| The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World |  | Author: Tim Harford
Publisher: Anchor Canada
Category: Book
This item is no longer available
Avg. Customer Rating:  33 reviews
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
ISBN: 0385663889
EAN: 9780385663885
ASIN: 0385663889
Publication Date: February 10, 2009 (In 83 Days)
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
A Message to Amazon Readers from Author Tim Harford Give yourself a pat on the back. You're not as stupid as everyone says you are, and now there's a book that proves it. When I first conceived of The Logic of Life, my aim was to show that a world full of smart people--people like you, that is--doesnt necessarily look logical on the surface. We eat too much and worry about being fat; drink too much and cringe when we remember; spend too much at Christmas and worry about the bills in New Year. And thats just the small stuff: what about crime, racial segregation, divorce, big-money politics? And yet underneath it all there is a hidden logic. It isnt always pretty, but its there if you know how to see it. That is what The Logic of Life is all about. But when I'd finished the first draft, my editor told me that he didn't think that people were as logical as I'd said. He wanted me to prove my point. At first, I thought it was my editor thinks people are illogical because he works in the publishing business. Of course life looks illogical if you do that. (In fact, life looks crazy in most offices: see "Why Your Boss is Overpaid," chapter four.) But then I realised he was right. I'd left the most important step out. So I went back and made sure that I laid out all the amazing evidence. I looked at single women hitting the dating scene in American cities; I looked at juvenile delinquents across the US; I looked at Mexican prostitutes; I looked at traders at a convention in Disney World; I looked at professional poker players in Las Vegas and professional soccer players in Europe. I looked at violent spouses, alcoholics, and school bullies. In every case I discovered a story of hidden incentives and unexpected logic. And through the process of writing--and living--the book, I discovered that this crazy world of ours makes more sense than you might think.
Product Description
In The Logic of Life, bestselling author Tim Harford quite simply makes sense of this world.
Life often seems to defy logic. The receptionist is clearly smarter than the boss who earns fifty times her salary. Arbitrary lines starkly divide the desirable districts of the city from the dangerous ones. Voters flock to the polling booths to elect candidates who’ll rip them off to favour special interests. None of it makes logical sense — or does it?
Economist and acclaimed author Tim Harford thinks it does. By weaving stories from locations as diverse as a Vegas casino to a barroom speed date, Harford aims to persuade you that people are, in fact, surprisingly logical.
When a street prostitute agrees to unprotected sex, or a teenage criminal embarks on a burglary — perhaps especially when a racist employer disregards a black job applicant — we would seem to be a million miles from rational behaviour. Harford shows that, discomfitingly, we are not. It turns out that the unlikeliest of people are complying with the logic of economics and responding to future costs and benefits, often without realizing it; and socially tragic outcomes can have their roots in individually rational decisions.
Brilliantly reasoned, always entertaining and often provocative, The Logic of Life is a book to help you understand yourself and the world around you.
From the Hardcover edition.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 28 more reviews...
 Logic and Rationality is Not Really What This book is About October 26, 2008
The book is interesting and worthwhile to read, because it reveals studies and statistics (mostly by others) that illuminate why individuals and why society behave like they do. For example, it was surprising to learn how conclusive are the data supporting the idea that criminals actually are deterred by the severity of punishments specified by law. So we learn that criminals are more rational than many expert criminologists who argue for shorter jail sentences and condemn the irrationality of the death penalty.
The book does not prove that people are mostly rational or that people are not mostly rational, but simply that if one is clever or lucky about finding data, one can pinpoint a reason behind any observed behavior. For example, the evidence is convincing that black people in the USA have a disadvantage getting jobs measured against whites of similar qualifications. The author concludes it is rational for blacks to give up on education or, at least, devalue it and to adopt the social norm that getting an education is "acting white".
I disagree with how the author's uses the words, rational and logic. Just because there is a reason for a behavior does not mean the behavior is rational or logical. To take another example, short men and ugly men statistically have a great disadvantage gaining financial success. Men who are short or ugly men thus have a reason to abandon their personal efforts to compete with other mean, but it would not be rational or logical to do so.
