Freakonomics Rev Ed

Written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

Narrated by Stephen J. Dubner

Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner offer the long-awaited paperback edition of Freakonomics, the runaway bestseller, including six Freakonomics columns from the New York Times Magazine and a Q & A with the authors.

• Language: English
• Publisher: HarperAudio
• Release date: Jul 10, 2007
• ISBN: 9780061254680

Steven D. Levitt

Steven D. Levitt, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, given to the most influential American economist under forty. He is also a founder of The Greatest Good, which applies Freakonomics-style thinking to business and philanthropy. Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning journalist and radio and TV personality, has worked for the New York Times and published three non-Freakonomics books. He is the host of Freakonomics Radio and Tell Me Something I Don't Know.

Reviews for Freakonomics Rev Ed

[S H · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Great book. Absolutely loved it. I will highly recommend it.

[Mindy Ngo · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Absolutely loved this book. Great insights and statistics filled with interesting topics and side notes.

[Springfeild · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Interesting book. The authors are very impressed by themselves, sometimes for good reason and other times not so much. I would have liked to have heard more about why John Lott was wrong.

[jaimelesmaths · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Roe v. Wade is partially responsible for the drop in crime in the 1990s. Having books in your house correlates positively to increased test scores for your children, but whether or not you read to them doesn't. Do these statements sound crazy? Well, they're both at least partially true, according to analyses presented in Freakonomics. The story I found the most interesting was how one of the authors caught which teachers were cheating on standardized tests in Chicago. Least interesting was the analysis of baby names (distinguishing between "high-end" and "low-end" names for boys and girls).My only real complaint is that the book was too short! This revised edition does include some responses and further anecdotes collected from the Freakonomics blog, which beefs it up a bit, but I still wanted more. Additionally, I would have liked to see more actual economics content (i.e. a bit of mathematical explanation to enhance their arguments). For example, in the example of real estate agents trying to close a deal (not necessarily to their client's benefit), the concepts of a discount rate and/or opportunity costs would have enhanced the discussion greatly. Overall, definitely worth a read, and great for cocktail conversation.

[athurman-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Freakonomics is fast, consistently interesting read and best when it digs in and tackles a question at length, as with the issue of the relationship of legal abortion to crime rates or the section on the socioeconomic trends in baby names. The only real overarching theme of the book, however, is Levitt's own cleverness--every chapter is preceded by a fawning blurb about Levitt from the same New York Times magazine piece.
Rather than just further refining and cashing in on this Steven Levitt "brand" of the impish public affairs gadfly who throws grenades at small hills of conventional wisdom in easy-reading bestsellers, I'd like to see Levitt take on an important subject and make his case so thoroughly that citizens and policymakers can actually turn his insights into action.

[rustyboone · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Freakonomics is about unconventional wisdom, using the raw data of economics in imaginative ways to ask clever and diverting questions. Levitt even redefines his definition. If, as he says, economics is essentially about incentives and how people realise them, then economics is a prospecting tool, not a laboratory microscope.

[zetetic23 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Awesome book. I wouldnt of read if i didn't find it in an op shop, very glad that I did. Makes such complicated relationships between seemingly unconnected events seem simple. Onto superfreakonomics next.

[conuly · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Tell you the truth, I really am not a fan of the paperback B. Bears. I find them too long, too wordy, and, really, too moralistic. My nieces adore them, though, so I added a star for that, and I keep buying them. (I'm a sucker, really.)This is a great example of the books. New cub moves into the neighborhood, Sister and Lizzy become fast friends (and why does everybody in this series get a real name except for the main characters?), they fight over something silly, and eventually learn to compromise and share. Aw.Great moral message, but kinda boring story.

