[redacted]

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

About the Author The two authors of Freakonomics are Steven

D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Levitt is a
young economist at the University of
Chicago, accredited with a PhD from MIT
along with several awards and elite prestige.
Dubner is an author and journalist who
worked for The New York Times Magazine.
After interviewing Levitt and finding out his
rather unorthodox view on economics that the
modern world is “not impenetrable, is not
unknowable, and--if the right questions are
asked--is even more intriguing,” the two
decided to collaborate on writing a book
about answering such riddles together (Levitt
XXV). Levitt’s open-ended belief draws in
readers to actively engage in the hidden side
of economics. From the two’s outstanding
credentials, and their aim to question how the
modern world actually functions, they
approach these mysteries through logical
reasoning supported by research, much like
scientists would do. Freakonomics could
promote more outside-the-box thinking using
data and inquiries.

About the Topic The book does discuss a variety of issues

apparent in modern society, but focuses more
on seeing the world from a different
perspective. The authors claim that if morality
represents how people think the world should
work, then economics represents how it
actually works. They also cite ideas from The
Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith,
the founding father of economics. Classical
economics often analyzes humanity’s causes
 and effects, questioning the morality behind
good and bad decisions. Incentives often play
a great role in explaining why people act the
way they do. When the authors reviewed data
from Paul Feldman’s bagel business, which
provided bagels in exchange for an open
money basket, they found that his story lied
“at the very intersection of morality and
economics” because “yes, a lot of people steal
from him, but the vast majority, even though
no one is watching over them, do not” (Levitt,
Dubner 49). The results may surprise many
people who assume that humans are innately
evil, but could offer hope to society that there
is generally good nature in the modern world.
In this scenario, ideality and reality
unexpectedly aligned in a way that
strengthens the authors’ objective to explore
other perspectives on how the world operates
through concrete data.

About the Author's Premises Although there is no one unifying theme in

Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner do
frequently suggest that there are various
concepts not widely known to society. The
reason may be because humans rely too much
on everyday conventional wisdom. True
economics are more complex, but by
associating truths with the convenience and
comfort found in conventional wisdom,
understanding life becomes more tangible. At
the same time, it could become misleading if
proven to be false. The authors claim that
conventional wisdom is often wrong; the
media portrays crack cocaine dealing as an
extremely profitable job in America, but the
stories of a college student who lived among
drug dealers himself say otherwise. Sudhir

About the Author's Arguments
Venkatesh became interested in how the gang
operated, so he committed to studying their
past records. As it turns out, an average crack
dealer earns far below minimum wage has a
one in four chance of being killed: “So if
crack dealing is the most dangerous job in
America, and if the salary was only $3.30 an
hour, why on earth would anyone take such a
job?” (Levitt, Dubner 102). The desire to
succeed in a highly competitive environment
may outweigh the price to play, but
conventional wisdom only addresses the top
percentage of winners. By debunking the
social hierarchy, the authors further reinforce
the notion to be skeptical of conventional
thinking. Not following the bandwagon as
Freakonomics may suggest could develop
more individuality in society and help it
progress.
Levitt and Dubner address five main points
throughout the book: the power of incentives,
informational asymmetry, conventional
wisdom, subtle causes for dramatic effects,
and perfect parenting. In each of these main
points the argument between correlation and
causation appears. In the case of causation,
the authors juxtapose the Ku Klux Klan and
real-estate agents, comparing how both
groups use the informational gap or
asymmetry between them and their customers
to their advantage. With the Ku Klux Klan,
the mystery behind how they recruited
members sparked fear in the public, but “the
dissemination of the information diluted its
power” when a radio show revealed insider
secrets on the organization (Levitt, Dubner
63). Similarly, real-estate agents benefit from
 understanding more about selling houses
before the internet came and offered more
information to clients. In both case studies,
the cause of widespread information
convinced more people to become more
involved with researching their own data
rather than relying on “experts.” In the case of
correlation, many readers may assume that it
is perfect parenting that shapes the growth of
a child’s future. “A long line of studies,
including research into twins who were
separated at birth, had already concluded that
genes alone are responsible for perhaps 50
percent of a child’s personality and abilities”
(Levitt, Dubner 154). The authors use factual
evidence that shows how although good
parenting may be correlated with a
well-performing child, it is not the ultimate
cause. Because of their backgrounds in the
economics/humanities field and their
objectivity when including detailed research
and/or case studies as evidence, Levitt and
Dubner are able to solidify the validity in their
arguments. Their arguments may also
encourage more concrete evidence to be
involved when declaring statements. This
allows for a society to be comprised more on
logical reasoning rather than opinions.

Evaluation Because of the authors’ rather omniscient tone

when explaining studies and scientific data,
the book does not easily subject to any
personal bias. Instead, the book is
appropriately objective towards the authors’
purpose of invoking readers to become more
inquisitive. The authors do not include much
extraneous material because even the most
bizarre stories tie back to radical thinking and
 looking from a different point of view. The
common thread that connects the authors’
main points “has to do with thinking sensible
about how people behave in the real world”
(Levittm Dubner 210). Each major issue
reiterated independent thinking or a reflection
of human behavior, but simply telling readers
to thinking sensibly will not reveal another
layer of knowledge. If the authors intended
Freakonomics to be read by everyone,
connecting to readers on a more personal,
comprehensible level may reach a larger
audience instead of a close group of scholars.
Overall, the authors come to leave readers
even more confused with how the world
works. This ambiguity may influence a desire
to seek more knowledge and encourage a
society filled with curiosity.

Final Comment From someone who knows nothing about the

economy, this book has deeply engaged me in
the science behind human behavior. Reading
Freakonomics never gets overwhelming
despite the many facts stated. Interestingly,
this book could contrast with Battle Hymn of
the Tiger Mother in an argument between
nature versus nurture.