Take a photo of a barcode or cover
Decent, but too much info that felt repetitive (or was repeated from gladwell among others).
Fascinating book, a great listen for a car ride. The section about the environment got a little long winded, but otherwise really interesting!
04/13/10: 9.05pm
Most fascinating chapters are chapter about the geoengineering (injecting seemingly dangerous chemicals into the stratstrophere to cool down global temperature) and the one about monkey prostitution taht stems from their rationality and irrationality that are strikingly similar to humans' considering the prevalence of the conventional wisdom that monkeys are no way near the threshold of intelligence.
First chapter about prostitutes and how being born a woman is like isn't at all intriguing. Authors covered already heavily-covered topics and added nothing new to the knowledge.
Second about births ann deaths said something about delaying deaths because of some foreseeable-temtping future (religious holidays, abandonment of inheritance tax...) They repeated the astrology's effects on births and later success in life that Gladwell talked about in Outliers [b:Outliers|3228917|Outliers|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255608670s/3228917.jpg|3364437]... esp hockey..
Third one about altruism and the 38 Witness of the Kitty incident at Kews Garden in 1964 wasn't any mmore eye opening. JOhn List rejected laboratory findings of economists through Dictator games by introducing new elements. This is simply a battle field between "For homo economicus" and "homo altruisticus".
Fourth one is simple another rubbish. Just like a summary of achievements of humans. One notable thing is the car seat issue and how it isn't at all better than seat belts.
Most fascinating chapters are chapter about the geoengineering (injecting seemingly dangerous chemicals into the stratstrophere to cool down global temperature) and the one about monkey prostitution taht stems from their rationality and irrationality that are strikingly similar to humans' considering the prevalence of the conventional wisdom that monkeys are no way near the threshold of intelligence.
First chapter about prostitutes and how being born a woman is like isn't at all intriguing. Authors covered already heavily-covered topics and added nothing new to the knowledge.
Second about births ann deaths said something about delaying deaths because of some foreseeable-temtping future (religious holidays, abandonment of inheritance tax...) They repeated the astrology's effects on births and later success in life that Gladwell talked about in Outliers [b:Outliers|3228917|Outliers|Malcolm Gladwell|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255608670s/3228917.jpg|3364437]... esp hockey..
Third one about altruism and the 38 Witness of the Kitty incident at Kews Garden in 1964 wasn't any mmore eye opening. JOhn List rejected laboratory findings of economists through Dictator games by introducing new elements. This is simply a battle field between "For homo economicus" and "homo altruisticus".
Fourth one is simple another rubbish. Just like a summary of achievements of humans. One notable thing is the car seat issue and how it isn't at all better than seat belts.
One of my all-time faves. Thought-provoking, lots of very contrarian yet still logical ideas. The way you look at the world will never be the same again after you read this book!
Thoroughly enjoyable. I read this novel for my economics class. Behavioural economics is intriguing and easy to read about. However, I felt it lacked depth.
Completely worth the read just for the epilogue!! I love it!
Freakonomics was fun, but SuperFreakonomics feels strained. I seldom got the feeling that the authors have discovered surprising things about how the world works -- instead they string together coincidence, odd connections, going around and around and not really convincing me that they're onto something interesting.
I am not an economist in any way. I borrowed this book from my sister in the hopes that my education on this subject would be expanded and perhaps my perspective on how the world works in micro ways would change. However, what I got out of it is a hackneyed job of explaining any subject thoroughly. It lacked context and true analysis.
For example: Television is the cause of increased crime rate in major cities.
The theory: That cities had the supply of TVs sooner than other rural towns and therefore were able to access violent tv shows sooner and hence the influence more dominant.
HUH?!?!?!
what about the context???? Why isn’t he talking about the lack of resources those cities provide in education, job opportunities and rehabilitation? What about increases in police force in areas where there is higher POC, which then lead to an unjust increase in arrests? My point is there is so much more to increase crime rates than violent tv. The fact that he made the point is absurd and embarrassing.
Another example is the one about the female escort and how she has to retire as she’s reaching her 30s and therefore her appeal is decreasing. Also because her clock is ticking and will need to fix her reputation or save up enough money to fully retire otherwise she’ll never get married.
First off, what a misogynistic assumption to think A. She gives a shit about marrying. B. That shes straight and C. That she’s retiring to have a family.
Also, why is this book so focused on the “accomplishments” of men and the only topic on women is prostitution. I am certain there are DOZENS of other topics he could have chosen to write about but he chose the most sexist one.
This book is so flawed in its points that the authors university colleagues have written essays in response to the absurdity of his logic.
Lastly, don’t even get me started on the climate change chapter. I never have the time nor the breadth to explain how absurd it is. Like I mentioned I’m not well versed in those topics but even I know that the human activity is causing 40% of the increase in carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
I’m going to leave this article here for you to peruse should you wish to read on it. So glad I didn’t spend a penny on this nonsense and TRULY encourage others to not read it.
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/08/climate-change-superfreakonomics-superfreakingwrong
For example: Television is the cause of increased crime rate in major cities.
The theory: That cities had the supply of TVs sooner than other rural towns and therefore were able to access violent tv shows sooner and hence the influence more dominant.
HUH?!?!?!
what about the context???? Why isn’t he talking about the lack of resources those cities provide in education, job opportunities and rehabilitation? What about increases in police force in areas where there is higher POC, which then lead to an unjust increase in arrests? My point is there is so much more to increase crime rates than violent tv. The fact that he made the point is absurd and embarrassing.
Another example is the one about the female escort and how she has to retire as she’s reaching her 30s and therefore her appeal is decreasing. Also because her clock is ticking and will need to fix her reputation or save up enough money to fully retire otherwise she’ll never get married.
First off, what a misogynistic assumption to think A. She gives a shit about marrying. B. That shes straight and C. That she’s retiring to have a family.
Also, why is this book so focused on the “accomplishments” of men and the only topic on women is prostitution. I am certain there are DOZENS of other topics he could have chosen to write about but he chose the most sexist one.
This book is so flawed in its points that the authors university colleagues have written essays in response to the absurdity of his logic.
Lastly, don’t even get me started on the climate change chapter. I never have the time nor the breadth to explain how absurd it is. Like I mentioned I’m not well versed in those topics but even I know that the human activity is causing 40% of the increase in carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
I’m going to leave this article here for you to peruse should you wish to read on it. So glad I didn’t spend a penny on this nonsense and TRULY encourage others to not read it.
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/08/climate-change-superfreakonomics-superfreakingwrong
Pretty much like Freakonomics. Some interesting studies which make for fun reading when you have a few minutes to pick up a book.
I didn't like this book as much as I'd enjoyed the original, Freakonomics. Though similar to the original, it provided quite a few topics of conversation with my friends at dinner. And that's a quality I love in a book.