When Freakonomics.com was launched in 2005, it was essentially a blog (c’mon, blogs were a thing then!). The first Freakonomics book had just been published, and Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt wanted to continue their conversation with readers. Over time, the blog grew to have millions of readers, a variety of regular and guest writers, and it was hosted by The New York Times, where Dubner and Levitt also published a monthly “Freakonomics” column. The authors later collected some of the best blog writing in a book called When to Rob a Bank … and 131 More Warped Suggestions and Well-Intended Rants. (The publisher rejected their original title: We Were Only Trying to Help. The publisher had also rejected the title Freakonomics at first, so they weren’t surprised.) While the blog has not had any new writing in quite some time, the entire archive is still here for you to read.
I’ve been thinking a little about terrorism lately and how to fight it. Some clues might be in this how-to manual seized in England and used as evidence in the trials for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, according to thesmokinggun.com. It includes chapter titles such as “Assassinations using poisons and cold steel,” and “Explosives.” The bomb-making instructions . . .
The Q&A has long been a journalism staple. During my years as a magazine editor, I assigned more than a few of them myself. But it’s different now, for at least two reasons: the dominance of e-mail as a form of communication and the spike in online journalism. Not only is the Q&A more prevalent than ever, but it’s also . . .
Dubner and Levitt are writing a new monthly column in the New York Times Magazine. The column, like their book, is called “Freakonomics.” The first installment, “Monkey Business,” concerns a young Yale economist who is teaching capuchin monkeys to use money. Read this post for bonus matter.
Despite the fact that the designer of this software doesn’t like our treatment of names in Freakonomics (see here and here, it is so much fun to play with that we have no choice but to link to it: http://www.babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/lnv0105.html It let’s you type in the first letters of a name and see in a flash the rise and fall . . .
Here is the beginning of our first “Freakonomics” column in the New York Times Magazine: Adam Smith, the founder of classical economics, was certain that humankind’s knack for monetary exchange belonged to humankind alone. “Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog,” he wrote. “Nobody ever saw one animal . . .
In a comment to our last post, Keg277 wrote: Now, I’ve got a question…whether it classifies as one that can be Freakonomically answered, I don’t know. I was watching a movie yesterday on Stu Unger, who was a professional poker player. In one scene, he mentioned to an opponent (played by Pat Morita) that when he had a good hand, . . .
The salutary effects of Freakonomics have by now been proven considerable. A reader from upstate New York sent this picture as proof that the right book can actually speed childbirth, and do away with the need for an epidural. (No word if she was merely shopping for a high-end baby name.) In other news: Levitt and I are writing a . . .
Believe it or not, my father is the leading medical researcher on intestinal gas (which has earned him the moniker the “King of Farts” — see here, and here). Two of his fart-sniffing employees recently earned the honor of “worst job in science” in Popular Science magazine for their efforts on his behalf. Which I suppose makes him a rogue . . .
It’s probably poor sportsmanship to do another Oakland A’s post at a time when the A’s have now sunk to a record of 17-31 and are ahead of only one team in the American League. But I feel like I am still misunderstood when it comes to what I have been trying to say about Billy Beane. So I keep . . .
I have no idea if Priscilla Owen is a good judge or not, but a fellow named Chris Wildermuth decided to use freakonomics to see why the opinion of her had changed so radically in recent years. His entire riff can be found here, on a blog called Power Line; but here’s a taste:Reading “Freakonomics” helps you spot interesting trends . . .
Those of you who like economics detective stories — yes, it’s a pretty limited genre — might want to read this Slate article we wrote, about a sharp young Harvard economist named Emily Oster. Some of the debate in “The Fray” (Slate’s online feedback chatroom) gets into the question that’s been tossed about a lot lately: “What makes this economics?” . . .
There has been a lot written about Freakonomics, but in terms of thoughtfulness, nothing matches the collection of essays assembled at the blog Crooked Timber. There you will find five discussions of Freakonomics done by academics from a range of disciplines, along with my response to these essays. I’ve also cut and pasted my response below, which basically makes sense . . .
We loved an article, written by the columnist Debra Pickett of the Chicago Sun Times, discussing how she is using the ideas of Freakonomics to navigate her daily life just a little bit differently. Here is the text of the article: Outsmugging the smug: Don’t try this at home May 13, 2005 BY DEBRA PICKETT SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST I’ve been reading . . .
On p. 39 of Freakonomics, we make a passing reference to the Chicago Black Sox, the name given to the Chicago White Sox after eight players were found to have colluded with gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series. A reader recently wrote: “The 1919 white sox were not known as the black sox because they threw the world series. . . .
