Super Freakonomics

I'll admit it upfront. I am a Freakonomics lover! And I expected big things from Super-Freakonomics. And I received!

This book is terrific. Outstanding! Incredible!

Buy this book! This is the best book I have on my Kindle (and I have a lot of books)!

Since I drive a lot, I bought the audio version of this book. I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Levitt and Dubner do fantastic work and present it well. The book uses data to prove or disprove "common knowledge". If you believe in common sense, you will enjoy the book.

If you enjoyed freakonomics you will enjoy superfreakonomics. It is written in the same light as the previous book. It highlights several interesting questions and explores them from an unexpected angle. Definitely a good read.

Book came fast and as described. I've read both freakenomics and super freakenomics before getting this version. The pictures really do add a lot of information and make it a fun read. I gave it as a gift to my brother and I think it'll really help keep him into it

Very interesting book, a lighter read than I thought it would be. However, it was certainly eye-opening.

But, I really do not understand why so many are incensed, enraged, or just so down on SuperFreakonomics. I suspect that some of it is because of the chapter on climate change. I've heard all kinds of odd accusations made. A few comments in their defense:

They're not saying go ahead and geo-engineer. They're saying do some research. They're not saying it's the solution - they're saying it might be an option if all else fails and it may buy us some time. I don't think they said there was consensus on cooling in the 70's. Caldiera did approve the comment about CO2 not being the villain, then decided later on he messed up and should have changed it. He attributed it to an editing error. There's probably a lot more, but after many of the comments, I thought I might have read a different book.

I like to think of myself as doing the right things for the environment. I drive a Prius, use my bike, recycle 90% of waste. It's not much, but it's what I can do. I do believe that the climate is changing for the worse and we are a significant cause.

But the more I see of the people on the Al Gore side of this, the more I wonder how correct the author's are in saying much of this rancor is a religion and geo-engineering isn't part of their bible. To be fair, I think a religion-like enthusiasm is only part of it. Money and power are always in there somewhere. A large institution has been built up around reusable energy. Government money is being pored into this. Those on this gravy train, or thinking of joining it, certainly don't want it derailed.

I remember the Y2K scare. Big name consultants made a fine living giving speeches and doing consulting on how bad Y2K would be if gazillions were pored into it. Planes would fall out of the sky, reactors would melt down. Well there are always talking heads and cable news jerks to do this. However, sober top notch computer experts went along to the extent that spending was enormous. I was part of this industry. Anxious boards of directors listening to the talking heads and media, put pressure on the experts. Experts leaned on their peers. So what happened? In effect, nothing. Some argued that it's because we spent so much that nothing happened. However, when we looked at Germany and other countries that had the same results and spent a tiny fraction of the US, the experts sheepishly got very quiet.

So, I'm beginning to think that the book's right in that there's a lot of religion-like behavior here. It's fueled by government sponsored research, peer pressure, a media that loves doom and politicians who would be embarrassed, to say the least, if they had to change their positions. This isn't to say that I don't think there's a problem. I may be like Caldiera, in that I'm extremely pessimistic of our chances. But the nastiness towards the Superfreakie authors makes me think that many critics are too invested in the current dogma to see alternatives. I've worked with scientists and just like anyone, they can get very stubborn and see what they want in the data.

Very good book and great understanding of climate changes and the many options to avoid climate issues rather than spending trillions that could be put to better use to improve mankind and the enviroment

In there first book they focused on economics in a very good yet different way by analysing the incentives to the actions we take. However in this book they looked at things from a different manner, one that is more for the social science and not in there realm of expertise ( and it shows).
I really hope that in the next one they will re-think what they are good at and stick to it.

sorry but this one is simply not good

Another addition to the genre started by (IMO) the Armchair Economist. Definitely not as good as the first one (which I read basically without putting down). Gets a little tawdry with the analysis of prostitution, not sure I'd recommend it to my mother. Also, it seems like every book of this genre these days goes on at length on game theory and it's starting to get a little repetitive. For a better presentation of the game theory presented in this book I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Authors got away from what made the first book successful. And for people who write about research and data, they seemed to have omitted several findings in the pursuit of there political and ideological agenda. If you must read get it from the Library.

There was a lot more information in this book that the first one but it the presentation/writing was worse. The main topics were supported but sub-topics that seemed to be picked at random. The writers seemed to just be writing another book to cash in on the money instead of actually improving on the first one.

That being said, the information in the book is interesting. Even if the information can be interpreted in different ways, I wish our government and others would listen.

My rating, 3 out of 5.

The book arrived within the stated delivery dates. It arrived in very good condition with all of the pages intact and no markings on the pages. I'm in the process of reading it now. The price could not be beat. This non-Prime supplier lived up to expectations. I recommend using them, and I will do so again myself.

I really enjoyed the first book and was looking forward to this second edition. Everything seemed fine through the first 2 chapters and then the poor research and data analysis started to show up around chapter 3 in the apathy v. altruism section. It went further downhill during the often mentioned child safety and global warming chapters. I am quite all right with seemingly counter-intuitive thoughts based on sound research and analysis, but the second half of this book is shockingly short on both. I feel lucky in that I got the kindle version for under $10. The first few chapters are worth a read, but don't buy this book new.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It sheds light on why I bothered studying for a degree in economics at university. Yes, economics can be fun. It's a pity it gets such a bum rap. Why should it be called the "dismal science"?

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have written an amusing and readable book. It's full of anecdotes and whimsical stories without ever seriously veering from the science of microeconomics which is its basis. The two Steves have researched an array of topics from street prostitution, to hospital deaths in the 19the century before opining upon global warming and how it might be resolved if, indeed, it is a problem. It's this final point that I particularly loved. Global warming has become a modern religion. It has its own dogmas and turns a blind eye to anyone who questions the "rules". I am quite confident that, in due course, global warming will be solved but it won't be by the naïve and cack handed solutions that greens put forward. It will be economics that comes to the rescue. This has always been the history of the world and I see no reason why this should change now.

Perhaps the most pleasant feature of "SuperFreakonomics" (and its predecessor "Freakonomics") is that it brings economics away from the realm of stuffy ivory towered professors and their arcane theories and formulas. Instead, economics is presented as something to enjoy. This is the book's real strength. I can only hope that this technique has introduced economics to a wider audience.

However, before finishing up, I find myself wondering which of the "case studies" amused me the most. I think it was the story about travel in New York City and how horses caused more deaths per capita than cars. It's ironic then that the car is seen as the work of the devil by some when, in fact, it has been a great liberator of the human race. Yes, "SuperFreakonomics" is a great read. Read it and enjoy.

Cause and effect is something I have always been interested in and I enjoy the way they make you look at things a little differently. With this type of attitude towards the subject perhaps more students would enter the field of economics.

Chapters 3 4 and 5 were fantastic and driving home one of Levitt's points: Humans can find solutions to any problem, and they can do it in an inexpensive way. Right now we should all be afraid, even people like myself who voted for Obama, about big govt backing expensive and costly solutions to issues that could have been better addressed in the private sector and for far less money. I love the messages the author delivers to its readers and most of the info in chapters 3 4 and 5 increased my knowledge and changed my perspective from this day forward. Even today, as i was throwing a plastic bottle into the recycling bin, i wondered if recycling pays or if its just a waste of money at this point.And if there is a better way we haven't figured out just yet that would be less expensive and more of a no-brainer.
Hope you enjoy as much as i did!
Larry

Perhaps Ultra-Superfreakonomics will explore why sequels rarely measure up to the original. Superfreakonomics is rather dull and uninteresting contrasted to the captivating Freakonomics. The exception is the final chapter, which bails out this book, discussing alternative views and solutions for climate change.

Superfeakonomics is much better than the original freakonomics. It deals with more interesting subjects and I believe it had better editing. I am giving 12 copies of it for Christmas and I don't give a Christmas book that I don't REALLY like.
TK

This is not quite as good as the first but still excellent. The poor ratings for this book are certainly not warranted. The fact that this book has stirred so much emotion and outrage is a good enough reason why you should read it. Agree with the material or not, this is one of the most thought provoking books of the year and should not be skipped.

After reading this book I have a different perspective of the world. Some things are not always what we think they should be and what we hear in the news isn't always true. A must read book for everyone.

This book, like the first one, makes you think outside of the box.

This isn't supposed to be the definitive answer to global warming or too child safety.
But it does make one consider and to look past all the politicking by Corporations, Scientists, and (of course) Politicians.

They don't consider themselves saviors or even to be the final answer. I see them as trying to liberate us from our self proclaimed boxes.

And that's what they do for me.

This is a quick fun read that raises some thought-provoking issues, particularly about incentives. The global warming section was especially interesting. Prostitutes went on too long and became somewhat boring.

I've just finished the book and the content is very good, in line with the 1st Freakonomics.

But I was quite disappointed with the quality of the pages as they are badly cut in the edge, showing different sizes -it seems they were cut "by hand". The problem did not prevent me from reading, but it made more difficult to "change pages".

SuperFreakonamics is actually better than the first if you could believe it. Even though it was 6 CD's I was dissappointed that they did not have 12 CD's worth of facts and stats. I will be waiting for the SuperDuperFreakonomics with credit card in hand when it comes out.

After Freakonomics I was really looking forward to this. I thought Freakonomics showed how clear thinking and clever analysis can teach us things that we wouldn't even dream of being true. This falls a long way short of continuing that. The questions asked are interesting, but the answers given are very disappointing. I didn't learn anywhere near as much from reading this as I did from reading Freakonomics.

With the exception of the giant "used book" sticker on the front cover, the book was in the condition stated in the description. The book also arrived on time and it wasn't too hard to peel the sticker off.

I cannot figure out why they wrote this book. Perhaps it was to demonstrate how random life is, because this book being on the NYT bestseller list has to be random -- it clearly is not related to quality.

It is an easy and entertaining read (which is not at all what I was looking for) so I gave it two stars instead of the one it really deserves.

The first Freakonomics proposed some hard-to-believe statements and used economic theory to prove them. This mish-mash is a collection of interesting facts, many of which aren't drawn from economic theory. The book is disjointed, aimless and undisciplined.

I blasted through the first Freakonomics because I was fascinated. I blasted through Superfreakonomics because I just wanted to get it over with. Very disappointing.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first book, thought it was well-written, informative, extremely entertaining and without hesitation would give it a five-star rating. I especially appreciated the book as I reside in Chicago. I felt that although SuperFreakonomics is a fast read and the first third of the book is interesting, the remainder seemed somewhat sketchy and lacked appropriate depth and correlation with economics. I would welcome another sequel with more developed ideas, more closely related to the "rogue" economics of the first book.

A few years ago I read and enjoyed the original "Freaknaomics". I have zero interest in ecnomics scienes, but like many people I found some of the correlations that were made in the book to be entertaining, informative and thought-provoking. I really liked it, and so imagine my pleasure when I heard about this, the sequel.

