Freakonomics

[madurobob]

Thanks, madurobob! I appreciate any recommendations!

I'll second "The Tipping Point". Its on my shelf and I enjoyed it. The author is a columnist and may be out of his element in writing a book - some of it just seems like filler. But, the ideas were interesting and compelling.

I also enjoyed "Naked economics" - also written by a columnist but better conceived. Its billed as sort of an "economics for smart people" (as opposed to "... for dummies").

Milton Friedman's son also has a couple of books out - can't remember their names... or his (he's an Econ Prof in California). But the general idea is that economics is not about money, but about wants and needs and psychology/sociology. He goes over similar ground as Freakonomics, but in more a dryer, more detailed, less glib way. I read 1/2 way through at the beach last year before the margaritas held sway over my eyes. It was interesting and I regret not finishing it yet.

 

[gdnp]

I also enjoyed "Naked economics" - also written by a columnist but better conceived. Its billed as sort of an "economics for smart people" (as opposed to "... for dummies").

A friend swears by "naked economics." I've been meaning to read it.

 

[Wowbagger]

The very fact that a second edition was published to correct "quite a few errors" is enough to keep me away.

So, I guess you are not going to read very many science books, then?

Part of the responsibility in writing non-fiction is to correct errors that are brought to your attention. No non-fiction author is immune from errors.
And, it is the real mark of sloppiness to ignore them!

For another example, there were errors in the first edition of The Selfish Gene, as well. But, I don't see anyone, here, calling Richard Dawkins sloppy.

The worst error, from the first edition of Freakonomics, was that they assumed Stetson Kennedy played a larger role in bringing down the KKK than he actually did. Much of one chapter was revised to agree with the facts brought to their attention. But, it did not really effect their main point, which regarded the power of specialized knowledge, anyway. So, what's the big huff and puff about?

Most of the book holds up very well, even in the current onslaught of challenges.

I think the authors of Freakonomics should be commended for their willingness to get the record straight. They set an example the real hooligans of "non-fiction" should follow, like Behe and Dembski, etc. When have they ever revised their erroneous writings?

 

[VespaGuy]

So, I guess you are not going to read very many science books, then?

Part of the responsibility in writing non-fiction is to correct errors that are brought to your attention. No non-fiction author is immune from errors.
And, it is the real mark of sloppiness to ignore them!

:::Sigh:::

Okay. Let me try to clear things up one more time. As I've stressed, it was the type of errors that I found sloppy. Personally, I felt that if things are unconfirmed or rumors, then they have no place being put in a book in the first place.

When I find one instance of an unsourced 'fact' that is simply untrue, I question the validity of any other unsourced claims within the same book. Maybe it's just me, but at that point correcting the error doesn't make me feel much better.

For another example, there were errors in the first edition of The Selfish Gene, as well. But, I don't see anyone, here, calling Richard Dawkins sloppy.

If Dawkins included urban legends as fact within his books, I would definately lose respect for him as well.

The worst error, from the first edition of Freakonomics, was that they assumed Stetson Kennedy played a larger role in bringing down the KKK than he actually did. Much of one chapter was revised to agree with the facts brought to their attention. But, it did not really effect their main point, which regarded the power of specialized knowledge, anyway. So, what's the big huff and puff about?

Big huff? nah. Certain types of mistakes bother me more than others. Unverified hearsay has no place in a book of non-ficition.

Most of the book holds up very well, even in the current onslaught of challenges.

I think the authors of Freakonomics should be commended for their willingness to get the record straight. They set an example the real hooligans of "non-fiction" should follow, like Behe and Dembski, etc. When have they ever revised their erroneous writings?

Oh, I agree 100%. I never said that fixing errors is a bad thing.

 

[Francesca R]

On the point of book recommendations of the same ilk I do not think you can go much better than Steven E Landsburg's "More Sex is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics". Also his first book "The Armchair Economist"

 

[GreyICE]

If you stick to books that never make mistakes, you will have a great future reading absolutely nothing.

The difference between good books and bad books is good books and good authors fix their mistakes.

I hate a national attitude that seems to have infected people, that its unforgivable to make mistakes and admit it. These people are the people who say they respect Bushy for sticking to his guns on Iraq. Yeah, because being wrong is a character flaw...

