Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$9.59+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on December 11, 2016
Economic concepts are always difficult to explain and tedious to understand. Supply and demand charts, lengthy equations, and complex theories can make economics a nightmare. Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner explores the “hidden side” of economics while also managing to avoid the insipidity of economics. The book is addictive and eye opening, two adjectives not generally associated with economics. Freakonomics extends our understanding of economics by presenting and examining simple scenarios where decisions are made. The authors then analyze these decisions and look for patterns. The findings in this book will leave you shocked and intrigued.
One of the successes of Freakonomics is its ability to make the reader see scenarios in new perspectives. Dubner and Levitt researched extensively for this book, and it paid off. The research conducted by these two exposed hidden truths throughout society. Sumo wrestlers, for example, were exposed and found to be cheaters. Dubner and Levitt’s revolutionary approach of quirkiness and simplicity makes Freakonomics informative yet addictive .
Don’t be fooled, however; both of these authors are well established in their fields. The diction and syntax in Dubner’s and Levitt’s Freakonomics does not represent their level of credibility and achievement
The use of simple scenarios and diction in Freakonomics can also be seen as its biggest weakness. Because Freakonomics is written at a level that does not require any economic knowledge, the book can be repetitive and annoying for people who have a decent economic background. The authors do a great job at explaining their points.
The organization of Freakonomics is also unique. The book is organized into 6 fairly unrelated chapters. The only commonality of the chapters is their explanations of economic principles. The structure and chapters could be switched and the book would stay relatively the same
Freakonomics truly is a unique piece of work. Yes, it is a book about economics, but it so much more than that. You don’t have to like economics to love Freakonomics. In fact, I think readers will like the book more if they know nothing about economics
The revolutionary technique of Levitt and Dubner is genius. By following the untraditional approach, readers are able to learn in a way that is fresh and exciting. The overwhelming amount of data allows their arguments to be nearly flawless. No loopholes; you can’t argue the numbers. Freakonomics rips apart the traditional standard of informative books and hopefully will create a new style of writing for years to come.
One of the successes of Freakonomics is its ability to make the reader see scenarios in new perspectives. Dubner and Levitt researched extensively for this book, and it paid off. The research conducted by these two exposed hidden truths throughout society. Sumo wrestlers, for example, were exposed and found to be cheaters. Dubner and Levitt’s revolutionary approach of quirkiness and simplicity makes Freakonomics informative yet addictive .
Don’t be fooled, however; both of these authors are well established in their fields. The diction and syntax in Dubner’s and Levitt’s Freakonomics does not represent their level of credibility and achievement
The use of simple scenarios and diction in Freakonomics can also be seen as its biggest weakness. Because Freakonomics is written at a level that does not require any economic knowledge, the book can be repetitive and annoying for people who have a decent economic background. The authors do a great job at explaining their points.
The organization of Freakonomics is also unique. The book is organized into 6 fairly unrelated chapters. The only commonality of the chapters is their explanations of economic principles. The structure and chapters could be switched and the book would stay relatively the same
Freakonomics truly is a unique piece of work. Yes, it is a book about economics, but it so much more than that. You don’t have to like economics to love Freakonomics. In fact, I think readers will like the book more if they know nothing about economics
The revolutionary technique of Levitt and Dubner is genius. By following the untraditional approach, readers are able to learn in a way that is fresh and exciting. The overwhelming amount of data allows their arguments to be nearly flawless. No loopholes; you can’t argue the numbers. Freakonomics rips apart the traditional standard of informative books and hopefully will create a new style of writing for years to come.
on April 27, 2016
This is an excellent, very readable book by a couple of guys who like to go against the grain.
Steven D. Levitt is the economist who teaches at the prestigious University of Chicago school of economics, and Stephen J. Dubner is the talented wordsmith. They come off a little on the self-satisfied side here, but who can blame them? They have a surprise best seller in a new edition.
What really powered this book to national attention was their argument that the sharp nation-wide drop in crime starting in about 1990 was not due so much to having more cops on the beat, or smarter, better policing, or to having so many criminals in prison--as most of us thought--but instead the reason the crime rate dropped is that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973!
Arguments about this unintended (to say the least) consequence of making abortion legal raged as soon as this book hit the stores (or maybe before) and are raging still. Personally, put me down among those who find the argument persuasive. But I don't want to rehash all that now. Instead let me point to some other topics in the book.
