add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
 Surgery 101: Dr. Zenn flamed in Freakonomics plastic surgery Q & A... plasticsurgery101.blogspo... | Institute - Window on Whitehead: Freakonomics and freakobiology... whitehead.mit.edu |
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is a 2005 non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. The book has been described as melding pop culture with economics.[1] As of fall 2009, it had sold over 4 million copies worldwide.[2]
[edit] OverviewThe book is a collection of economic articles written by Levitt, an expert who has already gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists; he does, however, accept the standard neoclassical microeconomic model of rational utility-maximization. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's topics include:
One example of the authors' use of economic theory involves demonstrating the existence of cheating among sumo wrestlers. In a sumo tournament, all wrestlers in the top division compete in 15 matches and face demotion if they do not win at least eight of them. The sumo community is very close-knit, and the wrestlers at the top levels tend to know each other well. The authors looked at the final match, and considered the case of a wrestler with seven wins, seven losses, and one fight to go, fighting against an 8-6 wrestler. Statistically, the 7-7 wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the 8-6 wrestler is slightly better. However, the 7-7 wrestler actually wins around 80% of the time. Levitt uses this statistic and other data gleaned from sumo wrestling matches, along with the effect that allegations of corruption have on match results, to conclude that those who already have 8 wins collude with those who are 7-7 and let them win, since they have already secured their position for the following tournament. The authors attempt to demonstrate the power of data mining. Many of their results emerge from Levitt's analysis of various databases, and asking the right questions. For example, cheating in the Chicago school system is inferred from detailed analysis of students' answers to multiple choice questions. But first Levitt asks, "What would the pattern of answers look like if the teacher cheated?" The simple answer: difficult questions at the end of a section will be more correct than easy ones at the beginning. [edit] ReappraisalsIn Chapter 2 of Freakonomics, the authors wrote of their visit to folklorist Stetson Kennedy's Florida home where the topic of Kennedy's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan were discussed. However, in their January 8, 2006 column in the New York Times Magazine, Dubner and Levitt wrote of questions about Stetson Kennedy's research ("Hoodwinked" pp 26-28) leading to the conclusion that Kennedy's research was at times embellished for effectiveness. In the "Revised and Expanded Edition" this embellishment was noted and corrected: "Several months after Freakonomics was first published, it was brought to our attention that this man's portrayal of his crusade, and various other Klan matters, was considerably overstated....we felt it was important to set straight the historical record."[3] [edit] RefutationsFreakonomics commented on the effects of an abortion ban in Romania, stating "Compared to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become criminals. (p. 118)". The paper Freakonomics cites states "virtually the opposite of what is actually claimed"; quote "On average, children born in 1967 just after abortions became illegal display better educational and labor market achievements than children born just prior to the change. This outcome can be explained by a change in the composition of women having children: urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, so a higher proportion of children were born into urban, educated households. (Pop-Eleches, 2002, p.34)".[4] Freakonomics claimed that it was possible to "tease" out the effect of extra police on crime by analysing electoral cycles. The evidence behind these claims was shown to be due partly to a programming error. McCrary stated "While municipal police force size does appear to vary over state and local electoral cycles ... elections do not induce enough variation in police hiring to generate informative estimates of the effect of police on crime."[4] [edit] Publishing historyFreakonomics peaked at number two among nonfiction on the New York Times bestseller list and was named the 2006 Book Sense Book of the Year in the Adult Nonfiction category. The book received positive reviews from critics. The review aggregator Metacritic reported the book had an average score of 67 out of 100, based on 16 reviews.[5]  The success of the book has been partly attributed to the blogosphere. In the campaign prior to the release of the book in April 2005, the publisher (William Morrow and Company) chose to target bloggers in an unusually strategical way, sending galley copies to over a hundred of them, as well as contracting two specialized word of mouth (buzz marketing) agencies.[1] In 2006, the Revised and Expanded Edition of the book was published, with the most significant corrections in the second chapter (see above).[6] [edit] Freakonomics blogThe authors started their own Freakonomics blog, which is "meant to keep the conversation going", in 2005. In May 2007, writer and blogger Melissa Lafsky was hired as the full time editor of the site.[7] In August 2007, the blog was incorporated into The New York Times' web site – the authors had been writing joint columns for The New York Times Magazine since 2004 – and the domain Freakonomics.com became a redirect there.[8] In March 2008, Annika Mengisen replaced Lafsky as the blog editor.[9] Among the recurrent guest bloggers on the Freakonomics blog are Ian Ayres[10], Daniel Hamermesh[11], Sudhir Venkatesh,[12], Justin Wolfers[13] and others. [edit] SuperfreakonomicsMain article: SuperFreakonomics In April 2007, co-author Stephen Dubner announced that there will be a sequel to Freakonomics. It will contain further writings about street gang culture from Sudhir Venkatesh, as well as a study of the use of money by capuchin monkeys.[14] Dubner has said the title would be SuperFreakonomics,[15] and that one topic will be what makes people good at what they do.[16] The book was released in Europe in early October 2009 and in the United States on October 20, 2009. [edit] Film adaptationA film version is in production for release in 2009.[17] A number of directors are listed for the project including Morgan Spurlock, Seth Gordon, Heidi Ewing, Alex Gibney, Rachel Grady and Eugene Jarecki. [edit] References
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
