Customer Reviews

Freakonomics Rev Ed LP: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

5 star:		(780)
4 star:		(556)
3 star:		(282)
2 star:		(171)
1 star:		(136)

 

 

Steven Levitt, an economist at U Chicago, is less interested in numbers and more interested in why people turn out the way they do. He examines the influence of incentive, heredity, the neighborhood you grew up in, etc.

Some of his conclusions are less than earth-shattering. For example, African-American names (DeShawn, Latanya) don't influence African-American test performance. As a second example, Levitt compiled data regarding online dating websites and concluded that bald men and overweight women fared badly. Not rocket science.

However, Levitt livens up the book with some controversial discussions. He believes that the dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s can be traced to Roe v. Wade. He thinks that the children who would have committed crimes (due to being brought up by impoverished, teenage, single mothers) are simply not being born as often.

He also writes about the man who more or less singlehandedly contributed to the KKK's demise by infiltrating their group and leaking their secret passwords and rituals to the people behind the Superman comic book (Superman needed a new enemy).

Interestingly, he also discusses how overbearing parents don't contribute to a child's success. For example, having a lot of books in the house has a positive influence on children's test scores, but reading to a child a lot has no effect. Highly educated parents are also a plus, while limiting children's television time is irrelevant. Similarly, political candidates who have a lot of money to finance their campaigns are still out of luck if no one likes them.

In the chapter entitled "Why Drug Dealers Live With Their Mothers," Levitt explores the economics of drug dealing. An Indian, Harvard-affiliated scholar decided to get up close and personal with crack gangs and got some notebooks documenting their finances. Levitt concludes that drug dealers' empires are a lot like McDonald's or the publishing industry in Manhattan - only the people on the very top of the pyramid do well financially, while the burger flippers, editorial assistants, and low-level drug runners don't (indeed, some of them work for free, or in return for protection!)

Overall, this is a lively read, with some obvious conclusions and some not so obvious.

This book succeeds at analyzing sociological developments in a way that is entertaining because Steven Levitt, an economist who strays from convention, has a knack for unpeeling layers and layers of assumptions and myth and showing the real causes behind trends. He shows, to name some examples, how our names affect our career paths; how abortion and the crime rate are related; how a man used his cunning to humiliate the Klu Klux Klan rather than rely on conventional methods; how easy it is to identify the role of public school teachers when they help their students cheat on standardized tests; why drug dealing is only lucrative for the dealers at the top of the pyramid; the myth that real estate agents are looking for our best interests.

The book, co-authored by Stephen J. Dubner, is breezy and anecdotal, which is an effective format for presenting a lot of sociological trends without being dry or losing the scintillating reportage in dense prose.

The lesson of this book is that we should be leery of trusting society's common assumptions or common wisdom. In other words, the book encourages us to keep our mind alert and break out of the mold in the way we see things. By looking at social trends with a fresh eye, the book succeeds at making economic trends a fun, adventurous endeavor.

If I were to criticize the book, it would be that it is too short. It's barely 200 pages and if you take out the blank chapter pages, the charts, the lists, and so on, it's really closer to 150 pages. Because the material is so current and topical, the method of "freakonomics" presented here would make a good format for a monthly magazine. My guess is that there will be many sequels.

The scientific fidelity of social science is a topic of heated contention in academics. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have successfully brought this debate to the mainstream in the form of their joint book, Freakonomics. But do they make a strong case for validating statistical analyses of an infinitely complex human society?

As any statistician will tell you, one of the major pitfalls of their field is the confusion of correlation and causation. Just because X and Y have similar trends does not necessarily mean that X caused Y or that Y caused X. Numerous times throughout the book, Levitt and Dubner chastise various experts, pundits, and conventional wisdoms for failing to observe this basic tenet. Yet so tempting is this trap that the authors fall right in along with their targets.

Take, for example, the chapter on parenting. A full six paragraphs are devoted to warning about correlation versus causation, the caution of which is thrown immediately to the wind with a set of highly dubious stabs at the causes of various correlations regarding parenting. The data in question comes from Levitt's regression analysis of numerous factors which conventional wisdom believes may play some role in the academic outcome of children. So, for example, correlations were found between a child's test scores and the number of books the parents have in their house, but not how often the parents read to the child. So far, so good. The authors then conclude from similar datapoints that it is the nature of the parents' lives that influence a child's scores, not what the parents do. Granted, it has a certain logical appeal, but it amounts to no more than an educated guess. What's wrong with that? you may ask.

