What do you think?
Rate this book
The Logic of Life
Life sometimes seems illogical. Individuals do strange things: take drugs, have unprotected sex, mug each other. Love seems irrational, and so does divorce. On a larger scale, life seems no fairer or easier to fathom: Why do some neighborhoods thrive and others become ghettos? Why is racism so persistent? Why is your idiot boss paid a fortune for sitting behind a mahogany altar? Thorny questions–and you might be surprised to hear the answers coming from an economist. But award-winning journalist Tim Harford likes to spring surprises. In this deftly reasoned book, he argues that life is logical after all. Under the surface of everyday insanity, hidden incentives are at work, and Harford shows these incentives emerging in the most unlikely places.
272 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2008
328 people are currently reading
10061 people want to read
About the author
Tim Harford
48 books1,856 followersTim Harford is a member of the Financial Times editorial board. His column, “The Undercover Economist”, which reveals the economic ideas behind everyday experiences, is published in the Financial Times and syndicated around the world. He is also the only economist in the world to run a problem page, “Dear Economist”, in which FT readers’ personal problems are answered tongue-in-cheek with the latest economic theory.
--from the author's website
--from the author's website
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 325 reviews
May 27, 2010
I've been trying to increase my understanding of economics lately, and have found myself reading a lot of books like this one. From 'The Undercover Economist' to 'Freakonomics' I feel a lot more informed about the world, but also better equipped to view my surroundings from new perspectives.
This book is no exception. Harford has a knack for delivering complex information to the everyday reader in an entertaining way. Most importantly, he deals with issues that are relevant to the average person's life while making his main point that the decisions we make are essentially rational. By rational, Harford means, "rational people respond to incentives." With this assumption, he's able to flush out all kinds of interesting, and sometimes scary, incentives to which humans respond. Additionally, Harford claims that we respond to incentives that go beyond mere monetary considerations to our everyday decisions, i.e. sex, neighborhoods, race, culture, and so on. Basically, anything that has a consequence can also be an incentive.
It's at this point that Harford says "rational choice theory" becomes controversial because it enters the realm of everyday human behavior. And for me, it is also controversial because I don't think we can call every individual rational in the sense that we all respond to reasonable incentives. Obviously we respond to incentives, but how logical are these incentives on the individual level? This book is about flushing out what incentives we are responding to in particular situations, and, as is always the case with statistics, an aggregate number that points to a particular incentive doesn't really tell us much about whether a particular individual is responding to that incentive.
I think the incentives Harford highlights are enlightening and useful, but that he should stop short of labeling life logical.
This book is no exception. Harford has a knack for delivering complex information to the everyday reader in an entertaining way. Most importantly, he deals with issues that are relevant to the average person's life while making his main point that the decisions we make are essentially rational. By rational, Harford means, "rational people respond to incentives." With this assumption, he's able to flush out all kinds of interesting, and sometimes scary, incentives to which humans respond. Additionally, Harford claims that we respond to incentives that go beyond mere monetary considerations to our everyday decisions, i.e. sex, neighborhoods, race, culture, and so on. Basically, anything that has a consequence can also be an incentive.
It's at this point that Harford says "rational choice theory" becomes controversial because it enters the realm of everyday human behavior. And for me, it is also controversial because I don't think we can call every individual rational in the sense that we all respond to reasonable incentives. Obviously we respond to incentives, but how logical are these incentives on the individual level? This book is about flushing out what incentives we are responding to in particular situations, and, as is always the case with statistics, an aggregate number that points to a particular incentive doesn't really tell us much about whether a particular individual is responding to that incentive.
I think the incentives Harford highlights are enlightening and useful, but that he should stop short of labeling life logical.
March 19, 2008
The explanatory ambition of this book is stunning--Harford offers rational actor explanations of changes in sexual activity, racial segregation in cities, professional poker, the number of people in parks at different times of day, the productivity of cities, the industrial revolution, colonization, and even why human beings eventually triumphed over neanderthals!
Along the way you get informative sketches of major 20th century economists and game theorists and their theories.
I was most impressed by the explanation of why small scale rational decisions made by individuals can lead to large-scale problems like extreme racial and class segregation in cities. For discussion of this point, see chapter 5, which begins with Harford trying to decide where to live in Washington, DC, and being told by his minder at the World Bank not to live east of 16th street!
One statistic that stood out: each year a married woman delays having kids, her lifetime earnings go up 10% (chapter 3).
This book is further proof (as if more was needed) that having things explained is incredibly enjoyable, and incomparably better than the refusal to offer explanations in the face of what seems like overwhelming complexity.
Along the way you get informative sketches of major 20th century economists and game theorists and their theories.
I was most impressed by the explanation of why small scale rational decisions made by individuals can lead to large-scale problems like extreme racial and class segregation in cities. For discussion of this point, see chapter 5, which begins with Harford trying to decide where to live in Washington, DC, and being told by his minder at the World Bank not to live east of 16th street!
One statistic that stood out: each year a married woman delays having kids, her lifetime earnings go up 10% (chapter 3).
This book is further proof (as if more was needed) that having things explained is incredibly enjoyable, and incomparably better than the refusal to offer explanations in the face of what seems like overwhelming complexity.
March 23, 2015
Very disappointing. Very shallow and simplistic.
Fairly early in the book I reached the statement that the author's morning coffee habit and an addiction to heroin are basically the same thing, just different in a matter of degree.
If I had the book from the library I would have given up at that point, but having paid for the book I soldiered on, unfortunately, hoping for something better to turn up. No such luck. The book ends with a ridiculous speculation about why the Neanderthals went extinct 30,000 years ago.
My general rule is if I do finish a book it gets 2 stars. I am making an exception in this case.
Fairly early in the book I reached the statement that the author's morning coffee habit and an addiction to heroin are basically the same thing, just different in a matter of degree.
If I had the book from the library I would have given up at that point, but having paid for the book I soldiered on, unfortunately, hoping for something better to turn up. No such luck. The book ends with a ridiculous speculation about why the Neanderthals went extinct 30,000 years ago.
My general rule is if I do finish a book it gets 2 stars. I am making an exception in this case.
October 26, 2009
I like this type of book, but sometimes it feels like pseudoscience. What the heck! It was insightful to be introduced to Kahneman and Tversky in a book like say Against the Gods, and then to have it rebutted in the first few chapters of this book.
While I may enjoy it, it is going to leave me a little like freakonomics, i.e., a good book but not quite a classic.
After reading it, I must say it is looking like a lesser book than freakonomics. Afterall, freakonomics was the first in this genre. Also, there is less subtance here than The Undercover Economist. Towards the end, the studies in support of the arguments are what was earlier argued in the books as unrealistic studies (e.g., awarding 2 dollars and 50 cents for experimental purposes is of too little value to be considered for rational behaviors towards incentives). And right at the end, there is this classic why-the-world-is-so thesis that was just stated not backed up by any evidence.
While I may enjoy it, it is going to leave me a little like freakonomics, i.e., a good book but not quite a classic.
After reading it, I must say it is looking like a lesser book than freakonomics. Afterall, freakonomics was the first in this genre. Also, there is less subtance here than The Undercover Economist. Towards the end, the studies in support of the arguments are what was earlier argued in the books as unrealistic studies (e.g., awarding 2 dollars and 50 cents for experimental purposes is of too little value to be considered for rational behaviors towards incentives). And right at the end, there is this classic why-the-world-is-so thesis that was just stated not backed up by any evidence.
March 2, 2018
You might feel the book interesting but there were many instances I would find myself saying "Really? You are claiming those to be comparable in a book espousing the role of rationality?"
January 20, 2014
**edited 01/18/14
Tim Harford, you're breaking my heart, and more importantly, you're undermining my faith in quantitative economics. I am a passionate fan of your BBC radio show, "More or Less." What could possibly be more entertaining than a topical radio programme that uses statistics to fact-check the politicians, especially if it occasionally measures things in whales and/or Wales? Sure, I don't have the same faith in rationality that you do--well, not without completely bending the meaning of "rationality" out of joint to allow for irrational influences such as spite-motivation--but I accept the premise. I greatly enjoyed your previous book, The Undercover Economist, and that book was just as insistent on human rationality. But what I can't cope with is this book's betrayal of the primary credo that separates idle speculation from science.
Mr. Harford, what, oh what, happened to your belief in the rallying cry of "More or Less?" What happened to "correlation does not imply causation?"
...
Due to my disapproval of GR's new and highly subjective review deletion policy, I am no longer posting full reviews here.
The rest of this review can be found on Booklikes.
Tim Harford, you're breaking my heart, and more importantly, you're undermining my faith in quantitative economics. I am a passionate fan of your BBC radio show, "More or Less." What could possibly be more entertaining than a topical radio programme that uses statistics to fact-check the politicians, especially if it occasionally measures things in whales and/or Wales? Sure, I don't have the same faith in rationality that you do--well, not without completely bending the meaning of "rationality" out of joint to allow for irrational influences such as spite-motivation--but I accept the premise. I greatly enjoyed your previous book, The Undercover Economist, and that book was just as insistent on human rationality. But what I can't cope with is this book's betrayal of the primary credo that separates idle speculation from science.
Mr. Harford, what, oh what, happened to your belief in the rallying cry of "More or Less?" What happened to "correlation does not imply causation?"
...
Due to my disapproval of GR's new and highly subjective review deletion policy, I am no longer posting full reviews here.
The rest of this review can be found on Booklikes.
March 31, 2025
" Lo obvio es a menudo falso; lo inesperado, con frecuencia verdadero."
- Bertrand Russell
3.5
Me ha llenado de nostalgia retomar este libro con el compromiso de terminarlo, luego de haberlo tenido por años en un rincón, usándolo apenas para completar reseñas o ensayos sobre capítulos puntuales para mi clase. Pude vislumbrar la silueta de mi profesor de teoría de juegos, amenazando con materializarse en cualquier momento para ilustrarme mejor alguna idea presentada por Harford con uno de sus particulares ejemplos. En retrospectiva, y considerando lo densas que pueden llegar a ser algunas de las tesis centrales que desarrolla el libro —por ejemplo, el modelo de Michael Kremer sobre densidad de población y cambio tecnológico, o la modelización de la segregación racial— de Schelling, quizá no sea muy tarde para sentirme afortunado de haber contado con un profesor que encarna con tanta naturalidad la esencia del estilo Freakonomics.
