• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Freakonomics

Nursefoxfire

Graduate Poster
Nursefoxfire
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,275
I'm waaaaay behind the curve when it comes to popular ideas, so I just recently read Stephen Levitt's best-selling economics book. I was fascinated!

I was especially interested in his theory about Roe vs. Wade being a key factor in the plummeting crime statistics two decades later. Apparently that's one of the hot-button topics in the economics world (whether his study made sense or not).

I don't have the knowledge to fully understand everything he wrote (in fact, I feel very outgunned, mentally, when I read this forum), I was just wondering what other peoples' views were on his theories. Was he too glib? Does the legalized abortion: reduced-crime theory make sense? Are there any other books I could read that explain things so interestingly?
 
I'm no economist, but as a CPA/MBA I do play with money quite a bit. I read this book at the beach a few years ago and loved it. Yes, he's a bit glib, but thats much of what makes it interesting. You'll find a lot of stuff pro and con via google.

As for the abortion/crime stats as I read it he established good correlation, but not causation. There are a LOT of other factors that may have had more impact - like better policing, world record incarceration rates, etc... But, it certainly makes sense that abortion had some impact.

I've got a few similar books on my shelves at home... I'll post them if I remember the names!
 
You might also like Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" or "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. It's a little drier than "Freakonomics", but they all have a theme of interconnectivity running through them that brought forth a few "AHA!!" moments for me.
 
I felt that the glib presentation was because an economist and reporter were summarizing several years of dry economic research for the lay reader. I would be interested if anyone has a critique, because I found the argument relatively compelling. They did look at policing, incarceration, drugs, etc. and found that nothing explained the fall as well as abortion.
 
Ashles said:
I read it a few months ago - fascinating stuff.
Interestingly the Indian Sociologist mentioned in the book (who spent time with drug gangs and studied their structures) has released his own book:
Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets by Sudhir Venkatesh
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought that guy’s story was very compelling. I also got STRONG echoes of “The Wire” when I read that chapter in the book. I'll have to check out Venkatesh's book.

madurobob said:
I'm no economist, but as a CPA/MBA I do play with money quite a bit. I read this book at the beach a few years ago and loved it. Yes, he's a bit glib, but thats much of what makes it interesting. You'll find a lot of stuff pro and con via google.
As for the abortion/crime stats as I read it he established good correlation, but not causation. There are a LOT of other factors that may have had more impact - like better policing, world record incarceration rates, etc... But, it certainly makes sense that abortion had some impact.
I've got a few similar books on my shelves at home... I'll post them if I remember the names!
Click to expand...

Thanks, madurobob! I appreciate any recommendations!

bickerer said:
You might also like Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" or "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. It's a little drier than "Freakonomics", but they all have a theme of interconnectivity running through them that brought forth a few "AHA!!" moments for me.
Click to expand...

I’ll have to check those out. I noticed Gladwell was featured prominently on the cover of my copy of Freakonomics, with a hearty endorsement blurb.

gdnp said:
I felt that the glib presentation was because an economist and reporter were summarizing several years of dry economic research for the lay reader. I would be interested if anyone has a critique, because I found the argument relatively compelling. They did look at policing, incarceration, drugs, etc. and found that nothing explained the fall as well as abortion.
Click to expand...

[bolding mine]

That’s exactly what I was attempting to ask! Just from reading the information he laid out, nothing else seemed to make as much sense as the legalization of abortion. In one of the appendices there’s a paragraph about a Labor Economics professor from the University of Texas who analyzed Levitt’s study every which way he could, and ended up teaching it to his classes. He said that although he could find nothing wrong with Levitt’s numbers, he still doesn’t believe the conclusions are correct. That bugs me because he never said why (at least, not in the book).
 
bickerer said:
You might also like Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" ....
Click to expand...

Second the motion on those two. I've read all three books, and they do have alot in common and are all really good reads.

The "150 people" chapter in Tipping Point is possibly the most interesting AHA! moments I've had in all my life.

Read excerpts from Blink and order.
Read excerpts from Tipping Point and order.

Gladwell also has a blog but he posts infrequently.
 
