OKCupid seems to do a way, way better job at data analysis than the freakonomics guys, who sadly see no need to be correct in the analyses used in their popular books.
I don't think you intended this as a backhanded compliment, but it riles me up to see levitt mentioned as anything other than a pop Econ sellout. Reading anything by either Levitt or Krugman is guaranteed to enrage me. You know they can do better, but they traded rigor for money and fame.
You know they can do better, but they traded rigor for money and fame.
This is a relatively uncommon viewpoint. I thank you for sharing it. One should automatically suspect the popular interpreters of any field of trading "rigor for money and fame." If you have any blog posts on this subject, I'd be curious for the URLs. The Freakonomics guys have a bit of popular recognition which could be leveraged for marketing an OkCupid book. That said, it's likely that OkCupid has enough popular recognition to leverage for book sales on its own.
Detailed discussion of blatant, blatant errors on their article refuting climate change. Makes you wonder if they knew their contrarian position was weak, and still put it in the book for controversy and the headlines it brings.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-erro...
I don't think you intended this as a backhanded compliment, but it riles me up to see levitt mentioned as anything other than a pop Econ sellout. Reading anything by either Levitt or Krugman is guaranteed to enrage me. You know they can do better, but they traded rigor for money and fame.