That people have reasons for what they do is no great insight, so the author overreached when he selected the title of the book. But it was still interesting to read of some totally unexpected reasons the world is like it is.
Thought provoking September 8, 2008
Offers a slightly different perspective for understanding human behavior. I vastly prefer Harford's writing style to others in the genre. I don't care so much if we are labeled as rational or irrational, it seems to be a less relevant point to me. In fact, I would argue that the rational results he claims are inductive, not deductive, so they do not correspond with the logical thinking process that tends to accompany deductive reasoning. He doesn't claim that they do, it's just that there seems to be a silly argument out there about whether we are rational or not. I don't think it matters, as the means by which we come to a decision are varied.
 Human are both logic and irational creature August 25, 2008
The principle of the book is not very alien that human have logical and irrational qualities but the to use economics principle to explain many social phenomena is indeed intriguing
 Disappointing.....a one trick pony August 6, 2008
Tim Harford's "Logic Of Life" has only one point to make, that is, every decision one makes in everyday life is an economically rational one, whether one knows it or not. Imagine the subconscious mind working overtime making those minute calculations without the conscious mind knowing about it.
To illustrate the point, Harford opens with a titillating expose on the rising incidence of teenage oral sex in modern life before expanding his scope to include gambling, racism, crime, corporate remuneration, etc etc. Though moderately interesting in parts, I had a hard time finishing the book as the chapters got more and more mundane and further and further away from the point he was making. By the time I reached the three quarter mark, I was ready to give up.
I haven't read Harford's bestselling "The Undercover Economist" so I can't judge but "Logic Of Life" seems like pretty thin gruel. After a chuckle inducing opening, the book starts to read like a one trick pony. Disappointing.
At best a badly edited book July 2, 2008
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
I liked Tim Hartford's earlier work - The Undercover Economist very much. I have taken a few graduate courses in Economics and loved the way the book refreshed and even gave new concepts to me. Thus, I picked up The Logic of Life with a lot of expectations. These expectations were badly dashed.
My big problem with this book is that Hartford lacks rigor. In a popular book I wouldn't expect the rigor of an academic article, but when an author draws conclusions that are wider ranging than warranted or if the author factually incorrect then I do have a problem. There are at least a couple of instances when Hartford does that. For me it taints the whole book - making me ask questions such as what if Hartford is factually incorrect in other places that I don't know about.
Hartford relies a lot on the experiments of John List to set up his premise - People are more rational in their day to day life than psychologists give them credit for. One set of List's experiments demonstrated that experienced pin and baseball card collectors are able to make rational decisions in situations where rookies often make irrational ones. Hartford then extends this logic to claim that as people are experienced in their day to day life - in activities such as work and shopping - they are unlikely to make the rookie irrational mistakes. To me this is a big stretch. I don't know anyone who thinks a day-to-day shopping decision through as much as an experienced collector would. A little effort from the author here in establishing his premise would have been really well served.
Hartford really lets go of rigor when criticizing the work of Jeffery Sachs. Coincidentally, I was reading "The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time" by Jeffery Sachs at the same time I was reading Logic of Life and I was shocked by Hartford's presentation of Sachs' theories and also his refutations. For example, Hartford says that malaria is unlikely to be a cause of under-development as it kills only young children and not adults. Sachs has argued in reasonable detail how malaria can cause poverty (absenteeism, delay of investment projects, undereducated children and parents making decisions of having more children). I for one cannot understand how one line stating malaria kills children and hence does not effect economy from Hartford is anything but a lazy piece of writing. Hartford' writing on the topic gets almost bizarre when he then states "In any case, these diseases can be fought by countries with the resources to do so." As this statement is apparently to refute the logic of Sachs, it is mind boggling as Sachs to my mind is also saying the same thing. The disease can be fought - however, the really poor countries do not have the resources to do so. At best statements like these are very poor editing of the book. The point here is not if Sachs is correct or not. The point is that if you are refuting the theory of a person, the least you should be doing is to state it correctly and in full.
For me, if I start doubting one part of the book I start thinking - this author is not very incorrect about a part I know about, so can I trust him on other parts where I don't know too much? This does sharply reduce the enjoyment of what is a very readable book.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
