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.

از هرلحاظ کتاب خوبی بود.
اول از همه بگم که توی این کتاب قرار نیست خواننده با نظریات و تئوری های اقتصاد خرد و کلان رو به رو بشه که با نثری خشک و سنگین و تخصصی، فقط برای علاقمندان و استادان اقتصاد قابل درک و مطالعه باشه. کتاب کاملا برای مخاطب عام نوشته شده، کسی که نه تخصصی در اقتصاد داره و نه علاقه‌ای به پرداختن به مباحث نظری، بلکه فقط دنبال لذت بردن از نثر و ایده کلی کتاب و کِیف کردن و هیجان زده شدن از ورق هایی که نویسنده دونه به دونه رو میکنه و حقایق جالب و تامل برانگیز به خوردش میده تا بعد از تموم شدن کتاب به یه‌نگاه متفاوتی به علت و معلول های جهان اطرافش داشته باشه.
برای نگاه ژرف‌ و کنجکاوانه به‌جهان اطراف، الگو های هیجان‌انگیزی در اختیار خواننده گذاشته بود. صرفنظر از اینکه آمارهای مورد استفاده به بومِ ناآشنا و غریبی تعلق داشت؛ یا حتی اینکه بعضی نتیجه‌گیری ها برای محیط اجتماعی ما جور در نمیومد؛ اما با این وجود پژوهشگر، متفکر، اقتصاددان یا به‌طور کلی هر شخصی که علاقمند به دونستن پشت پرده مسائل اجتماعی باشه با خوندنش تجربه جالب و به یاد موندنی‌ای خواهد داشت.

Freakonomics was written for general readers, rather than specialists. It is not very deep or analytical, but it is pretty entertaining.

The book encourages us to keep our mind alert and break out of the mold in the way we see things.

It is a series of short stories in which the authors follow whatever freakish curiosities that may occur to them.

A common topic we can find in the book is the question of what motivates people.

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

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

A great book. You will love it if you like to question how and why things are what they are. How new names are being introduced to our newborns? How trends are being set? What is the relationship between teachers and sumo fighters? Why drug dealers (despite presumably being rich) still live with their moms? Why crimes get lowered?

If you like deep answers to great and silly questions like these, then you have to give it a go.

The authors emphasize on using "economics" tools to explore various fields in this world.

هذا الكتاب الجنوني تم بيع 4 مليون نسخة منه وتمّت ترجمته إلى 35 لغة. الكتاب لا يتحدّث عن موضوع واحد معيّن، ففي كل فصل يتحدّث عن موضوع آخر ولكن ما يجمعهم هو ان كل ما يفعله الفرد غالباً يكون لوجود باعث/حافز معيّن (قد يكون بارز أو غير بارز) ولكن في كل الحالات هناك حافز للأفعال والقرارات التي تصدر من البشر. أيضاً ما يميّز الكتاب الطريقة المثيرة للكاتبان في دراسة وتحليل معمّق بعض الأسئلة الغريبة المثيرة في هذا العالم. الكتاب سيثير كل من لديه حب للإستطلاع بشكل جنوني . يجمعون جبال من المعلومات الغير منسّقة و من ثم يسألون سؤال (قد يكون مضحك) ولكن لم يُسأل من قبل. إنها فعلاً لطريقة مثيرة.

في احد الفصول مثلاً، تطرّق الكاتبان لقضية تسمية المواليد الجدد وكيفية يتم اختيار المجتمع لتلك الأسماء. قاموا بدراسة كل التسميات منذ الستينات ومقارنتها بأسماء اليوم و رسم الاتجاه/الميل طوال فترة الدراسة. ثم درسوا إن كانت هناك علاقة بين الأسماء والمستوى الأكاديمي والمهني للفرد لاحقاً من باب هل الأسماء تلعب دور في التأثير على شخصيتنا ونجاحنا العلمي والعملي. وأيضاً قارنوا الفروقات في التسمية بين الأعراق المختلفة وذكر الملاحظات العجيبة الغريبة في طريقة التسمية عند الأعراق المختلفة.

