
Interesting material, well researched , but very shallow.
The second edition of this book contains the original article from the New Yorker by Dubner about Levitt. Save your time: read the article online instead of this book. It's 5% the size, yet contains 80% of the same material.
There is a bit more info about Sumo wrestlers throwing games... and a good overview of cheating teachers. The book also contains info -- of questionable validity -- about Stetson Kennedy and the KKK.
However, what's missing is a good grounding of regression analysis, or an in-depth analysis of any of the subjects. Cheating, crime, incentives, information asymmetry, any of these would make a great book on their own... but the ADD-style of this book always left me feeling that something big was missing, and thus I couldn't trust that all arguments were presented.
The section on information asymmetry was so shallow, thet they didn't even mention The Market for Lemons by Akerlof. The coverage of cheating real-estate agents was so shallow, they didn't even cover that their book may create a self-defeating prophesy. Many sellers I know use the threat of firing the agent, and thus create the negative incentive of zero payment to a lazy realtor.
I was also shocked that nowhere in the book did he cover statistical significance or margin of error... He runs a few numbers, spits out a percentage, and we're expected to swoon. So what if his data says that realtors sell their own homes for 2% more than their client's homes? What's the frigging margin of error?
Throughout the book the authors joke about there not being an overriding theme to the book. Quite true: it did ramble on about disjointed things and left out a great deal of detail... perhaps that's a bad thing, and not something to laugh about.
This could have been a much better book... but it wasn't.
Comments
I agree with your review.
Although it's obvious that he was writing this book for a general public with a problematic grasp of algebra and no concept of statistical conventions. In my own review I complained that this guy, if he's so talented, ought to be working on significant problems of policy rather than running random correlation studies, looking for cute anomalies. It just entertainment without valid significance.
CV Rick
Post new comment