• Complain

Steven D. Levitt - Super Freakonomics

Here you can read online Steven D. Levitt - Super Freakonomics full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2009, publisher: William Morrow, genre: Detective and thriller. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

Steven D. Levitt Super Freakonomics

Super Freakonomics: summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Super Freakonomics" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

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: Whats more dangerous, driving drunk or *walking* drunk? Why is chemotherapy prescribed so often if its 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? * Whats 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 *freak*quel 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 doesnt 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 Whats 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 prostitutes 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 doesnt 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, Hodgkins 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 weeks 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--youve got some reading to do 1-15: Conventional wisdomer--youre still thinking in old ways From Publishers Weekly Economist Levitt and journalist Dubner capitalize on their megaselling *Freakonomics* with another effort to make the dismal science go gonzo. Freaky topics include the oldest profession (hookers charge less nowadays because the sexual revolution has produced so much free competition), money-hungry monkeys (yep, that involves prostitution, too) and the dunderheadedness of Al Gore. Theres not much substance to the authors project of applying economics to all of life. Their method is to notice some contrarian statistic (adult seat belts are as effective as child-safety seats in preventing car-crash fatalities in children older than two), turn it into economics by tacking on a perfunctory cost-benefit analysis (seat belts are cheaper and more convenient) and append a libertarian sermonette (governments tend to prefer the costly-and-cumbersome route). The point of these lessons is to bolster the economists view of people as rational actors, altruism as an illusion and government regulation as a folly of unintended consequences. The intellectual content is pretty thin, but its spiked with the crowd-pleasing provocationsA pimps services are considerably more valuable than a realtors that spell bestseller. *(Nov.)* Copyright Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Steven D. Levitt: author's other books


Who wrote Super Freakonomics? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

Super Freakonomics — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Super Freakonomics" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

