You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
Parts of this book are so intriguing that I think I should become an economist. According to this (and the previous book), the right incentives can cause people to change their behavior. Many of the examples were thought provoking:
They explain how a pimp brings more benefit to a prostitute than a real estate agent to a (home) seller.
Terrorists should buy life insurance so that it will keep them from fitting the profile.
It is actually safer to drive drunk than walk home drunk--though they are careful NOT to recommend it.
The thing that brings down the rating is the long, drawn out, scientific discussion about global warming. It was too technical to keep my interest, so I might have glossed through that part after a while.
They explain how a pimp brings more benefit to a prostitute than a real estate agent to a (home) seller.
Terrorists should buy life insurance so that it will keep them from fitting the profile.
It is actually safer to drive drunk than walk home drunk--though they are careful NOT to recommend it.
The thing that brings down the rating is the long, drawn out, scientific discussion about global warming. It was too technical to keep my interest, so I might have glossed through that part after a while.
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Insightful, but not as funny or unexpected as previous books.
I enjoyed reading this, even if it was somewhat of a random collection of unrelated observations about patterns in the world. There were lots of interesting things - for example - more people die of cancer now because they don't die earlier of heart disease, that there are a disproportionately large number of professional athletes with birthday months that are the farthest away from whatever the league cutoff was when they were kids (they were the oldest in the league), and that monkeys can learn the concept of money and will use it to pay for sex. I suppose economists aren't THAT bad...
Thanks for the loan, Molly!
Thanks for the loan, Molly!
Using the same pioneering trains of thought that made Freakonomics such a page-turner, this book contains many more intriguing explanations for the everyday. Looking into such questions as the perils of walking drunk, why did 38 people watch a murder, why terrorism is so cheap and easy and comparing pimps to realtors, Super Freakonomics provides an incredibly wide ranging and compelling insight into the macabe, the superficial and everything in between. Based on the principles of economics and social research and using it to peer behind the curtain of what is right in front of our noses.
Check out more reviews like this on Instagram at @myhonestbookreview
Check out more reviews like this on Instagram at @myhonestbookreview
A case of a movie being better than the book. Okay, the movie was based on Freakonomics and not this, but still.
Honesty, if you are going to write about prostitution, you should look at more than just one city.
Still some of it was intersting. Not upset that I either brought or read it.
Honesty, if you are going to write about prostitution, you should look at more than just one city.
Still some of it was intersting. Not upset that I either brought or read it.
Mmmm, such yummy brain candy. More stories of how to see the world from a microeconomics perspective. Fun, quick, and entertaining.
Listening to the audiobook, read by Dubner. The introduction was charming, and I'm keen to see how they tie each mini-study to their newfound theme (incentives can make behavior seem illogical). But their first little assertion, that drunk walking is more deadly (for the drinker anyway) than drunk driving, relies on a completely invented assumption -- that the same proportion of walking distance is covered drunk as is driving distance (and I'm curious to look up the source of that proportion, as well, because it strikes me as incredibly difficult to measure). No justification is offered for this assertion, nor is its potential variance addressed, even though the value of this variable could completely reverse their "findings." To me, this negates the authors' argument that economics is true to the numbers and not a field where you can lie with statistics. Riiiight.
So I listen on with a slightly soured, cautious attitude. Levitt and Dubner are quick to assure me, though, that the book is not trying to state anything as fact, but merely open a conversation -- they HOPE I will catch errors or otherwise doubt their methods; this means they've done their job. Well, I guess you win this round, Freakonomists, but now I'm not enjoying your book as much as I did the first one. It's not that fun to read something that comes with equal parts disclaimers and substance.
So I listen on with a slightly soured, cautious attitude. Levitt and Dubner are quick to assure me, though, that the book is not trying to state anything as fact, but merely open a conversation -- they HOPE I will catch errors or otherwise doubt their methods; this means they've done their job. Well, I guess you win this round, Freakonomists, but now I'm not enjoying your book as much as I did the first one. It's not that fun to read something that comes with equal parts disclaimers and substance.
Really great book. Stimulating and engaging, and it really opens your mind to anything that could possibly happen.
Fun read, don't know how accurate it actually was. Some of the research it references has been debunked.