I gave it as a gifr for my son majoring in economice... He said "WOW.. I always wanted this book !"

I gave it as a gifr for my son majoring in economice... He said "WOW.. I always wanted this book !"

Just to respond to a review that was extremely critical of this book - Economics is just that STATISTICS WITH A THEORY.

If you took any undergraduate economic classes you'd understand that economics is the formation of theories to explain trends that are portrayed in data. No matter how absurd the theory - with proper support (which Leavitt documents repeatedly) there is absolutely no reason to review this book negatively.

The only kind of person who would review this negatively is someone who is looking for concrete answers in a world where nothing is concrete. This is social science and as a result there are no end all statements - instead there are crafy theories which do extremely well to explain trends in data.

All in all this book was a blast to read!

Computers, not abortion are the reason for the drop in crime in the 90's.
Think about it.

Even if his research interests are cheating, corruption, and crime, Steven D. Levitt - MIT PhD, John Bates Clark Medal winner and father of four - makes a poor rogue. And it is sometimes hard to tell if he is an economist, statistician or sociologist. Other than those minor points, the title is fairly accurate.

Levitt is best known for his controversial argument that legalized abortion was largely responsible for the unexpected drop in US crime rates during the 1990s. But the book covers many other topics. Suspicious patterns of right and wrong answers on multiple choice tests are used to catch cheating (by teachers!). Consistent wins against the odds in crucial sumo bouts put the finger on colluding wrestlers. Real estate agents keep their own homes on the market longer, and sell them for higher prices, than they do with clients' homes. And a retired economist and college educated gang leader happen to keep unusually good records of their respective bagel and crack cocaine businesses.

Like Seinfeld, Freakonomics claims not to be about anything. This disclaimer, however, is somewhat undermined by the list of themes (conveniently highlighted in italics) in the introduction. Themes, moreover, stunning in their banality and vacuity. "Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life . . . The conventional wisdom is often wrong . . . Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes . . . Experts use their informational advantages to serve their own agenda . . . Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so . . . morality represents the way we would like the world to work, and economics represents the way it does work."

The authors liked the last line so much they could not resist repeating it throughout the book, even when what they are writing shows the exact opposite. Economic incentives can backfire if they weaken social and moral incentives - imposing a small fine on tardy parents at a day-care centre or paying donors for blood. And their explantion of incentives is gruesomely bad:

"If you toddle over to the hot stove and touch it, you burn a finger. But if you bring home straight A's from school, you get a new bike. If you are spotted picking your nose in class, you get ridiculed. But if you make the basketball team, you move up the social ladder." (Followed by three more pairs of totally unrelated opposites.)

Freakonomics is full of interesting stories, even if each finding could be (and has been) questioned individually. (After all, is there anything interesting in the social sciences that has not attracted criticism?) If anecdotes are all you want, the book is great. If you want anything more . . .

Originally published in the Economic Record, March 2006.

This is the most fascinating book I have read this year. I could not resist sending copies to my friends and relatives

For those that don't know, the basic idea behind this book is that it applies economics to weird questions that aren't normally thought of as economics, like:
- Are teachers cheating on standardized exams?
- Are sumo wrestlers rigging matches?
- Will real estate dealers get the best deal for clients? (Hint: they tend to get better prices when selling their own houses than when selling clients' houses).
His results are often intriguing, and this results in a very interesting and readable book. Even people who hated economics in college or swore they would never take it will enjoy this book.

However, it seems like the authors let their own political views bias their work in places. For example, one of their more controversial claims is that abortion led to decreases in crime because the people most likely to be aborted are also the people most likely to be criminals. While this may be intuitive, other economists, such as Dr. John Lott, have largely discredited this finding. One of the many problems with their finding is that the decrease in crime in the 90's (which the authors chalk up to abortion) was greatest among people born before Roe v. Wade, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if their analysis was correct.

Other than their occasional slips to political bias, this book is very well written and makes for a good read, and I recommend it overall.

There are a few people here whining that this book draws ridiculous conclusions, but those people are wrong. The authors draw few, if any, conclusions. They show correlations and posit possibilities, probabilities of causation. They don't, as some dumber people here are suggesting, declare definitively that, say, Roe v. Wade was responsible for the drop in crime 20-30 years later. They simply show a correlation, a connection, for the reader to think about. They also discuss other possible reasons. The only conclusions they draw is when they are able to conclusively show that a suggested reason had no impact.