This book is good, but not as good as the first. For one thing, it takes a bit of time to get rolling and really interesting. Once it's done that, it's over, and over abruptly. I was having a good time, reading along, and suddenly I was at the end, stuck with the realization that the last 33% of the book was notes and the like.

That said, the good stuff in the book is quite good. The first section, on how underpaid prostitutes are, sets a stage that eventually leads up to possible economic solutions to global warming (the author's position on which seems to mirror my own).

But there was just something missing. I don't know what. Maybe it just didn't seem as fresh as the first book or the topics weren't quite as interesting? I don't know for sure. I do know that it was worth reading and good, but not great and not as good as the first book.

These guys are really truthful at their promise stated in the introduction, they really address the topics in search of truth, without fear nor favoring any position, even if this means being bold and politically incorrect with an honesty rarely since these days. As they explain, "...the economic approach isn't meant to describe the world as any one of us might want it to be, or fear that it is, or pray that it becomes - but rather to explain what it actually is."

They indeed let the numbers speak, to the point that this sequel has a couple of chapters that will end up annoying both the religious conservatives and the dogmatic environmentalists. The former might be quite offended by the chapter explaining the economics of prostitution, and the latter by the rational and common sense criticism of climate change as presented by the religious-like advocates, including Al Gore.

The analysis of prostitution from the point of view of microeconomics is quite humorous and cleverly avoids vulgarity, and you will be surprised to know the reasons for today's lower prices for the "tricks" as compared to the market in the early 1900s. The final chapter even documents the first scientifically documented case of monkey prostitution. Nevertheless, along these "irrelevant" discussions, Levitt and Dubner managed to intertwine several interesting findings, such as the real reason for women's lower earnings as compared to men with similar education.

In regard to their harsh criticism to global warming presented in Chapter 5, do not be confused, they are not "deniers" or "skepticals" in the pejorative sense. They are against the radical religious-like advocates, who are oversimplifying the complexity of climate science and exaggerating the consequences under the prevailing imprecision inherent to climate science, and proposing solutions that will have significant global economic impacts. In particular, Levitt and Dubner are very critical of climate models. They sarcastically assert that as compared to the most sophisticated climate models, "...the risk models used by modern financial institutions seem quite reliable - but, as recent banking meltdowns have shown, that isn't always the case." (see page 168).

After discussing the limitations of climate models, they present quite a case for low-cost geoengineering solutions to avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming, if they will ever materialized, and thus avoiding the sacrifices and life style changes that are being expected from citizens of developed countries under the current proposed global warming solutions, and also without hindering the improvement of living conditions of citizens of developing countries. Quite a bold and politically incorrect chapter! You really have to read this chapter with an open mind to judge the merit of the arguments and the freaky solutions presented. I believe this chapter alone justifies reading the book, and makes this follow-up quite a good sequel.

PS: As expected, Levitt and Dubner have been ferociously attacked in the blog sphere by the usual climate change advocates, with smear attacks included. See the Freakonomics blog at the NYT for the authors rebuttal and clarifications. And the climate bunch wonder why they are being compared with a religion.

Most of this book is very entertaining and thought provoking unfortunately the authors left out the facts about global warming. Apparently they got their data about global warming from fox news because it was a joke even one of the main climate scientist they get most of their info from says he disagrees entirely with their views. This is terribly because the first book was so good and many of the stories where very interesting but now I must question all their data and wonder if they come to the conclusion before checking anything.

I was very disappointed with this book because unlike the first book, it did have a common thread: a Neoconservative political agenda! I don't like Al Gore, but I hardly think he's the Anti-Christ! Not to mention, it just wasn't a fun read like the first book; it was a political lecture!

Superfreakonomics is a good book, it promotes creativity and thinking outside of the box. For example, with everything that I've heard about making this world a better, cleaner place, not one promoter of green-like activities has addressed the real issue of changing the behaviors of billions of people outside of the reach of America's regulatory arm. Once this constraint is accepted, feasible solutions begin to present themselves. Anyway, that particular issue has always made me very cynical as far as going green goes. I recently saw an infomercial trying to convince me to go green buy buying reusable, fashionable metal water bottles: two, no wait, three for only $19.95 (it was clear that this firm was more interested in profits than polar bears). These authors have also been incredibly successful in garnering interest in economics, which I think is important b/c as more and more people understand what motivates behavior and how money and the economy works, maybe as a whole we'll begin to make better decisions.

This book is an excellent read and the fact that it has generated such passionate negative reviews should clue you into just how independent and unbiased the concepts are in this book. My suspicion is that had SuperFreakonomics not touched the Global Warming topic, the reviews would be very high. I highly recommend reading this book as it challenges the reader to think critically about the world around them. And for all the close minded Global Warming Cult followers I pose this question. Meteorologist have a hard time predicting tomorrow's weather, what makes you believe that climatologist can predict global warming patterns 50 years from now? Could it be possible that there are other ways of dealing with Global Warming that don't involve destroying commerce?

There are so many great topics covered in this book, it is a shame that many people get too caught up in one chapter. Read this book for yourself, you will be a much better person for having done so.

This book is *supposed* to make you think, but instead the authors want you to trust them and their methodology. They not only have chapters that trivialize drinking and prostitution, but they their chapter on global warming has been widely debunked by the scientific community. This book gave me a reason to doubt what I thought about climate change and our use of fossil fuels, until I did more research and asked friends in climate science. It's unfortunate that such a potentially influential book has such a one-sided view of such an important issue. Shame on them. If their thinking is so poor in the climate chapter, why should we trust these guys to give us a framework for evaluating and making our own decisions about anything? After a good start with the first book, these two authors have swollen heads and have drunk far too much of their own Kool-Aid. You can have my copy back.

I didn't believe that the sequel could do the original justice but it does. By tackling politically incorrect issues, it brings in ideas that would never see the light of day given who controls the media today.

Sequels disappoint; don't ask too much of this one. Perhaps you cannot blame authors for wanting to cash in on their popularity, but if Super Freakonomics had been written before Freakonomics, few people would have bought it. The authors are trying very hard to shock and amaze, but the organization is scattered and the research seems questionable.

Their standard formula is to begin with a counterintuitive statement and before your very eyes show you how clever they are. I, for one, do not see how prostitutes are patriotic, and thought that the comparison between Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo forced and unconvincing.

There are many excellent reviews here already, so I will concentrate on an issue that bothers me. The authors propose taming hurricanes or typhoons. I live in a mountainous jungle that is hit by several typhoons in a typical year, and I can see very clearly how typhoons clear out the deadwood, flush clean streambeds, fill up the water supply, and even spread species (which explains how I spotted a snake from our mountains very far downstream along the bank of the river in downtown Taipei). Without typhoons, Taiwan would not have enough water to drink, so every year everybody hopes we get some typhoons: mild typhoons are nicer, but even strong typhoons are necessary.

This August Taiwan was hit by a medium typhoon that dumped nine feet of water on the mountains in three days, burying villages and killing many people. Recent catastrophes of this nature are due not so much to typhoons as to investors (not locals) chopping roads into mountains, planting betel nut trees, and other human activities. So what we need is not fewer typhoons, but more care in dealing with the mountains.

Every year we usually get several typhoons larger than Katrina, but they do little damage, because people have the sense not to build below sea level. Also, everything that can blow away, blew away long ago. Again, my point is that disasters from typhoons or hurricanes are due in large part to short-sighted human development, not the weather.

But suppose people started controlling typhoons. IMHO, that would be a real can of worms. Say Taiwan needed water, but the Philippines and Okinawa did too. A great tug-of-war would result, as each tried to channel the typhoon home. The opposite would hold true, too. If Taiwan didn't want a typhoon, it would have to go somewhere, but where? The neighbors might not want it, either.

The authors seem to have forgotten the Butterfly Effect. Even something so negligible as a butterfly flapping its wings may have far-reaching effects. Unless we can guarantee the long-term consequences of fiddling with typhoons, I say, Let's not!

The authors seek provocation and titillation at the cost of deliberation and far-sightedness. It may sell books, but many of their ideas need a lot more thought.

The economics of any Fed rise is one thing, but it's hardly exciting to the man on the street. This book is full of great economic observations and head scratching ideas. This amazing series continues on, and keeps investigating economic questions that many want to know, but few can or are willing to investigate, despite clear economic impact. The team continues to ask economic questions few would consider like "How is a street prostitute like a department store Santa?". It is a very curious comparison that rings true once revealed. If a job is a job, then a temporary part-time job is still that, a temporary part-time job. It does not always lead to a full-time career.

Christmas is only once a year, and temporary short term jobs pop up around that season like Santa Claus roles as part-time jobs in department stores. However it turns out that during holiday season with family gatherings like July 4th or independence day, not everybody wants to stay home and talk to grandma. As a result this is when ordinary women notice that the price for prostitution from men bored, and from out of town, but in the big city of Chicago, peaks. It provides a perfect tax free opportunity to make money for a short period of time often with a temporary client base who do not even live in the city, hence no long term repeat business, just a short term windfall of cash.

We know about health and cleanliness but "Why are doctors so bad at washing their hands?". It turns out that in many US hospitals, the standards were lower than the perceptions by even the doctors themselves. Most doctors when honest admitted to washing regularly 70% of the time. This contrasted with the nurses who observed them washing less than 20% of the time! Until a meeting where doctors present touched their hands in a petri dish and observed over weeks the bacteria growth, that things changed. The use of these petri dishes in the form of a screen saver later used in the hospital, proved popular as a clear visual reminder. In fact, other hospitals started to use the same screen saver in order to help spread the message. The benefits to the patients has been medically and economically extraordinary.

One personal favorite question asked was "Which adds more value: a Pimp or a Realtor?". Again data on such a comparison is difficult to find, but when focused can be created organically by coordinating on the ground with the prostitutes and home sellers themselves. One is clearly more difficult than the other. Some of the data points found though were not expected, like how much revenue from any prostitute is given up in "free" services to police officers, in order to avoid prosecution. We discover what is literally her "cost" of doing business!

It turns out that a pimp does have a direct impact on higher earnings, as he typically acts as a marketer within high-end markets for his prostitute who usually relies on lower end street traffic. It brings a higher paying customers base to a low cost service zone, very much an economic development. This helps bring a better margin for the worker, who can then work less often, but at a higher rate of pay. This is contrasted in time value with a realtor who often encourages a homeowner to sell at the first price offered. Even though if it were their own home, they would wait longer for a higher offer, it is a pattern. It comes down to how much any extra commission is worth for the extra weeks in time spent. The breakdown of this incentive system is very well explained. It turns out to be a very solid case.

The Top 3 Takeaways from this book that really impact any reader are:

1) There is a lot to learn about the real economy around prostitution. I was very surprised to learn that 7% of transactions are free services to police officers in order to avoid arrest.

2) The impact of pimps for prostitutes is often positive economically. A pimp can often act as a marketer and find high end customers. This increases wage income and hours worked compared to independent prostitutes.