Nursefoxfire said:
That’s exactly what I was attempting to ask! Just from reading the information he laid out, nothing else seemed to make as much sense as the legalization of abortion. In one of the appendices there’s a paragraph about a Labor Economics professor from the University of Texas who analyzed Levitt’s study every which way he could, and ended up teaching it to his classes. He said that although he could find nothing wrong with Levitt’s numbers, he still doesn’t believe the conclusions are correct. That bugs me because he never said why (at least, not in the book).
Click to expand...

Most likely because he finds it morally repugnant. A lot (most?) people find it very difficult to accept as true anything that violates their worldview.
 
I read Freakonomics last year and enjoyed it. But I found some things within that raised a few red flags. For instance, in the chapter about names, he brings up some examples of weird names including a few that I've seen on Snopes as urban legends. Sloppy research? Honest mistake? Who knows... but I quickly lose respect whenever I find uncredited/unsourced anecdotes masquarading as truth.

I did pick up a book that labeled itself as a response to Freakonomics (I'll try to find the name), but instead of addressing the points and topics of Freakonomics, it rambled on about other unrelated things and I honestly lost interest within a few chapters.
 
Wowbagger said:
Please make sure you are reading the Revised and Expanded second edition of the book! It corrects quite a few errors made in the first edition.
Click to expand...

The very fact that a second edition was published to correct "quite a few errors" is enough to keep me away.
 
krelnik said:
Second the motion on those two. I've read all three books, and they do have alot in common and are all really good reads.

The "150 people" chapter in Tipping Point is possibly the most interesting AHA! moments I've had in all my life.

Read excerpts from Blink and order.
Read excerpts from Tipping Point and order.

Gladwell also has a blog but he posts infrequently.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tip. I just ordered "The Tipping Point" and eagerly await the read...
 
quixotecoyote said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because passing off urban legends (that can be debunked by a 10 second google search) as fact is just sloppy and lazy. I'm not talking about typos... I'm talking about including an unsourced anecdote as truth. To me this is a credibility issue.

Why, how many "errors" of this type do you feel is acceptable?
 
VespaGuy, have you done the research to know that the Snopes article were there during the period Levitt was doing his research?
 
SezMe said:
VespaGuy, have you done the research to know that the Snopes article were there during the period Levitt was doing his research?
Click to expand...

No. I would assume that if it was included in the book Levitt used some other source to verify its validity.

ETA: Are you defending this practice? Under what situation is it okay to include an unverified anecdote as a true story in a sourced book?
 
Last edited:
VespaGuy said:
No. I would assume that if it was included in the book Levitt used some other source to verify its validity.

ETA: Are you defending this practice? Under what situation is it okay to include an unverified anecdote as a true story in a sourced book?
Click to expand...
No. Never....but

I guess I'm a little more foregiving than you regarding mistakes such as getting a name wrong or letting an unverified anecdote get into a book. There are a myraid of possible explanations, some damning, some not so.

I also assume in a book like Freakonomics that it will contain mistakes. Unlike you, when I learn that there is a revised, updated edition out, I react positively. It tells me the author followed up on criticism and in some cases found he had made some factual errors and corrected them. That is, IMO, far more preferable than an author who would not recognized and correct errors. IOW, a guy who can admit and rectify errors gets kudos from me.
 
SezMe said:
No. Never....but

I guess I'm a little more foregiving than you regarding mistakes such as getting a name wrong or letting an unverified anecdote get into a book. There are a myraid of possible explanations, some damning, some not so.

I also assume in a book like Freakonomics that it will contain mistakes.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would assume that most books have mistakes within them. I guess, to me, it was the types of mistakes that bothered me. As I said earlier, they struck me as lazy.

Unlike you, when I learn that there is a revised, updated edition out, I react positively. It tells me the author followed up on criticism and in some cases found he had made some factual errors and corrected them.
Click to expand...

Depending on the situation, I guess I'm just not as forgiving.

That is, IMO, far more preferable than an author who would not recognized and correct errors. IOW, a guy who can admit and rectify errors gets kudos from me.
Click to expand...

I definately agree. But even more preferable is a guy who does excellent research up front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom