She’s a very kinky girl … the kind you don’t bring home to mother …
Couldn’t help myself. That’s the tune that comes to mind every time I look at the cover of Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
She will never let your spirits down … once you get her off the streets … yow!
And, in fact, that tune was quite apropos, as the most interesting part of the book was the economics behind prostitution. But more about that in a minute.
While I found the authors’ first book, Freakonomics, extremely thought-provoking, this one didn’t quite rise to that level. However, it was interesting, and I had a few, “hmmm” moments, despite the fact that some of it felt like I’d read it before. But some of it was really fascinating, such as the section on the economics of prostitution (and no . . . not thinking about giving up my day job).
Re: prostitution. It’s an interesting look at how, if we want to eliminate it, we need to take away the financial incentive AND put the Johns in jail and not poor Jane, who is just trying to make a living. Yet that’s not how we’re approaching the problem. While reading this part, I couldn’t help but think about the movie Hustle & Flow …
You know it’s hard out here for a pimp
When he tryin to get this money for the rent
For the Cadillacs and gas money spent
Because a whole lot of bitches talkin’ sh*t
But enough about that . . . on to global warming. The one big concept with regard to global warming was contained in the statement on page 11: “But Humankind has a great capacity for finding technological solutions to seemingly intractable problems, and this will likely be the case for global warming.” The authors provide historical examples where we were facing what seemed like insurmountable issues but where we managed to find technological solutions. They even go on to talk about some of the potential solutions in the works that could cost less/be more effective than the Al Gore model.
I also bookmarked the page where they talk about sports and how your birth month can affect your abilities (a topic covered in Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers). While this seemed a bit of a retread, there was a slight differentiating point with regard to practice: It’s not just about the 10,000 hours of practice, but it’s about “deliberate practice: setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.”
Another good discussion was on the gender wage gap. Very timely, as this has recently been in the news because it’s moving in the wrong direction. The discussion ended up with a conclusion that perhaps the traditional male definition of success (money/power) isn’t a meaningful incentive for women–even highly educated, fast-tracked ones.
This conclusion was key because if there is one clear theme throughout, it’s that we are often wrong as to what will be an incentive to get people to do something. The starkest example of this was how difficult it has been for hospitals to get doctors and hospital staff to wash their hands. It wasn’t until they came up with a gross visual screen saver that showed the growth of germs on a hand before they got to 100 percent compliance.
This made me consider the different incentives my company has implemented over the years. We’ve tried a lot of things to get women to invest in their careers and build networks. We’ve had giveaways, written technology how-to guides with Jane Austen themes, thrown shopping nights, tried cold hard facts, guilt, economics, etc. I’m still trying to find the magic incentive formula! Any ideas? I’m open to them.
Top Shelf Bottom Line: If you loved Freakonomics and want more of the same, then worth the read. If you are interested in how thinking “differently” could solve some of the world’s problems then this, too, could make it a worthwhile read. Or if you need to step back and think differently about your company, this might be a good primer.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 at 9:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Nice writing. You are on my RSS reader now so I can read more from you down the road.
Allen Taylor
November 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Great article Diane… I too am very interested in how we can incentivise women to invest in their careers, or in my case starting a small business. I enjoyed the original freakonomics found it food for thought.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
As a seasoned coach for women entrepreneurs, I can definitely agree with this statement, “The discussion ended up with a conclusion that perhaps the traditional male definition of success (money/power) isn’t a meaningful incentive for women–even highly educated, fast-tracked ones.”
I think we really need to embrace that, and at the same time realize that the world is still being run on the money/power standard and we need to pay attention to that by creating successful businesses in terms of money/power as well as everything else we hold dear.