3 ms·
I'm no fan of Freakonomics and their whole genre of "wow isn't that surprising" pop science (Ariely, Gladwell et. al.) but I agree with you here. He goes throu
by mvdtnz 2y ago
I'm no fan of Freakonomics and their whole genre of "wow isn't that surprising" pop science (Ariely, Gladwell et. al.) but I agree with you here.
He goes through several paragraphs of criticising Levitt for believing his interviewee without mentioning what claim the interviewee is making. So some chambermaids were told their work is exercise, didn't change their behaviour and then.... What?
- kenjackson 2y agoIsn't most science in the "wow isn't that surprising" genre? I feel like my whole life science has pretty much been "hmm... wouldn't have guessed that". Basic facts like fire burning oxygen -- I remember literally as a kid thinking -- of all the things it consumes what we also breathe? Or gravity being a function of mass -- that one still trips me a little bit. I think what these authors do is apply science to human interactions -- a tilt toward social science -- but science to me is usually surprising. (Or I'm just really bad at science).
- vundercind 2y agoFreakonomics is less “check out this surprising science!” and more “economist makes spurious but cute connections based on way too little information over and over—the book!”
- kelipso 2y agoHave to push back on this. When you are learning a subject, you learn a lot of surprising things. But you learn enough that you have a good model in your head and a good intuition, then things that are surprising to you remain improbable.