No puedo enfatizar lo suficiente el enorme reto que asumen autores como Harford, Peter Leeson o Levitt, profesionales entusiastas que abrazan la responsabilidad de abordar tópicos difíciles de digerir —especialmente para el público general y las audiencias más jóvenes—, evitando los ejemplos cliché de los libros de texto. Sin embargo, la otra cara de ese reto consiste en presentar las ideas de forma interesante, con los matices adecuados y sin simplificarlas en exceso, todo ello mientras se esquiva el muy probable riesgo de confundir al lector. Quizás sea en la manutención de este delicado equilibrio, en donde, ocasionalmente, se flaquea y se sacrifica veracidad.
No es un secreto que una de las críticas más consistentes al estilo divulgativo de libros como Superfreakonomics apunta justamente en esa dirección. Al examinar en detalle ciertos capítulos o conclusiones, es posible encontrar errores que podrían haberse evitado: desde análisis retrospectivos poco rigurosos hasta suposiciones no cuestionadas, pasando por una dependencia acrítica del trabajo de colegas y amigos o ídolos académicos del autor. En algunas partes, Tim Harford parece caer en lo mismo. Quiero resaltar su férrea defensa de la tesis de Gary Becker sobre la racionalidad de los adictos, ya sea a sustancias como la heroína o a los juegos de azar. Esta idea se apoya en patrones de consumo observados en ciertos casos y en la elasticidad de la demanda cuando la fuente del “subidón” cambia de precio. Adicionalmente, Harford equipara la incertidumbre, el análisis de corto y largo plazo, y la supuesta racionalidad de quien decide iniciarse en el mundo de las drogas inyectables con la de un joven enamorado a punto de casarse, o con la de un estudiante universitario que está por iniciar un “vínculo difícil de romper” con la entidad financiera que brinda créditos escolares para su carrera profesional. ¿El problema? Qué lo anterior omite mucho para encajar en el modelo de conclusión contra intuitiva y sorprendente que Harford se comprometió en garantizarnos desde la introducción y parece dispuesto a todo para llegar a ella.
Para empezar, es falso que el comportamiento de la demanda elástica sea generalizable a todo aquel miembro de la categoría "adicto", es verdad, en fases tempranas o en consumos problemáticos pero aún funcionales, ciertas personas pueden reducir su consumo ante un aumento de precio o una mayor dificultad para acceder a la sustancia. Pero, y es un, pero bastante grande, Harford no menciona los estudios que: sostienen que la adición muestra reflejan preferencias inconsistentes en el tiempo con inclinaciones a subestimar demasiado el futuro, describen la adicción no como una decisión reflexiva sino como resultado de disfunciones no voluntarias de los sistemas de dopamina y sesgos cognitivos , se oponen a la idea de una categoría uniforme de "adictos" y que estos reaccionan de forma predecible a un cambio en la oferta; ya sea los adictos que priorizaran su dosis sin líneas rojas de autocontrol o necesidades básicas descuidadas ( incluso delinquir), o aquellos que optarán por sustitutos baratos más peligrosos . Todo ello por no ahondar en la falacia de falsa equivalencia que supone la equiparación superficial entre un futuro esposo y un adicto. En algún momento del capítulo esperaba ver a Harford defendiendo la posibilidad de que el "adicto" a pagar el alquiler pudiese morir de abstinencia o desarrollar convulsiones si dejase de hacerlo (como si ocurre con las adicciones de verdad). Es como si el deseo de Harford por no empañar la vigencia de A Theory of Rational Addiction le hubiera llevado a omitir las revisiones y críticas posteriores que se han hecho al respecto (y se hacen). Podría seguir por horas, pero creo que está claro.
Desde luego, no todo es así de tendencioso. El capítulo dedicado a los peligros del racismo racional y sus alusiones a Micromotives and Macrobehavior me ha parecido intachable, matizado y convincente. De hecho, no me cabe la menor duda de que si cierta parte de la izquierda optase por divulgar la importancia de las políticas DEI y medidas como la acción afirmativa apelando a estos análisis en lugar de regurgitar los berrinches identitarios de Robin DiAngelo, el discurso alienante interseccionalista y las conspiraciones de gente como Ibram X. Kendi o Shaun king; tendríamos un punto de partida sólido y defendible sobre el cual verdaderamente construir una sociedad muy distinta e inclusiva de verdad, sin darle armas retóricas y emocionales a la derecha identitaria en el proceso. En fin, es un libro divertido, perteneciente a un género igualmente entretenido, y que recomendaría darle una oportunidad a cualquiera, especialmente si eres un joven estudiante de Economía que teme haber elegido “la carrera más aburrida del mundo”. Que sepas que hay vida más allá de las cifras macroeconómicas y el mundo de las finanzas: hay una luz al final del túnel, y del otro lado te esperan personajes fascinantes y excéntricos como Vernon Smith y Thomas Schelling.
- Bertrand Russell
3.5
Me ha llenado de nostalgia retomar este libro con el compromiso de terminarlo, luego de haberlo tenido por años en un rincón, usándolo apenas para completar reseñas o ensayos sobre capítulos puntuales para mi clase. Pude vislumbrar la silueta de mi profesor de teoría de juegos, amenazando con materializarse en cualquier momento para ilustrarme mejor alguna idea presentada por Harford con uno de sus particulares ejemplos. En retrospectiva, y considerando lo densas que pueden llegar a ser algunas de las tesis centrales que desarrolla el libro —por ejemplo, el modelo de Michael Kremer sobre densidad de población y cambio tecnológico, o la modelización de la segregación racial— de Schelling, quizá no sea muy tarde para sentirme afortunado de haber contado con un profesor que encarna con tanta naturalidad la esencia del estilo Freakonomics.
No puedo enfatizar lo suficiente el enorme reto que asumen autores como Harford, Peter Leeson o Levitt, profesionales entusiastas que abrazan la responsabilidad de abordar tópicos difíciles de digerir —especialmente para el público general y las audiencias más jóvenes—, evitando los ejemplos cliché de los libros de texto. Sin embargo, la otra cara de ese reto consiste en presentar las ideas de forma interesante, con los matices adecuados y sin simplificarlas en exceso, todo ello mientras se esquiva el muy probable riesgo de confundir al lector. Quizás sea en la manutención de este delicado equilibrio, en donde, ocasionalmente, se flaquea y se sacrifica veracidad.
No es un secreto que una de las críticas más consistentes al estilo divulgativo de libros como Superfreakonomics apunta justamente en esa dirección. Al examinar en detalle ciertos capítulos o conclusiones, es posible encontrar errores que podrían haberse evitado: desde análisis retrospectivos poco rigurosos hasta suposiciones no cuestionadas, pasando por una dependencia acrítica del trabajo de colegas y amigos o ídolos académicos del autor. En algunas partes, Tim Harford parece caer en lo mismo. Quiero resaltar su férrea defensa de la tesis de Gary Becker sobre la racionalidad de los adictos, ya sea a sustancias como la heroína o a los juegos de azar. Esta idea se apoya en patrones de consumo observados en ciertos casos y en la elasticidad de la demanda cuando la fuente del “subidón” cambia de precio. Adicionalmente, Harford equipara la incertidumbre, el análisis de corto y largo plazo, y la supuesta racionalidad de quien decide iniciarse en el mundo de las drogas inyectables con la de un joven enamorado a punto de casarse, o con la de un estudiante universitario que está por iniciar un “vínculo difícil de romper” con la entidad financiera que brinda créditos escolares para su carrera profesional. ¿El problema? Qué lo anterior omite mucho para encajar en el modelo de conclusión contra intuitiva y sorprendente que Harford se comprometió en garantizarnos desde la introducción y parece dispuesto a todo para llegar a ella.
Para empezar, es falso que el comportamiento de la demanda elástica sea generalizable a todo aquel miembro de la categoría "adicto", es verdad, en fases tempranas o en consumos problemáticos pero aún funcionales, ciertas personas pueden reducir su consumo ante un aumento de precio o una mayor dificultad para acceder a la sustancia. Pero, y es un, pero bastante grande, Harford no menciona los estudios que: sostienen que la adición muestra reflejan preferencias inconsistentes en el tiempo con inclinaciones a subestimar demasiado el futuro, describen la adicción no como una decisión reflexiva sino como resultado de disfunciones no voluntarias de los sistemas de dopamina y sesgos cognitivos , se oponen a la idea de una categoría uniforme de "adictos" y que estos reaccionan de forma predecible a un cambio en la oferta; ya sea los adictos que priorizaran su dosis sin líneas rojas de autocontrol o necesidades básicas descuidadas ( incluso delinquir), o aquellos que optarán por sustitutos baratos más peligrosos . Todo ello por no ahondar en la falacia de falsa equivalencia que supone la equiparación superficial entre un futuro esposo y un adicto. En algún momento del capítulo esperaba ver a Harford defendiendo la posibilidad de que el "adicto" a pagar el alquiler pudiese morir de abstinencia o desarrollar convulsiones si dejase de hacerlo (como si ocurre con las adicciones de verdad). Es como si el deseo de Harford por no empañar la vigencia de A Theory of Rational Addiction le hubiera llevado a omitir las revisiones y críticas posteriores que se han hecho al respecto (y se hacen). Podría seguir por horas, pero creo que está claro.
Desde luego, no todo es así de tendencioso. El capítulo dedicado a los peligros del racismo racional y sus alusiones a Micromotives and Macrobehavior me ha parecido intachable, matizado y convincente. De hecho, no me cabe la menor duda de que si cierta parte de la izquierda optase por divulgar la importancia de las políticas DEI y medidas como la acción afirmativa apelando a estos análisis en lugar de regurgitar los berrinches identitarios de Robin DiAngelo, el discurso alienante interseccionalista y las conspiraciones de gente como Ibram X. Kendi o Shaun king; tendríamos un punto de partida sólido y defendible sobre el cual verdaderamente construir una sociedad muy distinta e inclusiva de verdad, sin darle armas retóricas y emocionales a la derecha identitaria en el proceso. En fin, es un libro divertido, perteneciente a un género igualmente entretenido, y que recomendaría darle una oportunidad a cualquiera, especialmente si eres un joven estudiante de Economía que teme haber elegido “la carrera más aburrida del mundo”. Que sepas que hay vida más allá de las cifras macroeconómicas y el mundo de las finanzas: hay una luz al final del túnel, y del otro lado te esperan personajes fascinantes y excéntricos como Vernon Smith y Thomas Schelling.
