Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner - Book Review

At the beginning I found the approach of the authors interesting. But as with all humanities like sociology, economics, psychology etc. the problem is with the conclusions one makes from this kind of researches. What especially struck me in this book is the chapter 'What Makes a Perfect Parent?' The authors present extensive research of correlation between different social factors like: ‘the child has highly educated parents’, ‘the child’s mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child birth’, ‘the child was adopted’ etc. and… the child’s result of preschool testing. I definitely appreciate findings of this research. For example, there is a strong correlation between mother’s age at birth of her first child and the child’s test scores: mothers who gave first birth being older than 30 have children with higher scores. But what is the conclusion of the authors? That a child with higher pre-school test scores is better than a child with low scores??? Yes, this is the conclusion in this book, because the chapter is called 'What Makes a Perfect Parent?' And the authors really think that people like themselves: from wealthy neighbourhoods, living in rich houses, driving rich cars – they are better, and all parents in the world should aspire to this. Dear Sirs, do you really believe that someone who had high scores in pre-school tests is better than someone who had low scores??? My opinion is opposite, and I believe many people in the world will agree with me. Child at age of 5 who makes tests very well is merely a little conformist, a child who just learned common things required to pass tests. OK, maybe this child’s IQ is high, but what about his/her creativity? Who will grow from a child easily passing pre-school tests with high scores? Perhaps just a dull conformist, someone who makes well his job, but does not have fantasy. Yes, he will live in a neighbourhood of wealthy people and will have a good salary/house/car etc. And this automatically makes him good and his parents perfect? Did Albert Einstein or Charley Chaplin have high scores in school? Someone would say: OK, don’t be angry, the important thing here is the statistical correlation, and everyone is allowed to draw from it any conclusions he wants. But this is a big mistake. This kind of ‘scientists’ who juggle with facts, have an enormous influence on millions of readers. The authors refer so badly the ‘Conventional Wisdom’, but their own wisdom is not less conventional than other widely used wisdoms! And this is because wisdom is an absolutely personal thing – any mass-wisdom built upon statistical researches is conventional! Perhaps after reading this book, some 25 year old woman would decide not to give birth until she is 30. And will make a stupidest mistake in her life! Yes, families with old parents of course bring children to higher scores in pre-school tests. Would a family where mom and dad are busy with their carriers and reached wealthy state be creative? The more people get older, the less creative they become, the less flexible they are. They are more wise, but they are less childish, more dull, less spontaneous, less interesting! A poor baby growing in a family with old parents and no young brothers and sisters – what does he see around? A creative mom who studies in the university and tries to find her way in life? A creative dad who can run and dance with his children? Or a dad with a pain in spinal cord who is only doing the wise things and can never be childish or stupid? People – I admit that the maths in this kind of studies is a very powerful tool. But the more powerful math is used, the more terrible the conclusions! When you read these mathematical freaks about our human life, don’t allow them to influence your decisions! Human brain is much more sophisticated instrument to draw conclusions from the experience of his or her owner! Don’t listen to all this kind of researches that have purpose of skewing your mind. Believe what your heart tells you! Our brains evolved millions of years and they much better know how to build your family and how to grow your children, than any ‘scientists’ juggling with facts and statistics. What I can conclude about this book is that its authors came to their own private wisdoms for the topics they discuss. But these wisdoms are just their own. I do agree with them that allowing abortions decreased crime rate. But their research does not mathematically prove this. And as soon as there are no proofs, this cannot be common wisdom like proven knowledge about electromagnetism or optics.

13 out of 50 people found this helpful.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes | No