Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Logic and Rationality is Not Really What This book is About

Customer Rating:

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

Customer Rating:

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	Customer Rating:
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

Customer Rating:

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

Customer Rating:

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.