This is disappointing. I really enjoyed their last book where they hypothesized that crime went down because of abortion being legal. #superfreakonomics
This language of this post suggests there's a lot of "pinning" and "blaming" done by the authors, even while they leave a lot of other potential issues "unclear."
I haven't read the new book yet, but the original one just seemed like a compendium of propositions supported by individual (smallish, but interesting) data studies. It didn't purport to "pin" or "blame" or even draw final conclusions about anything -- thus it was necessarily incomplete. The original book just presented the outcomes of certain (again, smallish) studies and proposed that final answers to the questions posed would have to take those outcomes into consideration -- even if the outcomes and book wound up being thoroughly debunked, which is part of the progress of science anyway.
Is the new book as different from the original as this post strongly suggests? If true, that fact seems like it would be worth an explicit mention or two.
The problem with Freakonomics is that economists working outside of economics don't provide really insightful research most of the time. They tend to skip over research done in other fields, assuming all the answers are in large data sets. #superfreakonomics
Can someone please explain to me how the world is supposed to be peopled if not by women having children? Not every single douche mentioning how women 'choose' family over work, or take child-friendly jobs can be childless himself, for the end of civilization (i.e. against reproduction) or a father against his will. How the hell do they suppose this has to come about? #superfreakonomics
Rather, they champion a series of cool-sounding inventions like a hose that would squirt sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, blotting out just enough light to cool the earth
Clearly, Monsieurs Levitt and Dubner are not familiar with the expression "end of pipe solution". #superfreakonomics
@funzette: That makes me want to scream. WHAT THE HELL. Seriously! Do you think blocking light will make things better or worse? Blocking light = plants not getting enough light to grow and process things in the atmosphere = stunted food production = more starvation. Also, blocking light = more pollution. DO YOU THINK, SIR/MADAM.
agh agh aghggghhhhhh blargle this is the worst idea ever. #superfreakonomics
This is crazy shit. How could you even begin to think it was a good idea, after you had thought about it for more than about 5 or 6 seconds? #superfreakonomics
@boxspelunker: Al Gore's response was surprisingly civil, considering - he probably wanted to say what you said but was restraining himself. #superfreakonomics
@boxspelunker: It's just more fun to come up with 3rd rate sci-fi solutions to real-life problems than to give up any of the modern luxuries we have today.
This sort of unwavering faith in endless progress and an endless upward curve in the economy drives me nuts. "Oh, we don't need to do anything! The white-haired team of einsteins in their privately funded lab will come up with something that'll save us all from near-certain doom! Let's go drive around the block in the Hummer while we wait for the giant acid rain pipeline to the sky!"
@CassandraSays: Good on him! I am not totally sure that I'd be calm and nice about it :/
@Catabolic: Yeah, that's what gets me, too. There's a belief that someone will just come save you. You don't need to change your habits - just buy the new product and don't worry about a thing! I mean, we're all in this together, and I think we're all going to have to change what we do, a little bit. Yeah, the few things I do myself won't make a difference, but if a thousand people do them, there will be change. So jump on the train, people, because it's better for all of us! #superfreakonomics
I was pretty disappointed to see John Stewart give Levitt a total pass when he was on the Daily Show. This book is pretty silly and, IMHO, trying to uphold the status quo, which I thought we had all gotten to the point of agreeing isn't working perfectly.
And what is so wrong with trying to conserve some fossil fuels? They're going to run out sooner or later anyway, so we might as well start figuring out our next step. #superfreakonomics
@HarpMadness: I haven't read the book, but on the show Levitt specifically said they weren't arguing against conserving fossil fuels per se, simply that conserving fossil fuels alone is not enough to repair the environment in time.
