|
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance | 
| Authors: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Publisher: William Morrow
Category: Book
List Price: $29.99
Buy New: $11.45
as of 11/26/2009 05:17 CST details
You Save: $18.54 (62%)
New (56) Used (8) Collectible (4) from $11.45
Seller: smokymtnbooks
Rating:  106 reviews
Sales Rank: 13
Format: Deckle Edge
Media: Hardcover
Edition: First Edition, First Printing
Pages: 288
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.3
ISBN: 0060889578
Dewey Decimal Number: 330
EAN: 9780060889579
ASIN: 0060889578
Publication Date: November 1, 2009 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
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 ways
Product Description
The New York Times bestselling Freakonomics was a worldwide sensation, selling more than four million copies in thirty-five languages and changing the way we look at the world. 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. 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?
- What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common?
- Can eating kangaroo save the planet?
Levitt and Dubner mix smart thinking and great storytelling like no one else. 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.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 106
 SuperFreakonomics Review November 25, 2009
booklover
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Incentivism is an administrative principle and problem-solving method which derives in part from cybernetics, the science of governing systems. Applied to management and to government at all levels, Incentivism is the proposition that more can be accomplished for much less cost if incentives are used to align interests and steer policies and actions, in place of many or most more direct means of regulating, governing and directing.
SuperFreakonomics is a follow-up book to Freakonomics (same authors). It provides an incentive-based approach to understanding economics. If you liked Freakonomics, you should like SuperFreakonomics: it's more of the same. It is not necessary to read Freakonomics before reading this book.
The authors say that they intend this book to start a conversation, not necessarily to present conclusive findings. In that, they are successful. The book offers fascinating, entirely readable examples of situations which seem counter-intuitive, but which illustrate the value of understanding what people really want, as a way to determine how and why they act the way they do.
I believe that a lot of their examples are forced. Despite copious endnotes and documentation, many of their assertions are, frankly, not credible. For example, I can't believe there is reliable evidence about exactly how many billions of miles are driven drunk by people who don't get caught. If they didn't get caught, the statistic is based on guesswork and extrapolation, and when you get to billions of miles, guesswork and extrapolation can lead you very far off, indeed. The final chapter of the book is the most controversial, and the authors have been accused of misquoting an authority to make their point. Without admitting that they have done so, they have agreed to modify the chapter in future editions.
Despite the possible inaccuracies, I recommend the book. It is an easy introduction to economics and psychology, eminently readable, will get the reader thinking about a great many useful topics, and can be the basis for delightful discussion.
 Ticked off the global warming nuts! LOL November 25, 2009
Peter Galamaga (Bedford, NH)
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
This is an interesting continuation of the original Freakonomics book. If you enjoy having your paradigms, challenged this is the book for you. A quick, easy, fun read
I wondered why there were so many negative reviews and then realized it was because the authors had the temerity to question the religion of man-made climate change and gently make fun of its pope - Al Gore.
If one actually reads the relevant chapter, one will wonder what all the fuss is about. They don't dismiss global warming theory. They just look at it from different angles.
My hope is that the authors write about their experiences with the fanatics.
Michael Crichton remarked that he wished he had never dared question the Gore-bots because of the nutbag hellfire that was directed upon him.
The Not So Super Freakonomics November 25, 2009
Royce Callaway (SE Michigan USA)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
The sequel to "Freakonomics" once again authored by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner falls short of their previous fun read. While the original book was a sort of tongue in cheek view to six questions with sharply differing topics which the authors tied together by mining data from various sources, this one can't decide if it is serious or not. The original was a fun play with statistics but was never intended to be a serious study to the topics. This sequel is similar but poses only five questions which are fascinating in and of themselves but seem to wander about with no clear objective. While the first book clearly was intended as a sort of semi-serious entertainment, this one is sort of an entertaining response to some semi-serious questions. For example the first question posed is "How is a street prostitute like a department store Santa?" This question does eventually get answered but not before the authors wander off to discuss how women have historically been punished just for being female. They explore wage inequities, the punishing of witches, the limited career opportunities for women, and of course prostitution -- including services, price lists and incomes. Certainly these are all interesting and important questions but not covered in any depth and certainly not with any humor. They do eventually lead to the fact that prostitution can be very lucrative for a very small investment in time and that it is essentially seasonal in nature - much like department store Santa's.
Each of these questions posed by Levitt and Dubner is used as the basis to address various topics, incentives and their impact. But the questions are only a basis for them to explore other related topics which frequently reveals some very odd and seemingly unconnected answers. Perhaps the most serious of these questions and answers is "Unbelievable stories about apathy and altruism". However, the actual question posed is "Why did 38 people watch Kitty Genovese be murdered?" This question is used as a launching pad for a whole series of tangential but related questions like "How the ACLU encourages crime? "What caused the 1960"s crime explosion?' or one of the most interesting of these "Why don't real people behave like people in the lab?" This latter question illustrates the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty in relation to people or how people react when observed versus unobserved. All fascinating reading but certainly not funny, witty, or even explored in depth. The cleverness of Freaknomics is totally missing here.
