলাম্বিয়া ইউনিভার্সিটি,... বুঝতেই পারছেন)। তাদের ভারি একাডেমিক সিভি এই বইটা পৃথিবীব্যাপী বেস্টসেলার হওয়ার পেছনে বড় অবদান রেখেছে নিঃসন্দেহে। নাহলে এই বই মার্কেট পাইতো বলে মনে হয় না।

বইটার কিছু বিষয়বস্তু আছে যেগুলো অনেকের জন্যই প্রাসঙ্গিক না, অর্থাৎ অপ্রয়োজনীয় জ্ঞানের কমতি নাই। একথা বলছি কারণ নন-ফিকশন মূলত পড়া হয় দৈনন্দিন জীবনে কাজে লাগানোর জন্য। বিশ্বাস করেন, একজন খুচরা কোকেন বা ক্রিস্টাল মেথ ব্যবসায়ী কেন তার বাবা-মার সাথে বসবাস করে এইটা না জানলেও আপনার জীবনে কোন ক্ষতি-বৃদ্ধি হবে না।
ঠিক ধরেছেন, ড্রাগ ডিলারদের জীবন নিয়ে একটা লম্বা রচনা লেখা আছে। না বললেই না, বেশিরভাগ রচনাই মাত্রাতিরিক্ত দীর্ঘ করা হয়েছে; একই কথা ঘুরায়ে পেচায়ে বারবার বলা হয়েছে। যেমন আমেরিকায় অ্যাবোরশন বৈধ হবার কারণে গত শতাব্দীর নব্বইয়ের দশক থেকে ক্রাইম রেট সিগনিফিকেন্টলি কমে যায়। কথা সত্য, কিন্তু এই কথাটা এতবার বলা হয়েছে যে, মনে হচ্ছিল শুধু অ্যাবোরশন হালাল করলেই বেশিরভাগ ক্রিমিনাল জন্মের আগেই নির্বংশ হয়ে যাবে।

বই থেকে একটা উদাহরণ বলি, কোল্ড ওয়ারের সময়কার ঘটনা, সমাজতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র রোমানিয়ার চরম দুর্নীতিবাজ ডিক্টেটর নিকোলাই চসেস্কু অ্যাবোরশন নিষিদ্ধ করেছিল, তার উদ্দেশ্য রোমানিয়ার জনসংখ্যা বৃদ্ধি করা। অ্যাবোরশন নিষিদ্ধ হবার পর যে প্রজন্মের জন্ম হয়, সেই প্রজন্মের তীব্র আন্দোলন ডিক্টেটর চসেস্কুর পতনে ভূমিকা রাখে। অ্যাবোরশন বৈধ থাকলে ঔ আন্দোলনকারীদের অনেকের জন্মই হতো না। এই সরল যুক্তিটা আমার খুব কদর্য লেগেছে। এই যুক্তি দিলে ফরাসি বিপ্লব, বলশেভিক বিপ্লবেও অ্যাবোরশনের ভূমিকা টেনে আনা সম্ভব।
চসেস্কু যেভাবে দেশ চালাচ্ছিল, অ্যাবোরশন যদি বৈধও থাকতো, তবুও তার পতন অবশ্যম্ভাবী ছিল।

লেখকদ্বয়ের আরেকটা যুক্তি, স্ট্যাটিসটিক্স দেখিয়ে ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন, গান(বন্দুক) কন্ট্রোল করে কোন লাভ নেই, বন্দুকের গুলিতে মৃত্যু ঘটার সম্ভাবনা থেকে সুইমিংপুলে ডুবে মরার সম্ভাবনা বেশি। সমাধান? অ্যাবোরশন। এটা বৈধ থাকলে ক্রিমিনাল ছেলের সংখ্যা হবে কম, গোলাগুলি এমনিতেই কম হবে।

বলছি রেগেমেগে গিয়ে অথবা মানসিক ভারসাম্য হারিয়ে ওদের দেশে গোলাগুলির ঘটনা তো নিয়মিতই ঘটে, কিছু মানুষ মারাও যায়। যাদের পরিবারের মানু��� নিহত হয়, তাদেরকে কি আপনি স্ট্যাটিসটিক্স দেখাবেন? বলবেন এরকম একটু আট্টু হতেই পারে, এরথেকে বেশি মানুষ সুইমিংপুলে ডুবে মরছে।

অ্যাবোরশন চালু থাকলে প্যারেন্টিংয়ের মান কেন তুলনামূলক ভালো হবে সেসব নিয়েও আলোচনা আছে বিস্তর।

