tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17221822.post113241404806863301..comments2023-06-01T05:56:56.632-07:00Comments on Underlying Logic: Book review: FreakonomicsErik_Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970325319452478168noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17221822.post-1134780390763352392005-12-16T16:46:00.000-08:002005-12-16T16:46:00.000-08:00There is no doubt the book contains thought-provok...There is no doubt the book contains thought-provoking points, which is different (as Erik notes) from saying that it is a good read. For the latter failing, I blame Dubner. The academy is filled with towering egos and we cannot fault Leavitt for thinking he's doing things no one else does -- if he didn't, I would be concerned. (One gets the sense that at times Leavitt is broadly philosophizing on fieldwork done by others, but I'll leave it to his colleagues to police his attributions.) However, I cannot reconcile the idea of Dubner being a journalist with the way he adoringly gambols and frolics at the feet of his subject, as if Leavitt bestrode all human thought like a Colossus. I prefer my newspapermen in the Mencken mold.<BR/><BR/>As for the alleged superiority of economics' conceptual tools, that may have some merit. Economics more than the other soft sciences has had the courage to chase down ugly truths because it is unafraid of making its ultimate subjects -- human beings, acting upon their various self-interests -- look foolish, wicked, and vain. Can we truthfully say the same thing about anthro? When I was studying comparative religion we tied ourselves up in knots avoiding descriptions of human behavior that made the human actors sound anything less than noble -- or at least pious. While suspension of judgment was a useful tool to ensure clarity of perception of the behavior, it was not itself an aspirational goal, yet with postmodernism (very late to arrive in the religious studies department) it became one. Other fields claim to be value-neutral. Economics always was.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, economics occasionally produces theories (and I mean "theory" in the science sense rather than humanities sense) that are uncomfortable if true and entirely unworkable as foundations for social policies. A world run by economists would have some very basic absurdities. However, it would be truly refreshing if both political parties adopted the view, formerly prevalent among the Goldwater conservatives but now utterly abandoned on both sides of the aisle, that policies are to be judged by observable good outcomes and not the professed good intentions of the legislators, and that even such virtues as mercy, pity and altruism may break down under a cost-benefit analysis. Economics asks, "Is this good, net of costs?" The other social sciences want to make the conceptual net that catches possible costs smaller and smaller, and the economists are valuable to remind us to account for those hidden costs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17221822.post-1132592012734622692005-11-21T08:53:00.000-08:002005-11-21T08:53:00.000-08:00I bought Freakonomics at the Grinnell bookstore wh...I bought Freakonomics at the Grinnell bookstore when I was in town for reunion last spring. I purchased it on Friday morning and, despite all the reunion festivities, had nevertheless finished the book by the time I left on Sunday afternoon. All of this is to say that I *enjoyed* the book and had fun reading it, especially the middle chapters you cite.<BR/><BR/>As a reader with a non-economic (and admittedly non-literary) background, I did pull out of the book a broader theme, despite the authors' claims that there was none: given enough data, the tools of economics may be used to explain a wide variety of issues that other social sciences have not adequately explained. And in the process, the utility of economics may be applied to more generally interesting subjects than it usually is.<BR/><BR/>While I certainly wouldn't put Leavitt and Dubner in the same league as Plato and Hume, the book is a highly enjoyable, quick read that introduced this engineer to a number of unfamiliar economic concepts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com