He went on to say that geo-engineering solutions are attractive because they would work faster, thereby giving conservation more time to work. He admits that running a tube into the sky is just a short-term fix, but that it would give longer term solutions time to be implemented and have an effect. #superfreakonomics
@KurticusMaximus: Yeah, I heard him, but at the same time, I felt that the book specifically attacks conservation and I think that is short-sighted. I do not understand the resistance to conservation. #superfreakonomics
@KurticusMaximus: so while i'm not a climate scientist, i am a biologist, and can tell you that most of these geo-engineering ideas are bullshit and create more problems than they solve (and they would only work faster if we currently had the technology to implement them, which we do not). i admire the creativity people are using to come up with them, but we would be much better off if this creativity went towards reducing methane and Co2 production. #superfreakonomics
@HarpMadness: I didn't see that he said conservation is without value. His point was that conservation would take 50 years to be effective, and so is not really a practical solution. I do agree with him - we as a species are not willing to make real sacrifices - so we need to look to alternatives. #superfreakonomics
@ms.fortune: For one thing, maybe we as a species need to grow up then. Secondly, sure, explore alternatives, but as Isoperia notes, all of the "solutions" mentioned in this book are pretty much pipe dreams at this point. We don't have the technology right now and who knows how long it would take to develop the tech and then implement them? One thing we can do right now, today, is stop making the situation worse by conservation. It's not that hard. #superfreakonomics
"The quality of teachers is been declining for decades"? Shouldn't that be "has been declining for decades"?
Perhaps part of the problem is the declining quality of NYC public school chancellors. Unlike the chancellor, I'm sure many of the aforementioned sub-standard teachers still know the difference between "is" and "has". #superfreakonomics
@hej hej: That's my typo though, not his. Should be fixed now. Someday we'll have totally searchable books that you can copy and paste from, and I won't have to use voice rec to dictate and introduce errors. Ah, the future. #superfreakonomics
@Anna N.: It's no problem!
I was only offended because I thought it was his typo, and as such made his criticism of sub-standard teachers kind of irrelevant. #superfreakonomics
@ozu: Of course I would. When George W. Bush asked "Is our children learning?" I immediately began to question his credibility on the subject of education reform. #superfreakonomics
But there is discrimination and it's not minor and there are worthwhile econometric studies behind that.
Additionally, women are disincentivized from seeking out better paying opportunities or returning to work after kids and so often discrimination is masked as women making a personal choice--it can be masked in the data, in Superfreakonomics, everywhere. #superfreakonomics
Paul Krugman had a very good comment on their global warming chapter... Levitt now says that the chapter wasn’t meant to lend credibility to global warming denial — but when you open your chapter by giving major play to the false claim that scientists used to predict global cooling, you have in effect taken the denier side. The only way I can reconcile what Levitt says now with that reality is that he and Dubner didn’t do their homework — not only that they didn’t check out the global cooling stuff, the stuff about solar panels, and all the other errors people have been pointing out, but that they didn’t even look into the debate sufficiently to realize what company they were placing themselves in.
And that’s not acceptable. This is a serious issue. We’re not talking about the ethics of sumo wrestling here; we’re talking, quite possibly, about the fate of civilization. It’s not a place to play snarky, contrarian games.#superfreakonomics
@Penny: "You make it, you break it"...or something akin to a sign you'd see in a hospital gift shop next to the crystal unicorns and porcelain frogs. #superfreakonomics
@Penny: I doubt they say that it is. But for years it was considered to be women's role, and so a lot of men still aren't teaching. And the clever women now have other options, so fewer of them are going into teaching (though many still do). It actually makes a lot of sense really. #superfreakonomics
@puppypower: Sorry, my ovaries detached from my brain for a moment.
@MissyMcCLung: Clever women? Anyhow, it's a very small piece of the puzzle, so focusing on women fleeing the teaching world for better-paying jobs is pretty bogus.
@Penny: Yes, about the pay, and in combination with that, the lack of prestige (which I'm sure lies in no small part with teaching as a "women's profession.") I went to a highly-ranked liberal arts school that was also very service-oriented, so the people interested in education got more support than they might have in other places, but it still was not uncommon to hear sentiments along the lines of why you would "waste" an expensive, competitive education on teaching, as opposed to law or medicine or finance or even academia.
My guess is that a big part of the problem is the attrition rate, too--I know some very smart people who went into teaching and burned out in the first few years, which I understand is not uncommon. A few of those people probably just weren't cut out for the job, but a lot of the stress was administrative, standardized-test-related, bureaucratic headaches--which, when combined with the reality that they could make more money in fewer hours working a less demanding job AND be nagged less by parents/friends/strangers, made it a pretty easy choice to leave. #superfreakonomics
I have an idea on how to attract the best and brightest to be teachers: pay teachers more and provide more support for the classroom so teachers don't feel like they are fighting a losing fight. And don't do it by taking away from the service workers and administrative staff in the schools all of whom make it possible for teachers to teach and kids to learn. #superfreakonomics
I read the first one and really enjoyed it. I thought they made some pretty good points (for example, regarding testing in schools) However, I did think it was massively overhyped and regarded as providing answers, not just possibilities. Most of it was just an analysis of "Huh, ain't that neat" type situations. And some of it was potentionally pretty offensive (such as their analysis of names).
