Has anyone read Freakonomics?

Question

What did you think about the book?

Answer 1

It was a very interesting and entertaining read. "Freakonomics" did make me think about issues I had never considered. However, it is not flawless. The authors want to dispell a lot of long-held beliefs by poking holes in those beliefs,but they leave a lot of holes wide open on their own theories. Example: the authors mentioned the reduction of the crack trade, and state it's because of the increased risk of death and arrest. What they DON'T mention is that crack sales have probably gone down because the drugs of choice now are a. methamphetamine, which is cheap to make, and b. pharmecutical drugs.

The assertion that adopted children do less well, even when placed in an affluent home, is a bit suspicious, because the average age of those children is never given. If the children are older, and/or coming from a horrible home or orphanage (I'm thinking Romania here) this is probably true. But I have a very hard time believing this is the case with children under two, or infants, who are reasonably healthy. At best, the authors claims are a stretch.

The whole thing about how reading to a child has no bearing in their schooling is absolute balony, and barely worth the effort of acknowledging. Study after study has shown the importance of literacy and word skills, and how a parents' interactions (or lack thereof) greatly impact a child's educational successes. Check out the information and posted research at Every Child Ready To Read http://www.ala.org/ala/alsc/ECRR/ECRRHomePage.htm .

The last chapter on the significance names left my head spinning. I never did figure out the point they were trying to make with *that* one.

Also, their best known -- and most controversial contention -- that legalized abortion has led to a crime decline may be taking a hit as crime rates in many areas have begun to creep up again.

I think the biggest problem is the authors tend to concentrate on one corner of the puzzle, and claim its the whole puzzle without contemplating the rest of the picture.

Answer 2

One thing I like about this book is that it includes criticism from its opponents. In response to Levitt's conclusion that abortion was the main cause for the decline in crime in the 90's, one professor says (I'm paraphrasing), "Levitt takes real data and uses intelligent and rational thought. However, I don't believe a word of it." I think this sentiment sums up some of the other poster's feelings.

Freakonomics applied the basic principle of economics (the study of incentive) and applied it to everyday situations. One poster referred to "studies" whose data did not correlate with the data in Freakonomics. The problem with that is that there are studies for everything, and studies quite often do not reflect the truth. There are studies that show that global warming does not exist, that oil production is not bad for the earth, that Fen-phen was safe, etc., etc.

And as for the "pop psychology" comment, Freakonomics used statistics and mathematical algorithms to learn about the things they studied. And, as they themselves admit, they did not come up with the formulas - they simply applied the same economic formulas that would be used in business to everyday things.

I think that it is a very good book and I look forward to their next one.

Answer 3

I loved it, in case you like an intersting handle modern-day lie try 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the worldwide' by potential of Francis Wheen, its a denser e book then Freakonomics yet actual nicely actual worth the attempt.

Answer 4

It put an interesting spin on our beliefs. Nevertheless I remain suspicious of conclusions by those engaging in"pop psychology."

Answer 5

It's an interesting, fun read but as others have mentioned, it's more entertainment then research-level education.

Answer 6

I love that book!