যাইহোক, এই বইটা মূলত অ্যাবোরশন নিয়ে। এরসাথে আরও কয়টা বিষয় আছে, শিক্ষকরা কখন প্রতারণা করে সেটা নিয়ে একটা ইন্টারেস্টিং রচনা আছে, হোয়াইট সুপ্রিমেসি��্ট গ্রুপ কু ক্লাক্স ক্লানের কথা আছে, আমাদের পিএইচডিধারী লেখক যে খুব ব্রিলিয়ান্ট সেকথাও লেখা আছে, আর আর একটুখানি অর্থনীতিও আছে, যেমন ইন্টারনেট আমাদের অনেক তথ্য জানার সুযোগ করে দিয়েছে, অনেক পণ্যের মান ও মূল্য জানতে পারছি, তাই ইন্টারনেটের যুগে পণ্য কিনে ঠকবার সম্ভাবনা কমছে। এটা সম্ভবত সবাই জানে। এজন্য কোন Rouge Economist -এর লেখা বই পড়ার দরকার নাই।

অপ্রয়োজনে বইটা দীর্ঘ না করলে দুই তারা দিতাম। সময় নষ্ট করার জন্য এক তারা।

[3.5*]
Ποιο θα ήταν το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας ενός οικονομολόγου που τον λένε Steven (Levitt) και ενός δημοσιογράφου που τον λένε Stephen (Dubner); Σίγουρα (οκ, σχεδόν σίγουρα) λίγο γιούχου.

Ε λοιπόν, το Freakonomics είναι το αποτέλεσμα μιας τέτοιας συνεργασίας, και είναι γιούχου. Με την καλή έννοια. Μάλλον. Τι εννοώ; Αν το πάρεις σαν οικονομικό βιβλίο, θα απογοητευτείς. Λείπει ο όγκος δεδομένων που θα υποστηρίξουν πλήρως τα γραφόμενα. Βασικά, είναι αρκετά πιθανό να σου φανούν αερολογίες αυτά που διαβάζεις.

Αν το πάρεις, όμως, σαν ένα βιβλίο που θέτει ερωτήματα που απασχολούν μια μερίδα ανθρώπων (ναι, και τους οικονομολόγους) με ζωντανό και αστείο τρόπο, τότε είναι μια χαρά. Οι δε τίτλοι των κεφαλαίων είναι για σεμινάριο. Σ' έναν βαθμό, το βιβλίο μπορεί να σε βάλει στο τριπάκι να σκεφτείς γιατί σκεφτόμαστε έτσι όπως σκεφτόμαστε, και ποιες είναι οι κοινωνικοπολιτικές επιπτώσεις αυτού του τρόπου σκέψης. Και να αναρωτηθείς αν οι γονείς σου έκαναν καλό parenting job. Και αν σου έδωσαν ταιριαστό όνομα.

Τελικό πόρισμα: Ναι, αξίζει να διαβάσεις το Freakonomics. Και μπορεί να ενθουσιαστείς. Ειδικά αν αρχίσεις να σκέφτεσαι τα κοινωνικοπολιτικά θέματα που Αν είσαι, βέβαια, και λίγο data afficionado θα πεις "γαμώτο, δεν με καλύπτει πλήρως". Προσωπικά το είπα, δεν το κρύβω.

Υ.Γ.: Ζήλεψα τους ευφάνταστους τίτλους και τη σύνδεση ανάμεσα στα κεφάλαια, δεν ξέρω αν το ανέφερα νωρίτερα.

I assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up.

It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological explanations for black criminality and low IQ scores. The writers of this book are also obsessively pro-Abortion. The only surprise was they used statistics to show you are much more likely to die from an automobile or a swimming pool than a gun. This book would probably appeal to upper middle class liberals who like to consider themselves clever and politically astute from their isolated armchairs. For me Freakonomics was a big load of garbage.

"Freakonomics," authored by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, is a groundbreaking exploration of economics, psychology, and sociology as it intersects with everyday life, revealing the hidden forces and unexpected truths that shape our world. This book is a delightful and enlightening read, presenting complex economic theories in an accessible and engaging manner.

One of the main strengths of "Freakonomics" is its ability to transform seemingly mundane topics into fascinating case studies. Levitt and Dubner delve into various subjects, from crime rates to school performance and real estate to sumo wrestling, all through economic theory. The authors argue that conventional wisdom often falls short and that the incentives driving human behavior can yield surprising outcomes. This central theme challenges readers to rethink their assumptions and consider how incentives shape decisions.

The book's engaging style is another notable aspect. Levitt and Dubner use a narrative approach, weaving together stories, data, and analysis to present their findings. This storytelling technique makes the book not only informative but also highly readable, appealing to both economics enthusiasts and general readers alike. Their witty tone helps demystify complex concepts, making the subject matter approachable and enjoyable.