Most interesting is the chapter entitled "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?" The authors tell the story of Sudhir Venkatesh who was working on a PhD in sociology at the University of Chicago. He was sent to do some sociology in Chicago's poorest black neighborhoods and ended up spending several years learning about the crack business at the street level complete with--oh, how the economists loved this!--spiral notebooks with four years worth of the crack gang's financial transactions. Venkatesh discovered that the gang worked a lot like "most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald's." (p. 89) The drug dealers still lived at home with their moms because most of them were making less than minimum wage. Why do a dangerous job for such low pay? Answer: like basketball dreams, the upside potential and the glamour of it! The middle level manager, "J.T.," a university educated dude, was making tax-free about $100,000 a year while the gang board of directors each earned about half a mil per. After J.T. reached his level of incompetence as a member of the board of directors, the gang got busted and he went to jail.
Also fascinating is the information on the socioeconomic and racial status of parents as revealed by their choices in first names for their children. Whitest girls names: Molly, Amy, Claire, Emily... Blackest girls names, Imani, Ebony, Shanice, Aaliyah, Precious... Most common names given to girls of high-education parents: Katherine, Emma, Alexandra, Julia... Boys: Benjamin, Samuel, Alexander, John, William... Low education boys names: Cody, Travis, Brandon, Justin...
But it'll change, as Messrs. Levitt and Dubner explain. Names go in and out of fashion and sometimes come back in. "Susan" was the most popular girls name in 1960. It didn't make the top ten in 2000. "Emily" led the list followed by Hannah, Madison, Sarah...
Interesting is the tale of Robert Lane who named one of his kids "Winner" and another "Loser." Winner Lane went on to become one of life's losers, and Loser Lane (called "Lou" by his friends) graduated from Lafayette College, Pa. and went on to become a police sergeant in New York City. So much for the effect of names--or maybe it's like "a boy named Sue": you overcome your name or you fail to live up to it.
There's a chapter on parenting that also raised some eyebrows, but again I think our clever authors got it right. Basically parenting skills are overrated. What really counts is who your parents are, not so much whether they read a lot to you or bought you Einstein tapes or even if they sent you to Head Start. In the "nature vs. nurture" debate, clearly nature is in the ascendancy.
This, the revised and expanded edition contains a New York Times Magazine article about Levitt written by Dubner before this collaboration, seven columns from the New York Time Magazine, and some entries from the Freakonomics blog on the Web.
Bottom line: an irresistible read and a book biz phenomenon.
Steven D. Levitt is the economist who teaches at the prestigious University of Chicago school of economics, and Stephen J. Dubner is the talented wordsmith. They come off a little on the self-satisfied side here, but who can blame them? They have a surprise best seller in a new edition.
What really powered this book to national attention was their argument that the sharp nation-wide drop in crime starting in about 1990 was not due so much to having more cops on the beat, or smarter, better policing, or to having so many criminals in prison--as most of us thought--but instead the reason the crime rate dropped is that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973!
Arguments about this unintended (to say the least) consequence of making abortion legal raged as soon as this book hit the stores (or maybe before) and are raging still. Personally, put me down among those who find the argument persuasive. But I don't want to rehash all that now. Instead let me point to some other topics in the book.
Most interesting is the chapter entitled "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?" The authors tell the story of Sudhir Venkatesh who was working on a PhD in sociology at the University of Chicago. He was sent to do some sociology in Chicago's poorest black neighborhoods and ended up spending several years learning about the crack business at the street level complete with--oh, how the economists loved this!--spiral notebooks with four years worth of the crack gang's financial transactions. Venkatesh discovered that the gang worked a lot like "most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald's." (p. 89) The drug dealers still lived at home with their moms because most of them were making less than minimum wage. Why do a dangerous job for such low pay? Answer: like basketball dreams, the upside potential and the glamour of it! The middle level manager, "J.T.," a university educated dude, was making tax-free about $100,000 a year while the gang board of directors each earned about half a mil per. After J.T. reached his level of incompetence as a member of the board of directors, the gang got busted and he went to jail.
Also fascinating is the information on the socioeconomic and racial status of parents as revealed by their choices in first names for their children. Whitest girls names: Molly, Amy, Claire, Emily... Blackest girls names, Imani, Ebony, Shanice, Aaliyah, Precious... Most common names given to girls of high-education parents: Katherine, Emma, Alexandra, Julia... Boys: Benjamin, Samuel, Alexander, John, William... Low education boys names: Cody, Travis, Brandon, Justin...
But it'll change, as Messrs. Levitt and Dubner explain. Names go in and out of fashion and sometimes come back in. "Susan" was the most popular girls name in 1960. It didn't make the top ten in 2000. "Emily" led the list followed by Hannah, Madison, Sarah...
Interesting is the tale of Robert Lane who named one of his kids "Winner" and another "Loser." Winner Lane went on to become one of life's losers, and Loser Lane (called "Lou" by his friends) graduated from Lafayette College, Pa. and went on to become a police sergeant in New York City. So much for the effect of names--or maybe it's like "a boy named Sue": you overcome your name or you fail to live up to it.