Too much information disseminated in the media is baloney, the product of lazy reporting, journalists taking the word of politicians, pundits, and 'experts' and reporting it as the truth without enough research or in-depth analysis. Freakonomics isn't a book to forward a few left-field theories about crime, sumo wrestlers, or teachers. It's a just a demonstration of how set in our ways we are, how worn the paths are in our thinking. Most people, myself included, are not thinking hard enough about things, not looking from enough angles, not asking enough questions.

The book makes this point very effectively, and I'm glad I read it. It's not telling you what you should think, just that you should think more, and differently. Fun!

This would be a dangerous book if Americans werent stupid and corrupt.

Its a page-flipper and definitely interesting.

While reading this book, I remembered something that my father told me when I was about ten. He told me that in the USA a lot of effort was put into gathering data about every imaginable thing. Then two sets of data were compared to see how often one thing occurred at the same time as another. "I will give you an example: they compare how many dishwashers are sold in one month with the test results in mathematics and in biology of the children coming out of the first and fourth grade. Then something like this can come out: the more dishwashers are sold, the better the grades in mathematics of the children in fourth grade but their biology grades seem to stay the same no matter how many dishwashers are sold. The grades of the children of first grade are worse both in mathematics and biology when more dishwashers are sold." "Daddy, it is sooo foolish! What do dishwashers have to do with your math grades?". "Think of it more carefully, it's not at all foolish! It's probably not the most elegant approach, but it surely is useful. By doing this, they are generating theories, a lot of theories. Then they can discard the ones that are useless. This approach might lead you nowhere with several theories, like the one I exaggerated, but at some point it's Bingo!"

Having said this, and although I found the book an easy, entertaining and at times funny reading with some interesting cases and conclusions, I did not find it overwhelming.

I cannot help thinking that the author did not go far enough with his research. I would have liked that the author explained the statistical methods he used, as well as the certainty or error levels obtained, and also what these latter mean.

I am probably biased, but I would like to quote A. Zee, author of several books on quantum physics: "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful, but when I had to chose, I usually chose the beautiful." I cannot judge the truth in Levitt's propositions, but I find them extremely ugly. Although he would not propose it and even seems to be against it at the end of the chapter, starting from his supposed facts, logical reasoning would lead us to suggest that in order to reduce criminality, a government would do well promoting abortion among young mothers to be, specially if they are teenagers, have not finished school and belong to an economical lower class (if they are Afro-Americans or Latin it is even more probable that the abortion benefits society in the long run, since people belonging to this races make up for half the criminals). This is reinforced with some studies that reveal that before "Rose vs. Wade" (at a time when only rich women could afford an illegal abortion), abortions had no correlation to criminality indexes. This makes me think of "economics for freaks" or "economics that can freak you out".

If we accept "neglected children" as the first cause for criminality and start from here, then of the 5 whys suggested to find the true root cause of a problem, I am missing 4, why are the children neglected, why are so many unwanted childs conceived? The author mentions one abortion for each 2.25 births!!! Conceptions increased 30% while births decreased 6%!!! He suggests that women probably use abortion as a radical birth control method. Aren't this figures worth a freakonomic study of abortion economics? Are $100 for an abortion cheaper than preventive methods? It's definitely cheaper than more and better sexual education at school, cheaper than better nursing or day care facilities, cheaper than help-groups or even therapy for teenage parents or single mothers, cheaper than better sporting facilities or other programs for teenagers...

Ever wonder if sumo wrestling is rigged? Or maybe pondered the likelihood that the slim wealthy single you met on a dating site is overweight and unemployed? In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner take on these questions and more in their fascinating and hilariously funny exploration of the most bizarre phenomena our world has to offer. Using solid research and piercing wit, Levitt and Dubner delve into the inner economic workings of those enterprises that are ignored by stock traders and analysts, and tackle the social issues that are too touchy, or just too weird, to be covered by more traditional writers.

Using the theories of economics, Levitt and Dubner challenge so-called "experts" or talking heads by asking intriguing questions. For instance, in the chapter titled, "Where Have All the Criminals Gone?" various experts are quoted claiming that the reduction of crime in the 1990's was due to several factors: a larger police presence on the streets, an aging population, and/or longer prison sentences. Levin and Dubner dispute these theories and set out to show us that Roe vs. Wade, the legalization of abortion, affected the crime rate more than any other factor. Levitt and Dubner offer the reader compelling statistics to demonstrate that a reduction in unwanted children directly influenced the reduction in crime. In another chapter Levitt and Dubner draw correlations between sumo wrestlers and teachers, showing that they both resort to cheating under pressure, while in yet another chapter we learn why street gang members could run McDonald's.

