Freakonomics...

...anyone read?

Few chapters in, though seems to be going awfully fast. Still, entertaining enough stuff.

ArthurDent

Deleted User wrote:

...anyone read?

Few chapters in, though seems to be going awfully fast. Still, entertaining enough stuff.

Yeah interesting enough, did you get to the chapter that correlates states that allowed abortion at different times and their crime statisitics, that's the one that caused all the controversy.

ArthurDent

ArthurDent wrote:

Yeah interesting enough, did you get to the chapter that correlates states that allowed abortion at different times and their crime statisitics, that's the one that caused all the controversy.

Aha. It's in the first chapter. Knew I heard that controversy lately, was wondering did the book pick up on it or vice versa.

Gandhi

Great book. Wired magazine had printed the excerpt on realtors, which made me want to read the whole book. I love theories that make me go "Oh yeah!!! How come I never thought of that!!!"

Interesting that it was complimented by Malcolm Gladwell, despite the fact that Freakonomics' theory on the New York city drop in crime contradicts Gladwell's own theory (in "The Tipping Point") that it was the swift prosecution of subway jumpers that led to the dramatic drop. At least, a compliment from Gladwell appeared on the front cover. It may have been just a sound-bite pulled out of context from a longer article.

Next one on my list is "The World is Flat".

Uthur

Yeah I read it too. It was... good!

seatleon2000

I've read .. it was enjoyable but very limited. Like a film where you have seen the out takes but when you watch it, theres not much more to it.

The chapter on illegitimate (sp?) children was probably the most interesting..

simu

I've seen it and might buy it because it seems interesting enough if a bit of a big-mac book. Good to hear the positive reviews!

w66w66

I’m surprised this book has got so much positive media attention, considering the fact that Lewitt is putting forward a hypothesis that claims that due to the fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount crime and due to fact that blacks are three times more likely to have an abortion, this has led to lower crime. Liberals must be haemorrhaging over that prospect.

Also, Lewitt claims that nature is more important than nurture in determining ones IQ. One could read this as an endorsement of the arguments put forward by Charles Murray in the Bell Curve about race and IQ.

In fairness to him, he really only puts forward the figures without actually getting in to cause and effect too much. He really examines correlations between figures rather than causality. He explicitly states that it would be obscene to suggest abortion is a viable crime fighting tool and is in no way suggesting he opposes or supports abortion, merely observes the birth and crime rates.

w66w66

true, but in a paper about the abortion-cut-crime agrument back in 1999 Lewitt wrote this:

"Teenagers, unmarried women and African Americans are all substantially more likely to seek abortions. Children born to these mothers tend to be at higher risk for committing crime 17 years or so down the road, so abortion may reduce subsequent criminality through this selection effect."

w66w66

w66w66 wrote:

true, but in a paper about the abortion-cut-crime agrument back in 1999 Lewitt wrote this:

"Teenagers, unmarried women and African Americans are all substantially more likely to seek abortions. Children born to these mothers tend to be at higher risk for committing crime 17 years or so down the road, so abortion may reduce subsequent criminality through this selection effect."

Is he lying?

It's a positive not normative statement.

w66w66

I never suggested he was been normative, he's merely trying to answer the why's? and the hows?

But the why's? and hows? aren't always acceptable to some.

The truth isn't acceptable to some people ?

Gandhi

w66w66 wrote:

I’m surprised this book has got so much positive media attention, considering the fact that Lewitt is putting forward a hypothesis that claims that due to the fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount crime and due to fact that blacks are three times more likely to have an abortion, this has led to lower crime. Liberals must be haemorrhaging over that prospect.

Also, Lewitt claims that nature is more important than nurture in determining ones IQ. One could read this as an endorsement of the arguments put forward by Charles Murray in the Bell Curve about race and IQ.

There was a lot of controversy when that particular study came out a few years back. It was basically old news by the time Freakonomics was published, which could explain the lack of negative reaction.

I don't remember him making such a big deal about the racial aspect though. Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember he was more emphatic about likely abortion subjects being teenage, drug users, etc. The racial element was mentioned in passing, IIRC.

I loved the chapter on names. The dude naming his kids "Winner" and "Loser". And two brothers named "Orenjoose" and "Leminjoose" or something along those lines? Very entertaining, though the academic value is questionable.

Now I want to read it again, but I already sold it!!!

w66w66

Exactly. Personally I believe that if Lewitt had of put that quote from his 1999 paper on the abortion-cut-crime argument into freakonomics the reception it got would've have been much more heated.

Similarly Malcolm Gladwell wrote this article on race and sports a few years ago:
http://gladwell.com/1997/1997_05_19_a_sports.htm
You certainly don't see him write anything like this lately. And who can blame him, discussing these things can easily led to hysteria.

Slutmonkey57b

Freakonomics was good, but I found it a bit short to be honest. He seemed to restrict himself to fairly similar social problems, and I was hoping he'd cast the net a little wider than that.