There's a chapter on parenting that also raised some eyebrows, but again I think our clever authors got it right. Basically parenting skills are overrated. What really counts is who your parents are, not so much whether they read a lot to you or bought you Einstein tapes or even if they sent you to Head Start. In the "nature vs. nurture" debate, clearly nature is in the ascendancy.
This, the revised and expanded edition contains a New York Times Magazine article about Levitt written by Dubner before this collaboration, seven columns from the New York Time Magazine, and some entries from the Freakonomics blog on the Web.
Bottom line: an irresistible read and a book biz phenomenon.
on July 23, 2015
I first found out about Freakonomics when I saw a rather eccentric, hotdog-covered book entitled 'Think Like A Freak' coauthored by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner at a local bookshop and decided to search the book up when I got home since it seemed to be like an interesting nonfiction book by authors with a lovely sense of humour. Unsurprisingly, these two authors had a few other books, one of them happening to be called 'Freakonomics' and so, I decided to make an impulse buy and ordered it on Amazon.
Can I just say, probably best decision ever?
Freakonomics showed me that economics wasn't such a boring field of study after all and gave me what it was really about: a study of incentives to help analyse data and draw logical conclusions from it. Levitt utilises this logic to answer quirky, unasked questions like 'what do sumo wresters and teachers have in common?', 'what's the reason for the 90's drop in crime?' or even 'why do drug dealers still live with their mothers?' to showcase the many uses of economic principles and meanwhile explain other concepts like information asymmetry or clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.
Overall, a really good read and investment of time. This book gets you to think a little differently about the world and open up solutions to problems that you might not've had before. Would 100% recommend to anyone; this is the kind of book that's so delightful it could hook anyone, no matter one's preferences for book genre.
Can I just say, probably best decision ever?
Freakonomics showed me that economics wasn't such a boring field of study after all and gave me what it was really about: a study of incentives to help analyse data and draw logical conclusions from it. Levitt utilises this logic to answer quirky, unasked questions like 'what do sumo wresters and teachers have in common?', 'what's the reason for the 90's drop in crime?' or even 'why do drug dealers still live with their mothers?' to showcase the many uses of economic principles and meanwhile explain other concepts like information asymmetry or clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.
Overall, a really good read and investment of time. This book gets you to think a little differently about the world and open up solutions to problems that you might not've had before. Would 100% recommend to anyone; this is the kind of book that's so delightful it could hook anyone, no matter one's preferences for book genre.
on December 16, 2015
Very interesting read about everyday statistics and how they explain our motivations. The writers challenge some predictions and show us, with numbers, that what we predict may sometimes be different from what happens in actuality and how people think. It's a good insight into what motivates us into doing or not doing things. It is very well written. I got the audiobook version and it was very entertaining. I even let my kids listen to some parts of it. It's one of those books where you can start at the beginning middle or end and enjoy it every time. I bought a few copies as gifts for my kids' history teacher, math teacher, and language teacher. Also, a gift for my uncle and for one of my friends. Recommended. I think it's better than the following books but they are also entertaining.
on May 8, 2017
3.5 ✨
When I first started freakonomics, I could not put the book down, but once I reached approximately 60% you are finished with the book and all you are left with is articles from the author and references. So In fairness, had freakonomics not included all the articles and references, I would have rated it a 4.
Some chapters, depending on the information, was more interesting than others. I found the chapter on crime rates dropping due to abortion to be particularly intriguing. They present a valuable side of an argument that I had never pondered. The chapter on how names can affect your success was also very interesting and just learning how they generate that data and how and when the names overlap. Very interesting.
All in all, I would recommend this book to all my friends who appreciate random tidbits of information or who have a curiosity towards economics and how it plays a part in random parts of our world.
When I first started freakonomics, I could not put the book down, but once I reached approximately 60% you are finished with the book and all you are left with is articles from the author and references. So In fairness, had freakonomics not included all the articles and references, I would have rated it a 4.
Some chapters, depending on the information, was more interesting than others. I found the chapter on crime rates dropping due to abortion to be particularly intriguing. They present a valuable side of an argument that I had never pondered. The chapter on how names can affect your success was also very interesting and just learning how they generate that data and how and when the names overlap. Very interesting.
All in all, I would recommend this book to all my friends who appreciate random tidbits of information or who have a curiosity towards economics and how it plays a part in random parts of our world.
on February 10, 2014
I think I assumed this book would be dry, boring or simply not something that would interest me. Needless to say, I was wrong! This is a very readable book and I read it much faster than I would have expected. The extended / expanded edition contains a bunch of extra articles and blog posts that they've written since their book was originally published which makes the book look larger than it is really.