Some readers may argue with Levitt and Dubner's conclusions, and question the difference between correlation and causation; despite those objections, this is a worthwhile read that encourages the reader to question foregone conclusions. Levitt and Dubner also have a weekly column in the New York Times.

Quill says: Freakonomics will change your view of economics, and the role it plays in everyday life.

Easy read, informative and interesting. Well worth the money as the author puts a spin on many interesting common day occurrences. A fine addition to my library.

Clearly this is the best biography yet written about ex-Mass governor Mitt Romney. Dubner and Levitt somehow got access to the scientists who designed Romney and the laboratory where he was built. Equally fascinating was the process of their deciding what "family" to build for Romney--for instance, beyond constructing the no-brainer wooden, statuesque wife, whether to build him sons, or daughters. In the end, the scientists confidentially concede their surprise and disappointment that Romney, once launched, proved to be even more robotic than he was programmed to be.

Crazyman's Economics

I think it's interesting book and one that people should read to give them a new perspective of economics that doesn't put them to sleep. While one can certainly question some of the conclusions they draw, it starts a debate that isn't limited to academic snobs trying to "out-intellectualize" each other.

I bought this book for my Kindle. I read most of it while on the DC metro and I was pleased to find a gal sitting next to me reading the actual book. It is a good one. It will have you questioning most facts and figures you see on a daily basis. I already do not trust the media and this book only made it worse. But, it was lots of fun to read and it really helped me understand how what you think is true on the surface may not really be. I recommend this book in conjuction with "Sway; The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior" They really compliment each other.

-Off to my reading spot!

This book is plainly entertaining. These two authors bring many unrelated situations into juxtaposition, and find the thread that binds them both. And when they do, you will probably chuckle to yourself for not noticing it earlier. And you find that you can do that with many other events that occur in and out of your own life.

Sumo wrestlers and high-school teachers: what do they have in common? They both cheat. And so the basic premise of the book is: every human being is motivated by incentives. Economics studies the workings of this drive that human beings have.

But even with this, the book doesn't seem to have an overarching view of any sort. It's like a collage of observations that an economist with a very good sense of humor and an unorthodox view of the world makes together with a willing journalist who comes along for the ride. Which is probably why this book is simply one of a kind.

This book is plainly entertaining. These two authors bring many unrelated situations into juxtaposition, and find the thread that binds them both. And when they do, you will probably chuckle to yourself for not noticing it earlier. And you find that you can do that with many other events that occur in and out of your own life.

Sumo wrestlers and high-school teachers: what do they have in common? They both cheat. And so the basic premise of the book is: every human being is motivated by incentives. Economics studies the workings of this drive that human beings have.

But even with this, the book doesn't seem to have an overarching view of any sort. It's like a collage of observations that an economist with a very good sense of humor and an unorthodox view of the world makes together with a willing journalist who comes along for the ride. Which is probably why this book is simply one of a kind.

Only one thing became clear while reading this book. As the author(s) put it, journalists need experts as much as experts need journalists. Levitt and Dubner proved that point very well.

Only one thing became clear while reading this book. As the author(s) put it, journalists need experts as much as experts need journalists. Levitt and Dubner proved that point very well.

Twice over the past two years, I have browsed this book in Barnes and Nobles, and twice I decided to pass it up. However, on the third pass, I caught a familiar name as I thumbed through it: Sudhir Vankatest, the now renown Professor of Sociology at Columbia U., whose groundbreaking study of gangs in Chicago (and his editorials in the NYT) had a great impression upon me. As a result of this single name I decided to purchase the book. However, upon reading it, I too must conclude as did other reviewers, that Freakonomics must definitely remain in the category of "light reading" (very light indeed), despite the fact that there is a serious non-trivial aspect to it. One must conclude that this book is the Hors d' oeuvre but not the main course.

What is serious about this admittedly very disorganized collection of what at first sight might seem like disconnected social trivial is that it too manages to "tap" into the same "unconscious economic territory" of everyday human social interactions as do a rash of other recent books like it. For instance, "The Tipping point," "Blink," "Sway," and the "Black Swan, among the ones with which I am familiar. I do not believe that this rash of books all attempting to get at virtually the same human ability to intuit statistical patterns is a coincident at all, but rather a reflection of attempts to fill a glaring gap in sociological analysis, by other more "non-sociological" means.

