Freakonomics: Review

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Sides of Everything is a non-fiction book written by University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, a journalist from the New York Times. In this book, the two team up to uncover many facts about economics that we don't know or to just blast our minds with stuff we never could've thought of. It seems to ask you really random questions such as "Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool?" or "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" Despite these ridiculously seemingly hard to answer questions, both Levitt and Dubner seem to pull data out of their asses and give you an answer. But of course, mostly everything is backed up in the "notes" section on the back of the book.

For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell?

This book seems to be for anyone who is interested in finding out the answers to unlikely to be asked questions. Personally I was drawn in by the outlandish and unique questions it introduced in the cover flap. Anyone with the curiosity to snoop around and find out a kind of behind the scenes sort of explanation about things that.. might or might not relate to daily life would find this book interesting. But I have to say if someone has never read a book that's at least a bit similar to this, it would initially be hard to understand. The book gives no break and right from the beginning starts bombarding you with information and data that you just don't know how to interpret until you keep reading on. This is how I felt when I first started reading. But seriously, this book is for the people looking for answers to unusual questions. They make a lot of sense in the end though.

From young adults to grown men with a family, this book is for anyone willing to learn about how some of our society, not limited to the US, work.

How would you describe the author's style of writing? What's your opinion of the style?

With one of the authors being a journalist, you could already guess the style of writing the book is going to be in. It seems like the two made a very functional team, where Levitt was the supplier of information and Dubner was just the scribe. I feel like I've said this a million times before, but this book is best explained as data, information, data, information, data, data, and then an answer. The very long path made up of data is tough and you basically have to endure it to get the answer of the original question. But it's nice to think about it as sort of a quest. When you have a quest, you have a primary goal. In the case of this book's many questions, the quest is to find the answer to the introductory question. Along the way, you find many tools and other things that make your quest easier to complete. This book uses data to help you understand the answer it gives you in the end. If it flat out gave you the answer, it definitely wouldn't be as exciting.

But sometimes, you have to pull out the answer yourself. The book doesn't just flat out give you a bunch of information and then answer the question. It's more of a "here, we'll give you all of this information and you figure the rest out" kind of style. Sometimes you won't know why the hell the book is giving you seemingly useless data but if you try to understand it more clearly you can tell that it has strong relations to the answers. For example, on the topic of "What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?" the chapter starts talking about a man that started a bagel business. The data is confusing but it normally turns into something that you could use to find the answer yourself. Needless to say, the book makes you think.

Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any way(s)?

The explanatory note at the beginning of the book describes how the two came together to write Freakonomics. "In the summer of 2003... sent Stephen J. Dubner... to write a profile of Steven D. Levitt, a heralded young economist at the University of Chicago." So the authors explain how both of them met for the first time and even goes further on how they got onto writing the actual book. "In New York City, the publishers were telling Levitt he should write a book. 'Write a book? he said. 'I don't want to write a book.' ... 'unless maybe Dubner and I could do it together." To me this sort of describes the relationship these two had when they wrote this book. It was an economist and journalist coming together and presenting surprising information about.. well just about everything. But this economist was different. He wasn't the generic type of economist. Levitt is an outside of the box thinker and with that aspect of him he creates borderline silly riddles and questions that you think he would never be able to understand.

I have never seen any combo like this before. It definitely creates a unique clash of 'rogue economist' and journalist. Though I do admit I don't look into books like this that often, the book seemed like a unique one. It tackled questions that no one else dare think about, except Levitt. I would be surprised if Dubner agreed with every single one of Levitt's ideas, but that kind of conflict would be hard to imagine looking into the fact that they made a book that seems flawless. But the main point is, the book is unique and bold. Check it out if you feel like getting to know society and how economies work a little bit better.

Freakonomics: Three

Dear Roberto, Ming, and Brandon.

The book stepped into some pretty interesting stuff towards the end. Some things that really sparked my interest is when they started talking about parenting. Along the way in the subject of parenting, they started to talk about schools. Since the main topic was about parenting, it was discussing the difference of "good" schools and "bad" ones. With another twist put in, the comparison was of white and black students. Now, again, to me it gets kind of confusing with all the data and all but once I got it, my mind was blasted. The book helped clear up some of the things that we think are true that really aren't. And in contrast the things we thought were false, actually ended up being true.