3) Input from global warming or global cooling needs another point of view. Can can we cool the planet quickly if we really needed to fast? Quick solutions are possible but not very attractive. However, they are a start.

There are many more questions that are fascinating reading. They include "What's the best way to catch a terrorist?" or "Did TV cause a rise in crime?". Another is "Can eating kangaroo save the planet?" As safety and the car industry interests me, one question really got my attention, and that was "How much good do cars seats do?" Installing them correctly is more difficult than many parents can handle. This kind of product needs better execution clearly, despite the positive intentions of the parents themselves. No matter what the question posed is, this team makes me want to read the answer they find every time time. Highly recommended!

Please visit us for our Friday Feature Review where TMJ Partners Blog will review books, movies, services and anything else with a financial theme. Follow us now for our free TMJ Partners weekly updates on LinkedIn, home of TopMoneyJobs.com. Thank you for reading and learning more about how money is made in finance!

this book is incredibly disappointing, particularly Steven Levitt's discussion on climate change and geoengineering. He obviously has not researched this enough and is irresponsible for discussing it with such flagrant disregard for the complexity of the issue.

This is a fun and interesting read. I have followed intensely the behavioral economics discipline, including the works of Kahneman and Tversky, as well as Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Levitt and Dubner have done a great job of popularizing the subject (even if some economists refer to these works derogatorily as "cute-onomics"). When I was in college, one of the things that attracted me to economics was how it provided interesting explanations for human behavior. It was this same essence in the works of these authors, but something that I lost track of as I took the more detailed and complicated courses in micro- and macro-economics. I had some respite when I took a labor economics course and read Gary Becker, who is mentioned in this book. The authors cover, for example, the business habits of prostitutes, and how they reflect supply and demand as well as business related strategies. They discuss how a banker used his knowledge to create an algorithm to identify potential terrorists as these have patterns that can be tracked (not all is revealed). And there is the story of Dr. Semelweiss, who used data to figure out why women were dying at high rates in a maternity ward. One of the most fascinating sections was on the New York Times story on the Kitty Genovese case, where a woman was killed and supposedly almost 40 of her neighbors ignored her cries for help. This story triggered a national soul search and studies on altruism. It turns out the Times story was fake news, as it failed to get enough information and relied on tainted sources. All the topics are interesting in that they get you to look at events and causes and effects in a different light.

As I read SuperFreakonomics it made me think about how folks process information and make decisions. Do the rationally think through the data they have and potential options? Do they respond to how the information or situation makes them feel emotionally? Do the react viscerally or relay on their gut instinct to drive their decision? The answer I think is all of the above, but everyone uses a different mix. This book is one in a series of readings over the last several years, which at a minimum, make me think and consider alternatives that are more data driven. I think that is what the authors were looking for a common theme.

I've seen many reactions to the stories in this book that are, well, heatedly negative. This book is driving for a more rational data driven set of explanations. It reflects the academic study of economics which try to explain and predict human behavior, both from a rational and emotional basis. The study tends to attract people like me, who tend to overemphasis data in decisions making. So can understand how it would repel people that tend to over emphasis emotions.

It is interesting however, how tremendous negative opinions have been pouring out even be before the release of the book this week. So as always, it is important to critically evaluate who is saying what, and determine for yourself why they are saying what they are. For me however, I think the authors have succeeded again at twisting and turning data in interesting and unusual way. They do it with a set of stories that are entertaining, sometimes provocative, but well researched and out of the ordinary.

SuperFreakonomics for me is a reflection and an extension to a couple of other books that talk about the relatively new ability for us to analysis and harvest information out of huge (and sometimes small) amounts of data. They talk about many of the same topics found in SuperCrunchers, The Numerati, and Outliers.

They definitely hit home with me on two thoughts. The first if the law of unintended consequences and second, the simplest solutions are often the best. Perhaps that IS the point of the book. We tend to look for complex answers and solutions. But the more complex and costly, the less economic value it has and the higher the probability of unintended consequences there is. These coupled with the human aversion to change, help explain to me some of the outrage to their analysis. Perhaps some are also reacting to ideas that are not in their personal self interest - hum, a common theme in economics.

I won't spoil the book with any descriptions of their stories. But I recommend that you give them a try, without any predispositions. Perhaps you will be rewarded with new simpler answers that you haven't been exposed to before.

The book Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes & why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance is a non-fiction economic book written by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, published in 2009. These two authors show non-fiction writing in a different light and how people will only do things best if rewarded with an incentive. They do not just write facts about a person, place, or activity these authors give us a story with connections, facts, real evidence, and real people. They show how even a street prostitute from Chicago can go through college debt free, hide it from her loved ones, and start a career in being a real estate agent. They also talk about global warming having a solution that works called geoengineering, and they compare the deaths of those drunk driving and drunk walking and explain how it's more deadly to walk intoxicated than drive intoxicated. This story shines a different light because we are seeing how people and stats are included in scenarios and how economists look at situations. For example, they bring up chemotherapy, which is very expensive, but not very effective. People are still dying and millions of dollars are going to cancer every year, but where is the money going to. You learn about that in this book and how every dollar does count for those who do survive and benefit from chemo.
I really recommend this book to people who want to learn more about random, but knowledgeable facts. It shows you how people would rather go through pain for millions of money, and a few more years than a short life that does not cost anything. These authors explain to us how people can always get out of the dirt with a little hope and a little knowledge of the economy tricks. I highly recommend this if you are going on a trip and have a few hours to spare. Enjoy because your mind is about to go through a whole rearrangement!

Like their first book, this one really challenges preconceived notions about all kinds of things--from the best solutions to global warming to why prostitutes do what they do (and when!)... so I don't recommend it to anyone who has inflexible, moralistic opinions about things and hasn't carefully looked at the facts, because you may be unpleasantly surprised!

But if you're open to new ideas, and appreciate arguments based on evidence, I think you'll find this book fascinating. I didn't get the sense that the authors were out to prove everyone else wrong, though... they just seem to be trying to answer important questions a little differently, with more facts, clear thinking, without a vested interest in what the answer will be, and in an entertaining way.

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

I did not enjoy this (quite short) book as much as I did the original Freakonomics. Some of the topics covered are well-covered in other places, like in Malcolm Gladwell's books. There was less highlighting of Levitt's work and more of other economists and psychologists.

A brief hodgepodge of things you can glean from this book:
Horses were essentially the climate change problem of the late 1800s. Your odds of dying from a horse-related accident in NY in late 1800s higher than dying from a car accident today. Manure caused pollution, sanitation issues. Demand for horses and horse feed drove up prices of food.

The market for prostitutes. Prostitutes in Chicago are more likely to be paid for sex by a cop than be arrested by one. This chapter was a bit tough to stomach. An educated woman leaves her job in finance in order to become an expensive escort, makes a lot of money, and then later decides to leave her job to go back to school-- to become an economist.

Behavioral economists used experiments to show that humans were inherently altruistic-- contra Darwin's theory of natural selection-- until other behavioral economists showed that people were only altruistic when they were asked to participated in experiments conducted by behavioral economists.

Monkeys have been shown in experiments to be irrational like humans-- loss averse, and capable of understanding money as a medium of exchange.

Education is positively correlated with bad outcomes like suicide bombings and preventable diseases in hospitals (doctors do worse at washing their hands than lesser-educated assistants).

The chapter on global warming is a large part of the book and has been the most controversial (read the entire blog post). Dubner and Levitt highlight some very smart researchers who decry the simplistic messages put out by the media and Al Gore. Reducing CO2 emissions, for example, will not be helpful and will cost more than it will help. They have simple solutions, like putting SO2 into the atmosphere, that can be done very cheaply and have the effect of counteracting global warming. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years as the oceans warm. As they warm, they expand, and it has nothing to do with glacial melting. These researchers are frustrated with the archaic and outdated models usually used by climatologists. I assume Dubner and Levitt highlight them for no reason other than they don't think they've been getting fair press. They highlight the simple inventions that trump conventional wisdom. The global warming examples are similar to that of the child safety seat-- the safety seat has not been proven to be more effective at preventing child death/injury than the standard safety belt, and yet the government keeps pushing for children to use them for longer periods.

3 stars out of 5.

The authors emphasize looking at a great deal of data through an economist’s eye. They do a lot of research and by taking different points of view come up with some very interesting stories and conclusions. The authors are exceptionally good storytellers. The book is well worth reading just for their different look at climate change- it is contrary but thoughtful.

Take for instance a lady of the evening, who doesn't mind being call a whore because that is what she is. She is physically attractive, seems quite intelligent, but doesn't enjoy the daily grind of most jobs. She finds she enjoys sex, and can get paid very well for it. To increase her own safety she requires enough information to know where her customers work. So if there is a problem they are sure she will show up at their workplace loudly complaining. She also finds that her prices have a great deal of flexibility, she gradually pushes up her hourly rate to over $500 per hour. This simultaneously allows her to get rid of a lot of her less favored customers and to increase her salary at the same time. Looking to the future she is aware that her physical attractiveness will only last a short time. So she is contemplating going back to graduate school to finish up an economics degree.

They also relate the story of doctors trying to learn more about disease and in general what kills humans, they spent a lot of time dissecting corpses. They would frequently rush from dissecting to the maternity ward without washing their hands to help deliver babies. By not washing their hands they increased the death rate of mothers and babies to a far greater rate than the rate using less educated midwives. Especially midwives who helped with birth in the mother’s home.

They researched well-known stories like the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City. According to the New York Times 38 of her neighbors watched her murder and did nothing about it. The story got a great deal play since both reporters an editor involved we're trying to make names for themselves. Since the attack occurred about 3 AM the authors question how many people could truly see what was going on. Research shows that no one could see clearly what was happening and at least one call was made to the police and reported as a quarrel since that's what it seemed to be. The murderer was caught several days later when he tried to walk off with a nearby residents TV. Another resident question him and he said it was helping move the neighbor. The resident called another neighbor to check and he was told they were not moving. The police were called and the murderer was caught.

The authors discuss how difficult it is to rate doctors fairly, mostly because the really good doctors frequently take the hardest cases where fatality rates are much higher. An emergency physician whose ER was rated worst in the New York area decided to check as to why. He had a strong background as an entrepreneur in the computer area. With the help of an administrator they got the money to purchase equipment and put together their own program and database for use in the ER. They wanted to have people test it so they put it in the emergency room with the sign saying not to use it because it was being beta tested. So of course everyone had to try it. With a number of tweaks it worked quite well, making a great deal of patient data easily available to the ER physician. Formerly as much as 60% of the ER time was spent looking for data, this amount of time was was reduced considerably by the new system. Patient outcomes improved dramatically, costs were cut and the ER became one of the top rated instead of the lowest rated. The system has been used by other hospitals, and now Microsoft owns and sells the system.

