 | Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com | Book Description
The New York Times best-selling Freakonomics was a worldwide sensation, selling over four million copies in thirty-five languages and changing the way we look at the world. Now, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner return with SuperFreakonomics, and fans and newcomers alike will find that the freakquel is even bolder, funnier, and more surprising than the first. Four years in the making, SuperFreakonomics asks not only the tough questions, but the unexpected ones: What's more dangerous, driving drunk or walking drunk? Why is chemotherapy prescribed so often if it's so ineffective? Can a sex change boost your salary? SuperFreakonomics challenges the way we think all over again, exploring the hidden side of everything with such questions as: - How is a street prostitute like a department-store Santa?
- Why are doctors so bad at washing their hands?
- How much good do car seats do?
- What's the best way to catch a terrorist?
- Did TV cause a rise in crime?
- What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common?
- Are people hard-wired for altruism or selfishness?
- Can eating kangaroo save the planet?
- Which adds more value: a pimp or a Realtor?
Levitt and Dubner mix smart thinking and great storytelling like no one else, whether investigating a solution to global warming or explaining why the price of oral sex has fallen so drastically. By examining how people respond to incentives, they show the world for what it really is good, bad, ugly, and, in the final analysis, super freaky. Freakonomics has been imitated many times over but only now, with SuperFreakonomics, has it met its match. From Superfreakonomics: Where do you stand on the freak-o-meter?
 Four years ago, you were cool. You read Freakonomics when it first came out. You impressed family and friends and dazzled dates with the insights you gleaned. Now Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner return with Superfreakonomics, a freakquel even bolder, funnier, and more surprising than the first.
Have you been keeping up? Can you call yourself a SuperFreak? Test your Superfreakonomics know-how now: Question 1: 5 points
According to Superfreakonomics, what has been most helpful in improving the lives of women in rural India?
A. The government ban on dowries and sex-selective abortions
B. The spread of cable and satellite television
C. Projects that pay women to not abort female babies
D. Condoms made specially for the Indian market Question 2: 3 points
Among Chicago street prostitutes, which night of the week is the most profitable?
A. Saturday
B. Monday
C. Wednesday
D. Friday Question 3: 5 points
You land in an emergency room with a serious condition and your fate lies in the hands of the doctor you draw. Which characteristic doesn’t seem to matter in terms of doctor skill?
A. Attended a top-ranked medical school and served a residency at a prestigious hospital
B. Is female
C. Gets high ratings from peers
D. Spends more money on treatment Question 4: 3 points
Which cancer is chemotherapy more likely to be effective for?
A. Lung cancer
B. Melanoma
C. Leukemia
D. Pancreatic cancer Question 5: 5 points
Half of the decline in deaths from heart disease is mainly attributable to:
A. Inexpensive drugs
B. Angioplasty
C. Grafts
D. Stents Question 6: 3 points
True or False: Child car seats do a better job of protecting children over the age of 2 from auto fatalities than regular seat belts. Question 7: 5 points
What’s the best thing a person can do personally to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
A. Drive a hybrid car
B. Eat one less hamburger a week
C. Buy all your food from local sources Question 8: 3 points
Which is most effective at stopping the greenhouse effect?
A. Public-awareness campaigns to discourage consumption
B. Cap-and-trade agreements on carbon emissions
C. Volcanic explosions
D. Planting lots of trees Question 9: 5 points
In the 19th century, one of the gravest threats of childbearing was puerperal fever, which was often fatal to mother and child. Its cause was finally determined to be:
A. Tight bindings of petticoats early in the pregnancy
B. Foul air in the delivery wards
C. Doctors not taking sanitary precautions
D. The mother rising too soon in the delivery room Question 10: 3 points
Which of the following were not aftereffects of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on September 11, 2001:
A. The decrease in airline traffic slowed the spread of influenza.
B. Thanks to extra police in Washington, D.C., crime fell in that city.
C. The psychological effects of the attacks caused people to cut back on their consumption of alcohol, which led to a decrease in traffic accidents.
