SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
by Steven D. Levitt
Zoom in
Lowest price: $12.00
Binding: Hardcover
Released: 2009-10-20
Other books you might be interested in:
- Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football
- Uncommon Sense: Economic Insights, from Marriage to Terrorism
- What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures
- The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
- Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)
Book Description
The New York Times best-selling Freakonomics was a worldwide sensation, selling over four million copies in thirty-five languages and changing the way we look at the world. Now, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner return with SuperFreakonomics, and fans and newcomers alike will find that the freakquel is even bolder, funnier, and more surprising than the first.
Four years in the making, SuperFreakonomics asks not only the tough questions, but the unexpected ones: What's more dangerous, driving drunk or walking drunk? Why is chemotherapy prescribed so often if it's so ineffective? Can a sex change boost your salary?
SuperFreakonomics challenges the way we think all over again, exploring the hidden side of everything with such questions as:
How is a street prostitute like a department-store Santa? Why are doctors so bad at washing their hands? How much good do car seats do? What's the best way to catch a terrorist? Did TV cause a rise in crime? What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common? Are people hard-wired for altruism or selfishness? Can eating kangaroo save the planet? Which adds more value: a pimp or a Realtor?
Levitt and Dubner mix smart thinking and great storytelling like no one else, whether investigating a solution to global warming or explaining why the price of oral sex has fallen so drastically. By examining how people respond to incentives, they show the world for what it really is - good, bad, ugly, and, in the final analysis, super freaky.
Freakonomics has been imitated many times over - but only now, with SuperFreakonomics, has it met its match.
From Superfreakonomics: Where do you stand on the freak-o-meter?Four years ago, you were cool. You read Freakonomics when it first came out. You impressed family and friends and dazzled dates with the insights you gleaned. Now Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner return with Superfreakonomics, a freakquel even bolder, funnier, and more surprising than the first.
Have you been keeping up? Can you call yourself a SuperFreak? Test your Superfreakonomics know-how now: Question 1: 5 points According to Superfreakonomics, what has been most helpful in improving the lives of women in rural India? A. The government ban on dowries and sex-selective abortions B. The spread of cable and satellite television C. Projects that pay women to not abort female babies D. Condoms made specially for the Indian market Question 2: 3 points Among Chicago street prostitutes, which night of the week is the most profitable? A. Saturday B. Monday C. Wednesday D. Friday Question 3: 5 points You land in an emergency room with a serious condition and your fate lies in the hands of the doctor you draw. Which characteristic doesn't seem to matter in terms of doctor skill? A. Attended a top-ranked medical school and served a residency at a prestigious hospital B. Is female C. Gets high ratings from peers D. Spends more money on treatment Question 4: 3 points Which cancer is chemotherapy more likely to be effective for? A. Lung cancer B. Melanoma C. Leukemia D. Pancreatic cancer Question 5: 5 points Half of the decline in deaths from heart disease is mainly attributable to: A. Inexpensive drugs B. Angioplasty C. Grafts D. Stents Question 6: 3 points True or False: Child car seats do a better job of protecting children over the age of 2 from auto fatalities than regular seat belts. Question 7: 5 points What's the best thing a person can do personally to cut greenhouse gas emissions? A. Drive a hybrid car B. Eat one less hamburger a week C. Buy all your food from local sources Question 8: 3 points Which is most effective at stopping the greenhouse effect? A. Public-awareness campaigns to discourage consumption B. Cap-and-trade agreements on carbon emissions C. Volcanic explosions D. Planting lots of trees Question 9: 5 points In the 19th century, one of the gravest threats of childbearing was puerperal fever, which was often fatal to mother and child. Its cause was finally determined to be: A. Tight bindings of petticoats early in the pregnancy B. Foul air in the delivery wards C. Doctors not taking sanitary precautions D. The mother rising too soon in the delivery room Question 10: 3 points Which of the following were not aftereffects of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on September 11, 2001: A. The decrease in airline traffic slowed the spread of influenza. B. Thanks to extra police in Washington, D.C., crime fell in