I’ve gotten a reputation — totally undeserved — for being able to successfully pick winners at the race track. When I protest and tell people who approach me about it that I have absolutely no talent or secret, they never believe me. (Perhaps rightly so — if I really did have a secret, pretending I didn’t would be the right . . .
There have been several requests on this blog for a transcript of the authors’ recent appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. Here it is: Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, LLC. Fox News Network SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:37 PM EST May 9, 2005 Monday HEADLINE: Unresolved Problem: Book Explores Relations Between Economy, Social Issues BYLINE: Bill O’Reilly GUESTS: Steven Levitt, Stephen . . .
Levitt and Dubner were on The Today Show this morning (Wednesday), discussing Freakonomics. Click here for a video link. Here’s a transcript: HEADLINE: Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner discuss their book, “Freakonomics.” MATT LAUER, co-host:We’re back at 8:30 on a Wednesday morning. Coming up in this half-hour, what the heck is “Freakonomics”? It’s a book about economics, don’t worry, this . . .
Levitt and Dubner will chat with NBC’s Matt Lauer on Wed., May 18, at about 8:30 a.m. E.D.T.
Two very vocal critics, Steve Sailer and John Lott, have been exerting a lot of energy lately trying to convince the world that the abortion reduces crime hypothesis is not correct. A number of readers have asked me to respond to these criticisms. First, let’s start by reviewing the basic facts that support the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that legalized abortion in . . .
Malcolm Gladwell sent me the following e-mail the other day: thought you would enjoy this. a man in the security line at toronto airport today recognized me, pulled out a copy of freakonomics, and made me sign it. we are totally co-branded! cheers, m. For what it is worth, neither Dubner or Levitt has ever been recognized by a stranger . . .
What do the 100+ angry baseball fans who have posted livid responses to my earlier postings about Billy Beane have to say about the new data that has been assembled since I made my first claims? The A’s record is now 14-20. The chances of a team that wins 60 percent of their games going 14-20 in the first 34 . . .
I spend much of my time trying to find cheating where other people don’t suspect it. So when I heard about a strange happening in Powerball — 110 people picking five out of six correctly when statistically you would expect only 4-5 such winners — I began to fantasize about a big cheating scandal. It had the appearance of the . . .
The good news is that Freakonomics is one of Amazon.com’s most popular products in hardcover, on audio CD, and even as a digital download. In hardcover, the other top-sellers include Harry Potter, You: The Owner’s Manual, and so on. On audio CD, it keeps company with a Spanish-language course and a James Patterson thriller. But (and here’s the weird news) . . .
In light of our anonymous poster’s Starbucks story (see “A $2 Cup of Coffee”), here’s my own tale of food and economics: An old friend came to town not long ago and we met for a late lunch on the Upper West Side. Trilby ordered a burger, no bread, with brie; I ordered half a roasted chicken with mashed potatoes. . . .
We got the following e-mail from a reader. It is a great example of using Freakonomic thinking to make sense of an otherwise jumbled world: The reader (who asked to remain anonymous)writes: Thought I would send an interesting anecdote about incentives: I go to the Starbucks in my office building twice a day for coffee. I bring a Starbucks insulated . . .
In light of Freakonomics’ commercial success, you might think that I would hold the title of best-selling author in, say, my census tract, or at least my city block. It turns out I’m not even the best-selling author among the people who have owned my own house. A fellow named Michael Roizen used to live in my house. The very . . .
It would seem that one sensible purpose of this blog would be to respond to Freakonomics questions and comments that come up in reviews, blogs, reader e-mails, etc. Consider this post the first of several such responses. A lot of people have wondered about one minor but significant element of the book: the use of small excerpts of a New . . .
In golf, there is a tradition of the last winner of the Masters helping the latest victor slip into a green jacket. In economics, we don’t have the same tradition, but if we did, it would have been an honor for me to bestow a green pocket protector on Daron Acemoglu last week when he won the John Bates Clark . . .
[for a Freakonomics status report, click here] Our publisher has been busily promoting and selling Freakonomics, which of course is its job, and which we, not surprisingly, applaud. When something good happens — a nice review in the Wall Street Journal, for instance, or an upcoming appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart — the publisher assiduously spreads the . . .
Whenever I post on baseball, people get very agitated. So I figured it was time to ruffle a few more feathers. My contention is that the secret to Oakland’s success has little to do with the things described in Moneyball, such as the emphasis on finding the skills in baseball that are good at producing runs, but not properly valued . . .
You want to listen to Freakonomics Radio? That’s great! Most people use a podcast app on their smartphone. It’s free (with the purchase of a phone, of course). Looking for more guidance? We’ve got you covered.
Stay up-to-date on all our shows. We promise no spam.