D. The increase in border security was a boon to some California farmers, who, as Mexican and Canadian imports declined, sold so much marijuana that it became one of the states most valuable crops. Answers and Scoring
Question 1
B, Cable and satellite TV. Women with television were less willing to tolerate wife beating, less likely to admit to having a “son preference,” and more likely to exercise personal autonomy. Plus, the men were perhaps too busy watching cricket. Question 2
A, Saturday nights are the most profitable. While Friday nights are the busiest, the single greatest determinant of a prostitute’s price is the specific trick she is hired to perform. And for whatever reason, Saturday customers purchase more expensive services. Question 3
C, One factor that doesn’t seem to matter is whether a doctor is highly rated by his or her colleagues. Those named as best by their colleagues turned out to be no better than average at lowering death rates--although they did spend less money on treatments. Question 4
C, Leukemia. Chemotherapy has proven effective on some cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, and testicular cancer, especially if these cancers are detected early. But in most cases, chemotherapy is remarkably ineffective, often showing zero discernible effect. That said, cancer drugs make up the second-largest category of pharmaceutical sales, with chemotherapy comprising the bulk. Question 5
A, Inexpensive drugs. Expensive medical procedures, while technologically dazzling, are responsible for a remarkably small share of the improvement in heart disease. Roughly half of the decline has come from reductions in risk factors like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, both of which are treated with relatively inexpensive drugs. And much of the remaining decline is thanks to ridiculously inexpensive treatments like aspirin, heparin, ACE inhibitors, and beta-blockers. Question 6
False. Based on extensive data analysis as well as crash tests paid for by the authors, old-fashioned seat belts do just as well as car seats. Question 7
B, Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more greenhouse-gas reduction than buying all locally sourced food, according to a recent study by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews, two Carnegie Mellon researchers. Every time a Prius or other hybrid owner drives to the grocery store, she may be cancelling out its emissions-reducing benefit, at least if she shops in the meat section. Emission from cows, as well as sheep and other ruminants, are 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide released by cars and humans. Question 8
C, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines discharged more than 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which acted like a layer of sunscreen, reducing the amount of solar radiation and cooling off the earth by an average of one degree F. Question 9
C, doctors not taking sanitary precautions. This was the dawning age of the autopsy, and doctors did not yet know the importance of washing their hands after leaving the autopsy room and entering the delivery room. Question 10
C, the psychological effect of the attacks caused people to increase their alcohol consumption, and traffic accidents increased as a result. Scoring
32-40: Certified SuperFreak
25-31: Freak--surprises lay in wait for you
16-24: Wannabe freak--you’ve got some reading to do
1-15: Conventional wisdomer--you’re still thinking in old ways |
Average Customer Rating:    Interesting review of this book here... There is an excellent analysis of the basic math (and math errors) in this book located at:
[...]
A large number of the assertions in this book are completely wrong, and can be easily shown to be. I do NOT recommend it. Great Follow Up! It's obviously hard to follow up Freakonomics. It was the first of its kind and absolutely awesome. But superfreakonomics is fun and offers interesting cases. Humorous and informative just don't go in holding it be as good as freakonomics. Its like most sequels, still good, just not better. This is two stars "super"ior to its precedessor Several years ago I rated Freakonomics only a three star and got a lot of "not helpful" votes. I expect the same result for my very positive review this time. I dont intend to play contrarian. It's only because as a pro trader and heavy reader, I value more on whether a book can help to improve my thinking than anything else. To me, reading is part of the learning process that leads to change of behaviour. I am quite sure I had learnt more in this than its predecessor. Of the negative reviews I read here, most of them focused on the research methodoloy and the accuracy of the data/theory presented, in particular on the global warming issue. I am not qualified to say anything at all per se. However, the means quoted by the authors really opened my mind, and had given me the best elaboration so far of the economic concept "externalities" which I learned over twenty years ago in my first degree but still couldnt grasp clearly of. The other topics are excellent, too. (I like the one about capuchins in the Epilogue the most) In short, if you want to read something entertaining and thought provoking, this is it. If you expect something authoritative and academic, you may be a little bit disappointed. Much better than the first the book made me think, which is their whole point - to challenge conventional thinking. it's a shame that all the negative reviews are from people who are unwilling to do just that. not that i'm bragging, because when I read the first book, I didn't like it as much for the same reason.
but since this book was filled with topics I already didn't "buy into" it was easier to see their points. I'm going to re-read the first. because while they may not be 100% accurate, conventional wisdom is much worse. global warming blaugh blaugh Well into the audio book, I'm regretting loading it on my mp3 player. Preachy. After not being able to stand all the global warming blaugh blaugh blaugh I finally fast forwarded past the section just to find other blaugh blaugh blaugh global warming blaugh blaugh we worship Al Gore blaugh blaugh cows are to blame blaugh blaugh buy a prius blaugh blaugh tax greenhouse gas blaugh blaugh.
Right, wrong, don't care. It's all that poorly delivered preaching that make this second book, suck.
The first book in the series kept us interested and entertained. This book did not. |  |
Select button not working? 