There have been a number of times when social scientist, such as Gary Becker, have decided to test their ideas by actually performing experiments with people to see how they behave. His research seemed to indicate that people had an altruistic component. In experiments where they could keep all the money or share some with another player they very frequently share instead of keeping it all themselves. Another experimental economist, John List, became an economics professor because he noticed when caddying that the people who could play almost every day were professors of economics.

List had to work at many different jobs to put himself through college. His varied experience made him doubt these results. So he performed some experiments with card traders at big card shows. He found that when both buyers and sellers agreed to be part of his experiment the buyers got fair prices for the cards. He went further and performed the same experiment with just the buyers knowing they were part of experiment. In this case the sellers took big advantage of their customers. In particular the sellers who refused to be part of experiment really took biggest advantage of the buyers. He concluded that people behave quite differently when they know they are being watched. Big surprise!

Robert McNamara was Secretary of State and the principle architect of Vietnam war policy. After the war he was also the driving force getting seat belts required in all cars. Back in the 1950s deaths in auto accidents we're approaching 50,000 per year and auto companies knew this was unacceptable. Seat belts looked like the cheapest and best solution to decreasing death rate. Many lives were lost and ruined by the Vietnam War, many were and still are saved by using seat belts. This makes one wonder about powerful individuals and their effect on us. The authors both have small children and decided to research the effectiveness of seat belts versus car seats. They found car seats are safer for children under two years old, but made no difference for children over two. Many states require use of car seats much for older children. They conclude it would be a good idea to redesign the system for children.

Outside of Seattle Nathan Myhrvold and his group form day scientific research group IV, with strong physics backgrounds, who are willing to tackle many different size problems. This includes controlling hurricanes, and global climate change. Hurricanes are likely to start off the coast of Africa when the water is warming up. Once they get started the hurricanes are difficult to control. Nathan asked why not have an almost automatic device which constantly brings up cold water and pushes down warm water. This could keep the temperature of the ocean surface below that which forms hurricanes. The device would be a circle floating a few feet above the surface the ocean. It would be so that waves could splash warm water inside the raised circle. Below the floating circle would be a cylinder of plastic extending about 600 feet down. The water inside the circle is now a bit higher than the surrounding sea, this hydraulic head it Is sufficient to push the warm water slowly down and to become very cold. Many of these properly located might keep the surface temperature of the ocean below that need to form hurricanes.

Myhrvold and his team are also tackling global climate change. Their position is that climate change is happening, and humans may have something to do it. Lowell Wood points out that computer models ignore the number one greenhouse gas which is water. The difficulty is that in some forms like snow and ice it reflects a great deal of heat, but in cloud form it frequently absorbs heat. They also think the emphasis on carbon dioxide is overdone. Another member of the group, Ken Caldeira, has done studies that indicate that the doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs to plants gives a 70% increase in plant growth. They also believe that contrary to general belief carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past. Even solar cells have a drawback since only about 20% of the energy that hits it Is transformed into electricity, while a good portion of the rest becomes heat. Though it would seem that the light hitting the earth below the solar cells would act in a similar fashion.

When really big volcanoes erupt they push a great deal of dust and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. This has been shown historically because temperatures drop around the world. A suggestion they describe is to push already existing sulfur dioxide from operating coal plants up higher into the stratosphere. This would involve pushing it up over 18 miles.

We already put much more sulfur dioxide into the lower atmosphere-the problem is to get it into the stratosphere, much higher up. They call the technique to do it Budyko’s Blanket, and is like a hose into the sky for sulfur dioxide. It would be held up by a series of helium balloons, and kept flowing by a series of small pumps. Hundred mile hour winds would circulate the sulfur dioxide with the atmosphere in about 10 days. A great deal of sulfur dioxide is available as a byproduct of cleaning up dirty oil. What they don't mention is that sulfur dioxide is a deadly poison, and forms sulfuric acid in contact with water, which is better known as acid rain. Whether this sulfur dioxide would stay in the stratosphere or poison the lower atmosphere needs to be checked thoroughly. If further research shows that this can control climate change then if the worst climate change predictions come true we will be ready with a cheap, fast, easily implemented solution.

John Latham has a more benign solution-pughtful

The authors emphasize looking at a great deal of data through an economist’s eye. They do a lot of research and by taking different points of view come up with some very interesting stories and conclusions. The authors are exceptionally good storytellers. The book is well worth reading just for their different look at climate change- it is contrary but thoughtful.

Take for instance a lady of the evening, who doesn't mind being call a whore because that is what she is. She is physically attractive, seems quite intelligent, but doesn't enjoy the daily grind of most jobs. She finds she enjoys sex, and can get paid very well for it. To increase her own safety she requires enough information to know where her customers work. So if there is a problem they are sure she will show up at their workplace loudly complaining. She also finds that her prices have a great deal of flexibility, she gradually pushes up her hourly rate to over $500 per hour. This simultaneously allows her to get rid of a lot of her less favored customers and to increase her salary at the same time. Looking to the future she is aware that her physical attractiveness will only last a short time. So she is contemplating going back to graduate school to finish up an economics degree.

They also relate the story of doctors trying to learn more about disease and in general what kills humans, they spent a lot of time dissecting corpses. They would frequently rush from dissecting to the maternity ward without washing their hands to help deliver babies. By not washing their hands they increased the death rate of mothers and babies to a far greater rate than the rate using less educated midwives. Especially midwives who helped with birth in the mother’s home.

They researched well-known stories like the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City. According to the New York Times 38 of her neighbors watched her murder and did nothing about it. The story got a great deal play since both reporters an editor involved we're trying to make names for themselves. Since the attack occurred about 3 AM the authors question how many people could truly see what was going on. Research shows that no one could see clearly what was happening and at least one call was made to the police and reported as a quarrel since that's what it seemed to be. The murderer was caught several days later when he tried to walk off with a nearby residents TV. Another resident question him and he said it was helping move the neighbor. The resident called another neighbor to check and he was told they were not moving. The police were called and the murderer was caught.

The authors discuss how difficult it is to rate doctors fairly, mostly because the really good doctors frequently take the hardest cases where fatality rates are much higher. An emergency physician whose ER was rated worst in the New York area decided to check as to why. He had a strong background as an entrepreneur in the computer area. With the help of an administrator they got the money to purchase equipment and put together their own program and database for use in the ER. They wanted to have people test it so they put it in the emergency room with the sign saying not to use it because it was being beta tested. So of course everyone had to try it. With a number of tweaks it worked quite well, making a great deal of patient data easily available to the ER physician. Formerly as much as 60% of the ER time was spent looking for data, this amount of time was was reduced considerably by the new system. Patient outcomes improved dramatically, costs were cut and the ER became one of the top rated instead of the lowest rated. The system has been used by other hospitals, and now Microsoft owns and sells the system.

There have been a number of times when social scientist, such as Gary Becker, have decided to test their ideas by actually performing experiments with people to see how they behave. His research seemed to indicate that people had an altruistic component. In experiments where they could keep all the money or share some with another player they very frequently share instead of keeping it all themselves. Another experimental economist, John List, became an economics professor because he noticed when caddying that the people who could play almost every day were professors of economics.

List had to work at many different jobs to put himself through college. His varied experience made him doubt these results. So he performed some experiments with card traders at big card shows. He found that when both buyers and sellers agreed to be part of his experiment the buyers got fair prices for the cards. He went further and performed the same experiment with just the buyers knowing they were part of experiment. In this case the sellers took big advantage of their customers. In particular the sellers who refused to be part of experiment really took biggest advantage of the buyers. He concluded that people behave quite differently when they know they are being watched. Big surprise!

Robert McNamara was Secretary of State and the principle architect of Vietnam war policy. After the war he was also the driving force getting seat belts required in all cars. Back in the 1950s deaths in auto accidents we're approaching 50,000 per year and auto companies knew this was unacceptable. Seat belts looked like the cheapest and best solution to decreasing death rate. Many lives were lost and ruined by the Vietnam War, many were and still are saved by using seat belts. This makes one wonder about powerful individuals and their effect on us. The authors both have small children and decided to research the effectiveness of seat belts versus car seats. They found car seats are safer for children under two years old, but made no difference for children over two. Many states require use of car seats much for older children. They conclude it would be a good idea to redesign the system for children.

Outside of Seattle Nathan Myhrvold and his group form day scientific research group IV, with strong physics backgrounds, who are willing to tackle many different size problems. This includes controlling hurricanes, and global climate change. Hurricanes are likely to start off the coast of Africa when the water is warming up. Once they get started the hurricanes are difficult to control. Nathan asked why not have an almost automatic device which constantly brings up cold water and pushes down warm water. This could keep the temperature of the ocean surface below that which forms hurricanes. The device would be a circle floating a few feet above the surface the ocean. It would be so that waves could splash warm water inside the raised circle. Below the floating circle would be a cylinder of plastic extending about 600 feet down. The water inside the circle is now a bit higher than the surrounding sea, this hydraulic head it Is sufficient to push the warm water slowly down and to become very cold. Many of these properly located might keep the surface temperature of the ocean below that need to form hurricanes.

Myhrvold and his team are also tackling global climate change. Their position is that climate change is happening, and humans may have something to do it. Lowell Wood points out that computer models ignore the number one greenhouse gas which is water. The difficulty is that in some forms like snow and ice it reflects a great deal of heat, but in cloud form it frequently absorbs heat. They also think the emphasis on carbon dioxide is overdone. Another member of the group, Ken Caldeira, has done studies that indicate that the doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs to plants gives a 70% increase in plant growth. They also believe that contrary to general belief carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past. Even solar cells have a drawback since only about 20% of the energy that hits it Is transformed into electricity, while a good portion of the rest becomes heat. Though it would seem that the light hitting the earth below the solar cells would act in a similar fashion.

When really big volcanoes erupt they push a great deal of dust and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. This has been shown historically because temperatures drop around the world. A suggestion they describe is to push already existing sulfur dioxide from operating coal plants up higher into the stratosphere. This would involve pushing it up over 18 miles.

We already put much more sulfur dioxide into the lower atmosphere-the problem is to get it into the stratosphere, much higher up. They call the technique to do it Budyko’s Blanket, and is like a hose into the sky for sulfur dioxide. It would be held up by a series of helium balloons, and kept flowing by a series of small pumps. Hundred mile hour winds would circulate the sulfur dioxide with the atmosphere in about 10 days. A great deal of sulfur dioxide is available as a byproduct of cleaning up dirty oil. What they don't mention is that sulfur dioxide is a deadly poison, and forms sulfuric acid in contact with water, which is better known as acid rain. Whether this sulfur dioxide would stay in the stratosphere or poison the lower atmosphere needs to be checked thoroughly. If further research shows that this can control climate change then if the worst climate change predictions come true we will be ready with a cheap, fast, easily implemented solution.

John Latham has a more benign solution-produce more clouds. All you need is to have ascending air, water vapor, and solid particles to form nuclei. Ocean spray could work well. They have a lot of ideas, but there is great fear in playing with nature.

