Cardio and "Freakonomics"

Cardio in Waycross
33 minutes w/ warmup and cooldown
2.16 miles
All walks were at 3.5
4 2 minute runs: 5, 5.2, 5.5, 5.8
5 one minute incline walk/run:
4.0 @ 2%
4.2 @ 2.5 %
4.4 @ 3.5%
4.6 @ 4.0%
5.0 @ 4.5%

walk, run, walk, incline... in between walks were either 1 or two minutes. Not a bad cardio workout.


Freakonomics
An interesting read but it would do well to advise its readers to heed its own warning: never trust the experts. While some of the ideas put forth by Dubner and Levitt are neat, it is far from the hidden side of everything. And some of their conclusions suffer from the same things that plague anyone who deals with data and statistics. Namely, the propensity for skewing the results, or in this case, the methods, to favorable directions.
The legalization of abortion vs. crime issue is a fascinating idea, but fails for one glaring reason. While the writers have tons of data about crime and police infrastructures, they have no data at all suprting the abortion side. It is enough for Levitt to say that the women who would have had abortions during the time probably would have kids that would have grown up to be criminals. Half of the equation is based on a supposition, but that is never spelled out. We are expected to just go, "Aha! Genius at work!" and go on our merry way.
Then there is the economics of drug dealing. Truly a unique look into a world most of us will never know, but they use a single group of drug dealers (all be it a large group) to be the basis for all drug dealers. They might even be right, but to insinuate that the many run the same as the one is flawed, particulalry when dealing with the specifics of a drug gang led by a college graduate. One would think that is a rare happenstance. Could be, but how do we know? Levitt and Dubner never tell us if this is a common occurance or is unique to their sample.
Levitt has a clever way of looking at things, but most of them are useful only to a niche group of people. The most widely applicable article deals with real estate agents, and to use the information he provides could be great or it could be trouble, depending on the individual. It puts it in people's minds that real estate agents, all of them, are out for themselves and the client is secondary. A dangerous implication. This section also goes on forever, particularly with the info on the KKK. This was eye opening, but it goes to show an issue with the book. The writer's tend to just keep talking. The articles at the back of the book do a much better job of getting to the point and still delivering the information with an economy of words.
Freakonomics is best understood as a lesson in trying to look at all information through as many lenses as possible. As Timothy Leary said, "Think for yourself. Question authority." Experts and subject authorities abound in our culture and I have to continually remind myself to not just accept what I am hearing as fact. Most of the time, facts are bent to make the point. Levitt and Dubner point this fact out, but fail to apply the concept to themselves. C+: 84