Other reviewers have hit the nail on its head when they too point out that there is a difference between "correlation" and "causation" as well as that there are also very complex and confounding Heisenberg like effects involved with attempts to study, measure or even gauge human social interactions. As well, it must also be said that when dealing with human social phenomena it is also true that the hidden variables and their interactive effects are often more important than the more obvious and direct (and linear) effects. However, the fact that social phenomena are complex - that is to say, interactive dynamic and non-linear -- is not a reason to avoid analysis altogether.

It seems that since Hubert Blalock's deep foray into statistical analysis of social problems of several decades ago failed to "catch fire," that Sociologists have since tended to retreat into a methodologically defensive position, shying away from any analysis that challenges the conventional wisdom or the status quo, and from any serious quantitative analysis of social problems altogether. This reluctance as much as anything else has turned sociology into a kind of theology of the status quo. One has to look far and wide to find sociological analysis that strays even a bit from the national consensus, or from the "accepted customs" and "conventional wisdom." Given the poor quality of quantitative analysis in the social sciences generally and the dismal failure of qualitative analysis in Sociology in particular, this dereliction of analytical duties strikes me as a kind of negligence bordering on methodological cowardliness. Many of the examples in this book point these difficulties out. Even the title "Freakonomics" leaves room for it to be considered out of the main stream.

Clearly there is a positive correlation between increased abortions and decreased crime, for all of the obvious reasons. But taken out of their context as is done with many of the examples in this book, they become just isolated facts that may or may not have any additional meaning. In such cases the devil that usually lies in the details, now lies within the meaning and interpretation of the respective social contexts. Until and unless these isolated facts are properly situated in their proper sociological, and methodological frameworks and contexts, no matter how tantalizing, they are just that isolated facts without much meaning.

I disagree with the thrust of many of the other reviewer's comments, that because of their complexity, social phenomena are not amendable to scientific study -- as there are definitely creative ways to get beyond the complexity of social phenomena in the same way that was done in the military sciences. One such way is the Systems Analysis of social problems, that is using operations research, computer simulations, etc. to tackle the complexity, the non-linearity and the interactive effects. There are a number of "off-the-shelf" methodologies just waiting to be used in the human sciences. Hubert Blalock's "Path Analysis" for instance is a greatly under utilized method in sociology.

As but another example from my own research, I used a computer simulation shell called iThink and U.S. Census data to study the inner city teen pregnancy problem when it flew off the statistical charts during the period of 1965 to 1985. Contrary to the findings in this book, I found that the abortion rates of the intercity poor began to skyrocket at the same time that inner city crime did. However, so too did a whole host of other related socio-economic indicators, most notably the sexual revolution that took place at the same time (easily indexed by a host of sex related census measures) and the incentives of welfare. All of these had non-linear interactive effects, but ones that could be easily isolated and parameterized using computer simulation.

So I take issue with one of the author's main contentions that you can't put social phenomena in the laboratory. It can indeed be done, but must be done in the same way that porcupines make love, very carefully. It seems that sociological analysis has not progress must over the last two generations, but that is not these authors fault.

Three stars

While I wouldn't go so far as to relegate the book to one-star status, I completely agree some of the objections on here. I'm halfway through the book right now, and I've been repeatedly troubled with the authors' tendency to reach qualitative conclusions that go beyond their data.

That said, it's still an entertaining book. Reading it with a critical mind, questioning the authors' methods and conclusions, helps you sharpen your own understanding of statistics, causation and correlation, etc. I'm happy to have read it (well, half so far).

While I wouldn't go so far as to relegate the book to one-star status, I completely agree some of the objections on here. I'm halfway through the book right now, and I've been repeatedly troubled with the authors' tendency to reach qualitative conclusions that go beyond their data.

That said, it's still an entertaining book. Reading it with a critical mind, questioning the authors' methods and conclusions, helps you sharpen your own understanding of statistics, causation and correlation, etc. I'm happy to have read it (well, half so far).

Interestingly, the book starts off very nicely with catchy questions and a unique perspective in answering them. However, you quickly realize that the author is beating around the bush and comes back to the same question and answers. The authors are prejudiced to begin with and therefore play with numbers and carefully framed sentences to win the reader's vote. In addition, the authors dismiss other works as providing 'little evidence' while providing little/no evidence to their own work.

In short, the book is interesting and insightful but don't take it seriously.

The author has admitted, in print, that he has fabricated data and intentionally misrepresented statistics - especially in the abortion chapter. He justifies it by saying his intentions were good. He admitted this in an interview with Gene Epstein in the book "Econospinning."