that city. C. The psychological effects of the attacks caused people to cut back on their consumption of alcohol, which led to a decrease in traffic accidents. D. The increase in border security was a boon to some California farmers, who, as Mexican and Canadian imports declined, sold so much marijuana that it became one of the states most valuable crops. Answers and Scoring Question 1 B, Cable and satellite TV. Women with television were less willing to tolerate wife beating, less likely to admit to having a "son preference,” and more likely to exercise personal autonomy. Plus, the men were perhaps too busy watching cricket. Question 2 A, Saturday nights are the most profitable. While Friday nights are the busiest, the single greatest determinant of a prostitute's price is the specific trick she is hired to perform. And for whatever reason, Saturday customers purchase more expensive services. Question 3 C, One factor that doesn't seem to matter is whether a doctor is highly rated by his or her colleagues. Those named as best by their colleagues turned out to be no better than average at lowering death rates--although they did spend less money on treatments. Question 4 C, Leukemia. Chemotherapy has proven effective on some cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, and testicular cancer, especially if these cancers are detected early. But in most cases, chemotherapy is remarkably ineffective, often showing zero discernible effect. That said, cancer drugs make up the second-largest category of pharmaceutical sales, with chemotherapy comprising the bulk. Question 5 A, Inexpensive drugs. Expensive medical procedures, while technologically dazzling, are responsible for a remarkably small share of the improvement in heart disease. Roughly half of the decline has come from reductions in risk factors like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, both of which are treated with relatively inexpensive drugs. And much of the remaining decline is thanks to ridiculously inexpensive treatments like aspirin, heparin, ACE inhibitors, and beta-blockers. Question 6 False. Based on extensive data analysis as well as crash tests paid for by the authors, old-fashioned seat belts do just as well as car seats. Question 7 B, Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more greenhouse-gas reduction than buying all locally sourced food, according to a recent study by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews, two Carnegie Mellon researchers. Every time a Prius or other hybrid owner drives to the grocery store, she may be cancelling out its emissions-reducing benefit, at least if she shops in the meat section. Emission from cows, as well as sheep and other ruminants, are 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide released by cars and humans. Question 8 C, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged more than 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which acted like a layer of sunscreen, reducing the amount of solar radiation and cooling off the earth by an average of one degree F. Question 9 C, doctors not taking sanitary precautions. This was the dawning age of the autopsy, and doctors did not yet know the importance of washing their hands after leaving the autopsy room and entering the delivery room. Question 10 C, the psychological effect of the attacks caused people to increase their alcohol consumption, and traffic accidents increased as a result. Scoring 32-40: Certified SuperFreak 25-31: Freak--surprises lay in wait for you 16-24: Wannabe freak--you've got some reading to do 1-15: Conventional wisdomer--you're still thinking in old waysPrice History of SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
Start Tracking (coming soon)
Average Customer Review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
297 of 415 people found the following review helpful:
This otherwise interesting book has fatal flaws, November 2, 2009
by Juliana Davidson
As a fan of Freakonomics, my initial reaction to this book was something along the lines of: a friendly but wild read that keeps the mind flexing at a steady pace. Like in their previous book, it seems impossible that the authors can assemble so much diverse information into a seamless and absorbing narrative, and they keep it going in this book to a point.
When their discussions turn to child safety seats and climate change, the book unexpectedly veers off course and essentially plunges off a cliff. These areas sour the book with blatant poor research. Their conclusion that child seats don't save childrens' lives any better than seatbelts is troublesome. That statement in itself would be fine, even useful, if it was based upon good research. However, the authors base this opinion on a study that looked at the past thirty years as a whole! Most everyone knows that child safety seats have come a long, long way, and all the data I've seen suggests that seats made in the last decade are far superior to seatbelts.
