I think it is merely colouring to suggest this "rogue" economist
provides exploration of the hidden side of "everything." Indeed, aside
from analyzing the self serving motivations of real estate agents, the
financial downside to drug dealing, and the relative value of
obsessively treating little Madison, Cory, or Heather as god's latest
gift to humanity, many things are left uncovered.
All that said, I suppose that the conventional view of economists as
"green eyeshade" types who pore over data is upset by Levitt's "wacky"
view that crime went down in the 90s because of access to abortions in
the 70s (although in the interest of full disclosure, he does give some
credit to things like enhanced policing, stiffer penalties, a stronger
economy, etc ..) or that teachers might actually cheat to bolster
standardized test scores (thereby undermining much of the vaunted No
Child Left Behind Act ..well that and the absurdly underfunded nature of
the program ..ah .. another discussion for another time).
My main problem with this book is two fold: (1) as with any
statistic, it can be manipulated to support a conclusion you wish to
draw and (2) there is just not enough meat on this bone (the book checks
in at a thin 207 pages, and the last 10 or so are fluffed with a "does
the name you get alter your likelihood of success" riff that has plenty
of empty space and charts). That said, the most provocative portions
deal with race and intelligence (and to a lesser extent child naming).
I'm a bit surprised that the loony left hasn't come down harder on this
book for some of its bell-curved conclusions and overtly drawn
conclusions (perhaps out of concern for that very criticism, the authors
do some self-inoculation by citing to studies done by Levitt's
co-fellow at Harvard who is African-American).
Anyway, the buzz on the book has launched it to the top of the NYT
book list and it is written for the layman. I might be just
inherently suspicious of a book whose acclaim is so widespread when its
subject matter is so limited.
