I’d heard alot about Freakonomics, and it was recommended by people i like and respect. The book proposes alternative ways and suggests hidden connections in economics and effects; seemingly nebulous links between the shadow and the act. As an introduction it is interesting, but the glue that should have kept the sections together is absent. My interest peaked somewhere before the middle and dissipated before the end. The support material was a bit fluffy, and other material (esp. on IQ) was sketchily introduced as solid fact. Stylistically there are many similarities between Freakanomics and the Tipping Point, to Freakonomics’ detriment. I can’t tell if this writing style is something to do with the authors’ association with New Yorker or if there are simply some common ways to introduce themes employed by statisticians. I didn’t love the book, but i am glad it exists as a way to inspire others to pose difficult questions and craft alternative economic viewpoints.