The problems with this example illustrate some of the major difficulties associated with social science. What you may notice about the correlations is that - by necessity - they lack a certain level of detail. What *kind* of books to the parents have? What kind do they read to their child? How often does a child actually pick up one of numerous books? These are questions for which there are few or no practical solutions. The reasons are manifold, including: the number of data points may never be enough (consider how many categories you may have to break predominating book types into: comic books, encyclopedias, TV trivia, etc.); you never know which test subject is lying, exaggerating, or remembering incorrectly; and you can never be sure that test scores are the right thing to measure.

This last difficulty is made more extreme when you consider the following quote from Freakonomics: "Sorry. Culture cramming may be a foundational belief of obsessive parenting, but the ECLS data show no correlation between museum visits and test scores." There should be little surprise at the lack of correlation: there are very few things that a museum offers that would help on the SATs or state exams. But that doesn't mean that museum visits have no positive impact on the intelligence of a child. The authors make the mistake of equating test scores to intelligence. It may very well be true that a child that goes to museums will score no better on entrance exams than a child that doesn't, but it may affect which hobbies they take up, their job performance, and various other important aspects of life that have little or nothing to do with measurable intelligence.

Similar errors in thinking occur throughout the book. In the bagel-seller example, statistics are carelessly and bizarrely used to justify a stance on morality. Because only 13% of people failed to pay for bagels when left out with a payment box, the authors conclude that the majority - in fact, 87% - of people have an innate honesty. I was floored by this kind of uncritical thinking. People may have paid out of fear of getting caught or out of guilt, but not necessarily out of honesty. But more so than that, honesty in one small area of life does not an honest man make. If Dubner and Levitt wanted to conclude simply that statistics is useful for understanding human motivation, that would be fine. But to make sweeping generalizations about whether humans are born innately good or innately bad on a single study is simply irresponsible.

The only positive thing to say about Freakonomics is that it makes you think. But any controversial book can do that. Though there are some fairly solid examples in the book such as regards the real estate agents, the sumo wrestlers, and the cheating teachers, overall the book is uncritical of its own thinking. It would be fine if Levitt and Dubner acknowledged that there may be other interpretations at least as good as their own, but they choose instead to pontificate their own views, in flagrant violation of their professed objectivism. And oddly enough, I happen to agree with most of their views, just not with how they reached them. Levitt is clearly a brilliant man, and I hope he continues to churn out interesting statistical correlations on unusual subjects... but he and Dubner ought to leave the interpretations to others.

Having myself survived the economics program at the University of Chicago as a young graduate student twenty years ago, I know how decidedly eccentric their laurelled scholars can be. One of the most prestigious of the current crop there, Steven D. Levitt, along with journalist Stephen J. Dubner, has written a most intriguing and mind-bending book that uses Chicago-style econometric approaches and applies those to social and political issues that otherwise seem mundane and have no apparent basis in coherent theory which would support the behavior under study. In fact, this book of compelling case studies bears similarities to the approach taken by author Malcolm Gladwell in his recent best-selling book, "The Tipping Point", where he takes primarily historical events and analyzes them almost anecdotally as exercises in human behavior, in his case, making connections and how ideas become trends not by gradual insinuation but by a singular dramatic moment.

But Levitt's canvas is broader, his theories and findings are far more diverse, and his approach is far more quantitative in nature. For example, he challenges the perception that campaign spending determines elections. Levitt's analysis takes a fresh look by contrasting races in which the same two congressional candidates run repeatedly against each other. What he concludes is that a winning candidate can spend half as much as before and lose only one percent of the vote, while a losing candidate who doubles campaign spending picks up only one percent more. Basically they prove that no matter how much candidates spend on their campaigns, the results would not be marginally affected. In another example, the authors describe a seller's real estate agent, who lives on commission and has an incentive to sell a listed home for maximum dollar. Again, this is a misconception since the authors contend the small financial reward to an agent who sells a home for a few thousand more dollars is dwarfed by the greater money to be made by selling properties for less but quicker. Levitt's research into the sale of one hundred thousand Chicago homes found that agents keep their own homes on the market an average of ten days longer and sell them for more than three percent more than the homes they list and sell for clients.

