• Tweet

• » Follow PenguinBooks
• 
• 
• 

• » Privacy & Cookies

• Tweet

• » Follow PenguinBooks
• 
• 
• 

• » Privacy & Cookies

• Extract
• Synopsis
• Reviews
• Product details
• Interview

• Biography
• More titles by Steven D. Levitt

• Biography
• More titles by Stephen J. Dubner

Synopsis

Steven Levitt, the original rogue economist, and Stephen Dubner have spent four years uncovering the hidden side of even more controversial subjects, from terrorism to shark attacks, cable TV to hurricanes. The result is Superfreakonomics. It reveals, among other things:

- Why you are more likely to be killed walking drunk than driving drunk

- How a prostitute is more likely to sleep with a policeman than be arrested by one

- Why terrorists might be easier to track down than you would imagine

- How a sex change could boost your salary

Because sometimes the most superfreaky solution is the simplest.

Reviews

Interview

Read an in-depth interview with authors of Superfreakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner:

The author Q&A’s in the back of books have great potential but often fail because of the canned and bland questions fed to authors by their publishers — or, worse, the fawning questions invented by the authors themselves. (Tell us, were you brilliant even as a child?) So let’s put an end to that! We asked readers of our blog, www.freakonomics.com, to pose questions they’d like to see answered here. They responded with vigor. Thanks for the excellent – and real – questions.

Can you tell us about subjects that you researched but didn’t write about, possibly because the data didn’t tell you anything, it was too controversial, etc. I’d like to hear what was left behind on the editing room floor. — Mickey
If you think we would leave something out because it is too controversial, you obviously don’t know us very well! Maybe you will be convinced after reading our second book, SuperFreakonomics, where we write about prostitutes, terrorists, global-warming hysterics, and profit-seeking oncologists. There are countless research projects for which we couldn’t find the right data, or where the results just turned out not to be very interesting. For every 10 research ideas Levitt has, only 2 will turn into academic papers and only 1 will be interesting enough for a book like this. When you read a book like Freakonomics, it probably seems like we can go out and answer any question that we want, but in reality that is not at all the way it works. The downside is that there are all kinds of fascinating subjects we haven’t written about (yet); the upside is that readers know that the stories we do tell are supported by data rather than just opinion or whimsy.

Am I worse off for never having read Freakonomics? — Terry
Sadly, yes. Independent testing has shown that if you read Freakonomics your breath will smell better, you will have better posture, and, if you are male, your sperm will swim faster.

How much of the success do you believe you can attribute to your choice in title?
Levitt’s sister, Linda Jines, came up with the title; she is the real creative genius in the family, that’s for sure. It’s hard to know how important the title has been to the success of the book, but guess is that it was hugely important. (We can’t put an exact number on it, because if we did, Linda would expect us to fork over that share of the cash!) On the other hand, as we write in the book, a person’s name has little or no effect on life outcome. So is the same true for a book title? Maybe not; a person and a book aren’t the same. Still, it’s worth noting that some commercial ventures have succeeded wildly despite having names that, at first, must have seemed a detriment. Do you really think the first producers of Oprah had an easy time with that name? And what about ESPN?

How would you respond to those who say that, in light of recent financial events, the research featured in your books is frivolous -- and by implication not what “real economists” should be studying? — OMW
That is a very understandable objection. Most “real economists” encountered by the general population are presented as oracles who tell you, with alluring certainty, where the stock market or inflation or interest rates are heading. The fact is that such predictions aren’t worth much. Economists have a hard enough time explaining the past much less predicting the future. They are still arguing over whether F.D.R.’s policy moves quelled the Great Depression or exacerbated it! It is true that we have practically nothing to say about the actual “economy,” which is the topic most people expect economists to talk about. Our defense (slim as it may be) is that the topics we do write about, while not directly connected to the economy, may give some insights into human behavior, as seen through an economic lens. Believe it or not, if you can understand the incentives that lead a schoolteacher to cheat, you can understand how the subprime mortgage bubble came to pass.

Are there any baseball stats that, when compared over a period of time or based on age, show a strong suspicion of steroid use? — Joseph Rollo
We’ve looked in the data for evidence of steroid use, as have well-known sabermetricians like Nate Silver. It has proven hard to find anything that looks like the smoking gun that we see on teacher cheating or sumo wrestling. At this point, what’s most likely is that the effects of steroids on a baseball player’s performance just aren’t that stark. Sure, they get mighty beefy while taking steroids, but a lot of the power hitters were hitting home runs even when they were scrawny rookies.

Tell us about the types of criticisms that you have received from your traditional/academic economics colleagues over your Freakonomics work. And how have you responded to such criticisms? — J. Plain
Levitt’s academic colleagues have tended to react in one of two ways. The majority of economists thought about it like economists: the success of Freakonomics probably increased the number of students wanting to take economics courses, and since the supply of economics teachers is fixed in the short run, the wages of academic economists should rise. That makes economists happy. A second group of economists decided that if Levitt could write a book that people would read, surely they could too. There has been a flurry of “popular” books by economists – some good, some not so good. And then, inevitably, there are a handful of economists who feel that he violated the secret handshake of economics by showing the outside world that what economists do really isn’t that hard or complex. They will never forgive him.