It appears the authors casually chose climate change as another topic to spout off on since it's a hot button that will help them sell books. Being fun and irreverent is great if the topic is whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat, or at least their research is sound. Levitt and Dubner cheapen their thinking by presenting a few dozen pages that are littered with obvious mistakes and even the perpetuation of myths, such as the scientific consensus in the 1970s predicted global cooling. Anyway, the "expert" they cite has already publicly renounced them for misrepresenting his ideas, and the whole thing is a shame.
If you're looking for good non-fiction, I really enjoyed Emotional Intelligence 2.0
When their discussions turn to child safety seats and climate change, the book unexpectedly veers off course and essentially plunges off a cliff. These areas sour the book with blatant poor research. Their conclusion that child seats don't save childrens' lives any better than seatbelts is troublesome. That statement in itself would be fine, even useful, if it was based upon good research. However, the authors base this opinion on a study that looked at the past thirty years as a whole! Most everyone knows that child safety seats have come a long, long way, and all the data I've seen suggests that seats made in the last decade are far superior to seatbelts.
It appears the authors casually chose climate change as another topic to spout off on since it's a hot button that will help them sell books. Being fun and irreverent is great if the topic is whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat, or at least their research is sound. Levitt and Dubner cheapen their thinking by presenting a few dozen pages that are littered with obvious mistakes and even the perpetuation of myths, such as the scientific consensus in the 1970s predicted global cooling. Anyway, the "expert" they cite has already publicly renounced them for misrepresenting his ideas, and the whole thing is a shame.
If you're looking for good non-fiction, I really enjoyed Emotional Intelligence 2.0
30 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
Shouldn't ask too much of a sequel, November 15, 2009
by G. B. Talovich
Sequels disappoint; don't ask too much of this one. Perhaps you cannot blame authors for wanting to cash in on their popularity, but if Super Freakonomics had been written before Freakonomics, few people would have bought it. The authors are trying very hard to shock and amaze, but the organization is scattered and the research seems questionable.
Their standard formula is to begin with a counterintuitive statement and before your very eyes show you how clever they are. I, for one, do not see how prostitutes are patriotic, and thought that the comparison between Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo forced and unconvincing.
There are many excellent reviews here already, so I will concentrate on an issue that bothers me. The authors propose taming hurricanes or typhoons. I live in a mountainous jungle that is hit by several typhoons in a typical year, and I can see very clearly how typhoons clear out the deadwood, flush clean streambeds, fill up the water supply, and even spread species (which explains how I spotted a snake from our mountains very far downstream along the bank of the river in downtown Taipei). Without typhoons, Taiwan would not have enough water to drink, so every year everybody hopes we get some typhoons: mild typhoons are nicer, but even strong typhoons are necessary.
This August Taiwan was hit by a medium typhoon that dumped nine feet of water on the mountains in three days, burying villages and killing many people. Recent catastrophes of this nature are due not so much to typhoons as to investors (not locals) chopping roads into mountains, planting betel nut trees, and other human activities. So what we need is not fewer typhoons, but more care in dealing with the mountains.
Every year we usually get several typhoons larger than Katrina, but they do little damage, because people have the sense not to build below sea level. Also, everything that can blow away, blew away long ago. Again, my point is that disasters from typhoons or hurricanes are due in large part to short-sighted human development, not the weather.
But suppose people started controlling typhoons. IMHO, that would be a real can of worms. Say Taiwan needed water, but the Philippines and Okinawa did too. A great tug-of-war would result, as each tried to channel the typhoon home. The opposite would hold true, too. If Taiwan didn't want a typhoon, it would have to go somewhere, but where? The neighbors might not want it, either.
The authors seem to have forgotten the Butterfly Effect. Even something so negligible as a butterfly flapping its wings may have far-reaching effects. Unless we can guarantee the long-term consequences of fiddling with typhoons, I say, Let's not!
