Think Like a Freak, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

This week I'm continuing my exploration of the work from Levitt and Dubner and if you're interested you can ready my reviews of Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics, both of which have been very popular and have brought all manner of questions to Levitt and Dubner, some of which they've been able to answer, some of which they haven't. This book definitely feels a little lighter than the other books and I think part of that is because it's radically different from its predecessors. Rather than looking into the hidden sides of economic phenomenons people don't think about too often, this book talks more about how you yourself can look into the hidden side of things and try to figure out how things work. Again they utilize somewhat anecdotal evidence which comes with its own problems, but it's still entertaining.

Basically Levitt and Dubner talk about how people can ''Think like a freak'' and achieve success through a variety of methods, including doing the unexpected and understanding how people react to incentives. Without stealing too much of their thunder for the book, they include several key strategies which human beings, for a variety of reasons, just don't think or don't want to do. A good example is being willing to say "I don't know'' instead of bluffing your way through an answer. I can say in my own personal experience saying ''I don't know'' has resulted in certain people calling me Sergeant Schultz in the past (long story) so I can understand why people would be reluctant to say it. Other examples include rethinking questions when traditional approaches aren't working, not being afraid to ask obvious questions because people might be too embarrassed to ask the obvious question, anticipating failure and preparing for it, not being afraid of failure and using it as an opportunity to learn, and a process they call ''letting your garden weed itself'', basically building bigger and better traps that will only catch the people you want them to catch.

Overall the book's kind of interesting, but I did feel like it was mostly a rehashing of concepts that had already been explored in the previous two books. They go to greater lengths explaining their methodology, but I felt like it was only a much smaller expansion on material they've already talked about. Basically it's a self-help book with some pretty sound and basic advice, but I almost feel like you could have picked up the advice in the book from the earlier books as well.

Another thing that was interesting was the inclusion in the audiobook, at least the version I had, of three of the podcasts which they've done on a regular basis. They were pretty interesting because they explored some topics and utilize empirical research from a number of sources, but they also felt kind of short and didn't come with quite as much closure as I'd like. But in the end it was a fun add-on to the audiobook that I enjoyed.

I think if you want to learn some of the strategies Levitt and Dubner have used which made Freakonomics such the success that it is, it's an okay book to read or listen to. It's basically a self-help book which is okay, but to be perfectly honest not my usual fare and I probably went into this book with the wrong sort of expectations.

- Kalpar

Superfreakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

This week I've decided to review the sequel to Freakonomics, Superfreakonomics where Levitt and Dubner return to explore the economic rationales behind some of humanity's (and in some cases monkeys') weirder behaviors. I again found this book to be interesting and it raised some very interesting points, but at the same time I began noticing a trend of extremely loose organization that seemed to be inherent in both books. In the introduction the authors straight up admit that the book doesn't have a unifying theme or a central goal and as a result the book gets kind of muddled because it lacks a goal. A lot of the information presented within the book create interesting anecdotes that make good dinner conversations, but I feel like a lot of the further reading to educate yourself on the subject is left with the reader rather than with the author.

It's very hard for me to pin down exactly why I don't care for the sequel as much as I enjoyed the first one but I get the feeling it might be because it's simply more of the same that you got in the first book. Levitt and Dubner go through data to challenge commonly held assumptions and introduce economic concepts and make them applicable to the lay reader. It's very much like the first book and exposes how to apply an economic mindset to any situation and interpreting it based on incentives, cost versus benefit, and other factors. While it certainly introduces a handful of new concepts and helps to further the education of the lay reader in economic principles and research, I feel like Superfreakonomics isn't quite as ground-breaking as its predecessor. The problem is I can't really come up with any evidence to support my opinion, it's all really down to my feelings.

Is the book your time? Probably. It certainly raises a lot of good questions and challenges many commonly-held assumptions within larger society. I just feel like it focuses entirely on simply challenging assumptions and trying to make your head explode with the incredible more than anything else. With no clear goal or no overarching points it comes across as a collection of interesting anecdotes that could very easily be forgotten rather than being applied in the larger world to challenge our perceptions. It's certainly interesting, but I don't know if it will really stick with people.

Overall, interesting, but it's lacking a something I simply can't identify.

- Kalpar

Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

So, I know that this week's book is kind of out of our regular purview here at the Arsenal, but I found this book very informative and an excellent educational read. In addition I saw the documentary of the book which deals with many of the issues on Netflix and so I'm going to do a little compare and contrast between the two. And as a final sort of take-that, the field of economics is one of many sources of information that historians use to piece together the story of the past and chart change and development over time. I especially found the question of why crime dropped dramatically in the 1990's particularly interesting just for the historical context.

Freakonomics, as the authors state, doesn't have any real central theme other than, perhaps, their desire to overturn conventional wisdom through analysis of data. Levitt and Dubner ask varied questions like: "Is your real estate agent really getting you the best deal for your house?" "Would teachers cheat on standardized tests?" and "How much does a child's name affect their future?" The answers are surprising, but supported by a truly extensive sampling of data and numerous peer-reviewed papers and, as Levitt says, while people may lie, numbers don't.

Aside from asking some interesting questions and providing equally interesting answers, Levitt and Dubner have managed to make the world of economics accessible to the masses through very easy reading and concrete anecdotes and examples, rather than dealing with the usual vague, mathematical absolutes. By translating concepts such as incentives and information asymmetry into concrete examples such as higher pay for teachers or the, supposedly, esoteric information available to real estate agents. Freakonomics will definitely change how you approach numerous situations and hopefully challenge some of your long-held assumptions about how the world works. Although Levitt's economic research may be trivial, it has long-reaching affects and has even changed how the Chicago Public School system approaches standardized testing.

In regards to the Freakonomics documentary, it addresses many of the questions tackled in the book, such as the sudden drop in crime that occurred in the 1990's, the prevalence of cheating among sumo wrestlers, and how much a child's name affects their future. I felt that the documentary was capable of being more focused because there seemed to be a temptation within the book to bring in outside information that, while relevant to the question Levitt and Dubner were trying to answer, in my opinion disrupted the overall flow of the text. The documentary definitely benefited from a much tighter focus on the subject material, even if that made it more limited in scope. In addition, both the book and film have material which does not overlap but is still interesting, such as the questions "Why do drug dealers live with their moms?" and "Can you bribe a high school student to succeed?".

Overall I would definitely recommend that my readers go and read both the book Freakonomics and the similarly titled documentary. The questions are provocative and interesting, the writing is incredibly accessible, and the results are thought-provoking and informative. Levitt and Dubner have done a great deal to demystify economics and make it applicable to the man in the street, which I think is the truly great service done by this book. I shall hopefully be tackling the second installment from these authors, Super Freakonomics in the future and find it equally engaging.

- Kalpar