What has been the craziest, most unexpected, or best goofball interaction that you had in regards to authoring the book? We want to know some of the wacky stuff. — econobiker
One day a woman came into Levitt’s office, and it immediately became clear she was a bit off-kilter. She was asking all sorts of questions about how and when we came up with the title Freakonomics. Eventually she said that she had actually written Freakonomics back in the late 1990s, and someone had stolen the manuscript. Then she started talking about how the Kennedys had been spying on her, and how the University of Chicago library had stolen more than a dozen manuscripts for children’s books she had written. Levitt suggested that maybe talking to the U. of C. librarian about the children’s books would be a more productive use of her time than talking to him. Amazingly, she got right up and left.

What will be the cost of one gallon of gas in 2019? What implications will this price have on our culture? — Mike Thomas
Economists, like everyone else, are much better telling you what happened in the past than they are predicting the future. But in all likelihood, a gallon of gas in 2019 will probably cost about the same as a gallon of gas in 2009. Even if we are running out of oil (which we probably aren’t), we won’t be running out that soon. Perhaps the government will have the good sense to put larger taxes on gasoline, which we’ve advocated for a long time because of what economists call the negative externalities of driving.

What do bishops and tennis professionals have in common? — Stan
Comfortable shoes, unusual headgear, and a lot of love.

Of the examples discussed in the book, which has gained the greatest traction in the popular/political discussion? — Rick Groves
There has been a lot of talk about the relationship between legalized abortion and the crime rate. And some governments have cited the low wages of street drug dealers as an incentive to young people to go legit. But on a day-to-day level, the part of the book that’s probably spurred the most change is our discussion of real-estate agents.

Why do you think that the U.S. Mint is still producing pennies if the cost of physically producing a penny is much greater than the value of the resulting penny? — Dutch
Dubner has by now become a well-known penny hawk, telling anyone who will listen – including 60 Minutes – that the penny is a beloved artifact that should finally be put out of its misery. It is a massive waste of time and resources. One of its strongest supporters is the zinc lobby; did you know a penny today is made of 97.5 percent zinc? The biggest reasons to keep the penny are inertia and nostalgia, but those aren’t very good reasons. Dubner counsels his children to avoid pennies at all costs, even throwing them away if necessary. For this, he has been called un-American.

Are you more concerned with presenting the average citizen who is not familiar with economics a new way of looking at the world or are you more concerned with stimulating debate among the people who are familiar with the subject and its methods of analysis? — Christopher Luccy
Well, the obvious answer would be “both.” But if we had to choose one, it would probably be the former. There are a million books that explain the principles of economics, and they are widely read, usually at universities. But these books explain what economics is; they don’t really explain how to look at the world like an economist. Even though that goal may sound like something you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, it can in fact be bearable – as long as the topics you select to accompany the explaining are topics that the average person is passionate about. Like sumo wrestling.

Who would win an arm-wrestling match between Dubner and Levitt? Golf? Tennis? Chess? — Kevin
Dubner would definitely win arm-wrestling, Levitt would win golf. Tennis and chess would probably be hard-fought matches. Note: they are both quite good bowlers.

Some people buy a book because it is interesting and well written and some people a book because others are reading it. To what extent do you think the success of Freakonomics is due to the latter rather than the former? — Euclid
Interesting question (as befits your name, surely). We have wondered the same. Books being what they are – not just stories and information, but stories and information that people like to talk about with other people – there is obviously an extra incentive to read what everyone else is reading. Our opinion is that of all the modes of book promotion (ads, reviews, interviews, etc.) that none is so powerful as good word-of-mouth.

What do you guys like to read (recreationally)?
Levitt admits to having the reading interests of a tweener girl, the Twilight series and Harry Potter in particular. Dubner’s weak spot is sports, and newspapers (the old-fashioned kind, on paper). — Robb

Why is it that there are so few economists in politics, as it is one of the most important issues in a country? Is it that they’d rather become professors, work in the private sector, become advisers or work in the Treasury, or do they think it is too compromising? — Neil
You ask an intriguing and important question. Many countries around the world have elected economists as president. In the U.S., however, economists generally do not fit into the political framework well. Why? One guess is that they are trained to think rationally and tell the truth about data. As anyone knows if they’ve ever watched a U.S. political campaign, rationality and unvarnished data are practically forbidden. Politicians (and, presumably, voters) are much more interested in emotion and opinion. That said, some administrations (Obama, for one) hold economists in far higher regard than others.

While many of the stories and conclusions contained in Freakonomics are fascinating, there seems to be no clear methodology or set of principles that profit-maximizing executives may use in managing their business. Have you ever considered distilling the lessons (such as they are) into a handbook for the manager interested in exploiting the “hidden side” of business? — Drew
Drew, have you considered becoming a literary agent? (Also, we admire your ability to simultaneously flatter and condemn.) Here are the facts. For reasons that remain unclear, our publisher initially called Freakonomics a business book. This led to certain expectations – nearly all of which, surely, were dashed the moment that any businessperson read the book. You are right: we do not lay out any profitable methodologies at all. That said, in recent years Levitt has done a lot of research in the business arena that we feel may someday yield a good book that does indeed explore the “hidden side” of business.

How much is all the tea in China really worth? — Dave F.
About $1.5 billion. But just imagine how much more valuable it would be if, like marijuana, it were illegal.

Product details

Shipped within 24hrs.
FREE UK Delivery*

• Full delivery details

• » View your basket

Search for new vacancies and work experience on the Penguin job site.