The last chapter talked about how the name that a child was given actually effects their lives later on. The chapter gave a long list of names and by statistics showed which ones were the "best" and "worst." Now, it really is hard to believe something that a child's name has a lot to do with what they're going to turn out to be. "a researcher would send two identical (and fake) resumes, one with a traditionally white name and the other with an immigrant or minority-sounding name, to potential employers. The 'white' resume have always gleaned more job interviews" shows how even the name a person is given effects their chances of getting a job. It's really surprising.

To wrap this book up, how did you guys feel about all of the information in this book? Were you surprised at anything this book had to say like I was? Why or why not? If you could answer, that'd be nice. This book was a nice read overall and it was a pleasure reading it with you guys.

school, colleges, and the future

I wrote this on my Tumblr a while ago. So I'm just using it now.

With the schedule thing happening last week, it felt like a really uncomfortable rush of decisions. For that week, people are planning for their future and the main, which also seems to be the ONLY topic going on in conversations is what classes your friends are going to take. Everyone’s throwing around suggestions to each other like ‘TAKE THIS, TAKE THAT! NO DON’T TAKE THAT I HEARD IT WAS HELLA HARD.” And me? Well. I’m just in the background, confused and dazed because I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do either. To be honest, it kinda sucks being like that. All of the people around me seem to at least have an idea of what they want/are going to take next year, and it seems like I’m the only one who doesn’t really know. Fuck man. The deadline for the form is a bit unclear to me too; some people say it was this Monday and I’ve heard that it’s this Friday. I’m gonna choose to believe that it’s due Friday because I still haven’t done counseling. But I still have a recurring thought in my head that, maybe I shouldn’t turn it in. Maybe I should just let the school pick my classes for me. It’s basically what I did last year, and I’m pretty okay with it. Hell, I still don’t even know.

Concerning all that shit, a conversation on Thursday with Sutherland was enlightening. He said some things that.. well, seem to have made my thought process clearer about what I’m going to do in the future. One of the things he said was that colleges were beginning to devalue AP classes. This really makes sense to me because well, imagine this. A shitload of people take AP classes as is, right? But will that really stand out to a college? If all a college sees in applications is ‘I took __ AP classes” over and over again, it’s basically become a common thing. The same concept as money, perhaps. The more you have of it, the less valuable it gets. All of the people taking so many APs confuse me. AP Physics, AP Calc, AP Stats, APUSH, APES, and so on. I’m pretty sure they aren’t interested in all of those subjects at once. The purpose of an AP is to expand your knowledge. Say you really like math, it makes sense if you plan on taking AP Calculus or AP Stats. But it doesn’t make a bit of sense if you’re taking APUSH too. APs seem to have evolved into something that’s like ‘HEY LOOK AT ME I’M REALLY SMART.’ or just something that’ll ‘make you look good’ in college applications. But among other things, Sutherland also helped me in the subject of picking a college.

People seem to have the idea that attending a good college equals having a good job. Well, what’s the definition of a good college? Is it some college with super high standards or an Ivy league? Does popular mean good? Personally, I don’t think so. My definition of a good college is a college where it best suits your interest. Think about it. Why take a subject if you aren’t even interested in it? Just because it looks good, right? I don’t know, but I guess it could be a legit reason. It just seems like you’re pushing yourself into studying a subject that you don’t even like in the first place. Which in case, is a total waste of time. I guess what I’m trying to say is, before you pick a college, you should at least have an idea of what your interests are and pick a college that best suits that interest. For example, if you’re interested in art.. well, you’d obviously go to an art school. In medicine, a medical school. In law, then law school. If you know what you like, it’s a lot easier figuring out what your profession could be. It’s like, why bother going to a “good” college that’s really strong in mathematics when your main interest is science? I don’t know, I know my main idea, but I find it hard to explain.

