I just finished reading Freakonomics. I really enjoyed it. It was easy to read and difficult to put down. I imagine the average reader, which I am not, could read this book over the course of two weekends.
The authors of Freakonomics meander from topic to topic like ADD kids in a toy store. It's annoying at first, but by the third chapter, I was OK with it.
Why did I like it? I'm for any book that challenges "conventional wisdom," and this book does so in every chapter.
Here's one example concerning safety. Most people focus on normal things:
Guns -- If your child wants to play at a friend's house, you may want to know if the friend's parents have guns.
Car seats -- Buy the most expensive car seat for your child. Never buy a used car seat. Make sure the car seat is installed correctly.
Flying -- Flying is safer than driving. That's what I tell myself when the plane prepares for a landing. It makes me feel better.
The conventional wisdom is usually fed to us by the media, and the media loves/needs shock-value. This books ignores shock-value and analyzes data.
Guns -- A child accidentally shot by his best friend makes for a better headline than a child drowning a pool. When the data is analyzed, it's revealed that it's about 100 times more dangerous to send your child to a house with a swimming pool than it is to send your child to a house where both the parents have guns.
Car seats -- "The data show that car seats are, at best, nominally helpful", the author writes. Again, sighting that basic backyard pool safety is a much wiser investment.
Flying -- When you account for the number of hours the average person spends in plane vs. a car ..."The per-hour death rate of driving versus flying, however, is about equal. The two contraptions are equally likely (or, in truth, unlikely) to lead to death."
If you looking for a book that contains mathematic and economic rigor, this is not the book to read. Instead I would recommend The Music of the Primes. If you looking for a book that explores a singular theme, you might want to pick up a copy of The History of Salt.
I like the way that the book points out that a "correlation" between two pieces of data does not automatically imply a "causality". In today's world, we are all too eager to find a cause and effect relationship in studies that find correlations. For example, a study was done that found that people who eat oat bran have a lower bad cholesterol count. So immediately, people believed that oat bran lowered your cholesterol. Later, it was determined that in reality oat bran simply fills you up faster, so you eat less. That was the real cause of the lower cholesterol. The same applies to "global warming". Just because the temperatures are rising globally, does not automatically assume that human beings are the cause.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's try to take studies with a grain of salt. Statistics are easy to gather. They are just observable and measurable events. Causes are much harder to prove.
It's interesting that conventional "wisdom" is shaped by the media's intent to deliver shock value and capture higher ratings. It sounds like what you like about this book (and what I would probably like too) is the fact that it delivers a contrarian's idea of shock value by standing conventional wisdom on it's head. Thinking outside the box is much easier when you don't allow yourself to live inside one.
ReplyDeleteBring that book to lunch this week, I want to read it.
ReplyDeleteWell put navin.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm not the wordsmith that Sweet Tea is, but I try...
ReplyDeleteUmmm...since the book belongs to me, sweet tea, you'll have to ask my permission.
ReplyDeleteAnd you had better ask nicely.
Right...I forgot to mention that Sherry recommended the book to me initially.
ReplyDeleteI hope by "ask nicely", you mean "dry hump vigorously".
ReplyDeleteUmmm...you have my book in your possession and I received no "vigorous dry hump."
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting (tapping foot impatiently)...
Stop crossing the line. You're just going to confuse him.
ReplyDelete