A couple of years ago, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner got together to write "Freakonomics." It was, in a word, dazzling. The two authors explored all sorts of information packages, and made us see things in interesting and new ways.

One of my favorite sections centered on the question, "If drugs are so profitable, then why are so many dealers living with their mothers?" Through good research, the writers discovered that the drug distribution business model is something of a top-down operation, along the lines of McDonalds.

Levitt and Dubner are rational people, of course. When their book became a best seller and let to all sorts of other outlets such as a lecture tour, they did took the next logicial step. "SuperFreakonomics" is that book.

It's the same formula, but just not as good.

The authors start of nicely enough. Having done drug use in Chicago, they looked into prostitution in that same city. It took some doing, but they looked into the issues of pricing, income, possibility of arrest, etc. Bet you didn't know that a prostitute is three times more likely to have sex with a policeman than she is to be arrested by the policeman. They also discovered that business tends to go up around July 4, and visitors from out of town sometimes seek to do more than, um, wave their flags.

There are four other chapters in this relatively short, quick book. There are stories of birth and death, apathy and altruism, simple solutions for complex problems, and global warming. These don't seem quite as unified, jumping around a bit, and thus don't work quite as well.

The global warming chapter seems a bit out of place in a book like this, since it doesn't deal much with collecting data -- it's tough to get a handle on many of the facts of the issue. Instead, the authors talk to scientists who are working on unusual ways of helping to solve the problem.

I've read that the first book came out many, many years of research, while the sequel was put together in a quicker fashion and based on some blog articles. That sounds about right. Some friends had said the second book was a major disappointment to them; I wouldn't go that far.

Levitt is the economist here (Dubner is a writer), and it's still often fascinating to watch his mind at work. The cliche is "thinking outside the box," and he does that as well as anyone.

"Freakonomics" is clearly the book to read if you have a choice of the two, but "SuperFreakonomics" isn't without value either. It has some good material in it, and you can get through it in a couple of days. If you loved the first one, you'll like the second one.

Having listened to the audiobook version of Levitt and Dubner's "Freakonomics" and thoroughly enjoying it, I was curious to find out how the sequel would compare. In my estimation, "SuperFreakonomics" was even better, an utterly fascinating journey through the most random of topics that kept my rapt attention during many hours of boring driving.

Levitt and Dubner stuck to their formula of poking holes in conventional wisdom from every conceivable angle, all ostensibly from the vantage point of economics, but in an accessible style that requires no economics background. The basic premise of the book is that rewards drive human behavior, and the authors loosely use that idea to frame their analysis of various topics, including prostitution, terrorists, the bystander effect, child seats in cars, hospital safety, global warming, and a host of other seemingly unrelated issues. I don't have a natural interest in any of this stuff, but herein lies the genius of Levitt and Dubner. They make it all utterly captivating. From chapter to chapter, I couldn't get enough of it.

To be clear, I'm not planning to utterly reorganize my life around the conclusions of "SuperFreakonomics." We'll still have our children in car seats when we're in the car, even if they are virtually useless. But I love what the authors do throughout this book, asking great questions about any conceivable category of the human experience, making insightful observations, analyzing relevant data, and making compelling arguments for nontraditional solutions. I like the way they think, I like the way they write, and I hope that they keep producing books like this. If they do, I'll keep reading and pondering and chuckling and rethinking some of the ways I naturally think about a great many things. It's challenging, fun, and fascinating to hear from these guys, an experience which I'm happy to recommend to anyone.

I enjoyed reading SuperFreakonomics just as much as I did the first one, and I felt no less enlightened after having done so at least twice now.

I would recommend reading Freakonomics first but it's by no means necessary, and SuperFreakonomics is an educating experience either way.

The facts and correlations are fascinating and worth knowing, but the real value comes from having a comprehensive grasp of the economic methods of looking at issues that you will encounter in your life, maybe even on a daily basis if you are looking the right way.

I am in college majoring in Economics with minors in Sociology and Political science and the works of Steven Levitt have certainly had some influence in that. Even if it doesn't change your life, it is engaging and fun and more than worth the read.

SuperFreakonomics takes the basic, intellectual economics book and adds a witty and enjoyable tone that makes the basic concepts of economics accessible to the average person. Levitt and Dubner use various real world examples that not only illustrate certain economic behaviors, but also draw in the reader with the stories themselves. Every statistic in this book was intriguing and informative. My favorite chapter was "Apathy and Altruism." This covered a wide range of examples, but the overarching theme was behavioral economics and if humans are actually hardwired to be altruistic. The idea was greatly debated by different behavioral economists. The authors' conclusion fell right in line with the theme of the book: people respond to incentives. Overall, this book is a fun and engaging way to explore the topics of economics. While you might not agree with 100% of Levitt and Dubner's conclusions, you will still be greatly entertained by their findings and the experiences of the people and things they researched. This book is a great read!

I’ve recently gotten hooked on the Freakonomics podcast so I decided to borrow Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s latest book from the library. The full title is SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes And Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance which would not fit in my little title box for this post.

My favorite thing about this book, that also shows up every week in the podcast, is how they challenge popular beliefs about current issues by using statistics to come to different conclusions than everyone else. It stretches my brain and I learn some new things at the same time. Like learning about the whaling industry. I didn’t know that oil (the fossil kind) replaced the whaling industry. At the time whaling could have been considered too big to fail since whale oil was used to light houses. A theory that really stretched my brain was the after-affects of September 11 in increased policing of terrorism reduced policing in other areas like the financial sector. I had never linked the two before, but it does make a lot of sense.

That’s not to say I agree with all the ideas in the book. I thought the hose idea to fix global warming was stupid but I do appreciate the focus on creative, simple, and unconventional ideas to current problems.

Another interesting tidbit I learned from this book was how to get rid of illegal markets. If you go after suppliers of illegal things (like we do right now with drugs) then it creates more demand and the market sticks around. If you go after the demand the market will shrink. It seems pretty straight forward and obvious but there are a few reasons that we don’t do that. As a society it’s easier to villianize drug dealers than the poor little guy who wanted a fix. But the biggest reason, I think, that we don’t go after the demand is because there is so much more of it. The police can barely keep up with getting rid of suppliers.

Narrator Review: ★★★★

Stephen Dubner also narrates the Freakonomics podcast so I was used to hearing his voice. This book felt like a really long podcast and it was enjoyable for me to listen to. Stephen reads at a good pace and does a good job of adding interest to the book. I find his way of narrating conversational and very easy to listen to.

Overall, it’s an interesting and different look at current issues that I learned a little from and was entertained by as well.

The dynamic duo that brought us the blockbuster Freakonomics have returned with a follow-up book that extends the spheres of life that economics can give us insight into.

Dubner and Levitt are gifted story tellers, and this does not feel like an economics book. It is more a fun ride filled with case studies that entertain and educate.

As before, the subjects range widely from comparing the earning power of 19th century to modern prostitutes, to decreasing mortality in hospitals to why everything we know about the infamous Kitty Genovese killing is wrong. Indeed, one of the authors strengths is to show how the quantitative measures of economics can upend conventional wisdom and lead to a better understanding of a problem, e.g., the glut in horse manure (among other negative consequences of a dense equine concentration in cities) lead to the rapid increase in automobiles.

One criticism concerns the 16 pages of color plates. They were added in a later addition and feel like an afterthought. Alas, these graphics are not referred to in the text, nor are they in order of the chapters. Despite their having very interesting information. Nevertheless, this is a minor quibble on an otherwise excellent book.

After reading Superfreakonomics, your view of the world and how to analyze life's problems will be changed, hopefully. for the better.

The "more-of-the-same" criticism really is not fair. I read and enjoyed the first book. The sequel takes the same approach of applying microeconomic analysis re human incentives to achieve intended and sometimes unintended consequences. Each of the particular applications is interesting and worthwhile; that the methodology works shouldn't be dismissed as more-of-the-same.

Also, this book stresses a new theme: the appeal of the simple and elegant solution. The authors criticize governments and large bureaucracies for assuming that the solution to a problem has to be complex, expensive, and long-term. Instead, the authors look for the ingeniously elegant and cheap solution that solves the problem by completely redefining it. For example the impossible problem of horse droppings in 19th century cities couldn't even be solved with present technology -- instead, the problem is solved by inventing the automobile and street car. The authors take a similar approach to global warming -- advocating a ridiculously cheap solution of spraying sulfide in the upper atmosphere, which cools by absorbing light (as was proven by the climactic effect of some fantastic volcanoes that did demonstrably cool the earth for a year or two). There is some tongue-in-cheek here -- there are so many variable to the climate problem that no one quite knows what will really work. But the example is instructive.

On the whole, very entertaining.

Because it's hard to find the right incentive, the one that gets people to change the way they do things.

This is one of the three main themes in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's Superfreakonomics, a much better book than its four-star predecessor Freakonomics. They develop two other themes: the need to check results against hidden assumptions, and the fact that big problems almost always have cheap or unexpected fixes.

The authors present a great example of a surprise solution. New York City faced a huge local transportation problem, chief among which was pollution. Vehicles emitted foul substances that ruined the environment and that accumulated faster than it could be removed. The problem disappeared of itself. They are NOT talking about cars, they are talking about horses and horse manure. City officials were at their wits end on how to have manure cleaned away and removed cheaply and safely, but the problem disappeared as the automobile took over as the main mode of transport.

To illustrate the problem of checking results, they give us the story of economist John List who overturned studies supporting the view that altruism was a hardwired feature of people. Many psychology experiments indicated people were kind, generous, and helpful even at a cost to themselves. List felt there was a mismatch between the lab and real life. He tweaked several standard experiments and obtained results contrary to the original ones. One of the things he tweaked was the effect of supervision on test subjects, which was something earlier experiments had NOT taken into account.

Back to the problem of getting doctors to wash their hands. Ignatz Semmelweis, a Hungarian doctor in Vienna in the 1840s, noticed that women giving birth in a hospital were more likely to die of fever than were women who gave birth at home without the assistance of a doctor. After pouring over piles of data, Semmelweis concluded the cause was doctors going from dissection classes to the hospital without washing their hands. Pasteur's germ theory of disease was not yet known, so Semmelweis had no theoretical foundation to support his conclusion. He ordered his doctors to wash their hands in a chlorinated solution and the death rate dropped dramatically.

Yet doctors were offended. They didn't dissect cadavers for fun, they did it to learn about the human body and save lives. How could they be causing death? Semmelweis was damned for being right and died a few years later in an insane asylum.

Even today, doctors fail to wash their hands when moving from patient to patient. Cedar Sinai hospital tried everything to get them to wash up. They tried having nurses spy on doctors and report them. That didn't work. They tried bribing doctors with Starbucks coffee coupon. Didn't work either. They pleaded with the doctors, who said they would comply, but in the end they didn't. The doctors weren't irresponsible, they just didn't get it in their gut. They figured they saved more lives by seeing more patients and washing hands was a waste of time better spent looking at patients. Finally, the hospital called another conference, explained the problem again and this time asked the doctors to make hand prints on a Petri dish.

