Freakonomics

{{title-italics}}
[[File:Steven Levitt, 2012.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Steven Levitt: He's a superfreak.<ref>[https://genius.com/Rick-james-super-freak-lyrics Super Freak] by Rick James, ''Genius''.</ref>]]
{{books}}
'''''Freakonomics''''' ({{Isbn|0061234001}}) is a 2005 book by [[United States|American]] economist Steven Levitt and jazzed up by ''[[New York Times]]'' columnist Stephen J. Dubner.<ref>''Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything'' by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner (2005) William Morrow. ISBN 0061234001.</ref> The point of it and its sequel is to "explore the hidden side of everything"; essentially, it was an attempt to explain social phenomena using [[Economics|microeconomic]] principles to try and get at the root cause of these phenomena. The book, subsequent movie adaptation, and sequel (titled '''''SuperFreakonomics''''') raise several interesting points and are very convincing at using economics backed by econometric data to elucidate their points. There are, however, a number of problems with some of their conclusions as well as the methods used to make those conclusions.

==The first book==
Released in 2005, ''Freakonomics'' contains 6 chapters each dealing with a particular theme pertaining to economic theory applied to one or two sociological phenomena; in the case of multiple phenomena, these are usually tangentially related like that the similarities between real estate agents and Klansmen in Chapter 2 (no ''really''). The book spawned a blog,<ref>[http://freakonomics.com/blog/ This is their blog.]</ref> a documentary-style movie<ref>Basically, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152822/ if you liked the book you'll like the movie.]</ref> and a podcast.<ref>Available [http://freakonomics.com/radio/ here.]</ref>

===Interesting points===
The first chapter highlights the usefulness, if not the necessity of data mining. The points explored therein deal with cheating and its incentives using sumo wrestling, a study of [[No Child Left Behind|American teachers]] and data gathered at a DC bagel shop. The authors draw the conclusion that when given the opportunity and a desperate situation, people sometimes cheat. The first example deals with a conspiracy in sumo wrestling; wrestlers who had won enough matches to advance in a tournament would throw matches against those who hadn't in exchange for money. The teaching example shows that five percent of school teachers were willing to cheat on behalf of their students in order to qualify for desperately-needed funding.<ref>[http://www.nber.org/digest/jul03/w9413.html No child left behind, indeed.]</ref>

The next good point in the book comes from Chapter 3 which starts out by asking why drug dealers live with their parents if that particular career path is so lucrative. The fact that the idea of drug dealers making bank off of the misery of others precludes information such as most dealers being at a very low level of a larger criminal operation and having to pay dues to their higher-ups is not a surprise to those initiated in criminology. It is however a little unsettling to learn that instead of being super wealthy [[crime]] lords, most dealers in the sampled city barely make [[minimum wage]].<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/24/opinion/oe-dubner24 Ouch.]</ref>

Lastly, Chapter 5 discusses parenting and adoption, specifically taking a stance on the nature vs. nurture argument. They present the case that even having good parents cannot reduce certain behavioral patterns that are [[genetic]].<ref>[http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=246 This is not to say that there's no point in adopting, but that the adopted sprog isn't exactly free from a life of struggle and hardship.] Bit of a duh moment.</ref>

===Controversial points===
The fact that there's an entire chapter that compares realtors to [[KKK]] members should tip you off that this book makes some controversial arguments.<ref group=note>In the authors' defense, the point being made here is not that realtors are inherently [[racist]], but that they have an incentive to maintain an information asymmetry over their clients.</ref> One such argument deals with a proposed correlation between kids' names and their socio-economic status, which concludes with the assertion that discriminatory hiring practices are justified because people with [[Stereotype|stereotypically]] [[African American]] names are more likely to grow up in "low-income, low-education, single parent families."

====Abortion as crime deterrent====
{{main|Abortion}}
In a spectacular display of confusing [[correlation does not imply causation|correlation for causation]], the authors assert in Chapter 4 that the reduction in violent crime experienced near the end of the 20<sup>th</sup> century was due to ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and that all those at-risk children who would've ended up becoming violent criminals never came to be because they were aborted. The [[wingnut]] response to this point was as predictable, pointless, and irrelevant as you would expect, but many academics were [[skeptical]] of the claims made by the Steves.<ref>Like [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdinardo/Pubs/aler.pdf this one.]</ref><ref>... and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=969508 this one.]</ref> Despite Levitt and Dubner's defense of their conclusions,<ref>As [http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ posted on their blog.]</ref> academics remain skeptical.<ref>Including [http://www.economist.com/node/5246700?story_id=5246700 these guys.]</ref> A 2016 study found four important [[confounding factor]]s (out of 20 possible factors examined) that strongly predict both fertility rates and crime rates, only one of which relates to the Freakonomics hypothesis.<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-016-9284-y Declines in Crime and Teen Childbearing: Identifying Potential Explanations for Contemporaneous Trends] Rhys Hester, Todd K. Hartman, Journal of Quantitative Criminology </ref>

===Summary===
The book is rife with a peculiar sense of dark humor worthy of Yoram Bauman<ref>[http://standupeconomist.com/ “The world’s first and only stand-up economist”].</ref> spliced within the [[math]], [[Statistics|stats]], and lines of argument. Again though, there is an issue throughout with equating [[Correlation does not imply causation|correlation with causation]], so don't take their words for granted.

==The sequel: ''SuperFreakonomics''==
Despite the academic controversies unleashed by the first (or perhaps because of them), the Steves wrote a sequel to their first book. As with the first book, ''SuperFreakonomics'' in 2011<ref>''SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance'' by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner (2011) William Morrow. ISBN 0060889586.</ref> makes some interesting insights but also some horrifically controversial arguments.

===The good===
In the first chapter, the book provides an economic rationale for legalizing [[prostitution]] and cites examples of how well it has worked in polities that have legalized it, making a strong case for [[small government]] in the most politically-[[liberal]] sense. Other nifty points include discussions of [[altruism]] as well as the [[Bystander effect|bystander]] and [[Observer effect|observer]] effects in Chapter 3 using the {{wpl|murder of Kitty Genovese}} as an example for the former and experimental economics as an example for the latter. Chapter 4 yet again highlights the necessity of data mining, this time using the examples of [[Ignaz Semmelweis]] combating Puerperal fever and Robert S. McNamara's (yes, [[Vietnam War|that one]]) time at Ford Motor Company and his contributions to vehicle safety (seat belts, in particular). Lastly, the final chapter shows that humans aren't the only ones who respond to incentives, with lab monkeys being trained to use [[currency]] and even inventing a crude system of [[prostitution]].

===More controversial points===
The minor controversy in this book centers around the second chapter, concluding that [[terrorists]] should buy life insurance to avoid being caught by bankers in the [[UK]] who were otherwise profiling them because of their [[Racial profiling|peculiar names]].<ref>No really, [http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/5/646.short there seems to be a problem with thinking this is okay.]</ref> Additionally, the chapter explores terrorists' upbringings and though it does note that radical [[Muslims]] tend to be more well-to-do amongst their peers, they try to make the claim that their mothers were [[pregnant]] with them throughout [[Ramadan]] and thus did not get sufficient prenatal nutrition leading to intellectual disadvantages; yeah, that's a bit of a contradiction there. However, the Steves go on to trump the controversy in their last book…

====Global cooling====
This is not to say that the authors endorse the idea of [[global cooling]] or that they [[Global warming denialism|do not accept anthropogenic climate change]], but the fifth chapter tries to make a case for [[geoengineering]] as a means to combat global warming and climate change. Being good academics, the Steves made sure to use research by an actual climate scientist, but in the book, they managed to misrepresent his research.<ref>And predictably, [http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201 he was unhappy.]</ref> A smattering of academics objected to these conclusions, including both climate scientists<ref>Like this [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/ this guy.]</ref> and other economists.<ref>Especially [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/superfreakonomics-on-climate-part-1/ this guy.]</ref><ref>... but also [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-flunk-science-of-climate-change-eric-pooley.html these guys.]</ref><ref>... and [http://www.economist.com/node/14738383 these guys] again.</ref>

==Summary==
It's more of the same, really. If you liked the math, [[Logic|arguments]] and [[humor]] of the first one, you'll like this one. The controversial points really do highlight that when it comes to [[fact|factual accuracy]] even in the [[social science]]s, popular publishing is no match for [[peer review]]. Whatever applies to the first book applies to second one.

The authors make themselves out to be experts at microeconomics, but yet how can they be so bad at basic statistical ideas (correlation vs. causation), and how can they not realize how bad some of their conclusions look to people?

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Economics]]

Categories: Economics