The authors seek provocation and titillation at the cost of deliberation and far-sightedness. It may sell books, but many of their ideas need a lot more thought.
Their standard formula is to begin with a counterintuitive statement and before your very eyes show you how clever they are. I, for one, do not see how prostitutes are patriotic, and thought that the comparison between Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo forced and unconvincing.
There are many excellent reviews here already, so I will concentrate on an issue that bothers me. The authors propose taming hurricanes or typhoons. I live in a mountainous jungle that is hit by several typhoons in a typical year, and I can see very clearly how typhoons clear out the deadwood, flush clean streambeds, fill up the water supply, and even spread species (which explains how I spotted a snake from our mountains very far downstream along the bank of the river in downtown Taipei). Without typhoons, Taiwan would not have enough water to drink, so every year everybody hopes we get some typhoons: mild typhoons are nicer, but even strong typhoons are necessary.
This August Taiwan was hit by a medium typhoon that dumped nine feet of water on the mountains in three days, burying villages and killing many people. Recent catastrophes of this nature are due not so much to typhoons as to investors (not locals) chopping roads into mountains, planting betel nut trees, and other human activities. So what we need is not fewer typhoons, but more care in dealing with the mountains.
Every year we usually get several typhoons larger than Katrina, but they do little damage, because people have the sense not to build below sea level. Also, everything that can blow away, blew away long ago. Again, my point is that disasters from typhoons or hurricanes are due in large part to short-sighted human development, not the weather.
But suppose people started controlling typhoons. IMHO, that would be a real can of worms. Say Taiwan needed water, but the Philippines and Okinawa did too. A great tug-of-war would result, as each tried to channel the typhoon home. The opposite would hold true, too. If Taiwan didn't want a typhoon, it would have to go somewhere, but where? The neighbors might not want it, either.
The authors seem to have forgotten the Butterfly Effect. Even something so negligible as a butterfly flapping its wings may have far-reaching effects. Unless we can guarantee the long-term consequences of fiddling with typhoons, I say, Let's not!
The authors seek provocation and titillation at the cost of deliberation and far-sightedness. It may sell books, but many of their ideas need a lot more thought.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Freakonomics, November 27, 2009
by Russell P. Clarvoe
If you liked the first one, you'll like the second one. It's not fabulous literature but it is an entertaining look at the world through the lens of economics.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Levitt & Dubner do it again, November 30, 2009
by Robert Bacarella
SuperFreakonamics is actually better than the first if you could believe it. Even though it was 6 CD's I was dissappointed that they did not have 12 CD's worth of facts and stats. I will be waiting for the SuperDuperFreakonomics with credit card in hand when it comes out.
316 of 463 people found the following review helpful:
A tired formula., October 21, 2009
by Mobius
I gave a positive review to the first Freakonomics. That book distilled some 10 years of academic research by Mr. Levitt, and it was already stretched a bit thin. Levitt does not have another 10 years of research to convert into a second book, so instead we get a collection of magazine articles with cutesy "counterintuitive" angles to them. I know a popular book like this can't be expected to be completely rigorous, but what I've learned about Levitt since the first book has left me less willing to take him at face value. For example his famous study of the link between abortion and crime was later shown to suffer from a programming error in which he neglected to properly normalize a series of crime statistics. When the error was corrected, the trumpeted correlation went away. Levitt responded by re-jiggering his assumptions in a complicated way so he could keep his original conclusions intact. He certainly doesn't make his readers aware of how much subjectivity is in his analysis, and he gives short shrift to legitimate alternate interpretations. Without the penumbra of credibility Levitt enjoyed from his work in econometrics, he's just another moderately amusing magazine writer who shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Home - the blog!
Yowzas!
Read the reviews of SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance by Steven D. Levitt. Yowzas lists the best selling books. We have the most up to date best seller lists, so bookmark us or grab our RSS feed.
Best Selling Books
Browse one of the other best seller book lists