December 20, 2011
A grandiose title that tells you this book is a little more ambitious than "The Undercover Economist". Harford writes with passion and urgency, defending rational choice theory as a useful framework for predicting in the majority of cases how the majority of people behave. Because people change their behaviours in response to incentives (and these include non-financial ones), rational choice theory also lends itself well to policymaking.
Someone needs to write about how those incentives can or should be structured, given findings in new branches of economics such as behavioural economics. Harford throws in a few comments about the applicability of some of Kahneman's lab research to real world situations, and hints at "neuroeconomics". Perhaps a follow-up is needed?
Someone needs to write about how those incentives can or should be structured, given findings in new branches of economics such as behavioural economics. Harford throws in a few comments about the applicability of some of Kahneman's lab research to real world situations, and hints at "neuroeconomics". Perhaps a follow-up is needed?
August 4, 2011
Interesting book which raises various psychological issues in its exploration of rational decision making. Some of the issues raised are set in context with geographical examples, which I like.
The author, Tim Harford, is a self proclaimed economist and he has a website:
http://www.timharford.com
I thought the book was calling for a closer integration of economics into social science research to develop a clearer understanding of the way things work. Maybe this is happening, but nevertheless, I wonder if far more about this world can be explained by 'cock up theory' than 'conspiracy theory' where muppetry and unforseen circumstance tends to result in outcomes more than what is intended consequence.
I did not read every word of this book from start to finish, rather I dipped in and out of it, so I may have missed some parts and this review might not be a fair reflection.
I liked the consideration of the pace of "development", and its relation to the size and innovation of human populations. Population size is a proxy for the number of good and developed ideas, as it is a proxy for so many things, but usually the real thing of interest is quite complex and so the relation may be prone to sudden change. One of my hopes is that cyberspace and collaborative working are now ushering in a new dawn in memetic development that accelerates our development of knowledge and understanding and the pace of development itself. Is this above and beyond the exponential growth of human population? Well...
The author, Tim Harford, is a self proclaimed economist and he has a website:
http://www.timharford.com
I thought the book was calling for a closer integration of economics into social science research to develop a clearer understanding of the way things work. Maybe this is happening, but nevertheless, I wonder if far more about this world can be explained by 'cock up theory' than 'conspiracy theory' where muppetry and unforseen circumstance tends to result in outcomes more than what is intended consequence.
I did not read every word of this book from start to finish, rather I dipped in and out of it, so I may have missed some parts and this review might not be a fair reflection.
I liked the consideration of the pace of "development", and its relation to the size and innovation of human populations. Population size is a proxy for the number of good and developed ideas, as it is a proxy for so many things, but usually the real thing of interest is quite complex and so the relation may be prone to sudden change. One of my hopes is that cyberspace and collaborative working are now ushering in a new dawn in memetic development that accelerates our development of knowledge and understanding and the pace of development itself. Is this above and beyond the exponential growth of human population? Well...
June 15, 2011
Harford books are well-written, engaging, and funny. If you loved the Freakonomics books, are a Malcolm Gladwell fan, and want more, I wholeheartedly recommend these.
The Logic of Life is a great read, with a thesis that I like, although it isn't breaking news. Basically, Harford points out that, even when people seem crazy and stupid, they're usually acting rationally and responding to incentives.
It definitely reads a bit like a collection of articles that was tweaked to make into a book. The last chapter, especially, doesn't quite seem to fit in. The themes in the last chapter were profound enough so that, if he discussed them at all, it should have been in greater detail (write another book!). It made for an unsatisfying ending to what was really a fun book.
The Logic of Life is a great read, with a thesis that I like, although it isn't breaking news. Basically, Harford points out that, even when people seem crazy and stupid, they're usually acting rationally and responding to incentives.
It definitely reads a bit like a collection of articles that was tweaked to make into a book. The last chapter, especially, doesn't quite seem to fit in. The themes in the last chapter were profound enough so that, if he discussed them at all, it should have been in greater detail (write another book!). It made for an unsatisfying ending to what was really a fun book.
December 23, 2012
a wonderful book. too smart. it actually covers almost all topics in life
(a) sex and oral sex
(b) game theory and poker - my personal favourite
(c) marriage
(d) work
(e) neigbourhood
(f) politics
(g) revolutions
(h) speculations (2 thought experiments)
and etc
its central theme is rationality, i.e. why human choices are mostly rational when we are in our comfort zone.
persuasive.
should have read this book earlier!
(a) sex and oral sex
(b) game theory and poker - my personal favourite
(c) marriage
(d) work
(e) neigbourhood
(f) politics
(g) revolutions
(h) speculations (2 thought experiments)
and etc
its central theme is rationality, i.e. why human choices are mostly rational when we are in our comfort zone.
persuasive.
should have read this book earlier!
August 21, 2012
Review for The Logic of Life
Author Tim Harford
ISBN: 978-1-58836-682-5
“The logic of life: the rational economics of an irrational world”
My chief beef with economics has always been based on 2 simple observations:
(1)Men and women are not rational creatures
(2)Economics is horrible at forecasting future events because of irrational behavior
My conclusion then is that economics as a field of study is flawed and there are no “laws of economics” because the field is so full of potholes there can’t be.
What intrigued me to read this particular book was the author’s belief and contention that human beings are indeed rational and the underpinnings of economic theory work quite well if we would take a more careful look at the behavior or observations that lead us to believe otherwise.
If we take my complaints about economics in reverse order and look at econ’s terrible track record of forecasting future events, the author quite readily admits as a forecasting tool the discipline is quite awful. Economics can’t forecast the future because of the nature of what he spends most of the book talking about. People as individuals are really quite rational. Large groups, while composed of rational individuals, do not always make rational decisions. And it is the irrationality of large groups that makes forecasting improbable if not impossible. But, and this is a key point of his premise, the individuals within the groups are still making rational decisions even if the outcome of the larger entity is not.
That sounds contradictory, but the bulk of the book is research data to support the contention that most people, as individuals, act quite rationally even when they are part of or face groups that act irrationally. That may take a moment to digest, but let’s look at my first problem with economics and see how his premise holds up once we look at how he addresses the basic rationality of the individual.
My contention has always been that individuals are not rational, and they don’t behave that way. Anecdotal data says all you have to do is look at your own decisions, or those of your neighbors, and you have all the proof of that you need. The author sees it through a completely different lens, and he makes a compelling case. His contention is we live most of our lives, (performing tasks, making decisions, buying and selling) in our comfort zone of well known parameters, risks and outcomes. Within our comfort zones, we behave quite rationally. It’s when we face the unfamiliar we have problems.
When we step out of our comfort zones, or are forced out by circumstances, in to the unfamiliar we do indeed make poorer choices. We face the unknown with less certainty than with the known. Because we don’t know the risks, the rewards, the probabilities or sometimes even basic information, we make decisions based on highly imperfect data and we do it with much less precision. Hence, when we are out of our comfort zones we make much poorer decisions: which can be viewed as irrational ones by people who are within their comfort zones looking at our out of comfort zone decision.
Given choices that are within our comfort zones, as individuals, we make decisions that are fairly rational and in our best interests just as economic theory says we will. The author further states that we spend most of our lives, and more importantly, most of our decisions and actions, within our comfort zones not outside of them. We do poorly outside of our spheres of knowledge so we spend a lot of time and effort to stay within them.
Rational behavior most of the time, and in most of our decisions is the postulation and he spends a fair amount of time providing data to support this contention. Poor decisions outside of our knowledge zones are not irrational : they are merely a fact of our existence. We have limitations. Step outside them, and we make poor quality decisions. Not irrational ones, poor quality ones. If we are given enough time to build expertise, those poor quality decisions improve.
So, if individuals within their spheres of understanding do behave rationally, how come groups of individuals do not? As Shakespeare once said “Aye, there’s the rub”.
I believe it is a common extrapolation of economic schools of thought that rational individuals combine to make rational groups. Groups then combine to form even larger rational entities; eventually becoming cities, states and countries. The flaw, according to the author, is that rationality stops with the individual. As soon as an individual joins a group, while his or her individual behavior remains rational as he or she makes decisions within the group, the group itself may make irrational choices. Or, to view it from another angle, while a member of a group an individual will make choices or decisions he would not make if left up to his own devices/resources.
This is the meat of the book : people engaged in making decisions as part of larger and larger groups will make choices, or agree to choices, they would not have made if left to themselves. And, there’s a rational explanation for that too! And the rational explanation is that it costs us less to agree than to dispute the choice of a very large group: a rational choice.
His most basic example is one that makes a lot of sense regarding individuals as they become members of large groups. By behaving in their own best interests as individuals, the behavior of the larger group can become skewed. By doing the rational thing while in a group, the artifacts of the group can seem out of whack, or irrational. And sometimes they are.
The shared meal is his basic teaching tool for this phenomenon (he calls it the “split the check” phenomenon). If I go out to lunch as an individual, I do my best to get what I need or want for lunch at what I would consider a fair cost: often the lowest cost I can find. But if I go out to lunch with 20 people at work and we agree to split the check evenly across the 20 attendees (after all who wants to figure out who spent what on what) my behavior changes.
In a “split the check” group scenario, I won’t scrimp on the meal. I will order as much as I can reasonably get away with because I will only have to pay 1/20th of the cost of that choice, plus 1/20th of everyone else’s choices. If everyone else orders a sandwich and a glass of water (what they would do if on their own) I will make out like a bandit by ordering salads, soup and a nice big steak. I will only pay 1/20th of that choice, plus 1/20th of the other much smaller choices. My overall bill is less. I behaved rationally: I looked out for my best interest. The group behaved irrationally. The group subsidized my behavior.
