Freakonomics | Levitt & Dubner

What do real estate agents, the klu klux klan, sumo wrestlers, and parenting all have in common?

This English major was skeptical to find out. Nonetheless, I have had Freakonomics on my reading list for awhile now, and decided to figure out what all of the hype was about.

Never having taken an econ course in university, I wasn’t sure how technical the book was going to be. But of course with a jazzy title and the authors being dubbed as “rogue economists,” I can say that no one should be hesitant to read this book for fear of content going over their heads. If you are looking for a quick, amusing read, this is for you.

Like a crash course in common sense (for the warped), the introduction proved to be one of my favourite parts of the book. But though I appreciated the frank introduction to the difference between correlation and causation, it seemed to serve as a device in which to say see? We know the difference, and in fact, we’re teaching you that difference right now- so our assertions have to be correct because we are, afterall, the experts.

Which is not to say that I don’t  agree with a lot of the assertions they make, at least in terms of rationale. My main concern was merely that the book would be a string of shocking, unrelated revelations designed to make the reader’s jaw drop.

And some of Levitt and Dubners’ assertions do just that: drop our jaws. Abortion has reduced crime? Back it up here. Didn’t this guy just say that abortion is a moral crime? How does that saying go… Two wrongs don’t make a right? Why, by Levitt and Dubner’s calculations, it sure do. Suffice to say, their message is controversial. Controversial, but not entirely cohesive.

To be fair, the authors never promised a unifying theme. In fact, they go well out of their way to make sure the reader knows there is no such concept right from the very beginning. Still, I found myself impressed with the way they continued to reference assertions from chapters long passed, almost hinting that topics as unrelated as the similarities between the klu klux klan and real estate agents, and why drug dealers live with their Mamas, could be related.

It was a quick and easy trap to fall into. The end of the book is abrupt and well, book-ended with the same assertion: no unifying theme. Overall, Freakonomics was a tongue-in-cheek push for every day people to abandon what they might consider “common sense” and approach situations from a different angle.

Maybe we can’t truly assert that crime rates have been reduced thanks to good ol’ roe vs. wade, but it’s certainly a compelling argument. And whether or not you ultimately agree with the authors’ conclusions, it’s interesting to see how they get there.