27 of 30 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Fun to Read
Much like Freakonomics, Superfreakonomics is an entertaining book that covers a wide variety of unrelated topics in a fun way. But in contrast with Freakonomics, it is less reliant on econometric analysis and more on anecdotal evidence. As a result, its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
For example, their finding that it is safer to drive than...
Published on Oct. 27 2009 by Jethro Tull
3.0 out of 5 stars A slight let down, but interesting
LOVED Freakonomics and all its connections, so this one was a let down when the connections are weak and not formulated enough to truely compare to the first book. There are some great articles to read, but not as good as Freakonomics.
Published 22 days ago by Trent Norman Ross Gillespie
Most Helpful First | Newest First
27 of 30 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Fun to Read,
For example, their finding that it is safer to drive than walk while drunk depends on several assumptions that may not hold. One such assumption is that the level of inebriation is on average the same for both drunk walkers and drunk drivers whereas, as they point out themselves earlier in the section, most people believe it is safer to walk when drunk, indicating that those who walk while drunk are probably more inebriated than those who drive while drunk. But to put things in context, that was just a small example and is only a very minor part of the book.
Sadly, many critics and reviewers are basing their entire opinion of the book on the last chapter concerning global warming. Let me just point out that it is not true that they are claiming that global warming is not a problem. Yes, they do mention some old global cooling theories from the 70's. But put this in the context of this book - a random collection of fun facts - and you can see why such theories were mentioned.
But that misses the main point of the chapter. In fact, the purpose of the chapter is to find a way to cool the globe, but using geoengineering, as opposed to restricting emissions of Carbon Dioxide. They propose an idea sponsored by Intellectual Ventures, a company whose business is to accumulate patents in a wide range of fields. The plan basically entails the injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would reflect sunlight and possibly cool the Earth. The authors propose this as a much cheaper and possibly effective solution for global warming.
You can see why environmentalists may be annoyed by this book: it gives their political opponents some ammunition in a critical time when they are trying to pass environmental regulation. It is thus critical, for them, to destroy the credibility of the book and its authors. Perhaps this is an understandable position, but the attacks on this chapter of the book are highly unwarranted in any other context given that it is merely proposing new ideas, and there's nothing wrong with that. For all we know, more research could prove that such schemes are effective.
Buy this book if you enjoy reading a collection of fun, often counter-intuitive, random "facts" about controversial issues. I would give it 5 stars for entertainment value, but I only gave it 4 stars out of 5 because the high level of econometric analysis that could be found in Freakonomics is virtually non-existent here, making the sequel sloppy and less rigorous.
3.0 out of 5 stars A slight let down, but interesting,
This review is from: Superfreakonomics (Paperback)LOVED Freakonomics and all its connections, so this one was a let down when the connections are weak and not formulated enough to truely compare to the first book. There are some great articles to read, but not as good as Freakonomics.
4.0 out of 5 stars A bit disjointed,
4.0 out of 5 stars Enjoyed it a lot, but wanted more,
This review is from: SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance (Kindle Edition)I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but I wanted another chapter or two. it felt so brief. The autheors get into theory a bit more than the previous book, but still a good read.
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Microeconomic Speculations Intended to Challenge and Amuse,
One of the earliest lessons of microeconomics has been credited to Pareto, based on his observation that 20 percent of the people have 80 percent of the wealth. Since then, we've learned that many other things are distributed in similarly lopsided fashion. If we focus on where there is little opportunity, we get little done. If we focus instead where there is great opportunity, the results may well be virtually unlimited. SuperFreakonomics, like Freakonomics before it, uses Pareto's perspective in a variety of areas where you probably don't normally think that unusual solutions at low cost might hold. The results can be enlightening and amusing, at the same time.
Here's a brief summary of the book:
Chapter 1: Economic inequality of women as exemplified by salary information with a lot of documentation of price elasticity and inelasticity in sex-worker employment.
Chapter 2: Using unusual patterns to locate terrorist intent on suicidal attacks. A shortened life expectation shifts behavior in ways that can be observed.
Chapter 3: People respond to incentives rather than to altruism. Measurements are challenged by newer measurements that take more factors into account.
Chapter 4: Seemingly possible inexpensive ways to solve difficult problems. Filled with more amusing speculation than substance.
Chapter 5: Curtailing carbon dioxide emissions won't cure global warming. The authors look at speculative ideas for changing the heat-trapping qualities of the atmosphere and oceans.
Epilogue: Monkeys can be trained to act like people with money.
If that mix of material seems a little random, the underlying theme is that microeconomic analysis can bring new insights, even where you wouldn't expect it to. Methinks the authors doth protest a little too much.
I could have done with a lot less information about prostitution. I don't really need to understand price elasticity in that area. This material felt a little like pandering to sell more books.
I enjoyed the terrorist chapter. If the book had been more like that, it would have been a lot more interesting.
The studies of motives seemed better suited to a book on social science research than to a popular book.
