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.

2 words that describe the book'Freaky Economics (Duh!)

3 characters I met

* Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft executive, is one of the co-founders of Intellectual Ventures (IV)--an invention company that has come up with a variety of creative and affordable fixes for a variety of problems, ranging from hurricanes (they could literally stop them!) and global warming. It boggled my mind that a group of people like those found at IV exist--and they've found solutions for huge problems that are available RIGHT NOW! Learning about why these solutions are not being implemented was fascinating as well as a bit upsetting.

* Allie--a self-made woman who runs her own profitable business, which just happens to be as a $300 an hour prostitute. We meet Allie in the chapter on the economics of prostitution, which explains (among other things) why oral sex got so cheap. (During this particular chapter, you could be forgiven for thinking "Would being a prostitute really be such a bad job?" But, as you read on, you'll quickly be relieved of this idea.)

* Keith Chen, an associate professor of economics at Yale, who attempted to find out "What would happen if I could teach a bunch of monkeys to use money?" What he finds is fascinating--and allowed Chen to have the distinction of seeing the "first instance of monkey prostitution in the recorded history of science." I TOLD you this book was about freaky economics!

4 things I liked or disliked about the book

* I was a huge fan of the first Freakonomics book so when I saw there was a follow-up, I knew I had to read it. As with the first book, Superfreakonomics is packed with interesting information. However, I found it to be more scattered and less cohesive than the first book. At times, it was hard to remember that this book had anything at all to do with economics. It often felt more like a "check out the weird research this guy did!" Yet I'd still recommend it. As far as economics books go, you won't find many that are more accessible or engaging.

* I liked how the topics ranged all over the place. Consider this partial list of topics covered in the book: the perils of walking drunk, prostitution, the male-female wage gap, the worst month to have a baby, the trickle down effects of September 11th, telling a good doctor from a bad one, how to postpone death, the Kitty Genovese murder, the roots of altruism, kidney donation in Iran, the Endangered Species Act, dead whales, the history of seatbelts, hurricanes, global warming, the Club versus LoJack, why hand washing matters, and (of course) monkey prostitution.

* Although I liked the wide range of topics covered, this did result in a scattershot feeling. Lots of stuff is discussed, but the text jumps from one to the other so quickly that I had a hard time remembering what I was reading or had read. In fact, going back to write this review some months after reading this book, I kept thinking to myself "I don't really remember that. They talked about kidney donation in Iran? Oh yeah ... that was interesting. Kitty Genovese? Who was that? Oh...that's right. Now I remember." Yet, despite this flaw, it was still a fast and interesting read.

* Of all the things I read about in this book, the one that made me crazy was that there are solutions for major problems that could be implemented RIGHT NOW but aren't due to a variety of political and economic reasons. I'm sure residents of Florida, Louisiana and other areas plagued by hurricanes would be quite interested in learning about the low-tech, low-cost technology that could potentially prevent hurricanes from forming and wreaking havoc.

5 stars or less for my rating:

I'm giving the book 4 stars. Just like the first Freakonomics book, this book was a fast-paced and interesting read. If you detest economics and couldn't imagine voluntarily reading a book about economics, I'm here to tell you should make an exception for this series. Although the book felt a bit scattered and less focused than the first book, I'd still recommend it. If you're a fan of accessible non-fiction, this book is a must read. And, if you have the misguided idea that non-fiction books are boring or dry, this book will change your mind. I mean, it talks about MONKEY PROSTITUTION!

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.

Once again, I revisited the twisted world of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. In many ways, Superfreakonomics is more of the same…the application of economic models to data in order to solve common questions. One of the more interesting differences in this installment is the emphasis on cheap and simple solutions to some of life’s complex problems. A few of the main topics discussed were simple solutions for global warming, the effect television has on the way women in rural India are treated, how to spot a terrorist by examining their financial records, etc.

My favorite part of this book were the discussions on simple and cheap solutions to problems. For example, for only a fraction of what we pay out in hurricane damage each year, a water circulation device could be created and used to cool the surface temperature on the oceans, decreasing the intensity of hurricanes. This solution would continue to allow topical storms and low grade hurricanes to bring the much needed moisture to maintain the ecology of these affected areas of the world, yet it would prevent the storms from reaching the level four and five intensities which bring mass destruction or property and lives. The science behind this device is so logical and easy that even I understood it! So why don’t these cheap & simple solutions get put into action? Because they are cheap and simple. There isn’t enough money to be made off of them.

