Skip to main content

Freakonomics – Steven D. Levitt & Stephen L. Dubner *****

It has to be said that this book is little short of brilliant. Levitt, with the assistance of writer Dubner, turns a series of interesting statistics into a real page turner. (Which is why it’s here, despite being sometimes classified as a kind of business book.)
The way they do it is partly by taking statistics we’re really interested in – crime, education, all the things that push the button – and partially by be rigorous about the statistics, rather than the typical sloppy interpretative stuff we see every day on the TV news or coming from “experts” who might know their field but no nothing about statistics.
A great (and inevitably controversial) example is the big reduction in crime in the US from around 1990. Levitt shows how the usual suspects from increased police numbers to gun control may have had effects, but could not be responsible for this fall. Instead, he suggests and very convincingly demonstrates, it is due to the reduction in birth rate amongst poor and disadvantaged families a generation earlier due to a change in the law. It was the reduction in the likely potential criminal pool that had the biggest impact. It’s fascinating (and not all on such heavy subjects either). Everything from teachers cheating their children’s test results to real estate agents’ tricks come under the Levitt scrutiny.
Just a couple of small negative points. One is the use of the words “economics” and “economist” throughout the book. Levitt is an economist, but very little of what’s in the book is economics. It’s mostly statistics with a healthy chunk of operational research (that’s operations research in the US) thrown in. Just because economists use statistics (and probably get paid more than statisticians) doesn’t magically turn statistics into economics. It’s just plain wrong.
The other small problem is over an example of Levitt doing what he accuses “experts” of doing – stating something with confidence, but without the evidence to back it up. He tells us we’re fooling ourselves in being more afraid of flying than driving, because the “per hour” death rate of driving versus flying is equal. I’ve two problems with this. One is I think people are more interested in the per trip death rate than the per hour rate (i.e. “will I survive this journey?”) As car journeys are usually shorter in duration than plane journeys, his like-for-like comparison falls down. I did this calculation for my own book, The Complete Flyer’s Handbook and (based on UK rather US data) you were ten times more likely to be in a fatal air crash on any particular journey than you were of being in a fatal road crash (though it was a one in a million chance on the air crash, so not very likely).
Oh and I found the pages quoting newspapers on how wonderful Levitt it is that interleave each chapter rather irritating.
But none of these little negative should put you off from what is justifiably already a classic and a worthy bestseller. It’s entertaining, it’s informing, it makes you think and it will inspire you to consider what properly used statistics can do for your enterprise. Great stuff.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more