|
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance | 
| Authors: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Publisher: William Morrow
List Price: $29.99
Buy New: $11.35
as of 11/25/2009 04:06 CST details
You Save: $18.64 (62%)
New (55) Used (10) Collectible (4) from $11.35
Seller: vrprice72
Rating:  103 reviews
Sales Rank: 13
Format: Deckle Edge
Media: Hardcover
Edition: First Edition, First Printing
Pages: 288
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.3
ISBN: 0060889578
Dewey Decimal Number: 330
EAN: 9780060889579
ASIN: 0060889578
Publication Date: November 1, 2009 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
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
Product Description
The New York Times bestselling Freakonomics was a worldwide sensation, selling more than four million copies in thirty-five languages and changing the way we look at the world. 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. 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?
- What do hurricanes, heart attacks, and highway deaths have in common?
- Can eating kangaroo save the planet?
Levitt and Dubner mix smart thinking and great storytelling like no one else. 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.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 103
Thought-Provoking Book - Makes You Go "Hmmm". November 24, 2009
J. A. Dierschke (Nashville, TN)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Ok, a couple of disclaimers right up front: 1) SuperFreakonomics is a follow-up book to the authors' first book - Freakonomics . I didn't read Freakonomics , and as it turns out, you don't have to read the first one to get the second one - these aren't vampire novels; 2) More than likely, I would not have read SuperFreakonomics if I hadn't been sent a copy to review. Why? The word "freakonomics" is way to close to the word "economics" which, for a creative person like me, is a topic much like a bottle of wine - puts me right out. But I will tell you this - freakonomics is MUCH more interesting than plain, old economics. Here's why:
In spite of the overly witty full title - Super Freakonomics Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance - the book is actually a fascinating tale of how economics plays into even the most bizarre areas of modern life. I guess that is what authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner wanted to convey with that extravagant title - they should have just let the content speak for itself, but I know, its all about getting people to OPEN the book, I get it, really.
So anyway, back to SuperFreakonomics. I really enjoyed this book! I did snooze a bit through Chapter 3, but for the most part, here are two guys with nothing to gain except royalties. They don't seem to have an overt political bend. They don't seem to want to convince me that there is only one right way to do things. They're not selling me anything I don't already own. But what they are doing is taking incongruent subjects, like Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo (ok, not TOTALLY incongruent), prostitutes and Santa Claus, real estate agents and pimps, and telling me that they do actually have something in common and here's how it effects my life.
You see, we tend not to draw the comparisons Steven and Stephen have drawn in SuperFreakonomics. Most of us don't want to see these connections or can't because we only really look at the surface of things. The Steves have penetrated that surface and dove down deep. They've brought to light some things that make you go, "hmm." Such as the hand-washing rate of doctors - YES YOU HEARD ME. You'll have to read that chapter for yourself as its quite disturbing.
All in all, its a thought-provoking book that I highly recommend you read. If for nothing else than to give you a little perspective on the world around you, how we got here and where we can hope the future brings us. There's a lot of what I believe is truth, in this book. The chapter on Global Warming is really a good one. But so is the Monkey chapter.
Levitt and Dubner have clearly done a ton of research and another ton of analysis. Typical economists... But untypically, they've written this book in such a way to make it all relevant to what's happening in our world today. Thumbs up.
P.S.: I may just read Freakonomics now...
 Banal at Best November 23, 2009
John G. Jazwiec (Chicago IL)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
At least their first book was an easy read. This one is not only harder to read but is even less credible than the first. The "Freaks" might as well just try writing fiction that weaves myths like Dan Brown's books. What was really irritating to me about this book - while in all fairness they gave credit to other economists like Malcom Gladwell - is rehashing the story about why sports player and birthdays matter - not only has this been beaten down by everyone - but anyone knows that you either have a good cutoff (baseball and being born in August which allowed me to compete on All Star Teams and be the oldest), and bad cutoffs like my two July children (they not only got it bad in sports, but they were always the yougest in the classroom). You don't need an economist or in this case multiple economists telling you what 99% of the world understands. And no economist should want to put their name on this book - as I said it would have been better written as myths in fiction than pretending to give out facts.
SuperDuperFreakonomics (to be followed) November 23, 2009
Sigrist Daniel (Winterthur)
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
I bet we are just at the beginning of a series of Freakonomics publications. It will end when the marginal cost of writing and printing still another sequel falls below the potential readers' marginal willingness to pay. Read one book by Levitt & Dubner and you know all of them. I'm pretty sure there will be a chapter in the their next book on what Dan Brown and Mount Pinatubo have in common.
 Freakonomics felt empty and missed the point November 23, 2009
D. N. Ivanoff (NY)
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
This book is a far cry from teaching you how you alone can benefit from economics. On top of that, enough with the commentary already, where are the practical tools that can teach us effective economic thinking summarized in a one-to-ten bullet points list? The reason for it is that if you truly want to learn how to make money in this world or the stock-market you need to read the works of Toby Crabel, Linda Rasche or some other professional traders that make living trading the market daily. Their books are very expensive because they do not right for a living, but trade for a living. I had to go find them on Ebay or Amazon. However, their writing is more focused on the techniques and ways to profit and trade any security, any time. Being very successful in this space myself, it takes a real book from a real trader these days to impress me. Reading Super Freakonomics felt rather tired and there are at least 3 other books in the space already that have become best-sellers on the same pop-economics concept.
A little too Random November 23, 2009
Ro (Los Angeles)
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
The authors were clearly over-leveraging the success of the first Freakanomics to sell this one. I found this one a bit empty-- taking their formula in a bit of a ridiculous direction...(walk drunk--drive drunk?)...is that normally the option?
It's random examples, comparisons and over-hyped stats rarely came full circle to some sort of point the average person could seriously consider....It seemed every time they started getting somewhere they contradicted themselves in the spirit of objectivity ruining the possibility of any valid perspective they could add to this hod-podge of information. Yes it makes you think...but doesn't supply a clear train of thought nor enough information to foster any type of conclusion. I can see where they were going they just never managed to get there.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 103
|
|
|
|
Return to Math.com | |