The penetrating analyses provided by Levitt appear to have no bounds as he identifies Chicago teachers, who were proven to be changing their students' test answers and ultimately fired for their actions; sumo wrestlers who were found to be cheating as well; and even the alternative and more lucrative career options that crack dealers may have at McDonald's versus making sales. He even questions the impact of a good first name in a person's later life and if children become more literate if their parents read to them. The conclusions surprised me as they will you. But the most compelling study he presents is related to the impact of Roe vs. Wade. In a study he conducted with Stanford law Professor John Donohue, Levitt makes a seemingly broad-stroked conclusion in attributing much of the drop in the U.S. crime rate to legalized abortion. Their argument was based on the theory that abortion prevented the births of unwanted children who otherwise would have been statistically more likely to mature into criminals. The crime rate drop coincided with the time those aborted pregnancies would otherwise have hit their teen years, and the trend showed up earlier in states such as California that were the first to enact more liberal access to abortions. Through the data they gather, the correlation is startling, and the conclusion is hard to refute despite the naysayers who felt the stuffy to be politically motivated. But to Levitt's academically inclined credit, he never seems like he has an ideological agenda as he lets the numbers do the talking for him. His genius is to take those seemingly meaningless sets of numbers, ferret out the telltale pattern and recognize what it all means. A brilliant mind is at work, as he takes the most mundane open-ended questions and actually answers them. Strongly recommended.

Depending on one's attachment to a mindset put forward by political correctness, this book is going to seem either full of stunning observations or light reading, with a few worthy surprises. There's some negative feedback on this site about the book being more a collection of articles, which is a legitimate complaint. At least they would be well-written articles.

Besides the easy and clear writing style, the main strengths of "Freakonomics" appears to be that much (if not all) of Levitt's observations come from research that is in peer-reviewed publications, and that the featured academic personalities (Levitt, Fryer and Venkatesh) are contemporary and working today. Thus, the primary sources of most of the material, as well as contemporary critics are around to defend or refute the discussion in this book.

The nice thing about many economists today is that they utilize the internet to spout off on many topics that would at first glance seem outside their field. The authors of this book, Cowen, Kling, Tabarrok and others have regularly-updated blogs. Levitt is therefore certainly not unique in applying economic "tools" to a variety of contexts, but he takes advantage of the internet himself to defend this book.

An obvious flaw of "Freakonomics" is how it heaps praise on one of the authors between the chapters. This ridiculous pap should have been left behind in the NY Times Magazine. Ignoring that, there's two other things that are seriously bothersome:

1.) The accusation of regular discrimination on "The Weakest Link," a game show. Yes, there is a paper referenced, but some presentation of data would have been useful in the book. I wonder why the details were omitted in this case and presented in all the other subsections of this chapter. My primary reaction to this statement was strong skepticism. Apparently, one needs a subscription to "The Journal of Law & Economics" to know the sample sizes involved. More details would have been nice to see, because Levitt/Dubner go on to point the discrimination finger at other groups, using collected data to show people's actions betraying their declared intentions. What patterns do the data need to show in order to signal discrimination? In the case of "The Weakest Link," most readers will never get to find out.

2.) Exclusion of Thomas Sowell. I recognize that this is a popular science book, and not a scientific book that's popular, but the elephant in the room is clearly the complete absence of the work of Thomas Sowell. Not only is Sowell a contemporary economist who has researched and published extensively on race, culture and incentives, but for many people he has already accomplished what "Freakonomics" attempts to do: introduce people to economics by viewing current social problems in the context of incentives. Sowell's "Basic Economics" and "Advanced Economics" are both clear and non-quanitative books that exploit economic thinking in a way superior to "Freakonomics." I also recommend his "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Cultures" series.

"Freakonomics" is a nice little read, and most people who pick it up and read it will likely enjoy it. Be sure to check out the website.

In the beginning of the book, I found the author's use of simple statistics to find new ways of looking at social phenomenon interesting and refreshing. By the end of the book I was outraged when he started "proving" his theories by statistics. Linear regression is powerful tool in understanding simple systems with one or two variables. Applying it to the complex realm of the social sciences to draw the far reaching conclusions Leavitt draws is irresponsible. If you are going to use science, use it appropriately. If you read this book, PLEASE read a good book on the PROPER use of statistics and know that THIS is not it!

There are some very thought provoking ideas presented here and you don't have to agree with them to find "Freakonomics" valuable. Steven Levitt presents some interesting facts that will make you want to research further. Reading his take on the public school system was validating as it has been my opinion all along. Seeing first hand how standardized testing preparation has been substituted for a real education and then reading how all it really does is encourage cheating was powerfully illuminating. The abortion statistics and the ridiculous baby naming trends offered valuable insight.
I see this as a primer on sociology more than economics but it does show how it is all related. I will pass this one around because I think it is an important read. Maybe not for all the information included but for how it opens your mind and makes you want to look further. I enjoyed "Freakonomics" and recommend it.