As we combine rational individuals in to groups, this “split the check” phenomenon plays out in ever increasingly weird ways. Adam Smith said “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. The “split the check” phenomenon says “the needs of the few will outweigh the needs of the many” and it will work almost every time. It is irrational, but that’s how we behave in groups and its how we react when we see large group decisions. We can see the inequality, but it costs us more to try and fix that than the cost of the inequality. He gives us a fine example of those costs and why we don’t try and fix these situations when we see them.
An example is farm subsidies, particularly in the sugar industry. The short version of his well illustrated and supported example is that our government spends something like $50,000,000 a year to subsidize sugar plantations. All that money goes to only about 30 farms across 3 states which employ something around 50,000 people in total. The irrational benefit is that the entire country is spending money so roughly 50,000 people can have a benefit. All of us pay money so 50,000 people can have a slightly larger standard of living. That’s irrational behavior by the group.
But, as individuals, we do not step in and try to fix it because the cost to us individually can be measured in pennies and we won’t spend the time or the effort to fix it because it costs us more to fix it than the penalty we are all paying. And politicians will not fix it because the votes are concentrated in a few key states and political boundaries : votes are for real. As well, the sugar industry donates to those same politicians for re-election so there is also no rational reason to bite the hand that feeds you.
Thus, we have an irrational condition (sugar subsidies payed to just 50,000 people) payed out by the majority group to a minority subset that doesn’t really need it. This condition is a variation of the “split the check” problem played out on a large scale. All the individuals are behaving rationally. The the group decisions made were irrational, and the irrational condition remains because to fix it would cost individuals more than the benefit they would see. A rational decision.
The members of the group who set this condition up were members with a vested interest in the outcome: rational behavior. The other members of the group who agreed received benefits as well : favorable votes on legislation they wished to pass. Again rational behavior. The group made an irrational decision (farm subsidies), and that decision will stand because it costs more to fix it than it is worth : rational behavior.
CONCLUSIONS:
My basic issues with the believability or viability of economics were met head on by the author and challenged. He put forth a convincing case, supported with realistic data, that human beings do indeed behave rationally when given an environment with variables they are comfortable with. When confronted with an unfamiliar environment or unfamiliar variables we don’t collapse in to irrational behavior, we simply are much more error prone until we master the situation.
I am persuaded to look at the world I see and test out his hypothesis to see if it holds water. It looks promising, but there are still bursts of seemingly irrational behavior all around me by individuals. The puzzle then is to find out if these are really irrational deeds, or is there an underlying rational cause I just didn’t notice or see?
The problem of group behavior is quite puzzling. The “split the check” phenomenon with group spending seems like it would explain a lot of the crazy stuff we see in corporations (CEO’s being paid gigantic sums of money) and in governments (stupid subsidies and endless tax perks to special interests). We do indeed act within groups in a rational way, but it seems the group itself can make irrational decisions and how to stop that seems to be a mystery.
PRO’s:
The book is written at a decent level of language to convey understanding yet still be consumable by a non-academic. Supporting data is offered, but not at a technical level but more as a footnoted level if one wanted to pursue the underlying numbers. Understanding economic formulas is not required to enjoy the book, neither is theory promoted over a conversational overview of any given principal. This is not a text book on economics, rather a discussion of economic principals in daily action.
CON’s:
Starting the book with a sexual topic as the first example is a two edged sword: some readers will be amused and drawn in, while others will shy away immediately. This risks the author’s entire work being cast aside because of a topical choice, not because of a flawed example. Later in the book, the author then uses two more sexual examples to illustrate human rational choices and again, some readers may choose to tune out just because of the topics and their tight relationship with evolutionary choices.
Author Tim Harford
ISBN: 978-1-58836-682-5
“The logic of life: the rational economics of an irrational world”
My chief beef with economics has always been based on 2 simple observations:
(1)Men and women are not rational creatures
(2)Economics is horrible at forecasting future events because of irrational behavior
My conclusion then is that economics as a field of study is flawed and there are no “laws of economics” because the field is so full of potholes there can’t be.
What intrigued me to read this particular book was the author’s belief and contention that human beings are indeed rational and the underpinnings of economic theory work quite well if we would take a more careful look at the behavior or observations that lead us to believe otherwise.
If we take my complaints about economics in reverse order and look at econ’s terrible track record of forecasting future events, the author quite readily admits as a forecasting tool the discipline is quite awful. Economics can’t forecast the future because of the nature of what he spends most of the book talking about. People as individuals are really quite rational. Large groups, while composed of rational individuals, do not always make rational decisions. And it is the irrationality of large groups that makes forecasting improbable if not impossible. But, and this is a key point of his premise, the individuals within the groups are still making rational decisions even if the outcome of the larger entity is not.
That sounds contradictory, but the bulk of the book is research data to support the contention that most people, as individuals, act quite rationally even when they are part of or face groups that act irrationally. That may take a moment to digest, but let’s look at my first problem with economics and see how his premise holds up once we look at how he addresses the basic rationality of the individual.
My contention has always been that individuals are not rational, and they don’t behave that way. Anecdotal data says all you have to do is look at your own decisions, or those of your neighbors, and you have all the proof of that you need. The author sees it through a completely different lens, and he makes a compelling case. His contention is we live most of our lives, (performing tasks, making decisions, buying and selling) in our comfort zone of well known parameters, risks and outcomes. Within our comfort zones, we behave quite rationally. It’s when we face the unfamiliar we have problems.
When we step out of our comfort zones, or are forced out by circumstances, in to the unfamiliar we do indeed make poorer choices. We face the unknown with less certainty than with the known. Because we don’t know the risks, the rewards, the probabilities or sometimes even basic information, we make decisions based on highly imperfect data and we do it with much less precision. Hence, when we are out of our comfort zones we make much poorer decisions: which can be viewed as irrational ones by people who are within their comfort zones looking at our out of comfort zone decision.
Given choices that are within our comfort zones, as individuals, we make decisions that are fairly rational and in our best interests just as economic theory says we will. The author further states that we spend most of our lives, and more importantly, most of our decisions and actions, within our comfort zones not outside of them. We do poorly outside of our spheres of knowledge so we spend a lot of time and effort to stay within them.
Rational behavior most of the time, and in most of our decisions is the postulation and he spends a fair amount of time providing data to support this contention. Poor decisions outside of our knowledge zones are not irrational : they are merely a fact of our existence. We have limitations. Step outside them, and we make poor quality decisions. Not irrational ones, poor quality ones. If we are given enough time to build expertise, those poor quality decisions improve.
So, if individuals within their spheres of understanding do behave rationally, how come groups of individuals do not? As Shakespeare once said “Aye, there’s the rub”.
I believe it is a common extrapolation of economic schools of thought that rational individuals combine to make rational groups. Groups then combine to form even larger rational entities; eventually becoming cities, states and countries. The flaw, according to the author, is that rationality stops with the individual. As soon as an individual joins a group, while his or her individual behavior remains rational as he or she makes decisions within the group, the group itself may make irrational choices. Or, to view it from another angle, while a member of a group an individual will make choices or decisions he would not make if left up to his own devices/resources.
This is the meat of the book : people engaged in making decisions as part of larger and larger groups will make choices, or agree to choices, they would not have made if left to themselves. And, there’s a rational explanation for that too! And the rational explanation is that it costs us less to agree than to dispute the choice of a very large group: a rational choice.
His most basic example is one that makes a lot of sense regarding individuals as they become members of large groups. By behaving in their own best interests as individuals, the behavior of the larger group can become skewed. By doing the rational thing while in a group, the artifacts of the group can seem out of whack, or irrational. And sometimes they are.
The shared meal is his basic teaching tool for this phenomenon (he calls it the “split the check” phenomenon). If I go out to lunch as an individual, I do my best to get what I need or want for lunch at what I would consider a fair cost: often the lowest cost I can find. But if I go out to lunch with 20 people at work and we agree to split the check evenly across the 20 attendees (after all who wants to figure out who spent what on what) my behavior changes.
In a “split the check” group scenario, I won’t scrimp on the meal. I will order as much as I can reasonably get away with because I will only have to pay 1/20th of the cost of that choice, plus 1/20th of everyone else’s choices. If everyone else orders a sandwich and a glass of water (what they would do if on their own) I will make out like a bandit by ordering salads, soup and a nice big steak. I will only pay 1/20th of that choice, plus 1/20th of the other much smaller choices. My overall bill is less. I behaved rationally: I looked out for my best interest. The group behaved irrationally. The group subsidized my behavior.
As we combine rational individuals in to groups, this “split the check” phenomenon plays out in ever increasingly weird ways. Adam Smith said “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. The “split the check” phenomenon says “the needs of the few will outweigh the needs of the many” and it will work almost every time. It is irrational, but that’s how we behave in groups and its how we react when we see large group decisions. We can see the inequality, but it costs us more to try and fix that than the cost of the inequality. He gives us a fine example of those costs and why we don’t try and fix these situations when we see them.
An example is farm subsidies, particularly in the sugar industry. The short version of his well illustrated and supported example is that our government spends something like $50,000,000 a year to subsidize sugar plantations. All that money goes to only about 30 farms across 3 states which employ something around 50,000 people in total. The irrational benefit is that the entire country is spending money so roughly 50,000 people can have a benefit. All of us pay money so 50,000 people can have a slightly larger standard of living. That’s irrational behavior by the group.
But, as individuals, we do not step in and try to fix it because the cost to us individually can be measured in pennies and we won’t spend the time or the effort to fix it because it costs us more to fix it than the penalty we are all paying. And politicians will not fix it because the votes are concentrated in a few key states and political boundaries : votes are for real. As well, the sugar industry donates to those same politicians for re-election so there is also no rational reason to bite the hand that feeds you.
Thus, we have an irrational condition (sugar subsidies payed to just 50,000 people) payed out by the majority group to a minority subset that doesn’t really need it. This condition is a variation of the “split the check” problem played out on a large scale. All the individuals are behaving rationally. The the group decisions made were irrational, and the irrational condition remains because to fix it would cost individuals more than the benefit they would see. A rational decision.
