SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

Compare the findings of controlled experiments like the Dictator and Ultimatum Games to the real-world behaviors discussed in SuperFreakonomics. What do these comparisons reveal about the limitations of experimental economics? Can these games be revised to more effectively reveal motives for human economic behavior? If so, how?

How does SuperFreakonomics challenge widely held beliefs about events such as the Kitty Genovese case, or Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? What does the text suggest about the power of media narratives in shaping public perception?

How does SuperFreakonomics illustrate the concept of unintended consequences through its case studies (e.g., government attempts to regulate sex work or the historical example of the “Cobra Effect”)? What lessons can economists and policymakers take from these examples when crafting experiments or public policies?

Evaluate the ethical implications of some of the solutions proposed or analyzed in SuperFreakonomics, such as vigilante geoengineering for climate change or the establishment of kidney markets. Are the practicality of these ideas overshadowed by the moral implications, or vice versa?

Discuss the role of incentives in shaping human behavior as presented in SuperFreakonomics. How do the authors effectively prove that incentives can sometimes lead to counterproductive outcomes? Use specific examples from the text.

Analyze the concept of risk compensation as explored in the discussion on seat belts and other safety measures. How does this phenomenon complicate the implementation of life-saving innovations? What solutions could mitigate these complications?

Using examples from the book, examine how SuperFreakonomics balances the idea of altruism with self-interest in human decision-making. Using the framework that the authors describe, define altruism and selfishness. How are these definitions different from the more commonly understood meanings?

This book, written in 2009, seems to downplay the severity of climate change. Critically assess the chapter on climate change from a contemporary perspective. How does Levitt and Dubner’s approach differ from that of mainstream environmental advocates, and what controversies have arisen from the authors’ arguments? Do their arguments still work today? Why or why not?