IF LEVITT TITLED HIS BOOK ECONOMICS 101, NO ONE WOULD BUY OR READ IT. HE SHOULD GO BACK & READ ECONOMICS 101, TO REFRESH HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
FIRST, BLUE CRIME RATE GOES DOWN IN GOOD TIMES (UNDER CLINTON) & GOES UP IN BAD TIMES (UNDER REPUBILCANS). WHITE COLLAR CRIME GOES UP WITH DEREGULATION (UNDER REPUBLICANS). IT DOES DOWN WITH REGULATION & OVERSIGHTS UNDER DEMOCRATS. TO SUGGEST THAT THE INCREASE IN ABORATIONS AMONG MINORITIES CAUSES A DECREASE IN CRIME IS SOME KIND OF JOKE. FUNNY, ONLY TO LEVITT. WHEN YOU JUDGE WHITE COLLAR CRIME, VS BLUE COLLAR CRIME. WHITE COLLAR CRIME WINS HANDS DOWN WITH THE DAMMAGE TO SOCIETY. IT DISTROYES THE INTRASTRUCTURE, CREATING CHAOS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTURE WITH ITS TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT ON THE WORLD ECONOMY & MARKETS. REAGANOMICS & IT'S EXTENSION BUSHONOMICS ARE NOT RANDOM BY CHANCE PLANS. BUT A WELL PLANNED REVISION OF THE WILLIE SUTTON PLAN (ROB BANKS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS). THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MILTON FREIDMAN MENTALITY SUCKS.

Well, I felt very enthusiastic as I started reading it. But eventually, the book appeared to have so many flaws, I don't even know where to start.

First of all, it has little or nothing to do with economics. Except, let's say the "humans respond to incentives" premise, which is not new, by any account. And you don't even have to be familiar with Mankiw's famous principles, which, by the way, are not even referenced. Second, I still don't get what is there so extraordinary and creative about Levitt's views. Don't we all understand and doesn't our personal experience prove that when it comes to mercenary objectives, self usually comes first? Haven't you ever had a chance to face a person in charge (including a teacher) who would help you out just to look better and receive some kind of a bonus, be that a praise, or a prize? And you don't even have to go through all of the boring figures and calculations to see that people (including, naturally, sumo fighters) will tend to come to arrangements, where they can give up a short term benefit for the sake of receiving a long term one, or, for what it's worth, a peer's approval.

Not to go into much more detail, I found the book outright boring and way too lengthy. It says the same thing over and over again. In fact, the authors could have made their point on 50 pages at most. At times, the book just felt like a pile of sentences overloaded with some factual statements. And yes, as the introductory part says, there is no leading, unifying theme. Which, in my opinion, did put the whole undertaking at a serious disadvantage.

This book serves a valuable purpose in challenging some of those long held beliefs that are perpetuated in media; and if this is purpose of the authors then I think they have done well. However, I think we need to be careful in accepting some of the statements of Levitt and Dubner as fact in their own right.

Some other reviewers have pointed out that there is a distinct lack of econometric rationale behind the conclusions. Drawing causation arguements (even if ceterus parabus has been observed) without providing so much as a reference to the study is hardly academic, rather an editorial opinion. This is a confusing aspect of the book as there are numerous references to other authors and people of note (especially if their views are supporting) about all manner of topics, but when the actual effect of variables needs to be discussed there is a complete void (so what is the actual % decrease in crime resulting from % changes in abortion rates which may have occured through changes in abortion law?). The non-specific reference to authors et al gives the impression of a well researched academic book, but the core conclusions have no stated and verifiable statistical basis. Would it have been so hard to provide the figure (ceteris paribus) and a reference to the published analysis, if it exists?

It is not that I disagree with any of the statements, it's just that I don't see anything to make me agree with them either. This book could benefit from a few enhancements, such as reference to the actual analysis so that I can verify the results myself. Otherwise this is just a long editorial.

Oh, and one last point, Chapter 6 on names is such a stretch that it threatens the credibility of the whole book, it is really quite rediculous.

I had to buy this book for a class and was surprised at how much I liked it.

For most people the notion economics is dull and that economists are concerned only with finance itself. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don't need to be so mysterious: they could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt raises the controversial hypothesis the the drop in violent crime rates is due to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from inner-city Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald's, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don't really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. A fast read and a fascinating book.

This book allows people to realise that stagnant sciences like economics in this case do not necessarily need to be boring / repetitive. Some really 'out of the box' explainations have been provided for some really important questions. Reads more like a story then a book on economics.