I found the book to be nowhere near as dry as you might expect and occasionally laugh out loud funny or thought provokingly interesting. The authors touch upon subjects that would be of interest to most people like the actual effects of good or bad parenting, how to detect if a teacher is helping her kids cheat on state exams, why drug dealers still live with their parents, why crime rates dropped unexpectedly and what a baby name might tell you about said baby’s parents and the baby’s expected life.
Of course all of the “answers” in this book are just statistical probabilities and not hard and fast truths. I’m sure there are lots of exceptions to the rules and probably other angles at which you could look at some of these questions as well that might result in different answers. But I loved the overall concept of the book: the idea of looking at a question differently and not taking information at face value is definitely a useful thing to keep in mind.
The book definitely brought about a lively and interesting book club discussion. I’d say by and large, most of the members of my book club group enjoyed the book. I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who’s been on the fence and considering reading it.
I found the book to be nowhere near as dry as you might expect and occasionally laugh out loud funny or thought provokingly interesting. The authors touch upon subjects that would be of interest to most people like the actual effects of good or bad parenting, how to detect if a teacher is helping her kids cheat on state exams, why drug dealers still live with their parents, why crime rates dropped unexpectedly and what a baby name might tell you about said baby’s parents and the baby’s expected life.
Of course all of the “answers” in this book are just statistical probabilities and not hard and fast truths. I’m sure there are lots of exceptions to the rules and probably other angles at which you could look at some of these questions as well that might result in different answers. But I loved the overall concept of the book: the idea of looking at a question differently and not taking information at face value is definitely a useful thing to keep in mind.
The book definitely brought about a lively and interesting book club discussion. I’d say by and large, most of the members of my book club group enjoyed the book. I’d definitely recommend it to anyone who’s been on the fence and considering reading it.
on February 9, 2017
While I am much older than the authors and disagree with many of their conclusions, I still found it interesting. As with any analysis of sets of data, where the truth is can become a subjective if not skewed "revelation" that no one seemingly has discovered before. I found that with their analysis of abortion lowering crime while denigrating Mayor Giuliani's success with "stop and frisk". The shooting rate is rising with its cessation yet that was not revealed. An interesting read, just be careful how much you swallow.
on June 30, 2014
I've wanted to read this for quite a while and finally got around to it. As the title suggests, it's a discussion on freaky economics. I know those two words tend to not be used together in the same sentence, and that's what makes this book fun ( which is another word not usually used to describe economics.)
Creative and controversial, Levitt has the ability to take uninteresting statistical data and spin it in ways that can totally change the meaning usually assigned to it. It's, among other things, a lesson on the fact that data can be interpreted ( and manipulated ) in many different ways, some biased, some not as much. Personally, I think all data is unavoidably subject to the bias of the interpreter.
Generally, I don't expect books about economics to be particularly entertaining, but Levitt and Dubner have taken a rather dry subject and made it very readable and interesting. Will you agree with them? Very possibly not. There's discussion about very touchy topics (for example how Roe v. Wade has affected crime rates), but if you're open to alternative interpretations of data, at the very least you'll be entertained. Can't wait to read the followup books.
If I have one gripe about this book, it's that I wanted it to be longer.
Creative and controversial, Levitt has the ability to take uninteresting statistical data and spin it in ways that can totally change the meaning usually assigned to it. It's, among other things, a lesson on the fact that data can be interpreted ( and manipulated ) in many different ways, some biased, some not as much. Personally, I think all data is unavoidably subject to the bias of the interpreter.
Generally, I don't expect books about economics to be particularly entertaining, but Levitt and Dubner have taken a rather dry subject and made it very readable and interesting. Will you agree with them? Very possibly not. There's discussion about very touchy topics (for example how Roe v. Wade has affected crime rates), but if you're open to alternative interpretations of data, at the very least you'll be entertained. Can't wait to read the followup books.
If I have one gripe about this book, it's that I wanted it to be longer.
on June 14, 2012
The book is interesting and handle the most common "conventional wisdom", like; circumstances and attribute results based on superficial analysis; analyse the system as a whole and based on unreliable data inputs; moving the people by incentives, positive or negative; names given to lead to sucess; management of gangs as a business. Beyond of that, shows that the color of skin is not a factor that differenciate the mankind intellectual, but the racism. The parenting can contribute partially to the children growing intelectual. In general the book deals with a wide range of topics which is supposed to be economically associated, according to the author, it tells histories of some personal, and in phase with data argues and debates the themes. I consider this book very rational and it brings the need of data analysis in order to take decisions. The "conventional wisdom" is a good basis but it must be comproved or dismissed by reliable data and accurate analysis.