SuperFreakonomics

SuperFreakonomics SuperFreakonomics
SuperFreakonomics AN EXPLANATORY NOTE The time has come to admit that in our first book, we lied. Twice.The first lie appeared in the introduction, where we wrote that the book had no unifying theme. Heres what happened. Our publishing housenice people, smart peopleread the first draft of our book and cried out in alarm: This book has no unifying theme! Instead, the manuscript was a random heap of stories about cheating teachers, self-dealing Realtors, and crack-selling mamas boys. There was no nifty theoretical foundation upon which these stories could be piled to miraculously add up to more than the sum of their parts.Our publishers alarm only grew when we proposed a title for this mishmash of a book: Freakonomics. Even over the phone, you could hear the sound of palms smacking foreheads: This pair of bozos just delivered a manuscript with no unifying theme and a nonsensical, made-up title!It was duly suggested that in the published book we concede right up front, in the introduction, that we had no unifying theme. And so, in the interest of keeping the peace (and our book advance), thats what we did.But in truth, the book did have a unifying theme, even if it wasnt obvious at the time, even to us. If pressed, you could boil it down to four words: People respond to incentives. If you wanted to get more expansive, you might say this: People respond to incentives, although not necessarily in ways that are predictable or manifest. Therefore, one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences. This applies to schoolteachers and Realtors and crack dealers as well as expectant mothers, sumo wrestlers, bagel salesmen, and the Ku Klux Klan.The issue of the books title, meanwhile, still lay unresolved. After several months and dozens of suggestions, including Unconventional Wisdom (eh), Aint Necessarily So (bleh), and E-Ray Vision (dont ask), our publisher finally decided that perhaps Freakonomics wasnt so bad after allor, more precisely, it was so bad it might actually be good.Or maybe they were simply exhausted.The subtitle promised that the book would explore the hidden side of everything. This was our second lie. We were sure reasonable people would view such a phrase as intentional hyperbole. But some readers took it literally, complaining that our stories, as motley a collection as they were, did not in fact address everything. And so, while the subtitle was not intended as a lie, it turned out to be one. We apologize.Our failure to include everything in the first book, however, had an unintended consequence of its own: it created the need for a second book. But let it be noted straightaway that this second book and the first book combined still do not literally comprise everything.
The two of us have now been collaborators for several years. It began when one of us (Dubner, an author and journalist) wrote a magazine article about the other (Levitt, an academic economist). Adversaries in the beginning, albeit civil ones, we joined forces only when several publishers began to offer significant sums of money for a book. (Remember: people respond to incentivesand, despite the common perception, economists and journalists are people too.)We discussed how the money should be divided. Almost immediately we came to an impasse, for each of us insisted on a 6040 split. Upon realizing that we each thought the other guy should get 60 percent, we knew wed have a good partnership. So we settled on 5050 and got to work.We didnt feel much pressure writing that first book because we genuinely thought few people would read it. (Levitts father agreed and said it was immoral to accept even a penny up front.) These low expectations liberated us to write about any-and everything we found worthwhile. So we had a pretty good time.We were surprised and thrilled when the book became a hit. As profitable as it might have been to pump out a quick follow-upthink Freakonomics for Dummies or Chicken Soup for the Freakonomics Soulwe wanted to wait until we had done enough research that we couldnt help but write it all down. So here we finally are, more than four years later, with a second book that we believe is easily better than the first. Of course it is up to you, not us, to say if that is trueor perhaps if its as bad as some people feared our first book might be.If nothing else, our publishers have resigned themselves to our unyielding bad taste: when we proposed that this new book be called SuperFreakonomics, they didnt even blink.
If this book is any good, you have yourselves to thank as well. One of the benefits of writing books in an age of such cheap and easy communication is that authors hear directly from their readers, loudly and clearly and in great number. Good feedback is hard to come by, and extremely valuable. Not only did we receive feedback on what wed already written but also many suggestions for future topics. Some of you who sent e-mails will see your thoughts reflected in this book. Thank you.The success of Freakonomics had one particularly strange by-product: we were regularly invited, together and separately, to give lectures to all sorts of groups. Often we were presented as the very sort of experts that in Freakonomics we warned you to watch out forpeople who enjoy an informational advantage and have an incentive to exploit it. (We tried our best to disabuse audiences of the notion that we are actually expert in anything.)These encounters also produced material for future writings. During a lecture at UCLA, one of us (Dubner) talked about how people wash their hands after using the bathroom far less often than they admit. Afterward, a gentleman approached the podium, offered his hand, and said he was a urologist. Despite this unappetizing introduction, the urologist had a fascinating story to tell about hand-washing failures in a high-stakes settingthe hospital where he workedand the creative incentives the hospital used to overcome these failures. Youll find that story in this book, as well as the heroic story of another, long-ago doctor who also fought poor hand hygiene.At another lecture, to a group of venture capitalists, Levitt discussed some new research he was doing with Sudhir Venkatesh, the sociologist whose adventures with a crack-selling gang were featured in Freakonomics. The new research concerned the hour-by-hour activities of street prostitutes in Chicago. As it happened, one of the venture capitalists (well call him John) had a date later that evening with a $300-an-hour prostitute (who goes by the name of Allie). When John arrived at Allies apartment, he saw a copy of Freakonomics on her coffee table.Whered you get that? John asked.Allie said a girlfriend of hers who was also in the business had sent it to her.Hoping to impress Alliethe male instinct to impress the female is apparently strong even when the sex is already bought and paid forJohn said hed attended a lecture that very day by one of the books authors. As if that werent coincidence enough, Levitt mentioned he was doing some research on prostitution.A few days later, this e-mail landed in Levitts in-box:I heard through a mutual acquaintance that you are working on a paper about the economics of prostitution, correct? Since I am not really sure if this is a serious project or if my source was putting me on, I just thought I would put myself out there and let you know I would love to be of assistance.Thanks, AllieOne complication remained: Levitt had to explain to his wife and four kids that he wouldnt be home the following Saturday morning, that instead hed be having brunch with a prostitute. It was vital, he argued, to meet with her in person to accurately measure the shape of her demand curve. Somehow, they bought it.And so you will read about Allie in this book as well.The chain of events that led to her inclusion might be attributed to what economists call cumulative advantage. That is, the prominence of our first book produced a series of advantages in writing a second book that a different author may not have enjoyed. Our greatest hope is that we have taken proper advantage of this advantage.Finally, while writing this book we have tried to rely on a bare minimum of economics jargon, which can be abstruse and unmemorable. So instead of thinking about the Allie affair as an example of cumulative advantage, lets just call itwell, freaky.SuperFreakonomics
Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «Super Freakonomics»

Look at similar books to Super Freakonomics. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «Super Freakonomics»

Discussion, reviews of the book Super Freakonomics and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.