I expected much more from this book, including some actual economic theory and discussion of what separates insightful research from background noise. The only thought-provoking piece in this motley collection of entertaining (to some) factoids is the one about abortion being the cause of declining crime. Beyond that, everything the book touches is either mundane or rehashed from somewhere else, primarily the New York Times article by co-author Dubner.

A main premise in the book is that asking the right questions in life is important. It then proceeds to ask almost none of them. For instance, what do sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? I guess the headline itself is good for a snicker, but then we assume that it will move on to discover some heretofore hidden connection of value to us. Don't get your hopes up. Instead, after pages of unnecessary background on educational competence testing, it is revealed that - no! - teachers have cheated to boost their students' scores. What's more, shhh, occasionally sumo wrestlers have cheated to improve a friend's ranking by letting him win. Again, shocking? Not at all. Both of these revelations have been explored before and cheating doesn't expose any commonality between teachers and sumo wrestlers that doesn't stem from both groups being merely human. People cheat. Teachers and sumo wresters are people. Therefore, they both cheat and that's what they have in common. Some groundbreaking research, eh? The authors could just as easily have chosen any arbitrary group of people, found a human trait, and then shown how both groups exhibit it. For instance, what do umbrella sellers and plumbers have in common? Both take advantage of urgent situations to charge higher prices. What do Balinese dancers and corporate lawyers have in common? Both eat smaller lunches during busy seasons.

This book's subtitle is, "A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything". A more appropriate one would have been, "An Ordinary Economist Ponders Too Long About the Widely Known Side of a Few Unimportant Subjects". Randomly put together, I might add, and that's another annoying point. The book has almost no organization whatsoever. Rather than taking the time to organize the book into a logical manner, the authors joke about it being a disorganized collection of points and claim that as proof of their rogue status. If that's rogue, I'll take conventional any day.

It's clear that these authors are intelligent men who probably have something worthwhile to write. Unfortunately, they didn't write it in this book. The "Freak" in Freakonomics is supposed to refer to offbeat analysis or an original perspective. Instead it refers to the strange fact that, so often in publishing, what's of lasting value goes out of print and what's fleetingly entertaining climbs the charts.

You would do well to skip this one.

Between the generous margins, double spacing, gratuitous data tables and lists, quotes by various media sources attesting to the author's intellectual greatness, and the fact that they draw out their points and explanations so much, one wonders whether they are striving for clarity or just filling up space. There are some interesting issues discussed, but in such an unsophisticated manner why even bother with a book? I can get the same level of quality and depth of gee-whiz information from Headline News, and much quicker at that. And the, as the authors put it, "penultimate" chapter on how parents are unable to make any difference in their children's future is just downright confusing. Not because the point is difficult to grasp, just that it's so poorly explained. The point is that parents' actions do affect how their children turn out but there is really nothing that they can do through conscious effort to improve their parenting skills. Now this is nowhere stated explicitly in the book. And in fact the chapter seems to say that on the one hand parents do have an effect on their children based on such and such data, but on the other hand they do have NO effect. What?

Further, the book is sensational. Not that that should come as a surprise considering its title. Moreover, the authors have supposedly brought us all this profound and "unexpected" wisdom from a few studies and anecdotes and present it as if the questions it addresses are settled. But even the author admit that "... an expert whose argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn't get much attention (148)." Is this ironic or sort of a knowing wink at readers?

This book is an extremely easy read and I would seriously hope that anyone with a half-way decent college education would find very little value in this other than mindless entertainment.

Steven Levitt has a remarkable gift for using the tools of traditional economics to illuminate completely un-traditional problems. While some of the topics covered in FREAKONOMICS are loosely connected to business (the chapter on crack gangs is especially interesting in this regard), the real delight of this book is the light it sheds on issues that many of us have perhaps thought about but never considered rigorously: What effect does a kid's name have on his or her future? Do teachers graded on how well they prepare kids to take tests cheat? What accounts for the precipitous decline in crime in the U.S. in the 1990s? Levitt's answers are not always perfect or completely provable, but they are always intriguing.

The book is not perfect: the prose is sometimes too glib, and the authors occasionally embark on digressions that aren't really all that compelling. Nor should you expect a coherent through-line to the book: the only real connection between the various subjects is that Levitt worked on them. But in the end this doesn't really take away from the pleasure of reading the book. It's enormously enjoyable, as well as being provocative. If you like counterintuitive thinking like Malcolm Gladwell's THE TIPPING POINT or James Surowiecki's THE WISDOM OF CROWDS, you're pretty much guaranteed to love this.