I give this book a negative review mostly because of another reviewer's title statement: "Smarter for having read it"; the book consistently criticizes experts in various media, and then proceeds to engender the deplorable "expert" mentality in casual readers, like us, who are really not good judges of what's going on. There is so much at stake in their claims, which they hasten through, that to consider yourself more learned after the fact may be only the process of self-blinding. Dubner and Levitt aren't necessarily wrong, but to read them without severe skepticism is to throw your mind into a vast pool of questionable correlations and grossly vague statistics, where some people may never escape their own illusory intelligence and sophistication.

I enjoyed this book. It blows your mind when you take everyday scenarios and throw in economics. This book is entertaining all the way through and you learn things you didn't know. For instance, Why did Murder rates drop in New York City....was it the police - NO....You must buy the book to find out.

Very good book. Full of insights and interesting topics. I liked it because it presents the facts with a brief opinion, but still lets you make up your own mind weather you believe it or not. I, personally, believed about half of what they said, but its still interesting to read through all the topics. It may all be true, but the facts they presented convinced me only sometimes.

Seeing how succesful this book has become, economics is becoming to the eyes of society less dry and more understandable. I have always seen economics like that, permeating everything and not just covering GDPs and inflation.
In one chapter that will shock and evangelist and hard core christians, will explain the reasons why crime dropped in the US in the 90s. In another it will show how the economics principles are also watched carefully by criminal organizations.
What you might gain with this book? Entertaiment at least. Perhaps you will question more the flawed statistics we read and many assumptions. And maybe you will began liking economics.
I think this book will be very imitated in the future, maybe its already happening.

I found this book to be very entertaining. It was interesting to learn about subjects that I don't know much about (e.g. sumo wrestling). However, I did not always agree with the assumptions that the authors used when making their point. To me, this book's value was to give me some interesting party triva. It wasn't an earth shattering, paradigm shifting work. This book is just another example that you can prove anything with statistics. Again, it was an entertaining read, just don't take it too seriously.

I am a bit late in reading this presentation of statistical daisy-chains, but I believe it is worth a read beyond being 'current' on hip business books. My principal take-away from Freakonomics is the reminder that causality of behavior or outcome is not on a one-to-one ratio with inputs. This of course means that if you have a unique understanding (or narrowly held understanding) of some dynamic in your company's market, it can be exploited in ways that are atypical and can drive disproportionate returns. Its helpful to occasionally read this sort of perspective changer, regardless of publishing date.

I think some of the points made in this book are pretty funny. It reads really quickly and lightheartedly about things that are rather deep in nature (cheating, racial prejudice, parenting, terrorism, drug traffickers, etc). I did not, however, know of the authors' agenda in trying to prove the theory of crime going down as abortion rates rise, which is nearly impossible statistically to prove 'ceteris paribus', when I bought this book second hand. Its like Mark Twain said "There's lies. There's damn lies. And then there's statistics." I think Levitt and Dubner do a fairly decent job of pointing that out w/blurring the lines between causality and correlation. Their statistics in correlating those two variables neglect several other IMPORTANT variables as Lott, a critic of this older theory, points out. The irony, however, is that they would stipulate a strong correlation between abortion rates going up and crime going down and the importance of information (chapter on term life insurace and the KKK) and yet neglect the facts that the abortion rate has cut the black populaces growth to 1/4 of what it was in the 1960s before Roe V Wade. They depict the KKK as these evil hate mongers, which I have no doubt they were/are, who are stupid and unintelligent bigots and yet they convolude the statistics the same way but are more intelligent w/their bigotry as the black people have been most gravely affected by abortion statistically speaking, in the U.S.A. That was the goal of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)who not ironically also espoused much of the beliefs as the KKK did in trying to hault the population growth of Catholics, Jews (which eugenics became taboo after WWII b/c Hitler was soooo German in his efficiency of carrying out the eugenics movement) and blacks and others deemed undesirable. Weird how Levitt and Dubner seem to promote abortion and yet eskew bigotry. Statistically speaking, abortion is a very bigotted social experiment in the U.S.A.- against black people and women.

It is important to point out correlation does not equal causality. There are books out on the market called "How to Lie with Statistics". I could just as easily say that as the contraceptive rates in the U.S.A. have gone up since the early 1900s, the divorce rate has a parallel growth incline statistically speaking. HOWEVER, there are a multitude of other factors to consider that should be considered just as Levitt and Dubner did NOT consider in their statistical model on this topic of abortion and crime. It shows a certain biasness. Strong correlation does NOT equal causality nor should the issue of biasness, even by good statisticians---especially by good statisticians like these guys, ever be taken off the table when reading stuff like this.