"Freakonomics" excels in illustrating the power of data and empirical research. The authors showcase how innovative and sometimes unorthodox methods can lead to profound insights. For instance, their analysis of crime rates and the impact of legalized abortion is both controversial and thought-provoking, demonstrating the boldness of their inquiries and the depth of their analytical skills.

However, the book is not without its drawbacks. Critics argue that some of the conclusions drawn by Levitt and Dubner are oversimplified and that the data presented can sometimes be interpreted in multiple ways. Additionally, the book's reliance on provocative and attention-grabbing topics may lead to sensationalism, overshadowing the nuanced complexities of the issues discussed.

In conclusion, "Freakonomics" is a compelling and intellectually stimulating book that challenges readers to view the world through an economist's eyes. While it may have its limitations in terms of depth and potential for sensationalism, its innovative approach and engaging narrative make it a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the hidden dynamics of our world. Levitt and Dubner successfully turn economics into an adventure, inviting readers to explore the unexpected and often surprising undercurrents of everyday life.

You know, I really enjoy economics and I used to listen to the Freakonomics podcast so I figured I'd enjoy this book more than I did. I think it's lack of a theme (which the authors clearly warn readers about ahead of time) contributed to my overall "meh" attitude. Additionally, I found myself yearning for more than just Levitt's observations and findings. For example, simply stating that data shows higher abortion rates yield lower crime rates and then not delving too deeply into the reasons that underlie this phenomena just didn't do it for me. That's an extremely weighty thing to state, regardless of if you have data to back you up or not. I guess I wanted some sociology mixed in with my economics. Alas, Levitt is an economist not a sociologist or political scientist.

I also want to add that as someone with an MBA (thus, I took classes on data in grad school and would be fine to never run a regression again despite how interesting it can be) and who works with data at her job, I know firsthand how easy it is to manipulate data. I want to assume that Steven Levitt was completely neutral in his research, but who can really know except for Levitt himself? And, who funded all of his studies? I realize Harvard comped him for some work, but what about his studies on Chicago Public Schools? I find it interesting that a school system would turn over their data to him whenever it was inevitable that he find some questionable (and illegal) things going on. I don't know. Again, I want to assume that he was completely neutral, but spinning data is pretty darn easy. And even assuming he completed his research with no bias, what about the actual data he was working with. Some of the "perfect parent" data (I think it was still Chicago Public School data) seemed very subjective. For example, how exactly was "a lot" quantified in the the data point regarding "parents who have a lot of books in their home"*? I have ~200-300 books and don't really consider that "a lot." You might disagree which is my entire point. Won't different people quantify and thus answer that question differently? Ok, I'm going too deep into this. Basically, I know first hand that you can tell whatever story you want to with data, so I wonder what approach Levitt took in order to remain unprejudiced and unbiased.

And finally, I imagine I wasn't the only one holding their breath while reading over the low income baby names. Not that it means anything, but it was still a bit jarring to hear how a person's name reflects their parents' income. Some of the names were very obviously high or low income names, but it was interesting to hear how many common names have moved back and forth on the different lists over time. That portion of the book was undoubtedly the most interesting, and seemingly the most objective--both from sociological and data standpoints.

*might not be the exact wording used, but I listened to the book and thus can't reference the print.

I could not finish this book. It made me cringe twice on each of the hundred odd pages that I did force myself to read.

Would I recommend this book to you? If you don't know how people use statistics to detect fraud, go ahead and read this book. You will find it to be entertaining and informative. On the other hand, if you feel strongly about the difference between correlation and causality and already know what, say, Benford's law is, spare yourself the horror. You will find yourself reaching for the wall (to bang your head on) by page 10.

Also, the title is a bit misleading. This book is NOT about economics.

Palasot citu atsauksmes nojaušu, ka šis varētu būt gadījums, kad man patīk grāmata tikai tāpēc, ka tā ir pirmā kaut cik jēdzīgi sarakstītā no tāda tipa, ko esmu lasījusi - nu ka uzķeros uz ekonomikas Paulu Koelju vai Greja nokrāsām. Bet es tiešām biju patīkami pārsteigta, ka ar ļoti lielu interesi lasīju statistikas datos balstītu analīzi un pamācību par ekspertu viedokļa kritisku vērtēšanu (sevišķi ņemot vērā viņu mērķi viedokli paust). Atzīstu, ka patika droši vien tāpēc, ka metode te ir apspriesta maz, bet piemēri par cēloņu un sakarību nošķiršanu (kāpēc kreka tirgoņi dzīvo ar vecākiem; kāpēc afroamerikāņi izvēlas viņiem tipiskos bērnu vārdus; kas nosaka iespējamo bērna potenciālu; kā atklāt skolotājus, kas krāpjas bērnu vietā; kāpēc nenotika ASV paredzētais noziedzības bums 1990.gados utt) ir tiešām ļoti interesanti.