Cedar Sinai's administrators had technicians incubate the dishes and then take pictures of the results. They turned the pictures into screen savers and installed this on all the hospital's PCs. This daily reminder finally produced the intended result and doctors at last remembered to wash their hands between each patient.

Levitt and Dubner give many other examples of cheap fixes, misunderstood results, and interesting incentives. Read this factual, entertaining, counter intuitive book to find out what they are. Recommended.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

Dubner and Levitt were right to wait 4 years to create the sequel to their bestseller "Freakonomics". This is a worthy sequel if ever there was one. The first book introduced many of us to the eye-opening world of microeconomics. With this introduction out of the way, the second could not hope to live up to expectations unless it covered a larger number of topics in more expansive detail.

While their hard work at uncovering and elucidating an array of knowledge is apparent on every page, the authors have also ramped up the drama, structuring their chapters with greater suspense and story-telling flair, making this a difficult-to-put-down book.

The illustrated version only adds to the pleasure, providing numerous pictures, graphs, historical reproductions, data samples and anecdotes as background to the main stories. These alone can be eye-poppingly interesting, from the connection of Kurt Vonnegut to climate science, to the numerous mini-bios of scientists and Nobel laureates.

If anything, this book is even more freaky than the first one, and will overload your brain with at least as many intellectually epiphanous experiences. For those of us who live to learn, this is the easiest and most fun bunch of lessons you'll have.

One word of warning: It's easy to get swept up in the authors' enthusiasm for finding things out, and forget that their central tenet of "the law of unintended consequences" applies also to their work. Who knows when and where their own conclusions may fall apart or provide counter-counter-intuitive results? Who knows what data is yet to be uncovered that will turn the status quo on its head yet again? The greatest value in their work is to keep us thinking and questioning, and to never get comfortable with our own hubris. It is not to provide us with neat and definitive answers.

Levitt and Dubner outdo themselves (no easy task in the non-fiction market) making dry economic discourse about economics and incentives extremely riveting. If all school textbooks were like this, America's IQ would skyrocket and scientific advances would proceed several times faster. The bonobo chimp experiments will likely raise more than a few chuckles (although it could disconcert those who believe that humans are unique divine creations).

Chapter Three concerns altruism and game theory. Anyone who has taken a microeconomics course will know about the Prisoner's Dilemma (some teachers will also bring up the Ultimatum game in class). John A List's work is also discussed in detail. I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about behavioural economics (having only taken a single course in university).

The tragic story of Ignaz Semmelweis' (who discovered the link between hospital hygiene and contagious diseases) makes this a work of philosophy and morality as much as one about economics. Although Ignaz was largely ostracised and ignored in his lifetime, he is revered as a hero in modern times. I know of very few people today who would knowingly sacrifice their life, career and potential fame to benefit future generations to such a profound degree.

Chapter Five discusses the unintended consequences of human and natural events (for example, volcanic eruptions release smoke that reduce the dire effects of global warming).

The Stevens have done it again.

The follow-up to the immensely popular Freakonomics could have easily been a rushed cash-grab, but the authors took their time crafting an entry worthy of the series and it paid off. SuperFreakonomics is another home run. Some readers might say it's more of the same, but that's not giving credit where it's due. Using their own brand of quirky economic reasoning to produce Freakonomics was a brilliant move, and to apply a similar but ever-evolving process to a new set of contentious societal problems isn't "more of the same." It's about growing a process that works.

As long as complex problems exist in the world, there will always be a place for the Freakonomics approach to solving them.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is a quick read, partially because of the subject matter, and partially because it is just over 200 pages long. I think what is especially cool about "Super Freakonomics" is that you never quite know what you're going to read about next. The chapters deal with seemingly disconnected (but all interesting) topics and even within the course of a single chapter a half dozen different topics might be touched upon. This also means that it isn't necessary to have read the earlier "Freakonomics" book to understand and enjoy this one. (I have yet to read the previous book.) The two books share little, I would guess, except the title.

Especially appealing to me was the reasoned and logical method of the authors and the investigators they highlight. For instance, it was fun to revisit the Kitty Genovese murder (a story I remember from college Sociology) and read more facts and research into this event. To learn that, well, it might not have been exactly like I was taught in college. But also that, perhaps in some ways, it was.

Another favorite chapter--though I thought it wouldn't be--was the one on Global Warming. Though not necessarily skeptics themselves, the authors do a great job of seeing many sides of the issue, all in a reasoned and logical (i.e. not panicked and alarmist) manner. They also present a possible solution offered by a team in Seattle. As a past Microsoftie myself, it was cool to see what other former employees are up to, especially one who, in this case, I remember quite well from company meetings. (The chapter also tends to make many prominent environmental activists seem more about control and power then about solutions.)

Anyway, this is a great book. Read it and learn something new. I think the theme could best be summed up by the words from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": Don't Panic!

There are already over 600 reviews of this book, so I won't get into the content too much, but suffice it to say it's more of the same -- always try to look beneath the surface of facts and reports, and beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you liked the first book, you'll get a kick out of this one.

What prompts me to share my thoughts is the audio book, which is read by Stephen Dubner, one of the authors. This was a mistake. His poor enunciation and slight speech impediment would hardly be noticeable in normal conversation, but to sit and listen to him for long periods of time becomes excruciatingly grating. Every time he takes an unnaturally long pause after a conjunction, I squirm. Each 'c' or 'h' that morphs into a Hebrew-esque "ch" makes me twitch. If the book were much longer, I'm not sure that I would've made it through.

Again. . .I'm not trying to insult the guy; I'm just describing what it's like to listen to him read for extended periods of time. It's a very different experience from that of listening to a professional voice actor.

In sum. . .the book is worth reading, but I recommend that you READ it.

Freakonomics was the first of its kind that I had read, and it's still one of my favorite books, amongst those by Malcolm Gladwell and others. Awaiting spinal surgery, I'm forced to listen to books rather than read. Books read by the author can be superior and Stephen Dubner gives a great performance. I was delighted to find Superfreakonomics available online at my library and couldn't wait to start listening. So, I really should have loved the book, right? Hhhhhhmm, it was OK. Yeah, OK, not super.

The first book had research like that of the Chicago drug dealers or analysis that made some interesting points to at least ponder or discuss at cocktail parties; this book seemed to reanalyze a mishmash of old research and proffer some tidbits of analysis, but in general, it seemed to lack the depth of the previous text. I would have waited longer for a better book.

I tend to listen to audiobooks as I drift off to sleep at night, and had NO problem doing so during the part about global warming and hurricane diverters. The only issue was I had to keep rewinding back the next time I listened--ugh. It was tedious. And a bit cult-ish, or at the least, not fully presented, from the theories to the organization (Google "patent troll" and see if IV isn't somewhere on the first page).

And the part of drinking and walking...as a former EMT, I certainly have seen my share of pedestrian vs vehicle, but what are you two Stephens getting at? I should drive? I mean, of course they weren't condoning DD, but it just didn't come off right.

Lastly, I found the part about the doctors neglectful hand washing amusing--but because I've seen it first hand, so to speak, and work with hospital born infections. Again, there could have more depth while remaining entertaining, but it was OK.

In sum, Freakonomics is a book I recommend, but don't loan out. Superfreakonomics is a book that I wouldn't dissuade someone from reading and would give away my copy--if I had one.

Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
By Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
Harper Perennial 320 pgs
978-0060889586
From my library
Rating 2

I read Freakonomics, the predecessor of this book, 5 years ago and loved it. It was totally original, never seen anything like it. It was a run-away hit and sold 2 billion copies on 6 planets. Who would've guessed that a book could turn so many people onto economics? So when I saw Super Freakonomics I was excited. I cleared my calendar, rounded up a Dr. Pepper and my smokes, and prepared to be impressed.

It's not that I didn't like this book. There are plenty of interesting and funny anecdotes and head-scratching asides. Unfortunately this book is just more of the same and I probably should have expected that. I would have liked a new spin of some sort, a new dimension, something fresh. It took longer to read this than it should have. It was frequently slow, plodding along. But there were parts I liked.

Such as Chapter 2 "Why Should Suicide Bombers Buy Life Insurance?" It's my favorite. The answer to that question is fascinating. I suggest that you read chapter 2 first, or maybe only chapter 2. This is also the chapter with lots of good points regarding medicine, birth, death, etc. All the biggies.

Chapter 1 is a rehash of statistics and anecdotes about the costs of being a woman: hookers, witches, Title IX, Realtors, etc. Don't read Chapter 3 "Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism." It's depressing. I don't remember what Chapters 4 and 5 were about. You might want to pay some attention to the epilogue. There are some disturbing monkeys in there.

I think this book suffers from sky-high expectations. So my final comment on Super Freakonomics is that the authors tried too hard to duplicate the success of the first book. This book could have been as big a success with a different spin.

You can read about the authors at: [...]

Why I read It
Loved book one and really love odd ball correlations.

The Good
Some really good stuff to make you think. They pull stuff from all over and show how it is all inter-related.

The Bad
There could be a tendency to think these relationships between events is the absolute truth. As I am sure the authors would say themselves - this stuff is interesting but it doesn't mean it is fact.

The Ugly (my opinion)
I really liked this book. I always become reflective on my own life when I see two seemingly unrelated things brought together in interesting ways. I believe most of us become dismissive of these relationships in our own lives and either miss out on some wonderful opportunities, or more likely, we abuse these relationships until they die. Interesting factoids - the chances of getting on trouble with the law for using a prostitute is almost nil. Drunk walking is just as dangerous (if not more) than drunk driving. The big controversy in this book though is their dismantling of the global warning hype. That is true religion to a lot of people so it stirred up a lot of strong emotions.

Superfreakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is the examination of how people respond to incentives over various real-life situations investigated in the book. It is the sequel to Freakonomics, which is really a sleaker, sexier version of the economics writings of Thomas Sowell.

The topics are interesting. Many might find the chapter on global warming reassuring, because Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth really paints a stark message. If you believe Levitt and Dubner, our efforts to stop using plastic bags, and use mass transit, and to change to energy-efficient light bulbs, and otherwise reduce our environmental footprint are fairly insignificant. Two researchers from Carnegie-Mellon suggest that we should shift calories from red meat and dairy products in our diets to chicken, fish, eggs, or vegetables might be the best way to reduce carbon dioxide.

As a New Yorker, I found the reassessment of the Kitty Genovese case interesting - and probably, more realistic. In these days, we usually say something if we see something. Many years ago, I saw a car back into another car at 2AM. I took down the license plate, and I called the police, who said I should call 911, who said I shouldn't call them unless a person's safety was at stake. So I finally gave up. I wasn't going to leave a note on the car window with my contact information and there wasn't anything else to do. There's only so much you can do trying to be a good citizen.