What do Cliffs Notes and Spark Notes have in common with the book Freakonomics? Both do an unbelievable job of making the complicated and mundane appear accessible and understandable. Those who feel apprehensive and gain a sense of anxiety at the utterance of the words "economics" and "statistics" need not fear the way that Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner tackle many pressing issues in today's society. Their ability to put complicated math and statistics into layman's terms makes this book a delightful and quick read.

Levitt and Dubner make fascinating comparisons and ask intriguing questions that challenge conventional wisdom and demonstrate the difference between an ordinary person's world view and an economist's world view. These comparisons and questions include, but are not limited to
* What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?
* How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?
* Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?
* Where Have All the Criminals Gone?
* What Makes a Perfect Parent?
Using facts and statistics, Levitt and Dubner use an economic world viewpoint to answer these questions.

Although at times the book does stretch the imagination, Levitt and Dubner do present compelling arguments on the topics they present. The narrative nature of the book does not overwhelm the reader with statistics and graphs, but instead paints a picture with numbers and rational arguments that are continually reiterated throughout the book. Readers my not agree with all of Levitt's and Dubner's conclusions, but they will find upon completion of the reading that the two author's provide a paradigm shift in thinking.

This is a great book. If you enjoy the human sideshow and how the workings of economic systems reflect human nature, you will enjoy this tremendously. Highly recommended.

Let me preface this review by saying I know just about zilch about economics, but I consider myself a smart guy. I'm interested in the way things interact in the world. As such, I'm smack dab in the middle of the target audience for this book.

I can't get into (as some have) why this book is a good or bad economic piece. Nor can I explain whether it's a light read, a technically accurate one or whether it really deserves its hype.

All I can tell you is that the book has has helped me understand that things don't always fit together as they seem.

For me, this book introduced me to the world of economics, which I am beginning to understand on a rank amateur level. But it also has a more human touch. One which leads you to understand motives of people and also how systems can be manipulated.

Excellent work!

This book was a quick, fairly interesting read, but I can't understand why it's been so popular. The major idea the authors propose (the one about abortion) is still under contention. Their other points are very slight or obvious: real estate agents work harder to sell their property than when they sell their own - wow, who would have thought? Popular names follow fashion, race and social class - is that why I called my youngest Joseph and not Tyrone? People who sell crack on street corners don't actually earn much money - what insight!
If you want a book to occupy your mind when on a short flight, this is OK, but don't expect too much.

Loved this book. Totally worth all the hype: very thought-provoking, easy to read, fun, discussion-sparking, changes the way you look at and think about things. You'll love it.

A very pessimistic take on our great country for purposes of pushing a political agenda. Its no wonder this book is so well liked by the New York Times. There is too much opinion and not enough evidence in the pages of this book.

It's been over a month since I've read this one, which is to say that Freakonomics left a good impression on me. From the first chapter with the interesting discussion of "incentives" this book had me hooked, so to say. The information is easy to comprehend, and can be read over the course of a few days. This is not to say that Freakonomics is simple by any means. I found this book provided another lens to understand how economics can be applied to many important issues in our life today.

From the terror behind the Ku Klux Klan to the harsh reality of the modern drug dealer, Levitt's explanations are relatively sound. The controversial chapter comparing abortion rates with the rise of crime will definitely stir up emotions in many. Whatever one's beliefs are the information is argued in a well-written style that is always fresh. [...]

Levitt and Dubner seek to reveal the true statistics and economics behind a myriad of topics. In one example the authors criticize a number of officials for taking credit for a decrease in crime rates because their analysis indicates that the legalization of abortion had more to do with the drop in crime than any other factor. Their logic is usually sound, though it misses a few points occasionally, for which I'll give them the benefit of the doubt - you don't write a book without considerable research. But there are most definitely times where the authors are guilty of the same mistakes they charge others with: misrepresenting the data.

Whereas the targets of the authors' criticism seek to gain public approval by making claims people wish to hear, the authors stand to gain by challenging conventional wisdom - they sell more books. It certainly takes an unbiased mind to assert that abortion prevents crime but I think that lack of bias also lead the authors astray, especially with the pool versus guns issue.

The authors say 550 kids under the age of 10 drown each year and there are 11,000 residential pools, therefore, the likelihood of death by pool is somewhere around 1 in 11,000. 175 kids under the age of 10 die each year from guns and there are 200 million guns so the likelihood of death by guns is 1 in 1 million-plus.

