See all the negative reviews on Amazon, they have said it all ...
Seems commercial[hookers] & "foxtvish".
Too bad, the first book was good.
I'm more critical than the average person. I understand that the critic has not produced any value. They are smarter than I am, they are making millions, I am not.
On to the book. This has more summaries of "economic" work performed by others and discussed by the authors than actual research performed by the authors. There is also a lot of American history told with a liberal slant. I love history, I do not like political perspective, liberal or conservative, attached to history. Give us facts and conclusions, not agendas.
Much less interesting than the first Freakonomics. This one doesn't have the depth, just some glib conclusions from data scooped up here and there. Example: how did the women's liberation movement strike a blow against education and student test scores? Answer: women gained more career choices so fewer of the brightest women now go into teaching, resulting in less able teachers and therefor poorer test scores. Come on. Why bring up important issues only to be silly & superficial about them?
You will like this book if you like the Original Freakanomics.
However, these subjects are more eclectic in its collection and nature. Not quite as good as the original, but definitely worth the listen.
I loved the original but was very disappointed in this sorry attempt to write a sequel. Apparently the authors feel like salacious material and attacking global warming theories sells books. I wonder how low they would stoop in a third sequel. Don't waste your time.
Another over opinionated mammal
Like the first book there are some interesting ideas that can cause you step back and examen new ways of looking at things. Unlike the first book this one is much much less throw, and gives very little attention to ideas or data that do not support his concussions. Some of the theories are not based on any data at all, but instead uses assumptions that no evidence is provided to support. It gives the feel that the focus on this book was coming up with wild shocking conclusions to get attention and sell books rather than trying to get to accurate answers.?
As an example of the use of un-supported assumptions the "It is more dangers to walk drunk than drive drunk" conclusion is based on the assumption that people walk and drive the same number of miles drunk. Which seems unlikely. People are only likely to opt for walking if it is a short distance. If there is a long way to travel they are probably driving, getting a ride, or calling a cab.?
An example of poorly supported ideas. One of the arguments used against global warming is that both cars and cows produce green house gases. While true it ignores that cars produce much larger volumes of green house gases, making them much more damaging.
I was entertained for a while, but when the book intersected with some areas where I knew a lot, I realized I was being lied to. I really hate being dragged along through a discussion then realizing it was nonsense - I have paid money to someone for a non-fiction book and got fairy tales. Could I have my money back?