Despite Superfreakonomics being interesting, reading it was unsatisfying. There were a few economic terms used to explain people's choices (ambiguity aversion, adverse selection, and loss aversion) but not enough. Freakonomics explained the business of selling drugs, like Superfreakonomics explained the economics of prostitution. Levitt and Dubner offered an interesting way to apply economics concepts to common life situations, but Thomas Sowell does the same thing, and he doesn't make you feel like you're getting the Express / Lite version.

SuperFreakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is told in a series of economic stories, each with its own experiment that is conducted. Levitt and Dubner interview the people behind the experiments and their research, and explain its relevance to microeconomics. The topics of the experiments in the book range from prostitution to terrorism to healthcare and many more. Every experiment ends with the beginning of another experiment, which links them all together in the end. These stories al point out the same central theme: economics is applied to everything we do and every choice we make, no matter how insignificant they may seem.
I can say with the utmost certainty that SuperFreakonomics is one of the best books I have ever read. Even though there are no real “characters”, the people described in this book are very interesting, whether it be a prostitute-turned-economist or an ex-Microsoft employee who zaps mosquitoes with lasers. Each person had a very different story to tell, even though they all had one thing in common: economics. These people all made certain economic contributions through their decisions, which make for a very satisfying sense of unity. The stories described in SuperFreakonomics keep you confused (as their meaning is not yet explained), and then the next second, holding your sides with laughter. The stories also make you take a closer look at the small things that you would normally overlook. Levitt and Dubner introduce a huge problem that is solved with such simple and cheap solutions, that you cannot believe that they worked. My favorite part of the book has to be the problem of massive amounts of death in the maternity ward of the Allgemeine Krankenhaus, or General Hospital, in Vienna. Levitt and Dubner describe one doctor’s investigation of the subject, and his discovery that the cause of these deaths was the doctors’ infected hands! It really made me take a step back and wonder if many of the problems that we face today cannot be solved by such simple solutions.
There was very little that disappointed me in SuperFreakonomics. If I had to choose one thing that bothered me, it would have to be the length of the book. Almost 60 pages at the end of the book constitute acknowledgements and the index. I was very disappointed when I reached the end of the book expecting a few more stories, and I was greeted with an abrupt thank-you letter. I understand that, using so many statistics gathered by the experiments, the authors must cite the sources that they used. However, I would have preferred a few more riveting tales about economics.
I give this book 5 stars. Not only is it a great series of interesting experiments, but it spurns a series of thoughts that make you question the choices that you and people around you make. It is a refreshing break from many other non-fiction books, which are usually geared towards linear lessons and ideas. It is also a great source of information, with every graph, every table, every statistic cited and sourced to oblivion. It teaches about economics in a light-hearted, humorous way that can appeal to all readers, while still retaining a very logic-based platform. I will definitely introduce this book to my peers and my family.

Levitt and Dubner are back with more social behavior phenomena in this follow-up to Freakonomics. Once again we have a fascinating mishmash of topics. One segment delves into the topic of how to identify a terrorist before he strikes by examining the money trail of some known terrorists before they were apprehended. Another describes several of the many projects and patents being pursued by a group of scientists that formed the company Intellectual Ventures. Their various solutions to global warming involve atmospheric tinkering, but the authors raise the question as to why this is considered so repugnant, given that we obviously have no qualms about depleting natural resources. If we can take away, why can't we give back? The authors keep coming back to the treatise that the simplest solution is often the best, citing the huge safety impact of seat belts in automobiles and the marginal, at best, impact of car seats for children over the age of two. My favorite is the segment that debunks Adam Smith's centuries-old claim that animals cannot be made to understand the concept of exchanging goods for the benefit of both parties. This experiment with the use of money by monkeys is fascinating. The adage that prostitution is the oldest profession rings true.

I heard about these books for years and finally read Freakonomics which I really enjoyed. I then read SuperFreakonomics soon afterwards and was disappointed. Like many sequels to good movies, the second round didn't pack the same punch and seemed at times a bit smug and tawdry. Freakonomics let the data from years of study and research drive the narrative. SuperFreakonomics felt like it was inspired by their agents and editors. The research felt less scholarly, less quantitative and more focused on what would grab your attention - for example a lengthy an explicit discussion on prostitution*. Geraldo replaced Cronkite. Add to that a tangent discussion on global warming and no real conclusion. Several in my family couldn't make it all the way through the book.

* I felt the chapter on prostitution makes the book inappropriate for kids

I read Freakonomics and enjoyed it, so naturally, I picked up this book to see what else the authors had come up with.

I find these books to be very interesting because they take a different approach in how they analyze situations in the real world. The problem solving described in this book will make you think and open your mind up a little to "outside the box" type of thinking.

As with the first book, I feel like the examples were too few, and the chapters were too lengthy. I usually had the idea within the first few pages of the chapter, and then had to read on for what felt like too long to get to the next one. But regardless, I think the topics were great, and I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

As with the first one, it ended unexpectedly for me, as the final third of the book (Kindle edition) appears to be supporting case studies, citations, and articles.

I definitely recommend reading this book!

I read Chapter 5 first because it is the most controversial. I think that most of the negative reviews come from the global warming group. This book's coverage of the subject is actually quite objective, hits on little known facts, and is fascinating even though I do not agree with all of their opinions.
I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 because of chapter 1 on prostitution, which I found disgusting and boring. I didn't make it all the way through that chapter, but am glad I read the other four.
I bought a used hardcover because even with shipping it was cheaper than the Kindle version. I wish I had bought the Kindle instead because I find myself wanting to search specific things which I have read but can't quite remember where they were.

The premise of the Freakonomics franchise is that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and incentives matter. This book, the second of the series, takes a deeper look at the economics and impacts - as well as myths - of things like prostitution, big data analytics for anti-terrorism and global warming. Emphasizing facts over fads, and working to bring some level of levity to the dismal science of economics, the authors wrote another book that is engaging, funny, insightful and that will challenge your assumptions.

The book is an easy read, and surprisingly hard to set down. One of the better books of this genre, and an enjoyable read by anyone willing to have a worldview challenged.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and for the authors of the blockbuster series "Freakonomics," the pictures, graphs and charts contained in their new illustrated edition are proof of that concept big-time.

"SuperFreakonomics: *The Super-Deluxe, Super Illustrated Edition Thereof," (yes, that's its title!) prides itself on comparing and contrasting empirical data grabs against information from seemingly unrelated categories to create thought-provoking mash-ups of information (Prostitutes vs. Santa Clauses, as an example) designed to turn traditional thinking on its ear. By actually illustrating the results of these concepts, the two authors have created an easy to use, in-your-face analysis of trends from health care to highway safety to make the reader re-think popular misconceptions while learning all manner of obscure but interesting information about the world around them. It's much the same as the original version, but this time with pictures - lots of pictures (and graphs, charts, diagrams, etc.)

Global warming vs. meat consumption, a better model for ER facilities, drunk driving vs. drunk walking, and product price discrimination are but a few of the myriad topics covered in this colorful, 281-page edition. While looking at the past as well as possibilities for the future (e.g. cooling the earth with a `chimney to the sky'), it's sometimes hard to discern if the authors are serious or pulling a mickey with certain aspects of their analysis. (They even openly admit that "many of our findings may not be all that useful.") But this, of course, is the appeal of their books. Are they serious? Perhaps only time will tell. In the meantime, Levitt and Dubner have succeeded wildly in getting their readers to think and to look at problems from a host of different comparative points of view.

Early in the book, they have a list of topics that the book doesn't cover. (Average ratio of Facebook friends to real friends, why songs you like least are the ones you remember the most, salad dressings that never caught on, the actual price of all the tea in China.)

Sounds to us like a blueprint for Volume Two. (or is it Three?)

I truly enjoyed this book and the surprising information in it. That being said, the chapters at the felt thrown together. There was an attempt at a unifying theme for each chapter, but it often seemed like the thread of the story kept getting lost. Still, definitely worth the read in every way.

I enjoyed Levitt and Dubner's sequel to their first book. I especially liked their chapter on "global cooling" and the herd mentality they have identified among scores of "independent" scientists who produce climate models that are closely similar, thereby ensuring they will receive more research funding. It seems appropriate that Levitt and Dubner discuss this "herd mentality" in the same chapter where they note that flatulent cows generate more greenhouse gases than all SUVs combined. And the fact that their book has apparently irritated Al Gore and his minions is a huge bonus! Kudos to the authors for pointing out just a few of the flaws in the global warming religion.

A good, most interesting read...a worthy followup to the wildly popular "Freakonomics" of a few years ago......this is more of the same, only better...

A whole new set of problems and possibilities probed, studied and discussed and some of the answers and conclusions might surprise you. They will surprise you....and in the end you might wonder why we worry so much about some of the things we worry about. If we only knew the facts and had a broader perspective...and that's what this book offers...a broader perspective...

If there was a another subtitle for this book, it might well be Alfred E. Newman's mantra from the old Mad Magazine, "What, Me Worry?"

Written in an engaging, witty and sometimes irreverent style. Good read, good book, better than the first.studied

Here in Brazil, I read this excellent book.
This book is very informative, fun and concise. Anyone must read it. It talks abut dozens of subjects.
Some great things about this book:
1- About the past, this book shows that horses were far more dangerous than cars. Past medicine was terrible. How good is to live today!
2- About woman's rights, this book shows that woman's situation today is better than ever before.
3- About ecology (a new name for eugenics) this book mainly shows the truth.
As me, did you read the book Freakonomics, from the same authors? This book is better than the book Freakonomics.

A captivating book- I enjoyed it even more than the first one. I appreciated how the authors presented a seemingly random set of cases and trivia and demonstrated not only the relationship among the different examples and information, but also their relevance to us all. Super Freakonomics shares the economic approach, a systemic approach to understand how decisions are made and why we reward certain behaviors while punishing others. To sum it up, the book is about the power of incentives and how people respond to them- particularly in unpredictable and often irrational ways. SuperFreakonomics is a great read for the fascinating information that it shares and how it can shape the way that we solve problems and make decisions. I have a greater appreciation for the law of unintended consequences, the economic perspective, and connection between seemingly random sets of data that aren't as random as we might first think.

Superfreakonomics continues authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's mission of challenging the way we look at the world and how we accept what is commonly accepted as the facts. The authors flow from one example to another, pointing out what the accepted wisdom on a topic is and showing not only is that it is wrong but also why it is.

One example that has gotten some attention -- though probably not enough -- is about the relative effectiveness of children's safety seats. While legally required for most children, the simple fact is that they haven't been shown to be safer than seat belts for the vast majority of kids. They were, of course, much safer than no restraints at all in studies, and that was the research used to justify all the laws involving the seats.

The topic I found most interesting concerned global warming. The authors, in wide-ranging look at the topic that veered from volacnic eruptions to Al Gore to hoses leading to the stratosphere, point out an essential truth that recurs often in their work. Government efforts to solve a problem are almost always more costly and less-effective than private industry's solutions, which at least offer some hope for us all.