I'll probably read this one too though. If its like the first, its a quick easy read. #superfreakonomics
11/05/09
11/05/09
I haven't read the new book yet, but the original one just seemed like a compendium of propositions supported by individual (smallish, but interesting) data studies. It didn't purport to "pin" or "blame" or even draw final conclusions about anything -- thus it was necessarily incomplete. The original book just presented the outcomes of certain (again, smallish) studies and proposed that final answers to the questions posed would have to take those outcomes into consideration -- even if the outcomes and book wound up being thoroughly debunked, which is part of the progress of science anyway.
Is the new book as different from the original as this post strongly suggests? If true, that fact seems like it would be worth an explicit mention or two.
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Clearly, Monsieurs Levitt and Dubner are not familiar with the expression "end of pipe solution". #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
agh agh aghggghhhhhh blargle this is the worst idea ever. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
This is crazy shit. How could you even begin to think it was a good idea, after you had thought about it for more than about 5 or 6 seconds? #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/05/09
This sort of unwavering faith in endless progress and an endless upward curve in the economy drives me nuts. "Oh, we don't need to do anything! The white-haired team of einsteins in their privately funded lab will come up with something that'll save us all from near-certain doom! Let's go drive around the block in the Hummer while we wait for the giant acid rain pipeline to the sky!"
*stab stab stab* #superfreakonomics
11/05/09
@Catabolic: Yeah, that's what gets me, too. There's a belief that someone will just come save you. You don't need to change your habits - just buy the new product and don't worry about a thing! I mean, we're all in this together, and I think we're all going to have to change what we do, a little bit. Yeah, the few things I do myself won't make a difference, but if a thousand people do them, there will be change. So jump on the train, people, because it's better for all of us! #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
And what is so wrong with trying to conserve some fossil fuels? They're going to run out sooner or later anyway, so we might as well start figuring out our next step. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
He went on to say that geo-engineering solutions are attractive because they would work faster, thereby giving conservation more time to work. He admits that running a tube into the sky is just a short-term fix, but that it would give longer term solutions time to be implemented and have an effect. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Perhaps part of the problem is the declining quality of NYC public school chancellors. Unlike the chancellor, I'm sure many of the aforementioned sub-standard teachers still know the difference between "is" and "has". #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
I was only offended because I thought it was his typo, and as such made his criticism of sub-standard teachers kind of irrelevant. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
11/04/09
Additionally, women are disincentivized from seeking out better paying opportunities or returning to work after kids and so often discrimination is masked as women making a personal choice--it can be masked in the data, in Superfreakonomics, everywhere. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Levitt now says that the chapter wasn’t meant to lend credibility to global warming denial — but when you open your chapter by giving major play to the false claim that scientists used to predict global cooling, you have in effect taken the denier side. The only way I can reconcile what Levitt says now with that reality is that he and Dubner didn’t do their homework — not only that they didn’t check out the global cooling stuff, the stuff about solar panels, and all the other errors people have been pointing out, but that they didn’t even look into the debate sufficiently to realize what company they were placing themselves in.
And that’s not acceptable. This is a serious issue. We’re not talking about the ethics of sumo wrestling here; we’re talking, quite possibly, about the fate of civilization. It’s not a place to play snarky, contrarian games. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
@MissyMcCLung: Clever women? Anyhow, it's a very small piece of the puzzle, so focusing on women fleeing the teaching world for better-paying jobs is pretty bogus.
The bigger issue is that the pay is so shitty. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
My guess is that a big part of the problem is the attrition rate, too--I know some very smart people who went into teaching and burned out in the first few years, which I understand is not uncommon. A few of those people probably just weren't cut out for the job, but a lot of the stress was administrative, standardized-test-related, bureaucratic headaches--which, when combined with the reality that they could make more money in fewer hours working a less demanding job AND be nagged less by parents/friends/strangers, made it a pretty easy choice to leave. #superfreakonomics
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I'll probably read this one too though. If its like the first, its a quick easy read. #superfreakonomics