The members of the group who set this condition up were members with a vested interest in the outcome: rational behavior. The other members of the group who agreed received benefits as well : favorable votes on legislation they wished to pass. Again rational behavior. The group made an irrational decision (farm subsidies), and that decision will stand because it costs more to fix it than it is worth : rational behavior.
CONCLUSIONS:
My basic issues with the believability or viability of economics were met head on by the author and challenged. He put forth a convincing case, supported with realistic data, that human beings do indeed behave rationally when given an environment with variables they are comfortable with. When confronted with an unfamiliar environment or unfamiliar variables we don’t collapse in to irrational behavior, we simply are much more error prone until we master the situation.
I am persuaded to look at the world I see and test out his hypothesis to see if it holds water. It looks promising, but there are still bursts of seemingly irrational behavior all around me by individuals. The puzzle then is to find out if these are really irrational deeds, or is there an underlying rational cause I just didn’t notice or see?
The problem of group behavior is quite puzzling. The “split the check” phenomenon with group spending seems like it would explain a lot of the crazy stuff we see in corporations (CEO’s being paid gigantic sums of money) and in governments (stupid subsidies and endless tax perks to special interests). We do indeed act within groups in a rational way, but it seems the group itself can make irrational decisions and how to stop that seems to be a mystery.
PRO’s:
The book is written at a decent level of language to convey understanding yet still be consumable by a non-academic. Supporting data is offered, but not at a technical level but more as a footnoted level if one wanted to pursue the underlying numbers. Understanding economic formulas is not required to enjoy the book, neither is theory promoted over a conversational overview of any given principal. This is not a text book on economics, rather a discussion of economic principals in daily action.
CON’s:
Starting the book with a sexual topic as the first example is a two edged sword: some readers will be amused and drawn in, while others will shy away immediately. This risks the author’s entire work being cast aside because of a topical choice, not because of a flawed example. Later in the book, the author then uses two more sexual examples to illustrate human rational choices and again, some readers may choose to tune out just because of the topics and their tight relationship with evolutionary choices.
August 20, 2010
Chapter Seven, "The World is Spiky" was my favorite. Main points included that "ideas in the air"/exchange between people are greater in big cities with more diversity in professional areas, as well as racial populations. So cities like NYC and LA are preferable to cities with big companies like Seattle or small firms in concentrated field like Boston. Technology only aids the interactions, doesn't make geography moot.
August 1, 2019
I listened to the audiobook, which had a very good performance, but the subject matter really requires “reading with the eyes”, preferably a group reading with a chance to discuss all these interesting ideas.
June 26, 2013
Some of the chapters of the book are interesting (game theory, marriage and divorce) but others look like wild guesses. In many cases, he presents
events as causal when in my opinion they are only correlated.
events as causal when in my opinion they are only correlated.
Read
November 21, 2024No rating
tbh I don't understand enough economics to tell whether this book was good or not. Inspired by Estelle's find in the street library box. It was interesting to see how economic principles can be applied to our real life and non-economical aspects of life. I think there were some interesting ones like how racial discrimination becomes compounded by rational choice theory, gender discrimination, and the corporate structure. There were other topics where I felt his argument was weak or his point was a little sketchy but again this could be due to my own lack of understanding of economics. This book also really dates itself as being published in 2008 so that was an added layer of weirdness.
tbh I don't understand enough economics to tell whether this book was good or not. Inspired by Estelle's find in the street library box. It was interesting to see how economic principles can be applied to our real life and non-economical aspects of life. I think there were some interesting ones like how racial discrimination becomes compounded by rational choice theory, gender discrimination, and the corporate structure. There were other topics where I felt his argument was weak or his point was a little sketchy but again this could be due to my own lack of understanding of economics. This book also really dates itself as being published in 2008 so that was an added layer of weirdness.
March 25, 2023
It was a little hard to understand at certain points. And it did drag on a bit here and there. But, overall, I would say this was a fun book to read.
I enjoyed learning about how rules of economics apply to more than just money. It got me thinking about the world I live in, and the rules that govern it.
Definitely worth a read
I enjoyed learning about how rules of economics apply to more than just money. It got me thinking about the world I live in, and the rules that govern it.
Definitely worth a read
December 31, 2018
Very weak book on rational choice theory. Backed up with some primitive comments on game theory. Only chapter 6 on rational racism is worth a read really.
July 5, 2022
apparently stabbing your colleagues in the back (not literally, c'mon now) is rational human behaviour
hm
overall book was pretty good tho
hm
overall book was pretty good tho
June 8, 2011
Ever since Stevens, Levitt and Dubner broke into the scene with their enormously popular Freakonomics, there has been a multitude of popular economics books. Books that uses the tools of economics -- the study of incentives, laws of supply and demand, trade-offs -- and apply them to everyday life. The result is often a fun, counterintuitive explanation of how the world works. Dubner and Levitt's most memorable contribution being attributing the decreasing crime rates in the U.S. to legalizing abortion.
Tim Harford wrote the first of these pop. econ. books -- the undercover economist. A popular book among economics students, perhaps not so much outside the discipline. With his latest work, The Logic of Life : the rational economics of an irrational world, Harford takes on the mainstream.
If you are interested in finding out why your boss is overpaid, why racism is still persistent or why teenage girls are increasingly giving blow jobs to their boyfriends, this book is for you.
Fundamental to Harford's book, is rational choice theory. His argument is not so much that “people are always and everywhere rational”. He admits they aren't. His contention is that people are "rational nearly enough and often enough" to make rational choice, a useful framework to understand the world. "Earth isn't a perfect sphere", writes Harford, "But it's nearly a sphere, and for many purposes the simplification that the Earth is a spherical will do nicely."
If you are thinking Harford imagines human beings as absolutely rational beings, along the lines of the infamous "homo economious" or the "economic man" capable of sophisticated reasoning, you are wrong. Harford is deeply aware that human beings are motivated by all kinds of human emotions. He writes, "These motivations are not financial, and not always selfish -- but our responses to them are national. As any teenager will remind you, no less planning, calculating, strategizing goes on about maters of heart than about the matters of the wallet."
Harford surveys the the work of number of economists, experiments involving human beings to lab rats, and data involving house prices to blow-job rates to answer the most interesting of questions. Why do more women live in the cities? why do racial minorities self-segregate? Why do voters choose bad politicians? and why do more and more teenage girls go down on their boyfriends? To all of this, there is a rational answer.
Ask that last question from any Sri Lankan TV-intellectual and they would give the standard western-culture-destroying-our-culture explanation. Social scientists might similarly offer more sophisticated versions of the same story. Ask an economist (or at least Tim Harford) and the explanation is simple. The American "blow job epidemic", according to Harford, is a rational response to changing incentives. When costs or benefits of something change, people change their behavior. Thanks to sex education, many teenagers (at least in the U.S.) know that regular sex has real risks -- they are much more aware of not just about the risk of pregnancy, but the risks associated with sexually transmitted diseases which comes with penetrative sex. Comparatively, oral sex has less risks or as Harford puts it, "The costs of oral sex are, quite simply, lower than the costs of regular sex". Teenage girls weigh these costs and benefits -- not always consciously -- before going down on their boyfriends. The result is while the rate of penetrative sex among teenagers in the U.S. is going down, the popularity of oral sex is on the rise.
The Logic of Life, is full of this type of fun and provoking ways of explaining things based on hard data. You might think that much of the stories in the book doesn't apply to places like Sri Lanka. Certainly, some of it doesn't, but a lot of it, (especially the chapter about "rational racism" and politics) does. Harford's logic of life is smart, well-written and a joy to read. I you liked Freakonomics, you'll love this one. Even if you didn't, you'll still like it.
For more (admittedly better) reviews, visit the Book's website. Harford, like many economists of this genre maintains an engaging blog, which I read often. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the book in Sri Lanka as yet. You can order it from amazon. For some excerpts from the chapter about love and marriage, see this slate article.
Tim Harford wrote the first of these pop. econ. books -- the undercover economist. A popular book among economics students, perhaps not so much outside the discipline. With his latest work, The Logic of Life : the rational economics of an irrational world, Harford takes on the mainstream.
If you are interested in finding out why your boss is overpaid, why racism is still persistent or why teenage girls are increasingly giving blow jobs to their boyfriends, this book is for you.
Fundamental to Harford's book, is rational choice theory. His argument is not so much that “people are always and everywhere rational”. He admits they aren't. His contention is that people are "rational nearly enough and often enough" to make rational choice, a useful framework to understand the world. "Earth isn't a perfect sphere", writes Harford, "But it's nearly a sphere, and for many purposes the simplification that the Earth is a spherical will do nicely."
If you are thinking Harford imagines human beings as absolutely rational beings, along the lines of the infamous "homo economious" or the "economic man" capable of sophisticated reasoning, you are wrong. Harford is deeply aware that human beings are motivated by all kinds of human emotions. He writes, "These motivations are not financial, and not always selfish -- but our responses to them are national. As any teenager will remind you, no less planning, calculating, strategizing goes on about maters of heart than about the matters of the wallet."
Harford surveys the the work of number of economists, experiments involving human beings to lab rats, and data involving house prices to blow-job rates to answer the most interesting of questions. Why do more women live in the cities? why do racial minorities self-segregate? Why do voters choose bad politicians? and why do more and more teenage girls go down on their boyfriends? To all of this, there is a rational answer.
Ask that last question from any Sri Lankan TV-intellectual and they would give the standard western-culture-destroying-our-culture explanation. Social scientists might similarly offer more sophisticated versions of the same story. Ask an economist (or at least Tim Harford) and the explanation is simple. The American "blow job epidemic", according to Harford, is a rational response to changing incentives. When costs or benefits of something change, people change their behavior. Thanks to sex education, many teenagers (at least in the U.S.) know that regular sex has real risks -- they are much more aware of not just about the risk of pregnancy, but the risks associated with sexually transmitted diseases which comes with penetrative sex. Comparatively, oral sex has less risks or as Harford puts it, "The costs of oral sex are, quite simply, lower than the costs of regular sex". Teenage girls weigh these costs and benefits -- not always consciously -- before going down on their boyfriends. The result is while the rate of penetrative sex among teenagers in the U.S. is going down, the popularity of oral sex is on the rise.
