Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner enlightens readers by shattering conventional wisdom through the facts behind economic theory. This particular non-fiction book addresses such subjects as: what do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common and why do drug dealers still live with their moms? Some may be asking themselves, what is the aim of this book? Simple. The authors wish to introduce thoughts into the reader’s mind, to allow him or her to think “outside of the box” whatever the situation may be. Although these subjects seem quirky and irrelevant, much of the information is interesting and thought provoking. Freakonomics does not truly focus on the peculiar situations at hand but on the process of how they draw their conclusions. The main aspect, and thesis, of the book is having the ability to see situations differently using the theories of economics rather than the use of conventional wisdom. The chapter WHERE HAVE ALL THE CRIMINALS GONE, analyzes the sudden drop of crime rates in the United States during the 1900’s. During the 1900’s, it was thought that new policing strategies, upon many other reasons, were the cause of the decrease in crime rate. However, none of the situations postulated during that time were the main cause of the decrease in crime. Through statistical analysis, the authors were able to determine what they believed was the most prominent cause of the decrease in the crime rate. The ability to explain situations through economic theories is done quite well within the text; however, this book may be considered very one-sided. Throughout the book, many of the situations have only one point of view. Economics. Although this book was created through data crunching and statistics, economics can be, and is often, considered a social science. In economics, it is uncommon to have an indisputably “correct” answer. The subject of good parenting is considered black and white within the book Freakonomics. However, parenting has “grey areas”. Parenting, a subject near and dear to many of us, can be based off of morals, past experiences, truly anything that has touched our lives. These aspects of parenting should not be ignored. The book does not employ any methods other than number crunching to explain their various theories. Despite this, Freakonomics is an enjoyable book, and an effortless read. In terms of economics books, Freakonomics may be considered to be radical. Demographically, Freakonomics pertains to adults or truly anyone interested in differentiated viewpoints concerning relevant topics.
Steven Levitt is a genius. Well technically he's an economist, but his distinct style of problem solving has earned him widespread recognition in his field. First of all let's talk a little bit about Levitt as a person. While he is a world renowned economist, he claims that he is "not good at math [and doesn't] know a lot about economics" (XXIV). One may then ask how a man who is not good at economics may be an economist who writes books about economics. The answer is that this particular book is about much more than just economics. The main focus of Levitt's writing is to challenge the norm and to convince his readers to view the world in a slightly different light. He's also big on asking questions, which is a prominent theme throughout his book. His book is structured so each chapter asks a question. Each question posed seems more outrageous and ridiculous then the next. For example his opening chapter is titled, "What do school teachers and Sumo Wrestlers have in Common?" (15) At first glance there seems to be no academic merit in answering this question; it seems almost childish. Levitt, however, utilizes a unique problem solving strategy where he uses basic economic principles in combination with the analysis of mountains of raw data to solve ludicrous but difficult questions. Since Levitt is challenging conventional wisdom, which by definition is what the majority of people think, one may believe that his book is heavily biased. I disagree with this for the reason that he comes to his conclusions by simply analyzing raw data. If data is collected correctly then a conclusion based on good data is almost irrefutable. Yes there is bias in the methods used for analyzing data that could serve to lead readers down a certain train of thought, but when opinions come from fact they are always less biased. In addition Levitt states that "Morality…represents the way that people would like the world to work-whereas economics represent how it actually does work" (11). He is not letting his morals get in the way of achieving the right answer. This is apparent in his argument that the recent drop in crime can be attributed to the legalization of abortion. This is obviously a highly controversial opinion and he has received mountains of criticism from the very people that live by conventional wisdom and are guided solely by their morals. Levitt does an outstanding job of explaining and organizing his data. He includes numerous charts which allow the reader to intake massive amounts of data in seconds. As well his sources of his data are quite incredible and well…unconventional. Levitt recognizes the potential of all sorts of seemingly useless happenings, like a man selling bagels on an honour system. He takes these trivial events and coverts them into primary sources of data. In regards to shortcomings of the book, I would say Levitt’s other greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. While the informal nature of the text serves to hold the reader’s interest throughout the book, it dilutes his arguments. Points never come across as strong when authors begin arguments by saying "it could be argued that…" (11) While I never wanted to put the book down some of his points failed to register with me because of the lack of directness and power in his statements. I would say that this book doesn’t belong anywhere near any other economics books. Levitt's writing embodies such character, informality, and uniqueness that I would classify his writing in its own field. This book is not about economics. Economics is his chisel and the world is his stone slab At the end of the day I will definitely be more questioning of the world around me. Levitt has inspired me not to accept an idea simply because it is conventional wisdom or the norm. Levitt is stripping down the walls of the matrix so we all can see the world we actually live in.
Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner enlightens readers by shattering conventional wisdom through the facts behind economic theory. This particular non-fiction book addresses such subjects as: what do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common and why do drug dealers still live with their moms? Some may be asking themselves, what is the aim of this book? Simple. The authors wish to introduce thoughts into the reader’s mind, to allow him or her to think “outside of the box” whatever the situation may be. Although these subjects seem quirky and irrelevant, much of the information is interesting and thought provoking. Freakonomics does not truly focus on the peculiar situations at hand but on the process of how they draw their conclusions. The main aspect, and thesis, of the book is having the ability to see situations differently using the theories of economics rather than the use of conventional wisdom. The chapter WHERE HAVE ALL THE CRIMINALS GONE, analyzes the sudden drop of crime rates in the United States during the 1900’s. During the 1900’s, it was thought that new policing strategies, upon many other reasons, were the cause of the decrease in crime rate. However, none of the situations postulated during that time were the main cause of the decrease in crime. Through statistical analysis, the authors were able to determine what they believed was the most prominent cause of the decrease in the crime rate. The ability to explain situations through economic theories is done quite well within the text; however, this book may be considered very one-sided. Throughout the book, many of the situations have only one point of view. Economics. Although this book was created through data crunching and statistics, economics can be, and is often, considered a social science. In economics, it is uncommon to have an indisputably “correct” answer. The subject of good parenting is considered black and white within the book Freakonomics. However, parenting has “grey areas”. Parenting, a subject near and dear to many of us, can be based off of morals, past experiences, truly anything that has touched our lives. These aspects of parenting should not be ignored. The book does not employ any methods other than number crunching to explain their various theories. Despite this, Freakonomics is an enjoyable book, and an effortless read. In terms of economics books, Freakonomics may be considered to be radical. Demographically, Freakonomics pertains to adults or truly anyone interested in differentiated viewpoints concerning relevant topics.
ReplyDeleteSteven Levitt is a genius. Well technically he's an economist, but his distinct style of problem solving has earned him widespread recognition in his field. First of all let's talk a little bit about Levitt as a person. While he is a world renowned economist, he claims that he is "not good at math [and doesn't] know a lot about economics" (XXIV). One may then ask how a man who is not good at economics may be an economist who writes books about economics. The answer is that this particular book is about much more than just economics. The main focus of Levitt's writing is to challenge the norm and to convince his readers to view the world in a slightly different light. He's also big on asking questions, which is a prominent theme throughout his book. His book is structured so each chapter asks a question. Each question posed seems more outrageous and ridiculous then the next. For example his opening chapter is titled, "What do school teachers and Sumo Wrestlers have in Common?" (15) At first glance there seems to be no academic merit in answering this question; it seems almost childish. Levitt, however, utilizes a unique problem solving strategy where he uses basic economic principles in combination with the analysis of mountains of raw data to solve ludicrous but difficult questions.
ReplyDeleteSince Levitt is challenging conventional wisdom, which by definition is what the majority of people think, one may believe that his book is heavily biased. I disagree with this for the reason that he comes to his conclusions by simply analyzing raw data. If data is collected correctly then a conclusion based on good data is almost irrefutable. Yes there is bias in the methods used for analyzing data that could serve to lead readers down a certain train of thought, but when opinions come from fact they are always less biased. In addition Levitt states that "Morality…represents the way that people would like the world to work-whereas economics represent how it actually does work" (11). He is not letting his morals get in the way of achieving the right answer. This is apparent in his argument that the recent drop in crime can be attributed to the legalization of abortion. This is obviously a highly controversial opinion and he has received mountains of criticism from the very people that live by conventional wisdom and are guided solely by their morals.
Levitt does an outstanding job of explaining and organizing his data. He includes numerous charts which allow the reader to intake massive amounts of data in seconds. As well his sources of his data are quite incredible and well…unconventional. Levitt recognizes the potential of all sorts of seemingly useless happenings, like a man selling bagels on an honour system. He takes these trivial events and coverts them into primary sources of data. In regards to shortcomings of the book, I would say Levitt’s other greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. While the informal nature of the text serves to hold the reader’s interest throughout the book, it dilutes his arguments. Points never come across as strong when authors begin arguments by saying "it could be argued that…" (11) While I never wanted to put the book down some of his points failed to register with me because of the lack of directness and power in his statements.
I would say that this book doesn’t belong anywhere near any other economics books. Levitt's writing embodies such character, informality, and uniqueness that I would classify his writing in its own field. This book is not about economics. Economics is his chisel and the world is his stone slab
At the end of the day I will definitely be more questioning of the world around me. Levitt has inspired me not to accept an idea simply because it is conventional wisdom or the norm. Levitt is stripping down the walls of the matrix so we all can see the world we actually live in.