This book opens up intriguingly and ends disappointing. While sparks off with a very interesting introduction on what the book is going to deliver, you'll find the chapters intensely overloaded with unnecessary text and stories.

It p's got marvelous idea in mind which is thinking more in depth and with different perspectives but I found it utterly disappointing. Have the authors preserved a decent level of brevity to convey their thinking methodology, it would have been an astounding book.

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.

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (2005)

There are intriguing elements in this book but when it comes to the larger picture, I find it sorely lacking. Levitt is a young star in the economics profession who enjoys playing games with interesting questions. For example, he assembles data to demonstrate that Roe v. Wade was critical to the drop in the crime rate in the 90s. On p. 125 he notes "So it wasn't capital punishment that drove crime down, nor was it the booming economy. But higher rates of imprisonment did have a lot to do with it." Also, on p. 139, he says "Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness, unwantedness leads to high crime, legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime." He also addresses the old nature vs. nurture argument or environment vs. genetics when he says, on pp. 175-176, "Parents who are well educated, successful, and healthy tend to have children who test well in school, but it doesn't seem to much matter whether a child is trotted off to museums or spanked or sent to Head Start....The reality is that technique looks to be highly overrated....adopted children test relatively poorly in school, any influence the adoptive parents might exert is seemingly outweighed by the force of genetics. But...the parents were not powerless forever. By the time the adopted children bacame adults, they had veered sharply from the destiny that IQ alone might have predicted. Compared to similar children who were not put up for adoption, the adoptees were far more likely to attend college, to have a well-paid job, and to wait until they were out of their teens before getting married."
Despite these insights, I would never want to write a book like this because it doesn't go after the betterment of the human condition in a broad sense in the fashion that Adam Smith tried with Wealth of Nations in 1776. Levitt may be rewarded for his fun puzzles by a best-seller, but does any of this really help society toward healthier, happier families in the future?

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.

"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.

I went all Fahrenheit 451 on this one.

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.

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 the abortion cured crime theory.

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.

i was totally unimpressed. i didn't even finish. i know people like this one, but something about the constant references to levitt's genius and "rogue-ish-ness" turned me off. if someone is brillian i think it should come across in their writing with out having to assert it in the introduction. oh! and the part at the beginning where he wonders how the homeless guy can afford headphones, and this is suppossed to be an example of how uniquely his mind works?! please.

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.