Just like Freakonomics, the writing was fast-paced. The topics seemed to bounce around a lot, but they always connected back the original thread. This writing style keeps the reader from getting too bogged down in the data and allows them to see the big-picture. The beauty of these books is that any person on the street could pick them up and not only follow the ideas, but enjoy what they read. I’m so happy to see writers making economics accessible to the masses, because it really can be incredibly interesting.

Overall, I give Superfreakonomics…

Innovative Ideas – 5 bookmarks

Accessibility – 4 bookmarks

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.

So, the front cover of my first conquest of 2010 already almost broke the only rule I'd set for myself. It's a shiny white cover with the authors' names in slightly raised lettering. However, it's also hardcover and doesn't have any glossy color photos (unless that's a real picture of an exploding fruit on the bottom of the cover, but I'm 84% certain it's not), so I think I'm safe.

On the other hand, it has a laughably long subtitle: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. Hmm, a shiny hardcover with an exploding fruit, long subtitle, and raised lettering. Not exactly a recipe for success, right? Well, I suppose this is why one should never judge a book by its cover, because this is going into the record as a Recommended Reading.

Actually, let me take that back. You can judge a book by its cover, somewhat. As if the graphic design doesn't scream "Please Pay Attention" loudly enough, the content itself immediately continues the theme. The first two sentences of the book proclaim, "The time has come to admit that in our first book [Freakonomics], we lied. Twice." Pages later, we read that "as you leave your friend's party [in an intoxicated state], the decision should be clear: driving is safer than walking." (One wonders if that last line will eventually provoke a second admission of lying in the next installment, which must inevitably be titled SuperDuperFreakonomics: Funny Wars, Political PMS, and Why Rapists Make the Best Babysitters.)

But don't let the hyperbole fool you: authors Steven Levitt (a professor at the University of Chicago) and Stephen Dubner (a former editor for The New York Times Magazine) are no lightweights, and they pack plenty of legitimate punches to keep readers scratching their heads for a considerably long time. (I'm still scratching mine.) For example, did you know that a Chicago prostitute is statistically more likely to have sex with a police officer than to be arrested by one? (The undercover beat is just brutal.) Or that many hospital infections could be prevented by doctors washing their hands? Alright, alright, so you already knew that one. But what you probably didn't know -- unless you happen to work at a hospital -- is that, amidst a sea of failed attempts to compel doctors to comply with basic hygienic standards, simply installing a computer screensaver at one hospital depicting the swarms of bacteria on a human hand brought health compliance up to an almost perfect score.

As does its predecessor, SuperFreakonomics deals in human behavior and how various incentives, executed intelligently, can pretty much get human beings to do anything. Hence, the 1961 Milgram Experiment -- except that Levitt and Dubner wave breezily at this landmark psychological study, deeming it a prime exemplar in the crowded field of How to Make Any Experiment Confirm Your Findings by Conducting it in a Lab. And somehow, this actually makes sense (the experiment's mild repudiation, not the study itself). You see, the authors gently intone, human beings are little more than self-interested machines; remove the carrot and stick, and you've got yourself a rabbit with nowhere to go.

This pleasantly short 216-page book is replete with observations, projections, and muses that will gnaw at you. They will make you wonder how you didn't think of these ideas first, even while mentally flogging yourself for allowing a modicum of gullibility to seep into your otherwise cynical worldview. Combating hurricanes with a small army of large rings centered around pipes leading into the depths? Kissing global warming goodbye by shooting sulfur dioxide eighteen miles into the air? Yes, Levitt and Dubner respond gleely, yes, we can.

What was perhaps most fascinating in this book were the many ways in which data was collected on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. In economics, as well as in politics and other social science fields, it is quite difficult to achieve exactness in the same sense as the other, "hard" sciences (i.e. chemistry, physics, etc.). This is primarily because, unlike those other areas of study, economists and political scientists are not able to conduct controlled experiments comparing one set to another.

However, these limitations can be mitigated to near-miraculous degrees at times. For example, in a section on global warming, Dubner and Levitt note that in the first several days following September 11th in the U.S. (when all civilian flights were grounded), the ground temperature increased fairly dramatically due to less sun shielding from aircraft exhaust trails. Using the aftermath of a domestic tragedy to produce quantifiable research that would never have been available via testing, the authors make it quite clear that virtually anything can be studied scientifically if you dig deeply enough.