One of the nicer surprises of Superfreakonomics is that so much of the information is new (though at least some apparently was first written for the authors' Freakonomics blog). So even if you have read their first book Freakonomics you won't be disappointed in this one. It will force you to look at the world differently, and that is a good thing.

I highly recommend this book for everyone. For more of my book reviews please search for goldenrulecomics at hubpages.com

Pros:
--Well written, breezy, often funny.
--Strong essays on prostitutes, realtors, and altruism/apathy
Cons:
--Simplistic solutions to big problems aren't supported by facts
--Section on Intellectual Ventures reads like a press release

Enjoy chapters 1-3; that's where facts and sound arguments offer compelling stories. Chapters 4 & 5 and the rest of the book disappoint. By the time they swoon like love struck teenagers over Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft tech guy (and who Forbes recently called "the world's leading patent troll") and now head of the investment firm Intellectual Ventures, you know that the authors shouldn't have tackled huge problems like hurricanes and global warming without marshaling more and better information.

Although it's nearly 300 pages, there's really not much value past page 130, except their notes section which expands on many of the stats presented in the book. And the "Bonus Matter" --a rambling q&a and the transcript of a podcast, should've been left out.

Not as good as their first book, Freakonomics, but the first three chapters are worth reading.

`Super Freakonomics' is a reasonable successor to `Freakonomics', though obviously the novelty value has worn off somewhat. Also this book is clearly more USA - centric than the previous one. For example, in most countries the economics of prostitution probably differ from the US, as nearly everywhere in the developed world prostitution is legal.
Some chapters, like the one about Ignaz Semmelweis, are somewhat tired. The economics of altruism have been discussed more widely and better in the realms of biology - maybe it would be a good idea for some economists to take a look at some Darwinist biology. After all, what is presented here as new and exiting has been already known in biology for quite a while and one actually starts wondering if there is too much money in economics - why were the experiments on altruism described in this book performed even though the results could have been found in literature on primate biology?
The authors are clearly enamoured with the many ideas of Nathan Myrvhold, even though their relevance to economics are rather peripheral. While the ideas of Mr. Myrvhold and associates on solving the global warming problem maybe good, I would rather not have economists comment on their scientific validity. Furhtermore this is definitley the point where the book veers of course, as it is unclear what relation ideas on reducing hurricanes or alleviating global warming have to statistics or economics. Certainly, the ideas presented or novel and surprising, but would they not better be found in the pages of the 'New Scientist'? It might have been a worthwhile endavour for an economist to understand whether the 'peer review' model of scientific validation does not inevitably lead to mediocrity and conformism. Instead the authors simply choose to basically claim that the reason why the proposed ingenious solutions for climate change have been ignored is because the climate change proponents are part of a major group-think exercise (with hints of conspiracy).
In summary, this book is a well written and quite entertaining, but somewhat lacking the freshness of the original `Freakonomics'. In many chapters it veers too far off course.

Global warming has been a widely discussed topic nowadays. I didn't pay much attention to it (given Hong Kong is hot & humid most of the time during a year anyway) until it became my company policy for all employees to record their carbon footprint & practice various kinds of 'environmental-friendly' initiatives in office. Al Gore's famous 'Inconvenient Truth' was also shown in the office to increase our awareness of global warming. I found the movie surprisingly engaging & was convinced by Gore's powerful presentation & arguments.
The 'What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have In Common' chapter of 'SuperFreakonomics' made me realize that perhaps my critical thinking capabilities has been rusting in the current information-everywhere-anytime era, where we're bombarded with all kinds of seemingly valid analysis by 'experts'. Besides this particularly engaging chapter, 'SuperFreakonomics' offers various provocative and entertaining arguments for me to exercise my critical thinking. I've had good laugh and deep thoughts, and I enjoy it more than the previous 'Freakonomics'.

After writing the review for Freakonomics, I thought that I would take a stab at the authors' new book Superfreakonomics which is heralded by numerous critics as being better than the original. Better than the original? I couldn't remember a time when a sequel was better than the original, so I knew I had to read it. Well, sadly, these critics were misleading for (as is typical) the original still outshone the sequel.

In the first Freakonomics, Levitt and Dunbar received great acclaim for challenging previously accepted reasons for drop in crime rate and the importance of reading to one's child. They turned such correlations on their head for many laymen readers. However, Superfreakonomics does none of that. In many ways, it falls right into the patterns that Levitt and Dunbar worked so hard in their first book to refute. Their research does not seem fresh and their perspective is not different from the mainstream. Such issues as how TV has changed the lives of Indian women and eating less red meat cuts greenhouse gas emissions are old news. This would all be fine if the book was written five years ago when we knew less about greenhouse gases and global warming, but it was written last year and already tastes a bit stale. One chapter focused on what kind of cancer responds best to chemotherapy. Though this is interesting, I didn't believe it deserved an entire chapter. Instead, it seemed to be material for a short magazine article. Unfortunately, that's how much of this book came off. That the information was not revolutionary and did not make my mind explode the way that their former book had. In addition, this book has faced a great deal more controversy over some of the evidence used in the global warming chapter. Honestly, I didn't think there was anything that out of the ordinary that needed disputing. Overall, I thought that it had grown a bit hackneyed and the research had lost the edge that good ol' Freakonomics has. I guess the "rogue" economist is rouge no more.

This book uses the same technique as the first book and builds off of it by using different case studies and drives home the common theme in both books about influences of incentives. It is also has more humor in this book than the first book (Freakonomics), which i completely appreciate. The last few pages of this book is best part of both books. This book does not refer to the first so this can be read as a standalone book.

This book takes an interesting look on many specific subjects in recent history with the use of statistics to prove interesting theories. It is definitely an entertaining read and an great look at how people (and animals) respond to incentives.

The only drawback with the Kindle version is that the book is over at around the 60% mark, which makes you feel that you either read it too fast, or that the book should be longer (40% to be exact). This also applies to the first book. The main reason is the long list of references for his entire book, which is completely understandable with so many facts and arguments made on such facts.

While the original Freakonomics gave readers a colorful slice of unusual but potentially useful studies, Super Freakonomics attempts to fill in the rest of that text. While it does grab the reader's attention in places, most of the sprawling overfilled narratives are recaps of what other writers, economists and sociologists have covered in their own published works. If you have already read Malcolm Gladwell and Dan Arielly then you might be unimpressed by this reintroduction to Micro and Behavioral economics. However, if this type of book is not your normal forte then it could be of great interest and give you a wide berth of information.

There is an interesting side note concerning the last chapter which was focused on Global Warming. Recent public opinion polls have indicated that Global Warming has become less of a worry amongst the American people. While the media assumes it to be apathy, I disagree. My contention is that the introduction of new ideas for controlling or counteracting global warming have taken on some followers and these followers are passionately spreading the word. The new wisdom taking hold in some small circles is that man made inventions could be the savior to this crisis rather than the overhauling of our entire way of producing energy. Authors Levitt and Dubner probably did not intend to help trigger this paradigm shift but it is occurring none the less.

I didn't find this book as engrossing as the first Freakonomics book yet it is still an excellent and thought provoking read. I generally found that the analysis it performed of the different situations was not as deep as what had occurred in he previous book. I do however acknowledge that it is a book filled with fascinating information and comparisons that will make you stop and think about how things so remote can be connected.

The book is easy to read and is entices the reader along through the ongoing analysis. If you want a book that will stimulate your mind and make you look at the world slightly differently then this book is certainly recommended. It deals perhaps with a broader range of topics than the first Freakonomics books and it deals with topics that are probably also of a grander scale such as global warming.

If you are interested in challenging the way that you think and about how the information you see everyday may be influenced by other external information then you won't be disappointed in this book. I would however recommend that if you have not read the first Freakonomics books that you should definitely put that on your list as well.

Both of my sons majored in economics ~ one liked it so much he is getting a Ph.D. in it, so like to read up on the subject to see what is interesting in their field. I've always been fascinated by the subject, but can't do the math involved, so this book makes micro-economics easily digestible. Anything which makes an academic subject exciting and appealing to those not in the field is positive. In the authors' blog it was amusing to read how they felt 'book tours' weren't probably economically effective in marketing books. If you enjoyed their first book FREAKANOMICS, you will probably enjoy this one as well. One study I found fascinating - as a reading teacher - in their research, it's not necessarily the amount of books you read to your child which is the best indicator of long term academic success, it's the number of books in the home. When I talk to parents of children in schools, and high need schools, I tell them this statistic and bring free books (bought from local library book sales) for them to take home and have in their homes. There are diverse kinds of economic facts, some more useful than others and some counter-intuitive, in this book and its predecessor which have profound implications.

Bringing forward many of the themes found in their previous work, this mildly successful sequel to their original blockbuster Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.) is, in my opinion, better, if only because the authors inject more discipline. By injecting more discipline I mean the authors have focused this work more on economics and less on everything else. Or, as they describe it, the economic approach, which involves amassing and querying large amounts of data about human behavior to uncover what's behind the things we do and the choices we make. In other words, it's about uncovering the incentives that matter.

But SuperFreakonomics, thankfully, is about more than just incentives. Like its predecessor, it challenges the conventional wisdom, puts the spotlight on the law of unintended consequences, and (yawn) introduces you to some creative data mining. Putting it all together you learn why prostitution doesn't pay what it used to (competition from loose social mores), why prosperity could breed more terrorism (Osama bin Laden anyone?), and why more opportunities for women may mean there are less for our kids (teacher brain drain has led to poor elementary education results). And yes, with their freakonomically characteristic cynicism of human nature, you learn why altruism may be nonexistent but, thankfully, that apathy is rarer than you think.

Are the authors persuasive? No more so than their outlandish solutions to global warming that crawls at a painfully slow pace across the pages near the end. But they do tell an intriguing story, and by introducing some uplifting tales of human ingenuity from years past they provide a good counter to the cynicism referenced above. All in all, these elements come together to make this sequel a rare improvement to an otherwise freakish original.

Whether you agree or disagree with the authors' conclusions, this book and the prequel, Freakonomics, encourage the reader to challenge "conventional wisdom" and to apply scientific analysis and data-driven critical thinking to real world issues. As an educator (and as someone with degrees in both science and the humanities) this is a cause I have devoted huge chunks of my life to championing. The book sheds light on just how easily and often we humans allow ourselves to be manipulated by ignorance, complacency, innate behaviour/psychology or deliberate malfeasance into making decisions that harm our self-interest, our communities, our environment, and our world.

On the other hand, the book spends approximately the same amount of time/space exploring how, with the application of scientific method and critical thinking, ignorance can be surmounted and solutions - sometimes shockingly simple and obvious solutions - to problems both inconsequential (walking while drunk) and profound (global warming) can be identified.

All this, and a completely entertaining read to boot! The authors eschew convoluted language and make extensive use of humor to hammer their points home. Highly, highly recommended ... in fact, if I ruled the world, this would be a required reading in every U.S. high school.