In the inexpensive solutions, I thought that the authors were reaching to be entertaining more than they were trying to inform.
In the global warming section, the points about carbon dioxide compared to water vapor and methane are accurate and well presented. But the authors went off the deep end in pursuing alternatives. These suggestions are more in the realm of speculation than proven alternatives.
Will the book harm you? Probably not.
Will the book give you a great big insight that will reward you for reading it? Maybe not.
Will the book give you lots to talk with other people? Sure.
I hope the authors will attempt to be more solution oriented in future books and less driven by a desire to be "entertaining."
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Weaker Freakonomics might have been a better title,
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Levitt & Dubner do it again,
This review is from: Superfreakonomics Unabridged Cd: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance (Audio CD)Much like the first book , Superfreakonomics engages the listener through a fascinating combination of research and story telling. The unabridged audio set is narrated by author Steven Levitt, who's voice is enjoyable. This book seems to be getting some flack from environmentalists for the way that it tackles solutions to the global warming problem. But like it or not, this book adds a lot to the discussion and reveals some very novel and counter-intuitive ways to solve this problem. Whether you agree or disagree with them, Levitt and Dubner make their topics fun and interesting.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A Healthy bit of out of the Box Thinking,
The author's claim (rather convincingly in my view) that the old ossified thinking about global warming, as sexy as it is to support such thinking, makes little sense when viewed purely in terms of economics. At the very least the old carbon mitigation arguments are deficient, if not entirely flawed. This is not to say that they should be scraped, but only to say that alternative solution needs to be explored, and rather urgently.
The crux of their argument put forth in the last chapter of the book (also surely to be the most controversial one) is that the much touted carbon mitigation approaches won't work because they are too little, too late and much too expensive even if it they were to prove plausible. The authors imply that we have already passed the point of no return when it comes to the efficacy of carbon mitigation techniques.
Why then has no one noticed this and pointed it out to the international community? How is it that we have been wedded to an alternative that cannot work, and which, even if it could, would be too expensive to pay for?
Were we not all following the herd instinct of the conventional wisdom, the debate on this issue would long ago have been opened up to a wider set of perhaps more interesting, and possibly, better alternative ideas. And in this regard, the authors allow their imagination to reign freely. They throw out several 'trial ideas' in the area of geo-engineering that, while at this point must remain in the tentative thinking stage, were they to prove viable, would at least have the potential to mitigate the problem of global warming within reasonable economic bounds. So far, something carbon mitigation approaches cannot do. In fact, reading between the lines, these authors suggest that the carbon mitigation approaches even fail the laugh test when it comes to either the possibility of achieving the goals designed for them, or the goal of being economically reasonable or viable.
But more importantly, these authors larger message is philosophical. It to point out that viewing this (and other) problems from a purely economic vantage point, even if in only a theoretical sense, rather than from a purely moral and political point of view, forces us to redefine what our goals and preferences are and how we are to go about achieving them within clear (but always existing) economic constraints. They thus try to change the way we think about the difference between 'evaluating political and moral scenarios' and 'embracing the moral and political preferences and implications or the outcomes that such scenarios might suggest. It is okay to study or 'play out' various scenarios in theory, of which our own preferences may not be a part. That is what economists do everyday, and must be allowed to do even when the constraints of politics and morality seem overwhelming and stifling, and even when our own preference sets are not a part of the analysis.
Their study of prostitution in America's black inner city ghettos serves as a case in point. For some women, making 2-3 thousand dollars per night for a few months in order to finance their way through an expensive college or graduate school is a rational way to achieve this goal. Simply because it does not fit our own moral preference set, does not mean that the economics of prostitution should not be studied, or that it does not make perfectly good sense to someone with a difference morality and set of preferences than our own.
In short, this book is 'out of the box thinking' at its level best. It is the kind of thinking that we Americans used to be the recognize global leaders in. However, these authors seem to be suggesting that we are losing this edge by too easily giving over to our socially adjusted moral and ideological gods, who give us a warm fuzzy feeling but whose solutions often prove to be economic dead-ends, or worse. It is a timely and sobering message that is strong on economic philosophy but weak on analysis. Still it is worth three stars for bravery and good imagination.
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not as good as the first...,
As mentioned in another review, the overwhelming distraction is the discussion on global warming. While they don't actually explicity deny it, doubt is so thoroughly implied that one wonders their motives. The interviews with IV have obviously been biased in the direction of scepticism (I would love to read/see the entire thing). Are they just pandering to the global warming denialists? Are they fence sitting to sell books? It is dubious enough to cast doubt on the other, potentially worthy case descriptions.
There are better books out there: Malcolm Gladwell's followups are of a more consistent quality than this one is.
5.0 out of 5 stars better than the first,
This review is from: Superfreakonomics (Paperback)If you loved the first book the second is better. The book is fascinating and interesting can't say enough good about this book.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Superfreakonomics by Stephen J. Dubner (Paperback - May 16 2011)
CDN$ 18.99 CDN$ 13.28