Clearly this book is more serious than the first one and while the authors continuously refer to economists this book really has little if anything to do with economics. It is mostly an examination of various topics of general interest and how they impact society and in some cases our economy. Perhaps the two most interesting topics they address along these lines is how the required car safety seats do not add safety to a child and in some cases are actually more dangerous than just using seat belts. Of course the economic tie here is the actual saftey results versus the legal requirement for the car seats and the financial advantage for the manufacturers. While this is a serious topic it is not explored in detail and the statistics offered are based on one study and with what appears to be elementary analysis, if there was any analysis at all.
The authors have a real sarcastic romp with Al Gore and Global Warming - errr - Global cooling - errr Climate Change. They point out how the scientific facts do not support Al Gore's inconvenient truth and some of the crazier ideas associated with counteracting climate change. They scoff at the windmills, the myth of carbon dioxide as the driver, and how volcanoes are more than just interesting landmarks. But then they go on to discuss some actual solutions - given that some corrective action is necessary. Of course some of these solutions while technically possible fall into the category of solutions looking for problems. This may be the most clever part of the book and sure to enrage those people who think climate change is something other than a normal geologic event.
All in all this is an entertaining book but not the quality of the first. I gave it three stars only because I tead the entire book, but it lacks all of the crispness and cleverness of the original. Still I recommend this book just for the section dealing with "What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common?" That chapter alone is worth the price of the book.
Thought-Provoking Book - Makes You Go "Hmmm". November 24, 2009
J. A. Dierschke (Nashville, TN)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Ok, a couple of disclaimers right up front: 1) SuperFreakonomics is a follow-up book to the authors' first book - Freakonomics . I didn't read Freakonomics , and as it turns out, you don't have to read the first one to get the second one - these aren't vampire novels; 2) More than likely, I would not have read SuperFreakonomics if I hadn't been sent a copy to review. Why? The word "freakonomics" is way to close to the word "economics" which, for a creative person like me, is a topic much like a bottle of wine - puts me right out. But I will tell you this - freakonomics is MUCH more interesting than plain, old economics. Here's why:
In spite of the overly witty full title - Super Freakonomics Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance - the book is actually a fascinating tale of how economics plays into even the most bizarre areas of modern life. I guess that is what authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner wanted to convey with that extravagant title - they should have just let the content speak for itself, but I know, its all about getting people to OPEN the book, I get it, really.
So anyway, back to SuperFreakonomics. I really enjoyed this book! I did snooze a bit through Chapter 3, but for the most part, here are two guys with nothing to gain except royalties. They don't seem to have an overt political bend. They don't seem to want to convince me that there is only one right way to do things. They're not selling me anything I don't already own. But what they are doing is taking incongruent subjects, like Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo (ok, not TOTALLY incongruent), prostitutes and Santa Claus, real estate agents and pimps, and telling me that they do actually have something in common and here's how it effects my life.
You see, we tend not to draw the comparisons Steven and Stephen have drawn in SuperFreakonomics. Most of us don't want to see these connections or can't because we only really look at the surface of things. The Steves have penetrated that surface and dove down deep. They've brought to light some things that make you go, "hmm." Such as the hand-washing rate of doctors - YES YOU HEARD ME. You'll have to read that chapter for yourself as its quite disturbing.
All in all, its a thought-provoking book that I highly recommend you read. If for nothing else than to give you a little perspective on the world around you, how we got here and where we can hope the future brings us. There's a lot of what I believe is truth, in this book. The chapter on Global Warming is really a good one. But so is the Monkey chapter.
Levitt and Dubner have clearly done a ton of research and another ton of analysis. Typical economists... But untypically, they've written this book in such a way to make it all relevant to what's happening in our world today. Thumbs up.
P.S.: I may just read Freakonomics now...
 Banal at Best November 23, 2009
John G. Jazwiec (Chicago IL)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
At least their first book was an easy read. This one is not only harder to read but is even less credible than the first. The "Freaks" might as well just try writing fiction that weaves myths like Dan Brown's books. What was really irritating to me about this book - while in all fairness they gave credit to other economists like Malcom Gladwell - is rehashing the story about why sports player and birthdays matter - not only has this been beaten down by everyone - but anyone knows that you either have a good cutoff (baseball and being born in August which allowed me to compete on All Star Teams and be the oldest), and bad cutoffs like my two July children (they not only got it bad in sports, but they were always the yougest in the classroom). You don't need an economist or in this case multiple economists telling you what 99% of the world understands. And no economist should want to put their name on this book - as I said it would have been better written as myths in fiction than pretending to give out facts.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 106
|
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
| |
