There's probably something you should know about me before I start talking about this book. I really hate economics, and when I say 'hate', I really mean 'don't understand'. I really think of economics as being a lot of smoke and mirrors, of governments saying 'the economy is weak' when really what they mean is 'this won't really affect you, but it will affect the richer people so to help them out, we're going to raise VAT' and I'm already at the limit of what I understand. I'm not even sure I know what I'm talking about right now, if I'm honest.
Freakonomics, though, is awesome. I didn't need to know anything about anything really economic to understand any of it, but I feel like I came away from it with a greater understanding of the wider point of economics (incentives/disincentives, anyone?) but more importantly, I got to laugh at the KKK on a train because those guys are RIDICULOUS (apparently they add 'kl' to the start of every word, so they'll go to a klavern to hold a klonversation and does anyone else find the KKK less scary already?)
The point of Freakonomics, other than to be completely awesome and hilarious and everything else, is to challenge our perceptions on things we believe almost instinctively to be true, by looking at the numbers behind them. You think all drug dealers are rich? You're basically only thinking of the top dogs*. You think it's in Real Estate Agents' best interests to make you the most money for your house? It's a lot less hassle for them to convince you to take the lower offer. You want to know why crime rates suddenly dropped in the 90s? You might have to go all the way back to Roe vs Wade and think of how many less unwanted children there were to turn to lives of crime for that one...
It's all just incredibly interesting, and presented in a way that means you can't not care about it- I think the real genius of it is that it's a collaboration between an economist and a writer, so if any of Levitt's ideas and studies were presented in a less than interesting way (I don't know if they were, but they might have been) then Dubner comes along and writes them in a way that makes you give a shit. Of course, the other real genius is that they're talking about real life things, not obscure financial things, so of course you're going to care if what you call your child makes a difference (not really) and if you should trust your real estate agent (again, not really) and how to win at online dating:
"In the world of online dating, a headful of blonde hair on a woman is worth about the same as having a college degree- and, with a $100 dye job versus a $100,000 tuition bill, an awful lot cheaper."Good thing women don't only want to get married these days then, huh?
Basically, Freakonomics is the only thing I've ever read in my life so far that has made me care about economics. I learned some stuff, was amused by even more, and when I have kids, I won't think that taking them to museums and things will necessarily make them smarter. I'm really excited that Super Freakonomics is something that exists, and I'll definitely be keeping my eye out for it so I can read it soon.
*To be fair, I've seen The Wire so I didn't think all drug dealers are rich. The guys on the street, also the guys most likely to die, pretty much earn the least.
I still haven't read this but Tom did a few years ago and basically every time he finished a chapter (section? story? whatever) would come over to where ever I was and be like "so what do you think of X? Did you know that blah blah blah?" and it was really interesting but he literally did it ALL THE TIME so I never got around to reading the book for myself.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he read Superfreakonomics though, so maybe I should just jump into that one instead.
Hahaha, oh dear that sounds completely annoying. However, I can relate to that and I definitely discussed the book with my housemate who had already read it (less annoying. Also it was mostly laughing at the KKK, which is always fun!)
DeleteBut yes! You should read Superfreakonomics and then you can tell him every single part of it haha.
It was more "dude Shhhh, let me read it then we can ZOMG over it together" than annoying, but still. Let me have a chance to discover it myself!
DeleteI've had this for a couple of years but i pretty much suck at finishing non fiction. Might have to finally try it though
ReplyDeleteI feel like it's less bad not to finish non-fiction than fiction- or at least it's easier to dip in and out of. I say this because I've been reading the Julia Child letters (See: sidebar of shame) for about 4 months or something and have hardly read any. So it's fiiiiiiine (probably)
DeleteYAY for Freakonomics love!!
ReplyDeleteYour cover of Freakonomics is so strange. Or at least, not what I was expecting since over here the whole apples and oranges deal has been their logo and what I see on all their stuff. so yeah, didn't expect that.
SuperFreakonomics is good. I still think I like the first one better BUT it's pretty much the same idea but applied to new topics and I think I just liked the ones they picked here. They also have a book that just came out, Think Like A Freak, that I will be checking out as soon as it's in paperback.
It is a weird cover, isn't it? I guess there's like the sumo wrestler and the pregnant lady and what I'm going to assume is supposed to be a drug dealer, but the orange and apple thing is way better. Simpler.
DeleteI'm still definitely going to read Superfreakonomics, but this is good to know. Then again, I might find the things you find boring interesting, so I guess we'll just have to see!
SO I really liked this when I read it, but never got around to Superfreakonimics, and now I want to read "Think Like a Freak" a whole lot- I might even make it my next Audible pick. It does make economics a LOT more interesting.
ReplyDelete