The Logic of Life, is full of this type of fun and provoking ways of explaining things based on hard data. You might think that much of the stories in the book doesn't apply to places like Sri Lanka. Certainly, some of it doesn't, but a lot of it, (especially the chapter about "rational racism" and politics) does. Harford's logic of life is smart, well-written and a joy to read. I you liked Freakonomics, you'll love this one. Even if you didn't, you'll still like it.
For more (admittedly better) reviews, visit the Book's website. Harford, like many economists of this genre maintains an engaging blog, which I read often. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the book in Sri Lanka as yet. You can order it from amazon. For some excerpts from the chapter about love and marriage, see this slate article.
June 30, 2011
A frequently fascinating, tightly reasoned entry in the gonzo economist movement which has become all the rage in the last ten years.
Now for the mandatory comparison to Freakonomics: Though not as hyped or flashy as Levitt & Dubner's growing franchise, like them Harford applies the methodology of economics in answering questions about social values and human nature. And in many instances, The Logic of Life is more challenging and meticulously researched than his genre's more popular counterpart.
I particularly enjoyed the chapter on true love, which answers the question of whether there is one Mr or Mrs Right out there waiting for us, or whether we merely settle for the best available of mostly bad options. Not surprisingly, whatever people tell you, their behavior points emphatically to the latter. One of the more ingenious empirical studies that supports this conclusion was performed at a London speed-dating bar. Harford surveyed thousands of daters, asking them to rate their counterparts' attractiveness and whether or not they'd be willing to go out with that person. He found that there were often significant swings in the attractiveness ratings of daters, there were "slow days" when the overall calibre of the daters dipped significantly, and there were great swings in how attracted the daters were to their matched partners. The interesting thing was that people averaged right around two selections of people they'd go out with, regardless of whether it was one of those slow days on which the field was decidedly less attractive to them, and despite the wide difference in quality that might exist between their first and second choices. I guess it never hurts to have a backup plan.
One of the more troubling chapters deals with "rational racism," or racist behaviors that become entrenched as people respond rationally to incentives created by a racist environment. In the most jaw-dropping segment of the book, Harford describes how Thomas Schelling, one of the early pioneers of Game Theory, used a checkers game to demonstrate why segregation perpetuates itself, even after laws and attitudes requiring racial segregation have faded.
It turns out that the prime mover behind segregation isn't a virulent hatred of other races so much as a benign, but no less powerful desire to live in a neighborhood where you're not outnumbered by members of another race. Schelling found that an equally mixed neighborhood could coexist in perpetuity without significant flight by either whites or blacks. But as a significant numerical advantage developed (in either direction) the minority would begin selling houses en masse to move to neighborhoods where they weren't outnumbered.
To illustrate this phenomenon in action, Schelling created a checkerboard that was equally pepppered with red and black checkers in a state of pure racial harmony. Then he would remove a few of the checkers at random and imbued the checkers with human prejudices. Checkers that were surrounded mostly or in equal numbers by their own would stay put, but checkers that were surrounded on three sides or more by the other checker color would move to a space where they weren't surrounded.
The results were chilling. Even though the game may start with only two or three of these racist checker bastards putting their square up for sale and moving, their movement resulted in more checkers being surrounded by hostiles, which then moved, forcing even more checkers to defect, precipitating a cascade of checker moves to the depths of one side of the board or the other.
No matter what checkers he removed at the beginning of the game, the end result was always the same: complete segregation with red checkers on one side of the board and black on the other, and just a few remaining on the border in equally mixed enclaves of enlightened checker communities.
Though some chapters are certainly stronger than others, I definitely found The Logic of Life a worthy claim on my limited reading time, and I think fans of Levitt and Dubner and Malcolm Gladwell would also enjoy this read.
Now for the mandatory comparison to Freakonomics: Though not as hyped or flashy as Levitt & Dubner's growing franchise, like them Harford applies the methodology of economics in answering questions about social values and human nature. And in many instances, The Logic of Life is more challenging and meticulously researched than his genre's more popular counterpart.
I particularly enjoyed the chapter on true love, which answers the question of whether there is one Mr or Mrs Right out there waiting for us, or whether we merely settle for the best available of mostly bad options. Not surprisingly, whatever people tell you, their behavior points emphatically to the latter. One of the more ingenious empirical studies that supports this conclusion was performed at a London speed-dating bar. Harford surveyed thousands of daters, asking them to rate their counterparts' attractiveness and whether or not they'd be willing to go out with that person. He found that there were often significant swings in the attractiveness ratings of daters, there were "slow days" when the overall calibre of the daters dipped significantly, and there were great swings in how attracted the daters were to their matched partners. The interesting thing was that people averaged right around two selections of people they'd go out with, regardless of whether it was one of those slow days on which the field was decidedly less attractive to them, and despite the wide difference in quality that might exist between their first and second choices. I guess it never hurts to have a backup plan.
One of the more troubling chapters deals with "rational racism," or racist behaviors that become entrenched as people respond rationally to incentives created by a racist environment. In the most jaw-dropping segment of the book, Harford describes how Thomas Schelling, one of the early pioneers of Game Theory, used a checkers game to demonstrate why segregation perpetuates itself, even after laws and attitudes requiring racial segregation have faded.
It turns out that the prime mover behind segregation isn't a virulent hatred of other races so much as a benign, but no less powerful desire to live in a neighborhood where you're not outnumbered by members of another race. Schelling found that an equally mixed neighborhood could coexist in perpetuity without significant flight by either whites or blacks. But as a significant numerical advantage developed (in either direction) the minority would begin selling houses en masse to move to neighborhoods where they weren't outnumbered.
To illustrate this phenomenon in action, Schelling created a checkerboard that was equally pepppered with red and black checkers in a state of pure racial harmony. Then he would remove a few of the checkers at random and imbued the checkers with human prejudices. Checkers that were surrounded mostly or in equal numbers by their own would stay put, but checkers that were surrounded on three sides or more by the other checker color would move to a space where they weren't surrounded.
The results were chilling. Even though the game may start with only two or three of these racist checker bastards putting their square up for sale and moving, their movement resulted in more checkers being surrounded by hostiles, which then moved, forcing even more checkers to defect, precipitating a cascade of checker moves to the depths of one side of the board or the other.
No matter what checkers he removed at the beginning of the game, the end result was always the same: complete segregation with red checkers on one side of the board and black on the other, and just a few remaining on the border in equally mixed enclaves of enlightened checker communities.
Though some chapters are certainly stronger than others, I definitely found The Logic of Life a worthy claim on my limited reading time, and I think fans of Levitt and Dubner and Malcolm Gladwell would also enjoy this read.
September 5, 2015
I’m fascinated by using data to understand things. I’ve been doing it for myself for a while now. Either looking at datas for countries to figure things out, looking at opinion polls to better understand societies and people, or look at my own personal data, to figure myself out.
The book does the same thing. It looks at various data from different moments of time, and attempts to come at various conclusions. By relying on data as much as possible, a person can make sure that conventional wisdom, emotional attachment, or society norms does not affect the truth. It’s not an exact science, but it’s an interesting one.
List and his colleague Uri Gneezy extended this artificial experimental work to real life. They advertised for and hired people to do actual jobs, such as data entry or door-to-door collection for a charity. They paid some employees the advertised wage and gave others an unexpectedly high wage. As the laboratory work predicted, the grateful recipients of the higher wage worked extra hard. But in the real-life setting the warm, fuzzy feelings didn’t last long: for the data-enterers, just ninety minutes; for the door-steppers, all the way until lunchtime on day one. Many of us would like to live in the cuddly world of unexpected gifts and countergifts. For better or worse, once we have a little time to learn the rules of the game, the harder-edged world of rationality is the one we inhabit.
The book’s flaw is its writing style. The author is clearly not a very good writer. He keeps saying things like, “we’ll learn about it in the next chapter” or “as we will see in the next section”, which gets repetitive and annoying.
Some of my notes,
On Productivity:
"List and his colleague Uri Gneezy extended this artificial experimental work to real life. They advertised for and hired people to do actual jobs, such as data entry or door-to-door collection for a charity. They paid some employees the advertised wage and gave others an unexpectedly high wage. As the laboratory work predicted, the grateful recipients of the higher wage worked extra hard. But in the real-life setting the warm, fuzzy feelings didn’t last long: for the data-enterers, just ninety minutes; for the door-steppers, all the way until lunchtime on day one. Many of us would like to live in the cuddly world of unexpected gifts and countergifts. For better or worse, once we have a little time to learn the rules of the game, the harder-edged world of rationality is the one we inhabit."
On Specialization and Marriage:
“This means that a household in which both parents work part-time on their careers and part-time looking after children and the home does not make rational economic sense. Two halves are much less than a whole. Economies of scale dictate that, logically, one partner should apply himself or herself full-time to paid work. The other should work at homemaking, and only work for money if there is some spare time available after the household chores.”
On Limits of Management:
“It’s simply too difficult for managers to work out the details of what should be done, and to judge whether what should be done is being done. The frustrations of working life are a direct result of that struggle.”
On Office Life:
“The economists who spotted the idea now call it “tournament theory,” and it explains the misery of the office with remarkable accuracy.”
On High Salary of Bosses:
“One of the creators of tournament theory, the economist Ed Lazear, has commented, “The salary of the vice president acts not so much as motivation for the vice president as it does as motivation for the assistant vice presidents.” So there you have it. Economists don’t even pretend that your boss deserves his salary.”
The book does the same thing. It looks at various data from different moments of time, and attempts to come at various conclusions. By relying on data as much as possible, a person can make sure that conventional wisdom, emotional attachment, or society norms does not affect the truth. It’s not an exact science, but it’s an interesting one.
