Freakonomics Monthly Review

What was the author's purpose in writing this book, how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?

The purpose of this book was to describe what different topics that may have seemed irrelevant to each other yet they were somehow tied to one another. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner wrote this book and still now continue the book on a blog. The book explored topics such as the similarities between school teachers and sumo wrestlers, how the Ku klux klan and real estate agents are alike, common names for poor and rich areas, and many other interesting topics. Those topics were some of my favorite but there were many more to choose from in the book.

The book started out with Sumo wrestlers Vs. school teachers. This i found interesting because they talked a lot about cheating. The book explained how teachers would do almost anything for his/her class to look really good because if a class does well then the teacher in turn gets better pay or treated better. It also explained how school teachers will cheat for their class in a numerous amount of ways to make themselves look good as teachers (without caring about the students). When teachers do this it affects the students next year which in turn makes next years teacher look worse because of the insufficient teachings of the teacher who cheated. This also helps people figure out who the cheaters are. Cheaters are more easily found when there are patterns in the cheating.

With sumo wrestlers the cheating was kind of the same. The book explained how Sumo Wrestlers have fifteen matches and if they win at least eight out of the fifteen matches then they are considered upper-class wrestlers. The cheating part of Sumo Wrestling is in such occasions as when a 7-7 Sumo wrestler faces a 8-6 wrestler. The 8-6 wrestler will usually throw the match so the 7-7 can become an upper class wrestler.

The purpose of this book was really just a book for leisure i think. Because there is really no point in discussing random topics and how they relate to each other, but it is also very interesting to read and you never really want to put the book down.


For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (In other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)

I think this book is for an older to teenage audience. I mean i would recommend it to anyone who just wants to hear interesting facts about stuff but i mean i would really recommend it to teens and adults. I find this book more for an older crowd one because of peoples reading levels and also just the topics they talk about seem to be for older people. For instance last part of the book Freakonomics was pretty good. Some new topics came up that were very interesting and some that were not as interesting. Parenting came up as one that stood out to me that young kids or a younger crowd really would not care about.I mean i really thought about english when i read this section because it was all about selecting schools and what not. I think that a younger crowd would not get where the authors are coming from at all when they are reading this book so that is why i direct it more toward a middle to older aged crowd of people.

Another part of this book that just supports my idea of directing this book at an older crowd is the topic "Why do drug dealers still live with their mothers." Like really, what is that? I think that is one of the topics that is really irrelevant but i mean it was somewhat interesting just it seemed like the authors did not have a lot to write about it. I mean do not get me wrong i loved the whole book in its entirety but topics like this and some others are just not meant for younger kids and older adults that do not like things like this.


What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?

I think this book covers topics that are kind of boring. The authors may not think so but i found parts of the book really slow. For example, during the beginning of Freakonomics they talked about the Klu Klux Klan and Real Estate agents and how each of them are alike. This section of the book started with the Klu Klux Klan. It explained how they started off as a group of people that went around in sheets and pillow cases and would do harmless pranks to people. Then they talked about how the pranks became no longer harmless. Like they took a lot more time just to say that. So i thought that some of the book was really irrelevant.

Also when they talked about the Real Estate agents they talked about how they chose to sell a house and who too. Depending on age, race, etc. the Real Estate agents would act differently and would offer different areas according to the way the person presented themselves. I found that disturbing because just if a person presents their self in one way does not mean they are that way. If you get what i am saying.

In the book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pick the most bizarre topics to debate about but in the end the way they use evidence to prove their comparisons is very good. Some parts were way better than others but I really liked the book. I think if we get another chance to do a lit circle again we should read Superfreakonomics it seems just as interesting. Like i also said before in almost all of my posts about this book i would still love to hear what my group mates think about the book as well besides what is on their blogs. (Also on my last blog post i put the link to the freakonomics blog)