Get Ready for More Bilge: SUPERfreakonomics!

[roo_ster]

Not content with stepping on thier generative members, repeatedly, with their first book, they have come back with (likely) even more generative member-smashing fun & games.

I wonder if they'll have an appendix that details how wrong they were about the correlation between legalized abortion and lower crime rates in their first book?  About how their "its too technical for you people" data-torture had its throat cut after a couple other economists looked at their methodology and showed where their code had neglected to perform a particular calculation correctly...and when it was done correctly, the correlation went away in a puff of dust and pride.

Or how the theory, no matter how it managed to torture the data, did not describe what actually happened in the crime wave and decline.

Oh, how it hurts my head to see folk torture data and come up with the most rediculous bullshinola.  And how so many folks sucked it all up, swallowed the load of drek, and declared, "Genius!"

[AZRedhawk44]

'splayn plz.  kthxbai.

[Balog]

There was a book called "Freakonomics." Never read it myself, a lot of people seemed to like it. Apparently they are coming out with a sequel. And Jfruser does not approve of the original. Never having read it myself, I think I'll trust his analysis.

[makattak]

There was a book called "Freakonomics." Never read it myself, a lot of people seemed to like it. Apparently they are coming out with a sequel. And Jfruser does not approve of the original. Never having read it myself, I think I'll trust his analysis.

It had some poor economics and methodology in it.

Not to say EVERYTHING was wrong, but there were glaring errors as jfruser indicates.

[roo_ster]

Freakonomics (2005) was a book Steven D. Levitt, an economist from U Chicago, that expounded on a number of issues.  One of those was Levitt's contention that that legalized abortion had brought down the crime rates from their high points during the Crack Wars.

At first, when he made the argument in a magazine article in 1999, it had a eugenicist tinge, essentially "more black babies were aborted after Roe, and that casued the later lessening in crime."   The argument got a little more PC for the 2005 book and ended up being something to the effect, "the babies born after legalized abortion were the wanted babies and would therefore be brought up better by their parents."  Never mind just which demographic had, proportionally, the most abortions.  So, Levitt compounded his earlier technical data-torture errors by applying white upper class templates on the black underclass.

He used some rather esoteric statistical analyses to tease the data to say what he thought it should say, to prove his premise.  Problem was, the historical data ran up against his theory, knocked it down, and took its lunch money.  Add on to that, some other economists got a hold of his code (think Excel spreadsheet macros for big databases...most likely the SPSS tool) and found that he screwed up a formula.  When the formula was corrected, the data that had shown a negative correlation between legal abortion and crime (abortion goes up, crime goes down) disappeared.

Thing was, damn near nobody in the chattering classes took the time to google up some data to compare the historical data with the theory.  And none tried to check Levitt's work in the realm of statistics.  They just trumpeted the guy as a genius and he made millions of dollars.

The few who called "BS" were pooh-poohed by Levitt as not understanding his sophisticated statistical methodology.  (Well, yeah, when that methodology amounts to "screwing up your coding.")

Folks still cite the dude as a Really Smart Guy, rather than an exposed hack.

And, here he is with a sequel. 


Not everything was crap, just the most incendiary and controversial section.  And Levitt has never come clean.

Compare that to Murray's The Bell Curve, which got the data and methodology right and was excoriated by the chattering classes. 

[Iain]

They've been exposed as knowing not a lot about much outside their subject area too.

But, wait I'm not going to ruin the joke. But I am going to giggle uncontrollably when you get it.

[Jocassee]

They've been exposed as knowing not a lot about much outside their subject area too.

But, wait I'm not going to ruin the joke. But I am going to giggle uncontrollably when you get it.

i give up

[Balog]

He's saying Jfruser shouldn't talk about AGW 'cause he's not a climatologist. Course last I checked Iain isn't a climatologist either, and Jfruser only comments on the statistical validity of the AGW folks so...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Only Official Persons are allowed to think and hold opinions.  Everyone else is advised to leave that stuff to their betters.