 

[VespaGuy]

If you stick to books that never make mistakes, you will have a great future reading absolutely nothing.

I'll try one more time... I accept that people make mistakes. I understand that. I respect the fact that people acknowledge and correct them. That is all very good.

What bothers me about Freakonomics - personally - was the type of "mistakes" I came across in this particular instance.

For example, in the baby names chapter of Freakonomics, he mentions bizarre baby names including Lemonjello, Orangejello, and [rule10]head. I was amazed when I came across this, because I had heard about these (supposed) names for years (along with many others like the woman who named her baby FEMALE (pronounced fah-MAHL-ee), because it was on her baby's hospital bracelet).*

Of course, everyone who told me about these names were always two people removed from the named person in question ("There was a Lemonjello in my cousin's friend's highshool", "My freind's aunt worked with a guy named Orangejello"). The "Friend of a Friend" confirmation is an earmark of an urban myth, and I always assumed that these strange-named folks didn't exist outside of folklore.

Imagine my surprise when I read Freakonomics! I specifically remember reading that particular section of the book and thinking to myself, "Really!? Cool!... I've always assumed that was an urban myth!". I was actually excited to learn about these people who I beleived to be myths. But there weren't any footnotes. Hmmmm. I decided to do a quick search online, and sure enough, there is the Orangejello/Lemonjello/[rule10] in Snopes. It's a myth.

So, what to think? Was this even remotely verified? If so, why wasn't it footnoted? Or was this hearsay-"factoid" simply too good to pass up, and added in for humor. (As one of Brunvand's books is titled, "The Truth Never Stands in Way of a Good Story")

If it was footnoted, and the source was errant, I'd understand. But here is an urban myth that has been orally passed around for years, unsourced in text and passed off as fact. Personally, I don't see this as a mistake... I see this as lazy, sloppy research.

Do you understand the difference?
Mistake = acceptable
Lazy/Sloppy research = unacceptable

Can I make it any more clearer?

If you were reading a book about candy and the author mentioned that Mikey from the old Life Cereal commercials died by eating Pop Rocks with Coca-Cola, would you trust that author's research? How much faith would you have in a travel writer who warns people to be aware that some travelers to foreign lands have had their kidneys stolen? To me, the inclusion of the Orangejello/Lemonjello/[rule10] myth in Freakonomics has the same effect. An urban legend passed off as fact has no place in a non-fiction book.

Am I being to harsh? Possibly. But that's my opinion.

*As an aside, I have been fascinated by urban myths, and the way they manifest and travel, for many years. I've read many of Jan Branvand's books, and have fallen for many urban legends myself.

The difference between good books and bad books is good books and good authors fix their mistakes.

I understand. I'd much prefer to read an author who corrects his mistakes, than one who doesn't. Looking back, I can see that my original statement, ("[...] is enough to keep me away"), may have been a bit arrogant. As it's been said in this thread, the need for corrections does not negate a body of work.

However, I'd still prefer an author who verfies his amusing anecdotes before reporting them as fact. If these types of mistakes earn "free passes" from you as long as they're corrected when challenged, that's your prerogative.

I hate a national attitude that seems to have infected people, that its unforgivable to make mistakes and admit it. These people are the people who say they respect Bushy for sticking to his guns on Iraq. Yeah, because being wrong is a character flaw...

"Bushy"? Really? You're not even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling for a political debate, are you? That being said, you're using the wrong bait anyway; I'm anti-war and have been since day one. Oh, and I didn't vote for Bush. Either time. Take that broad paint brush of yours over to politics...

As I've said - many, many times now - I have no problem at all with people who make mistakes (I, for one, make them daily). I do have a problem with lazy/sloppy research; to me, it calls into question the rest of their work. There is a difference, and personally I can't see any other way that Lemonjello and his orange flavored brother made it onto the pages of Freakonomics.

(Cue another post that claims that I won't read any author that makes mistakes...)

BTW: Since I haven't read the updated version, could any of the folks who have tell me what he had to say about the inclusion of Lemonjello/Orangejello and if you feel that it is an acceptable mistake?

