SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

I had to laugh as I read some of the negative reviews. Listen people, it's not intended to be a TEXTBOOK, nor is it written like one, thankfully. I've read both books. Super Freakonomics is a good exercise in critical thinking (something that is becoming sorely lacking in the age of American Idol, thanks to our putrid public schools and Playstation parenting); it makes you think about a lot of "truths" that we take for granted. For example, this book actually made me change some of my thinking about global warming. The book is super-interesting, and full of information that you'd be hard-pressed to find in your typical daily reading; and, it "sexes-up" the fields of microeconomics and behavioral economics. One of the points (relentlessly made) is how we (especially our governments) seem to prefer complex, costly solutions to problems, when cheaper, simpler solutions often exist, and the book does a great job of providing many examples of this. Is it a definitive tome on the many topics it covers? No - again, it's not a textbook, but it was definitely worth the time I spent reading it - I hated putting it down.

Superfreakonomics is the follow-up to the wildly successful Freakonomics, which I thoroughly enjoyed. This edition is more of the same. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one. If you didn't, then you probably won't. If you haven't read either, read the first one. This one is interesting, mostly, but the last chapter was a bit of a drag for me. There are some fascinating theories, statistics and illustrations. For the fans of their New York Times blog, however, there's not much that's new. The first book was a novelty, and a fascinating interdisciplinary one. This book is clearly a concerted effort, and it's enjoyable, but I recall random trivia and interesting points rather than the overarching themes. Did I enjoy it? Absolutely. Will I still talk about it at dinner parties in five years as I still talk about some of the theories in the first one? Well, I will reference one specific chapter.

In short, I loved it, although not quite as much as the first one.

Charmed by the authors' witty and novel take on the seemingly mundane, I became a fan of Freakonomics. If I wasn't in awe of Levitt's and Dubner's brilliant suppositions, then I was trying to apply my newfound "economist" sense of thinking to my own world.

With Superfreakonomics, although the authors still take to analyzing data sets, instead of just sticking to the mundane or simply reporting on their findings, Levitt and Dubner proceed to analyze the human condition. In the process, the slightly smug but humble voice of the first book gets traded for impetuousness.

The strength of the unifying elements varies greatly between sections, with some being remarkably weak to highly satisfying. While there are a few well written parts, much of the book is inundated with trivia and long, only marginally related tangents.

My chief complaint about Superfreakonomics is that the authors have developed a taste for controversy. The first book was endearing to me, precisely because it looked upon the mundane, but Superfreakonomics lingers on hot topics and even tries to present solutions. If anything, this approach is polarizing, evidenced by the lack of consensus among the readers, and seems to me as a thinly veiled effort to sell books. While this is certainly in the author's best interests, I felt cheated.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about Superfreakonomics. The conclusion was fun, and so were some of the other bits about human altruism and monkeys with money. Also, I hadn't heard of IV before (a company that is prominently featured in this book) but I will certainly be looking into more of their work. Unfortunately, since the authors decided to do away with most of the elements that made the first book so endearing, this second coming was a big disappointment. I am not one to rail against rational thinking, which is what the authors purportedly exhibit in their analysis, but I am not for hasty conclusions either. Superfreakonomics seems to me, the result of the authors' indigestion after biting off far more than they could chew.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It sheds light on why I bothered studying for a degree in economics at university. Yes, economics can be fun. It's a pity it gets such a bum rap. Why should it be called the "dismal science"?

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have written an amusing and readable book. It's full of anecdotes and whimsical stories without ever seriously veering from the science of microeconomics which is its basis. The two Steves have researched an array of topics from street prostitution, to hospital deaths in the 19the century before opining upon global warming and how it might be resolved if, indeed, it is a problem. It's this final point that I particularly loved. Global warming has become a modern religion. It has its own dogmas and turns a blind eye to anyone who questions the "rules". I am quite confident that, in due course, global warming will be solved but it won't be by the naïve and cack handed solutions that greens put forward. It will be economics that comes to the rescue. This has always been the history of the world and I see no reason why this should change now.

Perhaps the most pleasant feature of "SuperFreakonomics" (and its predecessor "Freakonomics") is that it brings economics away from the realm of stuffy ivory towered professors and their arcane theories and formulas. Instead, economics is presented as something to enjoy. This is the book's real strength. I can only hope that this technique has introduced economics to a wider audience.

However, before finishing up, I find myself wondering which of the "case studies" amused me the most. I think it was the story about travel in New York City and how horses caused more deaths per capita than cars. It's ironic then that the car is seen as the work of the devil by some when, in fact, it has been a great liberator of the human race. Yes, "SuperFreakonomics" is a great read. Read it and enjoy.

I really enjoyed reading this book. It was a quick and interesting read. I enjoyed the diverse topics, walking drunk, global warming/cooling, externalities, etc.

Reading the negative comments I admit I don't find them baseless. However, I don't take the book as the concrete authority on all things. I feel the books main purpose is to open the mind and allow a different perspective to swirl around for a while; which it does.