Freakonomics: One & Two

I will be completely honest, the only reasons why I was driven to read this book is because of the abstract cover and the unique questions it initially asks. A few of these questions are "What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?" "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" "Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool?" These questions got me interested in this book because I thought how in the hell will these questions get answered? And again I do admit that as soon as I started reading the first few pages, I got confused. The book bounces around several places to get answers. The best way I can think of describing how this book goes is, imagine asking a question. That person talks about random things that aren't really related to your question at all, but in the end they still manage to answer your question. And in your mind you're thinking "Well, why the hell couldn't they have just said the answer straight up in the first place?" Thats what went through my mind as I began reading this book. Though the extra information that it gives readers is actually quite interesting and it contributes much to the answer. But it'll still take some effort to fully comprehend and absorb the information the book gives you.

Freakonomics addresses questions you think would never be asked and would never be answered. It shows that even though the modern world is pretty complex, if the right questions are asked then you can get an even more interesting point of view than everyone thinks. Personally I know one of the things that I will definitely remember upon reading the first few chapters. One of the first things the book talked about is the truth about real-estate agents. The things uncovered about them is quite shocking and it DOES make sense. For example it said that if you were selling a house for $300,000 the agent would want you to sell it right away because of the commission that they get. The agent wouldn't go to the trouble of actually getting top dollar for your house. They would want you to sell it right away as opposed to waiting a bit until you get higher offers, because if a $310,000 offer came in, it's only $150 more for them and they'd have to do extra work. So you basically lose about $10,000. If anything, this part in the book tells me how not to fully trust real-estate agents because of their hidden incentives.

Most of the things the book talks about makes a lot of sense. So far it's talked about schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers, the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents, drug dealers still living with their moms, reasons behind the decreases in crime rate, and perfect parenting. For the most part, the book gives you enough information to actually answer the question yourself. It presents to you a hefty amount of data and stories and by the end of it all you can basically use all of what you just read from that chapter to answer the initial question. It's an interesting way to write a book, yes, but it's worth it. Along with the fact that this book is unlike any other. Other books concerning economics are much more complicated and are too directly to the point. The way Freakonomics presents its information is a lot easier to understand once you get the hang of how to actually read it.

So far, I cannot express how interesting the book is right now. It's been a pretty wild ride so far and after finishing this book, I feel like I would have a lot more knowledge on how the world works.

i feel like i'm in a soccer game.

Always talking about goals. Goals goals goals. Haha, I don't mind. It's nice to look back once in a while, no?

Like I've said from the last 'what are your goals as a writer?' assigned post, my intentions have generally stayed the same throughout the year. From the start of this whole blogging thing, I've said that I was planning to blog about a lot of different things, but mostly things concerning my personal[?] life. On the somewhat downside, I haven't been really analyzing my own writing as much as I should. So to go as far as improving my writing, I'm not exactly sure where I am with that. I feel like every single blog I've written so far has come directly from my mind. When I begin a post, it's not really planned and I don't pay attention to the grammar and structure of my posts as much. I tend to write until I have nothing more to say. I'm sure that if I actually try and analyze the things I say more and more, I could try and improve my writing that way. But for the time being, would you care to help me?

The audience I try and shoot for is none other than my peers. I don't write for some other big hot shot blogger just so they can like it. My peers are whom I could relate to more and therefore it's a lot easier to write what I write. The topic of my blog is best summarized as a collection of my thoughts throughout the year, and my purpose for writing about my personal life and thoughts is so others could relate, and it could eventually lead to a whole chain of thinking. To start a chain like that is pretty damn satisfying, needless to say.

Another reason why I write is well, again for personal reasons. A few years in the future I could look back to this blog and see exactly what I was going through and where my opinions stood during my sophomore year in high school. I could say it's a journal, but then again it's not exactly for myself only. I've kept this goal ever since my first ever post. And to quote, "I want to write things that I could look back to and see how I developed as a person."

Next year is an experience I will be awaiting. I don't have any idea where my writing will go, but if I have Sutherland as a teacher again then hopefully I could continue this blog and proudly say that I kept a journal through two years of high school. That would be nice, but I don't know for sure. If I get into a normal English class, I would suspect that this blog would be abandoned, and I would migrate to Tumblr. A good or bad thing? I don't know. But ever since I first experienced writing a blog, it felt pretty good and I would like to continue on it. I have to say, thanks Sutherland for giving me and opportunity to experience such. Among other things, you've broadened my mind.