Lovely Little Shelf

Review: Superfreakonomics

The Book: Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

The Story: Just like the original Freakonomics, this second book is pretty  much story-less.  They kind of just take these different ideas and combine bits of information that don’t seem like they go together to make some pretty interesting points.

Because there is not much of a story and the information is totally all over the place, here is a list of stuff that you’ll find between these covers:

Why walking drunk is more dangerous (for the drunk) than driving…

Why some prostitutes only work during “peak season”…

What really effects the wage gap between men & women…

If a sex change can boost your salary…

How to catch a terrorist…

How hand washing saves thousands of lives (and who figured that out)…

The roots of altruism and if we are really as altruistic as the numbers show…

If car seats are, in fact, more safe for children than old-fashioned lap belts…

Quite a few solutions to global warming that seem all-too-simple…

And how, if given the right conditions, monkeys figure our system out  pretty quickly…

What I Thought: If you remember, I was head over heels for the original book.  I would always pick up the newer one at the bookstore, but never bought it.  The other day, I was on the library’s website when I happened to think about it, so I requested it.  I am so glad I did.

While I didn’t think that this was as good the second time around, I was still totally in love.  Because of how this book is set up- in 5 chapters- I flew through this book.  It was absolute information overload, but I loved it.

There was a lot here that I found interesting, but the part that really got me thinking was the last chapter.  The whole chapter was on the environment and what is going on out there and why.  This isn’t refuting global warming or agreeing with it, just laying out facts that are often brushed under the rug.  He also visits with a small (but rich & powerful) company that is coming up with cheap solutions that seem off the wall at first glance, but may just work.  To be honest, I didn’t really see the economic connection here and felt like maybe the authors had gotten in over their heads with some of the stuff that they were talking about, but the concepts that were presented were interesting and different and I was glad to read them.

I was kind of annoyed at the car seat bit for a few reasons, the most obvious one being that these men have clearly never ridden in a car with a 4 year old.  The argument here was that in the crash tests that they looked at, being in a front-facing child-size car seat prevents fatalities less than just a shoulder/lap belt.  While that may be, a 4 year old would never set perfectly straight up & still in a regular adult seatbelt.  They’d slump over to take naps, jump around, reach for stuff they dropped on the floor, put the shoulder belt behind their backs… anything but wear the seatbelt properly.  There was no data to account for that and I think it kind of renders their research null and void.  They kind of made it sound like the car seat companies were out to get consumers, but this is one time when I’d rather spend a little money and feel like my kid was strapped down and safe.

I think that the best thing about this and the worst thing about it are exactly the same: there is a LOAD of information here.  At times, I was kind of overwhelmed and wondering how all this fit together and how these tangents were going to connect. To be honest, sometimes they didn’t.  The upside being: there is tons of information presented.  These are facts and figures that you couldn’t really find in other places and it was interesting to see it all laid out.  Kind of mind blowing, really.

I thought that the writing and the presentation was second-rate in comparison to the first book, but still a really fun, pretty quick read that got me thinking about things that would normally not even cross my mind.  Fun stuff.

Conclusion: If you liked the first one, I’m sure that you’ll like this one.  If you haven’t read either, read the first one first because it is better, but keep this one on your radar for later.

One Comment

  1. Posted August 31, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    They did include data that took in to account actual seat belt use. Yes, they did the crash test which would have been the ideal use of seat belts. But they also included the FARS data (which only talks about fatalities) and the Wisconsin set focusing on serious injuries.

    Using these real life data sets would have included improper use of a seat belt.