[mistycliff · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

They say numbers don’t lie. That might be true in terms of how many years a person has lived or how much a five pound weight weighs. However, if you try to use quantitative data to supply evidence for a qualitative end product, you may find yourself lacking in any true objectivity.Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, make this fatal mistake in trying to prove the exact opposite in their fairly controversial book, Freakonomics. Perhaps they made the mistake of taking on hot-button topics like abortion, race and gender by trying to prove something that they should have explained using wildlife, art and music. Perhaps their intention was not to make certain moral stands but simply to say that numbers do, in fact lie.Unfortunately, for me, I found their “examples” of just how statistics deceive, fairly partisan on a number of occasions. Were the facts completely fool proof, like perhaps, refuting the claim that the ocean is a pleasant shade of lemon yellow instead of sea blue, then, I might have had an easier time taking their theories seriously.Their assertions, however, seemed to simply guestimate that common, in their defense, mostly likely false, data were instead indicators of something completely different. All the while, they did not give any real, hard evidence, as to why their particular theory was correct over the conventional wisdom or a third option.In a second defense, they did a fair amount of relative fence-sitting, but on more than one occasion, took a less than watery line that lead me, as a reader, to believe that while they wouldn’t say, 100% that the new conclusion was indeed correct, they were personal fans of the more recently concluded theories.If this sounds bitter, it’s not. I think, my main issue was that it was largely ironic. In claiming that there is a seedy underbelly to the facts presented in the media, et al, they took hard lines of their own. And no, this is not really an issue of which lines they took. If the book was written by a pair of a different race, a different gender or a different socio-economic status, and proceeded to take equally strong stands in the name of liberal “objectivity”, I would still find fault in the presentation.All of that said, there are entertaining parts to the book and I zipped right along through it. I think, my final conclusion is that, like many of the parenting advice tomes they bashed (again, not bitter, I wholeheartedly agreed with their dismissal of the Obsessive Baby Raiser book market), the writing inside of Freakonomics is best read with “subjectivity is all around us” repeating in the back of your head.It is my hope to get a few guest bloggers on here in the next week or so in the moderate camp and conservative camp to see if it was my sociopolitical leaning that lead my ambivalence about this piece or whether even from the other side of the fence, this oozes subjective defense of a false objectivity.

[rise_2 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Abortion lowers crime rate, and other controversial ‘freaky’ ideas from a pair of journalist and economist. Levitt & Dubner concocted amusing premises, did some un-fuzzy maths and quantitative analyses, and reached some unlikely conclusions that convince nevertheless.

[shmuel510_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It's a quick read and provides some interesting observations, but the incessant self-congratulatory motif starts grating really quickly.

[Will Harrison · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Great book. Makes you look at the world in a different light. Also you learn not to take people's word, ask for the data.

[screamingbanshee · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Fresh viewpoint of what economics covers - ok, everything - from cheating sumo wrestlers to what parenting is all about - it asks strange and often unasked questions. And you go "aha!" or "really?" or "no waaaayyyy...." or ... [insert]. What it will do is provoke you to think!

Easy to read and popularized, it reminds me a bit of how Stephen Hawking was able to make science much more accessible (although it pales in comparison to Cosmos, its a great attempt).

[Holly Payton · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

it makes you think deeply and rethink the world around you. great book

[thepricefam · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

These are still theories, although the data and arguments are convincing. Intriguing and thought-provoking. I enjoyed it a great deal.

[SubramanianKalyanaraman · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Was that really the end

[berthacummins · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

An interesting read about unintended consequences of certain events that seem unrealated, but really when examined closely - are related.

[Bloody Leaf is freaking off the freaking wall eeefe and my usernamei is quite logng here · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

efefefef

[anivyl_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

For someone like me who hated economics throughout my late high school life, and early uni life, this book taught me something different - that economics is everywhere around me AND fun! It's funny, intuitive, sobering and quite an eye-opener. Don't let economics as its subject deter you - it is better than your bearded lecturer ^_^

[heina_54 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Although this book was engaging, well-written, and a quick read, I take issue with the constant bolstering of Levitt's ego as well as with some of his analysis. The constant praise of Levitt as well as the publishing of articles praising his supposed mad genius was almost enough to make me put the book down. If a particular thinker is brilliant (and Levitt seems to be quite insightful), his work will reflect that without the need to constantly reassure the reader that they are reading the ideas of someone who is intelligent. I don't know whether it was Dubner or Levitt's choice (or both) to include all the articles as well as the over-the-top praise, but either way, I found it jarring and obnoxious.In terms of the analysis Levitt gives, I believe that he gives himself too much authority based on the fact that he is not "politically-correct" or "mainstream." Just because an idea is not commonly-held does not automatically render it more valid than other ideas. Some of his ideas do seem to make sense, yes, but constantly calling attention to the fact that his ideas fly in the face of what most people know is utterly unnecessary. The title includes the term "rogue economist;" that is enough for the reader to be aware that Levitt is different and there is no need to constantly remark something along the lines of "this is different from the mainstream therefore it must be innovative and true."Furthermore, his chapter on names begins with some very subjective analysis disguised as objective analysis. In it, he supposedly breaks down the idea that "black-sounding" names are discriminated against by claiming that those names indicate a lower-income background to potential interviewers and not race. "Black"-sounding names might indicate a lower-income background, but those who discriminate against job applicants who have them aren't thinking about lower incomes; at least, there is no proof to validate that idea. People who see "DeShawn" on a stellar resume that includes a college degree and lots of experience and pick "Derek" over that are not being classist, but racist. If DeShawn and Derek went to the same university and have held very similar executive job, how does that indicate that DeShawn is from a lower-income background? I find this chapter's opening very suspect. The worst part, in my opinion, was the closing of the book. The story at the end of the book that shows that Poor Abandoned Black Kid can outperform Loved Privileged White Kid comes off as a pathetic attempt to have a part of the book to which to point in case someone accuses Levitt et. al. of racism. A race-based analysis of this book is a valid one, to be sure, but before the ending, I wouldn't have called it "racist." The little attempt at a feel-good close is the racist and classist part of the book. Yes, there are people who overcome overwhelming circumstances, but most cannot for a variety of reasons.I rate this books 4 stars on its ability to engage and interest the reader, but its superficial analysis of the problem of name discrimination, its insistence on incessantly declaring one of its author's genius, and its sad attempt at a feel-good ending are enough to rob it of at least 1 star.

