Freakonomics
By Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
Freakonomics is not one-sided in its views; it?s a survey of the Steven D. Levitt work. His work uses completely different pieces of thought ?having practical or industrial significance or usages?. He gives HIS views, to give HIS answers to the questions (other than the typical ones asked in the simple or complex business reports). His study questions and gives you HIS answers, like? em or not. The other author, Stephen J. Dubner works in journalism. It was started easily for him by writing a profile of Levitt for New York Times Magazine. The mere thoughts of one man are expanded into this work of highs and lows from different views.
The open theme of this book, for me, was discovering the easiest ways of asking questions. Then having the easiest ways of answering: using all the available stats and data to provide answers. After the easy questions and easy answers, they find the opposite of what someone else would perceive as the answers, and then give you those answers. Some were really good... the others were kind of a way to walk the line not going one way OR the other. Here?s one: The self-revelation that real estate agents use, when selling their own homes on the market, hold out longer and sell for a much higher price! I hope that doesn?t come as a surprise to anyone with a limited quantity of knowledge and a ?necessary? attitude. Although separation of a whole into different kinds of parts (i.e. different people) can lead to that attitude of a helpful reminder; some of the questions they discuss felt brilliant (then okay to me but there are also some things talked about in the book that are REALLY good).
The BEST, to me, was the dissection of why crime rates have declined so massively in the last 10 years. A lot of differing questions, where when the authors told only what they believe to be the best speculation. Here they also bring up all of the theories that were brought forward by the newscast?s media event: either supporting or refuting them. This adds a heap of interesting meat to the table. Some of the results perceived by the authors: upped usage of capital punishment made no difference to me. Now then, harder gun laws are not ?bad? to me... but increased police on the street makes a big difference to me. Some things are wowing to me: they openly argue that the present economy has made a little difference. Now I truly, WHOLELY disagree with the vandalism theory of policing. That is to say that heightened attention to minor crimes in cities (i.e. New York) led to its significant crime drop. It's a wonderful theory that a lot of people like to believe, but the authors show that this ?law? enabled a significant increase in the number of police. Similar heights in law enforcement caused like improvements in crime rates in cities without applying the ?broken windows theory?.
These ?talks? are also leading to uneasy and arguable thoughts. The ever so argued arguments go from one of the most significant causes of the current decrease in crime in the United States (Roe v. Wade) and of course legalized abortion. Employing the principle details of the arguments are quoted examples in footnotes and defended with supplemental material toward the end of the book that I read, and I'm not high up enough to argue one way or another with. When you get past overwhelming surprises (and uneasiness that I think even I felt strongly against... good or bad, to each their own). The theories discussed make a great deal of sense, YES sense to me. Newly conceived ?humans? who would have been terminated under ?LEGAL? abortion are much more likely to have home lives if not terminated that we know ups the chances of crime. All types of crimes listed in the book... drug-addicted mothers and fathers, single parents, separated parents, poor no money families, family histories of mental illnesses, blah blah blah etc. A lot of people would hope that heightened access to birth control would have similar effects with NO dealing with abortion, but that is unclear. One of many awkward messages of Freakonomics is that occasionally the most prevalent causes are one way things which we have not a