Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J.: Freakonomics

William Morrow © 2005, 242 pages

I'm late to the party reading Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's bestselling exploration of, well, a whole bunch of stuff. The book is based largely on research previously published by Levitt, an economics professor at the University of Chicago. And it is rendered into clear, accessible prose by Dubner, who writes also for the New York Times and The New Yorker. Levitt applies the tools of economics--the means by which economists sift and assess scads of data--to a variety of unlikely, non-econnomic subjects. The subjects addressed in Freakonomics include, for example, the factors that led to a dramatic decrease in crime in the U.S. beginning in the early 1990s, whether sumo wrestling is corrupt, and how Superman was instrumental in diminishing the power of the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-20th century. Many of Levitt's conclusions are counter-intuitive, which is what makes the book fun reading.

Throughout, the authors stress five fundamental ideas, outlined in their introduction:

1. Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life.
2. The conventional wisdom is often wrong.
3. Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes.
4. "Experts"--from criminologists to real-estate agents--use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda.
5. Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so.

This pretty much sums up what the authors have to say in general. What remains is simply how these ideas are manifested in the particular cases considered in the book.

As the authors themselves admit, Freakonomics is unlikely to change your life, though it may leave readers more apt, at least temporarily, to question their assumptions. That may be reason enough to give the book a look, especially as it's so easily digested.

Comments

[Kim]

1.

I read this book a few years ago and then invited several friends from various fields to discuss it. All of us are over educated, or thought we were, until we read the chapter on names. We hadn't heard of or met anyone with a name on the list given for children of educated parents. So much for us.

[Debra Hamel]

2.

I don't think I had either! Then again, if I remember, I think that data was only from California, so maybe it hasn't diffused among the rest of us yet.

It was surprising how quickly names seemed to go from upper-class picks to being used by the lower classes.

[Clare D]

3.

Thanks Debra - I like these succinct reviews that you do. This looks like one worth reading when I get the chance.

[Debra Hamel]

4.

Thanks, Clare. You'd probably like this one. But I thought I was the only person in the western hemisphere not to have read it already.

[Bill Giovannetti]

5.

"Conventional wisdom is often wrong."
Very true, and Freakonomics makes a great case for the urgent need for critical thinking. As an author and professor, I cringe when I read papers from students who've been criminally under-served by their educational institutions. They're perfect prey for the kind of "fact-twisting" Freakonomics addresses.

[Debra Hamel]

6.

Thanks for stopping by Bill!