List and his colleague Uri Gneezy extended this artificial experimental work to real life. They advertised for and hired people to do actual jobs, such as data entry or door-to-door collection for a charity. They paid some employees the advertised wage and gave others an unexpectedly high wage. As the laboratory work predicted, the grateful recipients of the higher wage worked extra hard. But in the real-life setting the warm, fuzzy feelings didn’t last long: for the data-enterers, just ninety minutes; for the door-steppers, all the way until lunchtime on day one. Many of us would like to live in the cuddly world of unexpected gifts and countergifts. For better or worse, once we have a little time to learn the rules of the game, the harder-edged world of rationality is the one we inhabit.
The book’s flaw is its writing style. The author is clearly not a very good writer. He keeps saying things like, “we’ll learn about it in the next chapter” or “as we will see in the next section”, which gets repetitive and annoying.
Some of my notes,
On Productivity:
"List and his colleague Uri Gneezy extended this artificial experimental work to real life. They advertised for and hired people to do actual jobs, such as data entry or door-to-door collection for a charity. They paid some employees the advertised wage and gave others an unexpectedly high wage. As the laboratory work predicted, the grateful recipients of the higher wage worked extra hard. But in the real-life setting the warm, fuzzy feelings didn’t last long: for the data-enterers, just ninety minutes; for the door-steppers, all the way until lunchtime on day one. Many of us would like to live in the cuddly world of unexpected gifts and countergifts. For better or worse, once we have a little time to learn the rules of the game, the harder-edged world of rationality is the one we inhabit."
On Specialization and Marriage:
“This means that a household in which both parents work part-time on their careers and part-time looking after children and the home does not make rational economic sense. Two halves are much less than a whole. Economies of scale dictate that, logically, one partner should apply himself or herself full-time to paid work. The other should work at homemaking, and only work for money if there is some spare time available after the household chores.”
On Limits of Management:
“It’s simply too difficult for managers to work out the details of what should be done, and to judge whether what should be done is being done. The frustrations of working life are a direct result of that struggle.”
On Office Life:
“The economists who spotted the idea now call it “tournament theory,” and it explains the misery of the office with remarkable accuracy.”
On High Salary of Bosses:
“One of the creators of tournament theory, the economist Ed Lazear, has commented, “The salary of the vice president acts not so much as motivation for the vice president as it does as motivation for the assistant vice presidents.” So there you have it. Economists don’t even pretend that your boss deserves his salary.”
April 26, 2011
This is an educational and entertaining dissertation on "rational economics," a newer branch of the "dismal science." It purports to show that much of what we often judge as irrational behavior is not, at least not from the actor's perspective. Which is not to say that it is good for the larger society. The book is a non-technical in that it has no equations or charts, but it delves into some subtle concepts in economics and game theory. A real pean to Thomas Schelling, the Nobel Prize winning economist who wrote "The Strategy of Conflict," and presented many seminal ideas pulling game theory far beyond the simple two-person game theory. As a techie I enjoyed the book, even though there were times I found myself remarking that "rational economics," like sociobiology, could explain too much. Something that explains everything may really explain nothing, e.g., "caused by God." You don't know too much until you can attach numbers to it, as Einstein has been reported to have said. (What hasn't he been credited with?) But maybe the actual technical literature, journals and such, is more quantitative. You don't need to be a techie to read and enjoy this book. Just someone who likes to understand things.
June 6, 2020
This book is a classic example of my low intellectual ambition, self-confidence, and industry. It is an undergraduate introduction level course that I’m taking just to feel smug about having heard everything before and interjecting periodically with an obnoxious ‘actually…’ or ‘furthermore...’ or ‘have you considered…’. I usually pick light reading for my running-playlists but this was not even excusable as run-light, just because there’s so much overlap with all the other popular economics and behavioral economics I consume. Very little unique information and a symptom of this pathological chasing of knowledge based on perverse incentives like number of books read. In parallel I started Robert Wright’s Logic Of Human Destiny, and it’s amazing that the first few chapters recount some of the same ground covered in this book. Still, the lesson I’ve drawn for now, in my current state of mind, is that popular science books are fine if they unroll a single thesis, like Wright, as opposed to collect a series of loosely held-together ideas, like Harford.
Notes
Need to rethink behavioral economics experiments? Are they unnatural lab scenarios? When given more real-life examples, the ‘endowment effect’ etc aren’t as pronounced
Rats optimize between cheap quinine water and expensive juice. When price of quinine goes up, they don’t substitute juice, they increase quinine water to optimize overall quantity - giffen good proof.
Mexican prostitutes understand safe-sex, it is in their interests, it’s the clients who need education. Prosts use condom as bargaining tool, getting a pay-bump in order to not use it, roughly taking a risky decision that values a year of life at $30k which is actually a rational choice.
Enough people make rational choices often enough on average to make rational choice theory sound.
Von Neumann applied math to life through game theory. Simplified poker with 2 players and reduced options showed how both will take a strategy which they wouldn’t change even if they knew what the other person’s strategy was. In real poker, the number of calculations needed to get here is too many. It took 50 years until someone used pure math to become Poker World Series Champ (Jesus Ferguson).
Speed dating preferences aren’t fixed. If twice as many short men show up, twice as many short men get dates.
If 10 men and 10 women are given $100 if they pair up, and you take away 1 man so there’s now shortage of men, every woman is worse off. 1 woman who is left out will offer 40-60 to undercut. Single-price theory means no one will buy the same good for different price in same market, so all women go down to 40-60 ad infinitum until all of them take 1c and every man takes 99.99$
In New Mexico, 20% of all young black men are in prison. Black women react by upskilling (college, job). Men can now get sex without marriage because they’re in shortage, so marriage rates drop.
The pill reduces cost of sex, now marriage is less of a necessity for women. They can invest in long-gestation careers like law/medicine since they’re in control of reproduction.
Cities have more young women than men. Qualified men stay, others leave. Women would rather come to crowded cities with shortage of men to fight over qualified men than stay in towns where there is no shortage of men.
Adam Smith was a bachelor who lived with his mother.. No reason to note, just found it cool.
Divorce rates are self-propagating because with low divorce, there aren’t any old singles I can meet, the risk of leaving my current relationship is huge.
Traditional marriages are built on division of labor and comparative advantage. It doesn’t matter that I’m a better earner than my wife, I’m so much better at child-rearing that it makes sense for the unit that I stay at home and she earn. This puts all eggs in 1 basket. In case of divorce, both parties are incompetent at one thing, so they’re forced to try and make things work.
With more equal households, this is less a problem. What’s unclear is what gets lost in terms of efficiency and output, the economies of scale that come from division of labor. Is this as simple as the classic generalist vs specialist argument? Then maybe what I gain from lack of focus, specialization at child-rearing I gain from having more diverse experiences that actually make me a better parent.
If work was easily quantifiable, free market would incentivize properly as per output. If it isn’t, we had to create this horrible tournament called the office. Watch each other and compete, we reward the best ones.
Worse side-effect of this tournament is the boss’ remuneration. CEO should get paid millions not because he adds that much value, but because he raises the value of a promotion. The rung below CEO ups their game so much that they collectively add more value than they might have if the CEO wasn’t paid millions. It’s a lifetime achievement award, a sinecure.
Stock Ops problem is same as dutch-payment problem. I order $100 lobster and only pay a little of the cost, I am incentivized to be profligate. Similarly CEO with low stock ops who only suffers small consequence of the cost will be incentivized to use his power against the interest of the company. So he has high stock ops. Why not everybody therefore have stock ops? Because my impact on results as a low-level emp is low, so I can free ride on people whose impacts are high.
Retail can’t incentivize as per items billed, because speed might compromise quality, damage. Check-out staff work faster when the counters are arranged with all facing the same way, so each staring at other’s back. But this only works if you’re being looked at by a faster person.
Voting/Lobbying: Sugar tariff in US is like saying I’ll take 2M from you, give 1M to someone else and then burn the rest, will you take it? Tariffs take 20c from 10M ppl and then give 1M to 10 people and burn the rest. We’re ok because we each lose only 20c. Lobbying make sense if you can control the group that gets it (needs high barrier to entry) and is not bleeding cash long term (free capex but not op costs).
Michael Kremer, Tasmania, the lock-step of population densities and innovation, technology and cultural evolution.
Notes
Need to rethink behavioral economics experiments? Are they unnatural lab scenarios? When given more real-life examples, the ‘endowment effect’ etc aren’t as pronounced
Rats optimize between cheap quinine water and expensive juice. When price of quinine goes up, they don’t substitute juice, they increase quinine water to optimize overall quantity - giffen good proof.
Mexican prostitutes understand safe-sex, it is in their interests, it’s the clients who need education. Prosts use condom as bargaining tool, getting a pay-bump in order to not use it, roughly taking a risky decision that values a year of life at $30k which is actually a rational choice.
Enough people make rational choices often enough on average to make rational choice theory sound.
Von Neumann applied math to life through game theory. Simplified poker with 2 players and reduced options showed how both will take a strategy which they wouldn’t change even if they knew what the other person’s strategy was. In real poker, the number of calculations needed to get here is too many. It took 50 years until someone used pure math to become Poker World Series Champ (Jesus Ferguson).
Speed dating preferences aren’t fixed. If twice as many short men show up, twice as many short men get dates.
If 10 men and 10 women are given $100 if they pair up, and you take away 1 man so there’s now shortage of men, every woman is worse off. 1 woman who is left out will offer 40-60 to undercut. Single-price theory means no one will buy the same good for different price in same market, so all women go down to 40-60 ad infinitum until all of them take 1c and every man takes 99.99$
In New Mexico, 20% of all young black men are in prison. Black women react by upskilling (college, job). Men can now get sex without marriage because they’re in shortage, so marriage rates drop.
The pill reduces cost of sex, now marriage is less of a necessity for women. They can invest in long-gestation careers like law/medicine since they’re in control of reproduction.
Cities have more young women than men. Qualified men stay, others leave. Women would rather come to crowded cities with shortage of men to fight over qualified men than stay in towns where there is no shortage of men.
Adam Smith was a bachelor who lived with his mother.. No reason to note, just found it cool.
Divorce rates are self-propagating because with low divorce, there aren’t any old singles I can meet, the risk of leaving my current relationship is huge.