في فصل آخر، يسئلون هذا السؤال المثير "هل هناك وجه شبه بين مصارعي السومو اليابانيين و المدرّسين؟" طبعاً هذا الفصل سيكون مثير جدّاً لأساتذتنا الأفاضل في المدارس والجامعات حيث يتطرّق لقضية كيف ولماذا قد يغش هؤلاء المصارعين والمدرّسين وكيفية اكتشاف ذلك الغش بطرق عجيبة غريبة قام بها الكاتبان! الكل يتحدّث عن غش الطلاّب ولكن الكتاب يجعل المسألة أكثر إثارة ويُثبت وجود غش بعض المدرّسين وخصوصاً في الدول التي تُكافأ المدرّس على مقدار تفّوق طلبته (كما هو الحال في الولايات المتّحدة).

وماذا عن متاجرين المخدّرات؟ (أعاذنا الله وإيّاكم منها)، لماذا هؤلاء المتاجرين في أمريكا (على الرغم من الفكرة السائدة انّهم يطلّعون ذهب) مازالوا يعيشون مع أمّهاتهم؟؟! هل هناك ثمّة عامل في المسألة لم نتوصّل إليه. الكتاب يجيب على ذلك بطريقة عجيبة حيث تسلّل احد طلاّب الجامعة آنذاك (حالياً بروفيسور علم اجتماع في جامعة كولومبيا) "سودير فينكاتيش" إلى احد العصابات وخاطر بحياته ولكنه نجا ودوّن كثير من الملاحظات وعمل دراسات أجابت الكثير من المسائل الغامضة في عالم العصابات والمخدرات.

لماذا الجرائم في نيويورك انخفضت دراماتيكياً وبشكل مفاجئ؟ أي أخطر حوض السباحة أم المسدّس؟ هل فعلاً تربية الآبائ تؤثّر في سلوك الأبناء؟ وغيرها من الأسئلة التي يجيب عليها الكاتبان ستيفين ليفيت (اقتصادي) و ستيفين دوبنر (صحفي).

A very interesting take on real-life situations using principles of economic theory. Seems forced at some places but if looked at objectively it does make sense. For real it's economic steak on a hot plate, with a side of a motley collection of interesting stories.

As the tagline goes, "the hidden side of everything", this book explores the mundane yet devious plots in our everyday lives. It makes random reflections on random subjects, and in turn, upends conventional wisdom rather than reinforcing them. The book offers profound insights on informational advantage, that is enjoyed by people from (nearly) all walks of life.

A simple unasked question, and there you go! This is where the exploration begins and it is an efficacious way to demolish the widespread fallacies. All in all, this book addresses that things are not always what they seem and there lies something under the surface, which, more often than not, does not come to limelight.

It is only when we do not embrace faulty causes at the urging of the experts in which they have a vested interest, and deep dive into the rudimentary aspects of a subject, that its veracity would be divulged.

A very interesting book. Looking at hidden sides of things, not accepting conventional wisdom and ideas to answer questions that are weird.

This is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.

The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people give their daughters crazier names than their sons.

The point of this book is to say that sometimes there are very interesting correlations between things that seem quite disparate. The big one (and I haven't checked, but I assume this one didn't go down terribly well with the religious right in America) was the idea that the drop in violent crime in the US was due to the drop in violent criminals and this was due to there being less people brought up in abject poverty which is due to people being able to have access to abortion and not bringing unwanted children into the world.

The comparisons between drug dealers and McDonalds as a corporate structure is now received wisdom - Obama quotes this in his book.

Overall this is a great little read and quite fun - but really, I can't think of a single book that was improved by self-congratulation.

This is very different and fantastic. If you appreciate counter-intuitive thinking and value approaches to discovering what's ACTUALLY true rather than what "common sense" tells us is true, then you will greatly appreciate Steven Levitt's methods. If you're after directly practical knowledge only, you will not value this much. If you are big into strictly traditional thinking, you will HATE this. Be ready to separate what you believe to be moral from what actually happens (they don't always agree, even when I don't like it). So assess yourself and decide accordingly.

If you want to know interesting truths and value things that are counter-intuitive even when it flies in the face of a deeply held belief, this is for you. Dr. Levitt's approach is so refreshing; ignoring what seems to be true and always wondering what actually is true, then leveraging data he finds to discover what it can reveal (not what he wants, not what you or I want, but what actually IS). He's a refreshing oddball that I wish I could know personally so I would gain more of that fresh look.

Fun and cerebral. Caveat: it does not actually explore the hidden side of *everything.*

For example, the mystery of dreams isn’t uncovered nor is the hidden side of the half-dozen incredibly attractive French actresses blessing film screens over the past few years (ces lèvres