Of course, the digging of Dubner and Levitt is accompanied by their own giggling soundtrack, as the machinations of their own nerdiness are readily translated into annoyingly cute barbs at fellow economists and so forth. And now that I'm a little older and wiser than when I'd read the prequel, I'm more than a little shocked that I had never before caught on to Levitt and Dubner's obvious ideological leanings bubbling beneath these pages' surfaces. (Hint: Chicago school of economics.) That said, readers from both sides of the aisle will have no problem enjoying this idiosyncratic tour through the intersection of the human mind and the free market.

[...]

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life InsuranceI bought their first book, Freakeconomics, 4 years ago. I verify software for a large defense firm, and what I've learned over time is that one test beats a thousand Expert Opinions. There are always people forming opinions about how something works, but one test provides the real answer. And that is the underlying premise in this book too. We hear about Global Warming or Climate Change everyday. The concept begins to take on an aura of truth because we hear it so much. But what about the theory that we must reduce carbon Dioxide emissions? Does it make scientific sense? The current discussions seems to center around how much we must limit future carbon dioxide emissions. Does correlation mean a causal relationship? Levitt postulates designing a system that would mimic the effects of the great Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by roughly 10%. This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5-0.6 °C (0.9-1.1 °F), and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F). At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to absorption of radiation by the aerosols. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years after the eruption. They go on to describe the ideas of a couple of fellows from Intellectual Ventures who propose to seed the ionosphere with sulfur dioxide droplets to mimic the volcano's effects on the earth's temperature. That concept is the least economical approach to cooling the earth, if necessary.

All of the rest of the book relates how economics is behind so many behaviors.

The book presents many eye opening concepts about human behavior and links them to data that they have uncovered. The book is about how data reveal what makes us tick.

This is a book you find hard to put down, and you'll be sharing it with your friends.

Amazing book!

Although not as good as the first one, this book still holds that feeling of "never have thought that before". If you liked freakonomics, you will probably have fun with this one.

Excelente libro super recomendable!

Superfreakonomics ist ein würdiger Nachfolger von Freakonomics. Beim Lesen musste ich wieder einigemale Schmunzeln und viele Fakten haben mich verwundert bzw. erstaunt. Die Art und Weise wie die Autoren die emprischen Ergebnise präsentieren ist super und trifft genau meinen Geschmack. Dieses Buch wird alle Leute erstaunen, nicht nur die Wirtschaftswissenschaftler. Ich bin begeistert. Und wenn ich mir die Paper von Steven D. Levitt anschaue, dann sollte er auch noch genug Stoff für ein 3. Buch haben. Ich würde mich freuen.

Personal Impact: Okay, so hear me out. I’m a 23 year old man, studying Games Design at University . Unnecessary info, BUT here comes the fun fact. This book has been the first ever book I’ve properly read as a young man and the first book I’ve ever finished. It’s safe to say that this book has gotten me into reading. I’ll be reading the other books in this series. Not only has it been great reading this book, but it has triggered my passion to learn and study harder in such a way that excites me. The future is literally what you make it!

The Actual Book: Okay, sorry about that little story there. So now, the actual book. It’s absolutely brilliantly written. It manages to keep you hooked in by giving the reader such interesting information but in such a way that is slightly comical which just makes you smile. You will learn so much reading this one book and understand how the world works just that little bit more. If you’re interested in how humans and earth are impacted by economics and statistics then this is a must read. Go for it, you won’t be disappointed. I can’t wait to read the other books!

Usually a sequel will be will be less awesome than an earlier work. I went in with a very low expectation. Came out with a wow. In-fact a super wow.

The book establishes relationship between seemingly unreasonable things. Instead of adding too many details, too many examples they made it a very concise good read. The number of times i said awesome while reading this book is way too high. The book introduces you to a variety of interesting people while reading.You will be introduced to too many things like prostitutes,pimps,doctors,government policies,lobbyists,Global warming, Horse s***, seat belts so many other things which will glue you to the book.The author gives a plethora of examples in each discussion which will keep you attached to the topic.

Even tough at certain places you may feel the book is missing some data, but that does not bring down any interest you might have developed during the read. The chapter titles and content are weekly related, certain places you will reading things which are very unrelated to the topics you have started.

Overall it's a really good read.