Traditional marriages are built on division of labor and comparative advantage. It doesn’t matter that I’m a better earner than my wife, I’m so much better at child-rearing that it makes sense for the unit that I stay at home and she earn. This puts all eggs in 1 basket. In case of divorce, both parties are incompetent at one thing, so they’re forced to try and make things work.
With more equal households, this is less a problem. What’s unclear is what gets lost in terms of efficiency and output, the economies of scale that come from division of labor. Is this as simple as the classic generalist vs specialist argument? Then maybe what I gain from lack of focus, specialization at child-rearing I gain from having more diverse experiences that actually make me a better parent.
If work was easily quantifiable, free market would incentivize properly as per output. If it isn’t, we had to create this horrible tournament called the office. Watch each other and compete, we reward the best ones.
Worse side-effect of this tournament is the boss’ remuneration. CEO should get paid millions not because he adds that much value, but because he raises the value of a promotion. The rung below CEO ups their game so much that they collectively add more value than they might have if the CEO wasn’t paid millions. It’s a lifetime achievement award, a sinecure.
Stock Ops problem is same as dutch-payment problem. I order $100 lobster and only pay a little of the cost, I am incentivized to be profligate. Similarly CEO with low stock ops who only suffers small consequence of the cost will be incentivized to use his power against the interest of the company. So he has high stock ops. Why not everybody therefore have stock ops? Because my impact on results as a low-level emp is low, so I can free ride on people whose impacts are high.
Retail can’t incentivize as per items billed, because speed might compromise quality, damage. Check-out staff work faster when the counters are arranged with all facing the same way, so each staring at other’s back. But this only works if you’re being looked at by a faster person.
Voting/Lobbying: Sugar tariff in US is like saying I’ll take 2M from you, give 1M to someone else and then burn the rest, will you take it? Tariffs take 20c from 10M ppl and then give 1M to 10 people and burn the rest. We’re ok because we each lose only 20c. Lobbying make sense if you can control the group that gets it (needs high barrier to entry) and is not bleeding cash long term (free capex but not op costs).
Michael Kremer, Tasmania, the lock-step of population densities and innovation, technology and cultural evolution.
March 20, 2009
An economist proves that people are more rational than we think
Economists no longer just propose fiscal policies, forecast business growth, investigate interest rates and assign value to financial assets. Now they also conduct lab experiments, research teenagers’ sexual activities, analyze prostitutes’ condom usage, hypothesize about what happened to the Neanderthals, explain crime waves and develop winning poker strategies. Look under the bed or out the window, and you will probably find an economist taking notes while researching you and your neighbors. Tim Harford is one of these ubiquitous “new economists.” He reports on odd studies and screwball findings, but for a serious purpose. He posits that seemingly dumb actions, such as going out of your way to become addicted, are almost always fully rational and logical, if unwise. getAbstract recommends Harford’s iconoclastic book as an “X-ray image of human life.” He and his irreverent new economist cohorts explain how everything works, and why. If you enjoy delving beneath the surface to learn what really makes things tick, Harford is the perfect guide and his book is an offbeat yet revealing travelogue.
Economists no longer just propose fiscal policies, forecast business growth, investigate interest rates and assign value to financial assets. Now they also conduct lab experiments, research teenagers’ sexual activities, analyze prostitutes’ condom usage, hypothesize about what happened to the Neanderthals, explain crime waves and develop winning poker strategies. Look under the bed or out the window, and you will probably find an economist taking notes while researching you and your neighbors. Tim Harford is one of these ubiquitous “new economists.” He reports on odd studies and screwball findings, but for a serious purpose. He posits that seemingly dumb actions, such as going out of your way to become addicted, are almost always fully rational and logical, if unwise. getAbstract recommends Harford’s iconoclastic book as an “X-ray image of human life.” He and his irreverent new economist cohorts explain how everything works, and why. If you enjoy delving beneath the surface to learn what really makes things tick, Harford is the perfect guide and his book is an offbeat yet revealing travelogue.
January 21, 2010
Of all the pop economics books I've read (at least 3!) in the last few years, this is my current favorite. Asserting that people act rationally -- conventional economic wisdom for 300 years -- is unconventional again, and this book does a nice job of putting that in some perspective.
It's most notable for its survey of economic work that identifies off-beat, or less-visible "incentives" that cause people to behave as they do. It also provides a useful contrast to the economics laboratory studies that books like Predictably Irrational have been relying on to prove people are not inherently rational.
My only complaint is that since the author doesn't provide any of his own research beyond the occasional anecdotes, his survey of others' work can be a bit thin, and is occasionally confusing. He has a newspaper writer's knack for simplification, but oversimplification in a few instances prevented me from fully grasping the conclusions of some of the work he cites.
Overall, if you're only going to read one pop econ book, this would be my pick.
P.S. If you don't read Harford's "Dear Undercover Economist" column in the FT, that's always worth a laugh.
It's most notable for its survey of economic work that identifies off-beat, or less-visible "incentives" that cause people to behave as they do. It also provides a useful contrast to the economics laboratory studies that books like Predictably Irrational have been relying on to prove people are not inherently rational.
My only complaint is that since the author doesn't provide any of his own research beyond the occasional anecdotes, his survey of others' work can be a bit thin, and is occasionally confusing. He has a newspaper writer's knack for simplification, but oversimplification in a few instances prevented me from fully grasping the conclusions of some of the work he cites.
Overall, if you're only going to read one pop econ book, this would be my pick.
P.S. If you don't read Harford's "Dear Undercover Economist" column in the FT, that's always worth a laugh.
February 14, 2008
This book looks to be interesting, in a similar vein to Freakonomics.
BUT: I'm on page 4 of chapter 1, and my hackles are already up. Why? Because of the term "regular sex" being used interchangeably with "penetrative sex," specifically excluding "oral sex" as being "regular". It's a little better than if the term "normal sex" was used... but not by much. It seems all the more strange since part of the author's point is that the performance of oral sex is increasing - making it even more "regular."
Going to jump off my high horse for the moment. I'm sure that the author didn't mean to show any judgment by using the term "regular sex," but my studies have made me sensitive to even the possibility. Let's see where this chapter goes...
EDIT
Well, I just finished the book. I thought it was worth reading despite my frustration at the beginning (as documented above) and despite losing interest and skimming the last two chapters. I may go back and read the author's first book at some point.
BUT: I'm on page 4 of chapter 1, and my hackles are already up. Why? Because of the term "regular sex" being used interchangeably with "penetrative sex," specifically excluding "oral sex" as being "regular". It's a little better than if the term "normal sex" was used... but not by much. It seems all the more strange since part of the author's point is that the performance of oral sex is increasing - making it even more "regular."
Going to jump off my high horse for the moment. I'm sure that the author didn't mean to show any judgment by using the term "regular sex," but my studies have made me sensitive to even the possibility. Let's see where this chapter goes...
EDIT
Well, I just finished the book. I thought it was worth reading despite my frustration at the beginning (as documented above) and despite losing interest and skimming the last two chapters. I may go back and read the author's first book at some point.
December 7, 2010
I heard Tim Harford on Start the Week a month or three back - I can't remember what he said now but it was interesting enough for me to order his book from the library. When the book turned up I wasn't convinced that I was going to find it that enthralling but I ended up loving it.
This is all about how the world is shaped by pretty much everyone making rational choices about the world around them and yet we end up with some things, like rough neighbourhoods or overpaid bosses, that don't appear to arise out of logic at all. The author is an economist applying the mix of mathematics and observation that's usually applied to finance to all kinds of other areas.
The book is nicely structured. It's one of those books where each time the subject changes I think the new subject won't be as interesting as the last one but each time I'm wrong.
I'll be looking out for Harford's first book "The Undercover Economist" now.
November 17, 2011
Тим Харфорд шашка с “Нещата от живота и тяхната логика”
http://www.knigolandia.info/2011/11/b...
Този текст трябваше да бъде ревю на друга книга – “Икономист под прикритие” от същия автор, която току-що излезе на пазара с фантастичната корица от Петър Станимиров, чийто албум “Вдъхновен от Стивън Кинг” май ще си подаря за Коледа, защото още не мога да се добера до копие.
“Икономист”-ът ме преследва в работата от известно време и само ме изкушава да бъде прочетена. Но аз съм принципен читател и в дивна заблуда за хронологическата последователност на двете книги (мда, “Икономист”-ът е по-стара) реших да прочета първо издадената още през 2009 г. “Нещата от живота и тяхната логика”, която до момента убягваше от ръцете ми заради “източната” си корица. След прочита на книгата продължавам да недоумявам защо е избран точно такъв символ за една рационална, сериозно-забавна и много, много “западна” книга. Генерално грешно внушение според мен.
http://www.knigolandia.info/2011/11/b...
Този текст трябваше да бъде ревю на друга книга – “Икономист под прикритие” от същия автор, която току-що излезе на пазара с фантастичната корица от Петър Станимиров, чийто албум “Вдъхновен от Стивън Кинг” май ще си подаря за Коледа, защото още не мога да се добера до копие.
“Икономист”-ът ме преследва в работата от известно време и само ме изкушава да бъде прочетена. Но аз съм принципен читател и в дивна заблуда за хронологическата последователност на двете книги (мда, “Икономист”-ът е по-стара) реших да прочета първо издадената още през 2009 г. “Нещата от живота и тяхната логика”, която до момента убягваше от ръцете ми заради “източната” си корица. След прочита на книгата продължавам да недоумявам защо е избран точно такъв символ за една рационална, сериозно-забавна и много, много “западна” книга. Генерално грешно внушение според мен.
February 8, 2008
A book I wish I owned, The Logic of Life is a great follow up to The Undercover Economist, the author's previous effort. In this book, Tim Harford examines how rational choices make the world go round. Fascinating examples abound including how teenagers recently (and rationally) prefer oral sex to old fashioned sex after weighing the risks and benefits of each. And how the 2000 World Series of Poker Champion used game theory to sew up his victory. There is enough intellectually challenging material to keep things interesting, yet Harford has obviously vowed to avoid as much economic jargon as possible. Avoiding jargon is something thousands of intellectuals have promised to do at the beginnings of their books, but Harford succeeds brilliantly in this endeavor, while challenging the reader to really think about the (rational) world around them.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 325 reviews