These data are perhaps informative separately but nowhere near comparable. I will assume the authors had the presence of mind and the ethics to not count kids who drown in lakes, bath tubs and who knows how else and I sincerely hope they're not counting the millions of guns stored at the thousands of police stations, military bases, museums, etc around the US. Even if that were the case (the authors don't say) the data still can't be compared. For one thing, every house only has one pool but if a house has at least one gun, chances are it has several. A more accurate statistic would be number of households with pools and number of households with guns. Is that enough to make a difference? I can't say and they don't either. What I do know is that in a book which criticizes hasty and irrational stretches of statistical claims you should be extremely careful about the claims you make. In this case I think it was a poor decision to try to compare pools and guns with the data they had. They should have either dug deeper or left the issue alone.

The book started well enough and I went along with the majority of their logic but the pool and gun issue was a big problem for me. Near the end they spent much too long talking about trends in names; it was overly tedious with lists and lists of names that correlate with economic status during given time periods. I would have appreciated further explanation and discussion of their logic on earlier topics and less lists of names at the end.

This book is definitely not for everyone - you really have to take the theories presented with a grain of salt. However, I think the authors clearly present the arguments as correlating factors, not causal factors.

But, putting that aside, the main premise of the book, that there may be correlations and causal relationships between the most unlikely factors in life is worth taking a look at and exploring - IF you are willing to put aside your own biases toward the subject matters presented.

For example, if you are willing to put aside your biases that abortion has nothing to do with changes in society, you may discover that overall, the legalization of abortion COULD have a far-reaching implication on society, such as changes in crime rate, then you may have something new to think about by reading this book.

OR, if you are willing to look at different factors that may contribute to student success rate, other than the quality of schooling, then you may have something new to think about by reading this book.

That's what I garnered from reading this book, and that is precisely why I believe it's a great book. In fact, that is, in my opinion, what makes a great book: one that opens and expands your mind beyond the ordinary.

I can't believe an entire book was created about such minutia, nor did I find the process by which they came to some of their conclusions to be so profound. Thank god I only picked this up at the library. After a quick perusal through the book on a train ride home, I decided to return it. I found it tres boring.

As the subtitle of this book implies, there is a hidden side to everything; explanations which experts offer, and the general public buys into, are at times inaccurate or flat-out wrong. With most complicated issues (take crime, for example, a subject discussed at length in this book) there are usually unnoticed factors at work which influence events in unexpected ways. We, as humans, want explanations which just "make sense", yet the world is a complicated place and things aren't always the way they seem, or the way we would like them to be.

If you've ever taken a course of research methodology or statistics (or economics, of course), you probably won't find the premise of "Freakonomics" very ground-breaking or innovative. Yet, the treatment of the topics raised by the authors is very entertaining, and this is indeed a quick, enjoyable read. Overall, this book is certainly worth reading, if only to reaffirm one's sense of the complexities of life and human behavior.

This is one of the more overrated books on economics out there, first and foremost because most of its content has little to do with economics. It should really just be called "what the statistics tell us". It really lacks any of the insights into behavior and outcomes that are found when one is really utilizing economic principles. In fact, its focus on statistics reinforces the wrong perception that economics is all about numbers and math - it's not. At it's core, it's about fundamental and basic principles of human psychology, behavior and the difference between intent and desire and result.

Freakonomics gets me thrown out of a lot of parties. Now that I know what really makes the world turn I cannot resist butting in on folk's conversations and putting them right.
`Zero tolerance', someone will say, `that's what cut crime in New York'.
`No it didn't', says I, `it was the 1973 legalisation of abortion that cut crime. Fewer young men means fewer young criminals.' A few dirty looks and off I go to another group.
`My estate agent is marvellous; she sold my house in no time. A little under my asking price but she got me the best deal she could'.
`No she didn't', I interrupt. `She sold your house below your asking price for a quick sale. She makes more money selling lots of houses cheaply than fewer houses for a fair price.' More unfriendly stares. Next group.
'Drug dealers are all rich, living off the backs of their victims.'
'Oh yeah? Says I,`Then how come most of them live with their moms?'
And so on until they show me the door.
Freakonomics has turned me into a know-all. It explains the real reasons things happen as opposed to the conventional thinking. Written in a style that tells you that you are among friends, Freakonomics leads you gently from a world of easy assumptions to a world of questioning. You will never be quite the same again.
My only bicker is that it is too short. Are they writing a Freakonomics II? I do hope so. Maybe they can explain why know-alls get thrown out of parties.

Casino - Heads we win tails you lose (Spawater Chronicles III) How casinos really work