Take a photo of a barcode or cover
I've enjoyed both Freakonomics books a lot and will definitely read the third one. The audiobook is really nice for long car rides or walks :)
Hate to say I enjoyed the first book better, but this was again well written and full of interesting information
In a brief reprieve from working my way through the superb [b:The Unwritten, Vol. 1: Tommy Taylor and the Bogus Identity|6471550|The Unwritten, Vol. 1 Tommy Taylor and the Bogus Identity|Mike Carey|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327887253s/6471550.jpg|6662356] series, I borrowed this from a friend. I quite enjoyed the first though had reservations (mostly around just accepting what they were feeding us) but this seems a step down in quality.
The first chapter was most similar to the last book but frankly pretty boring. The information about altruism was more engaging and I was interested in some of the medical stories (Semmelweis is well known to me and I would imagine most doctors/medical students, but it's still an insightful tale). They also seem really anti car seats which, while their data raises some interesting points on mortality, does seem to ignore the evidence for reduction in morbidity. They seem very focussed on putting across their opinion and ignoring the conflicting data.
However, we then move into the domain of climate change and things take a step to the weird. For a start, the economics just disappears and we're into the world of private think tanks and outlying opinions. It doesn't fit, it doesn't feel right and it seems well outside their scope.
So, while there is still a lot to stimulate the mind, the whole package is lacking. I'll probably skip future instalments.
The first chapter was most similar to the last book but frankly pretty boring. The information about altruism was more engaging and I was interested in some of the medical stories (Semmelweis is well known to me and I would imagine most doctors/medical students, but it's still an insightful tale). They also seem really anti car seats which, while their data raises some interesting points on mortality, does seem to ignore the evidence for reduction in morbidity. They seem very focussed on putting across their opinion and ignoring the conflicting data.
However, we then move into the domain of climate change and things take a step to the weird. For a start, the economics just disappears and we're into the world of private think tanks and outlying opinions. It doesn't fit, it doesn't feel right and it seems well outside their scope.
So, while there is still a lot to stimulate the mind, the whole package is lacking. I'll probably skip future instalments.
SUPERFREAKONOMICS is still a good read but far no longer the kind of revelation that its predecessor was for me. For starters some of the discoveries are of the negative kind (as in: it does NOT really matter what kind of doctor you pick in an emergency room.... which was never anything I ever really contemplated before and rightly so from the looks of it). The authors also seem to start believing their own hyperbole and totally exaggerate some of their headings: "Why suicide bombers should buy life insurance" should better have read "Why terrorists should buy life insurance". Remember: Not every terrorist is automatically a suicide bomber! Of course, then the heading would have lost its punch line.
Worst of all, however, where the authors previously primarily focused on current or historical topics and threw their unique way of analyses on previously unobserved developments, in the later volume they deal for a large part with unproven What Ifs (as opposed to What Is? or What Weres?) and suggest various ways to combat, let's say: Climate Change or Hurricanes. A good number of those suggestions may never see practical usage and even if they do it may take years or decades to see if they worked so, though thought provoking, those chapters lack the punch of the findings and discoveries in the first book.
Still, a good read but just not as good as the first book.
Worst of all, however, where the authors previously primarily focused on current or historical topics and threw their unique way of analyses on previously unobserved developments, in the later volume they deal for a large part with unproven What Ifs (as opposed to What Is? or What Weres?) and suggest various ways to combat, let's say: Climate Change or Hurricanes. A good number of those suggestions may never see practical usage and even if they do it may take years or decades to see if they worked so, though thought provoking, those chapters lack the punch of the findings and discoveries in the first book.
Still, a good read but just not as good as the first book.
I enjoyed the original, which, if memory serves had much more cohesive chapters around specific theses. While the chapters treated the topic at hand, they seemed to be much more scattershot in terms of finding a number of correlations in data that "swirled" around the main hypothesis of the chapter.
As with many reviewers, I think that Dubner and especially Levitt have stepped a little outside their expertise with some of the topics in this book and with the ongoing Freakonomics "brand," particularly their podcast. In my opinion, Steven Levitt is now the major force behind this brand, and the result has been a reduction in academic quality in favor of sensation. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not where the series started.
And whether it is Dubner or Levitt to blame, their forays into natural science have been pretty disappointing. Of course there are the problems with the climate science in this book, but also there have been several episodes of their podcast that have seemed overly credulous, particularly when it comes to "rogue scientists" who fit well with the "rogue economist" brand.
In short, while I always like the popularization of science, whether natural or social, It must be done with care. And I fear that Dubner and Levitt are slowly leaving that caution behind as they pursue their brand.
As with many reviewers, I think that Dubner and especially Levitt have stepped a little outside their expertise with some of the topics in this book and with the ongoing Freakonomics "brand," particularly their podcast. In my opinion, Steven Levitt is now the major force behind this brand, and the result has been a reduction in academic quality in favor of sensation. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not where the series started.
And whether it is Dubner or Levitt to blame, their forays into natural science have been pretty disappointing. Of course there are the problems with the climate science in this book, but also there have been several episodes of their podcast that have seemed overly credulous, particularly when it comes to "rogue scientists" who fit well with the "rogue economist" brand.
In short, while I always like the popularization of science, whether natural or social, It must be done with care. And I fear that Dubner and Levitt are slowly leaving that caution behind as they pursue their brand.
This is the sequel to Freakonomics. I read this book a bit more critically than the first one (although I think the first one was quite accurate in explaining basic economics) as there was some controversy regarding the chapter on climate change. I think a lot of this book is contrarian pop wisdom that is mostly wrong.
Pretty interesting, though I liked the first book better.
Not nearly as good as the first one; the sequel felt forced and simplistic at times. Still entertaining and a quick read.
Other than the part where it talks about terrorism in the same context where it talks about Islam--it hurt my feelings, you know--it was an enjoyable read. It's similar to Malcolm Gladwell's books, only more amusing and less pretentious.