[mellestad]

Freakonomics is a book about obscure causal links between various, sometimes economic, statistics.  Is your main problem with it that there are some conclusions that some economists disagree about?

Call me...jaded, but when was the last time economists agreed about anything?  Five minutes of Google searching shows me that "Freakomonics abortion debate" is still something both sides are yelling about.  Which, again, is shocking that economists disagree about a politically charged claim.

I just don't see the justification in calling a book drivel because some economists disagreed with some other economists.  The consensus of the book seems to be, "entertaining and thought provoking".

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Economists, Levitt excluded, generally agree on how to do arithmetic.

[Balog]

Did you even read Jfruser's post? He isn't saying people disagree with it, he's saying the statistics are incorrectly done and invalid. Of course when you think truth is a matter of opinion I can see why you'd care the most about what the "consensus" is. God forbid one should disagree with the popular views.

[Iain]

He's saying Jfruser shouldn't talk about AGW 'cause he's not a climatologist. Course last I checked Iain isn't a climatologist either, and Jfruser only comments on the statistical validity of the AGW folks so...

Now I'm insulted, but more amused. You're some percentage correct, but not a high one. Gotta wait for Matt Drudge's environmental correspondent to log in.

[Balog]

Now I'm insulted, but more amused. You're some percentage correct, but not a high one. Gotta wait for Matt Drudge's environmental correspondent to log in.

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly it is you mean.

[roo_ster]

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly it is you mean.

Why do that when one can insinuate and play coy?(1)

Levitt's sin is one of pride(2) and finally, integrity.  Not lack of subject matter expertise, which is incidental.  He was informed in 1999, when he wrote his original article that his theory was not in accord with reality.  He persisted with it, because it was the most sexy of the topics he tackled.  He promoted his work and profited handsomely for disseminating work known to be seriously flawed.

When presented with objective proof he had screwed the goat on Main Street, methodology-wise, he brushed it off and counted on the prejudices and ignorance of his bicoastal, innumerate fan base.

He has had many opportunities to set things aright, but has never done so.  He brings discredit upon economics and statistical analysis.






(1) Before reading the author of Iain's original post, I was thinking "Al Gore," who also has profited handsomely...

(2) Best said aloud while imitating The Operative from Serenity.

[mellestad]

Did you even read Jfruser's post? He isn't saying people disagree with it, he's saying the statistics are incorrectly done and invalid. Of course when you think truth is a matter of opinion I can see why you'd care the most about what the "consensus" is. God forbid one should disagree with the popular views.

Cripes, I am saying that a few minutes of Google showed me he agrees there was a mistake, but still thinks his findings are valid after the correction.  My point was I think you need a stronger reason to tar and feather a book than, "some economists disagree with some other economists on one issue in a book".

If you don't like some of the conclusions he makes, great, just say so.  Like I said, some of the stuff he brings up is very politicized.

[Perd Hapley]

Is your main problem with it that there are some conclusions that some economists disagree about?

Or is it the part where he says we can reduce the crime rate by killing the criminals in utero?  Not that that would have any really serious human rights or civil liberties implications, or anything. 

I don't know a lot about the details, I just wonder why this man is treated any differently than, say, David Duke.

[BReilley]

Or is it the part where he says we can reduce the crime rate by killing the criminals in utero?  Not that that would have any really serious human rights or civil liberties implications, or anything. 

I don't know a lot about the details, I just wonder why this man is treated any differently than, say, David Duke.

Having recently read the book($.50, thanks Goodwill!), I can tell you that at no point did I pick up any suggestion, implicit or explicit, that pre-emptive abortion be made policy.  It was, however, pretty blunt about low-income this and no-future that.  There was a certain pro-government-intervention bias, which I am always somehow surprised to find in what claims to be a "pure" discussion of economics.

I generally enjoyed Freakonomics.  I am disappointed to learn of the bad-math bit, but I read the book for entertainment, not education.

I have a hard time with books that spend so much time discussing the genius of the author/coauthor.

I got what I paid for, but I won't buy the sequel.