[Myke Weber · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Stunning! So much to think about.

[Aldo Vazquez · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I liked the way the authors link two subjects with statistics and data. It's very entertaining and easy to understand.

[Marina_Sigma · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

great, interesting and fun! highly recommended to anyone curious enough about the world, the universe and everything!

[plyte_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? How much does a parent matter in the success of their child? These are only a few of the questions addressed in Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, a very funny and analytic book Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The two authors tackle some of the weirdest questions that seem to have no correlation or relevance, but somehow, in the end, are connected. It touches on some very interesting topics and does so in a very light-heated and intellectual way.The premise of the book is to look at the hidden reasons for a certain event, in this case, the drop of the crime rate in the 1990s. The two authors break apart the drop using the tools of economics to try and reason why it baffled the criminologists who, at the time, expected a severe rise in the crime rate. From this single questions, Freakonomics delves into a series of other, related but odd, questions that slowly build a picture of the different factors that lead to the drop in crime rate, ending with a very interesting look the merits and advantages of good parenting.What Freakonomics does a great job of doing is not losing the reader with over-the-top explanations of economic principals or jargon. Instead, it takes a more open approach that is very much accessible to those without very good education in the field of economics. At no point in time while I was reading the book did I really find myself struggling to get through the concepts that Dubner and Levitt were using to break apart these questions that they proposed. In fact, they took what could have been a relatively boring topic and analysis and filled it with humor and made it much more palatable to a greater audience.I really enjoyed reading about all these different factors and was amazed by what they came up with from the data that they used. Some of the things may seem counter intuitive, but they do a great job of digging deeper behind these types of occurrences and eventually, you start to understand where they are coming from and then you start to feel like you want to try and do something yourself.The fast amount of statistics and data that are represented throughout the pages aren't daunting and are presented in a way that doesn't take away from the very witty and interesting writing. There are graphs and tables and charts filled with numbers and, at the end, names, but they are used very sparingly or have a well-defined purpose that allows the readers to look and see for themselves what they are talking about in words.All in all, Freaknomics is a wonderful exploration into topics that I normally wouldn't have taken a second glance at if I saw them. They turn huge reams of data into a short book that quickly and precisely answer some of the most odd yet intriguing questions I have ever seen. Freaknomics is one of those books that takes something that could be boring and turns it into a very enjoyable experience.

[bensdad00 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A book I am glad to say I was ahead of the curve on. Strongly recommended.

[jasonli_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Reading "Freakonomics" is like going on a fact-finding tour with an contrarian economist. It's a delightful journey, you learn some new things and it never gets too academic. That Levitt and Dubner choose some great cases to analyze is just icing on the cake.It's a breezy read and thoroughly enjoyable. But as the authors admit, "Freakonomics" won't change the way you look at the world, but it will push you to suspect the truth behind conventional wisdom.

[randlejl · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Overall, not a bad book. Many of the pieces were reprinted in New York Times. Naked Economics was much better as overall review of economics.

[onefinemess · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Nice entertaining read. VERY quick read, this book needed another 100 pages of substance - the 100 pages of bonus material were nice, but more actual BOOK would have been even better.

[Tahir Ch · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

They lie!

[ptittle-886702 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I remember when I first read Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics (many years ago), in which they present an astounding connection between access to abortion and crime: twenty years after Roe v. Wade, the U.S. crime rate dropped.Astounding indeed. That men are so surprised by that! I mean, just how clueless are you guys? About the power, the influence, of parenting, about the effect of being forced to be pregnant, to be saddled with a squalling baby you do not want, on an income you do not have, because you’ve got a squalling baby you do not want… What did you guys think would happen in situations like that? The women would get “Mother of the Year” awards for raising psychologically healthy adults?What I find surprising is that access to abortion isn’t related to infanticide. Pity. Given the Freakonomics boys.