Freakonomics

I picked up Freakonomics from the library a while back. Interesting, but not nearly as fascinating as I was led to believe by the Really! Great! Reviews! And! Radio! Interviews!

While it satisfies some of my hankerings for complexity, it does so at a rhetorical level, making a point about how fascinating X, Y and Z are because the author is so revolutionary in thinking of them this way. And if you're wondering: "So... is he saying that 'Freakonomics' falls into the category of 'mental masturbation'?" Yes.... yes I am.

Regardless, I'll just say that if the popular buzz of 2005 (when the book came out) does anything for people looking at life's events in a more nuanced way, then I guess it has done some good. Would I recommend it? Sure. It's a relatively short/quick read - good for bedtime or bathroom reading, or if you're the voracious-reading type, it's maybe a day or two diversion from whatever you're using to tide yourself over until the final installment of Harry Potter and the Splendiferous Obsession With Countdowns comes out in hardcover. (hey Wendy, yes, that means you... And I have just three little words of tenderness to say to you: gimme some cheesecake.)

Notable Quotables that stuck out in my brain enough that I made note of them:
----------------
When discussing how Experts are not necessarily always working in the best interests of their clients - i.e. Real Estate Agents, Cardiologists, Political/Journalist Consultants - pg 148: "[an] expert whose argument reeks of restraint or nuance doesn't get much attention."

How true. And how sad. Like the evening local TV news - if it bleeds, it leads. No actual news, just violence, tragedy, and scandal.
----------------
In the chapter about how the Ku Klux Klan behaves in a incentive-based way like Real Estate Agents selling houses, he talks about how the Klan incentivises docility in the black community by terrorizing people - pg 62: "and there are few incentives more powerful than the fear of random violence - which, in essence, is why terrorism is so effective."

When I read that, I'm not seeing how the threat of terrorism is used by terrorists, but how the threat of random violence by some sort of unknown... somebody... is used by Bush, et. al. as a tool to get whatever they want. As long as people are constantly made afraid, and afraid of unknown random violence, they will become docile and compliant.

Ever notice how the middle setting of the threat advisory is "Elevated"? Essentially, on a scale of 1 to 5, the middle/average still is designed to cause fear. Makes you really wonder who is terrorizing whom.

What are YOU afraid of today?

(and how can someone else use that fear to manipulate you?)