 

[gdnp]

As I've said - many, many times now - I have no problem at all with people who make mistakes (I, for one, make them daily). I do have a problem with lazy/sloppy research; to me, it calls into question the rest of their work. There is a difference, and personally I can't see any other way that Lemonjello and his orange flavored brother made it onto the pages of Freakonomics.

(Cue another post that claims that I won't read any author that makes mistakes...)

BTW: Since I haven't read the updated version, could any of the folks who have tell me what he had to say about the inclusion of Lemonjello/Orangejello and if you feel that it is an acceptable mistake?

I only have the updated version, and just re-read the naming chapter, and did not see Lemongello or Orangello. I assume they were removed, although I skimmed it pretty quickly.

I still think you are being a bit harsh. I expect the authors to research rigorously the data on which they base their conclusions. Humorous anecdotes thrown in for entertainment value are allowed, in my mind, a lower level of scrutiny because their truth or falsehood does not invalidate the thesis. I believe the names in question fall into that category.

 

[GreyICE]

However, I'd still prefer an author who verfies his amusing anecdotes before reporting them as fact. If these types of mistakes earn "free passes" from you as long as they're corrected when challenged, that's your prerogative.

They certainly do, especially when they're non-central to the point.

If it had been a main thrust of the chapter that was based on erroneous studies, I would have been disgusted, but I was taught a very interesting thing by a book "11 lies my history teacher taught me (Warning: I may have the title slightly wrong)" The author of that book, as the last lie, said the biggest was that everything in the book was correct. He said that even in that book, some of the facts he listed were certainly incorrect - some because he got them wrong, some because he got them right when it was published but in the time between publishing and reading they had been proven wrong, some because we didn't quite understood what we read, and took the 'wrong' information out of it.

That stuck with me. If I had to point to one moment where I became a skeptic, it would be that one. EVERY book will have those mistakes. The key is to accept that, and study the points that are made. Examine individual facts as they come up. But certainly don't toss a book aside because of them - you will never read anything again (And yes, this includes Dawkins, Randi, ANYONE who writes a multi-hundred page book will have bad 'facts' in there).

"Bushy"? Really? You're not even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling for a political debate, are you? That being said, you're using the wrong bait anyway; I'm anti-war and have been since day one. Oh, and I didn't vote for Bush. Either time. Take that broad paint brush of yours over to politics...

As I've said - many, many times now - I have no problem at all with people who make mistakes (I, for one, make them daily). I do have a problem with lazy/sloppy research; to me, it calls into question the rest of their work. There is a difference, and personally I can't see any other way that Lemonjello and his orange flavored brother made it onto the pages of Freakonomics.

Time is valuable. He threw in a humorous anecdote without thinking it through.

As for your political position, I don't really care. There's a large segment of our society today that won't respect people who admit they make mistakes. Every single political candidate, every single leader, every single important person has to stick to their guns and charge full speed ahead, even when it's hideously apparent that there's no way they're NOT wrong.

 

[Wowbagger]

Personally, I felt that if things are unconfirmed or rumors, then they have no place being put in a book in the first place.

They obtained their information from sources they thought were reliable. And, the information they got wrong was not even crucial to their point.

You are correct in saying rumors do not have a place in such a book. But, there was no reason, at the time, for them to be suspicious. The information seemed reasonable enough, at the time.

 

[VespaGuy]

Thanks to all that responded. I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but I seem to be on the defense.

I only have the updated version, and just re-read the naming chapter, and did not see Lemongello or Orangello. I assume they were removed, although I skimmed it pretty quickly.

I still think you are being a bit harsh.

I admit that I may be. Certain things rub me the wrong way.

I expect the authors to research rigorously the data on which they base their conclusions. Humorous anecdotes thrown in for entertainment value are allowed, in my mind, a lower level of scrutiny because their truth or falsehood does not invalidate the thesis. I believe the names in question fall into that category.

I understand, but where do you draw the line? Should I assume that anything in the book that's "too good to be true" probably is? Should I consider that anything unsourced is just for "entertainment value"?

As I said in my previous post, would you take me seriously if I began a book on travel with a story about kidney theives? Of course not.

They certainly do, especially when they're non-central to the point.

If it had been a main thrust of the chapter that was based on erroneous studies, I would have been disgusted, but I was taught a very interesting thing by a book "11 lies my history teacher taught me (Warning: I may have the title slightly wrong)" The author of that book, as the last lie, said the biggest was that everything in the book was correct. He said that even in that book, some of the facts he listed were certainly incorrect - some because he got them wrong, some because he got them right when it was published but in the time between publishing and reading they had been proven wrong, some because we didn't quite understood what we read, and took the 'wrong' information out of it.

I've read something similar, and I definately agree.
'

That stuck with me. If I had to point to one moment where I became a skeptic, it would be that one. EVERY book will have those mistakes. The key is to accept that, and study the points that are made. Examine individual facts as they come up. But certainly don't toss a book aside because of them - you will never read anything again (And yes, this includes Dawkins, Randi, ANYONE who writes a multi-hundred page book will have bad 'facts' in there).

Again, I agree. But again, you seem to lump all mistakes in the same bin. I don't see things that way.

Time is valuable. He threw in a humorous anecdote without thinking it through.

And you're fine with that. I call it sloppy and/or lazy.

As for your political position, I don't really care.

No, you just want to voice yours. I understand.

There's a large segment of our society today that won't respect people who admit they make mistakes.

Even if this "large segment" (whatever that means) exists, I don't identify with them. As I've said, repeatedly, ad nauseum, I respect people who admit and corrrect errors. I make errors. All the time.

I lose respect for lazyness and sloppyness.

Every single political candidate, every single leader, every single important person has to stick to their guns and charge full speed ahead, even when it's hideously apparent that there's no way they're NOT wrong.

It's hard to take that much hyperbole seriously.

They obtained their information from sources they thought were reliable. And, the information they got wrong was not even crucial to their point.

Thank you, Wowbagger.

But your explaination just opens up a lot more questions. Are you simplifying, or was this pretty much the extent of their correction? ("Sorry, we thought it was true, but it wasn't.")

Who were the sources? Why didn't they footnote those sources?

You are correct in saying rumors do not have a place in such a book.

Thank you. And I think this is where I split with the rest of the group. Most of you dismiss this as a humorous anecdote that made it's way into the book and has no bearing on the other information. I think that it has no place - anecdote or not - in a book like this.

But, there was no reason, at the time, for them to be suspicious.

Did they say who the source was? Because if not, how can you claim that they had no reason to be suspicious?

The information seemed reasonable enough, at the time.

So, screw validity, if it seems "reasonable enough", it makes the cut? Sorry, but anecdote or not, that's just plain lazy.

 

[Wowbagger]

Did they say who the source was? Because if not, how can you claim that they had no reason to be suspicious?

One of their sources was Stetson Kennedy's own book. But, it turned out that he was not very open as to how he obtained some of the secrets that he did.


You can judge the grievousness of the error, yourself. They wrote an article about it, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/m...dec83c28e80527&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The same article is also printed in the "Bonus Materials" in the back of the Revised Edition of the book, starting on page 231 in the hardcover version.

 

[icerat]

Vespaguy - I mostly agree with you, it was sloppy, however what it should do isn't make you throw out the whole book, but merely make you alert to the possibility of errors in parts that actually matter for the thesis. They're more likely to have been fact checked. So be more skeptical and check out whether the major points are valid or not. If they appear to be, then you know it's ok.

One book I've learned quite a deal from is called "What your doctor doesn't know about nutrition could be killing you". It's got some fascinating work, including good referencing, about nutrition and disease. Unfortunately and almost inexplicably, it has a significant rant against evolution complete with the old "eye can't have evolved" BS. I nearly threw the book away when I got to the point. I didn't however, and much of the rest of the book was excellent.

But it certainly made me treat everything he said a lot more skeptically.

Back to economics, a fascinating book I'm reading now is "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions" by Dan Ariely. The author has a website up at http://www.predictablyirrational.com/

 

[HarryKeogh]

I read the book for the first time just a couple of months ago and enjoyed it very much. One thing that stood out was the instance of a country (I forget which) that recently switched to voting by mail and voter turn-out was lower than when you had to vote in person. The authors' conclusion was that many people vote "to be seen voting". I think another explanation might have just been confusion with the new system.

I do like the blog entries in the end, especially the one with the rancid chicken and how he called out the restaurant.