In their 2005 best-seller, the authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner caused a sensation with their exposes of corrupt sumo wrestlers, poor drug dealers and the surprising and controversial impact of abortions on U.S. crime rates. Unfortunately, despite their assertion in the introduction of this “sequel” that it is a better book than its predecessor, the contents prove quite the opposite. The book comes up well short in providing the same fascination and excitement of Freakonomics, despite the use of the same formula, plus the book questionably includes a lengthy profile of a crazy scheme to solve global warming. This isn't to say that there aren't some interesting and entertaining parts of the book, but not enough to make it really outstanding.

In a way, this sophomore letdown is not surprising, given the difficulty in matching the tremendous success of the first book. Additionally, the concept just isn't as fresh as since Freakonomics came out, several authors such as Malcolm Gladwell have become popular by taking a similar approach, using statistics and research studies to provide compelling explanations of social phenomena. Gladwell's first book, The Tipping Point, actually came out quite a few years before Freakonomics, but his work has been compared to Dubner and Levitt's. Interestingly enough, in a footnote in SuperFreakonomics, Dubner and Levitt refer to Gladwell, among several authors; they mention that Gladwell's popularization of the idea in his book Outliers that birth dates are key to budding athletes' future success prevented them from including a chapter about the same idea.

SuperFreakonomics' shortcomings go beyond those aspects because many of the points are not very compelling or eye-opening. For instance, does the fact that a service that becomes widely available eventually drop in price surprise any of us? The book plods along in some parts, as the authors don't probe issues in-depth but just mention them to fill space.

A good example of this is the creatively-titled chapter “Why should suicide bombers buy life insurance?” It starts off discussing the role that random factors play in our lives, then moves on to how terrorists come from mostly educated, middle-class backgrounds. It then rather abruptly goes on to provide a lengthy description of the development of a hospital emergency department data system and how it can be used to screen for the best ER doctors. Finally in the end, the authors describe how a British intelligence expert came up with criteria to screen for potential terrorists. One of these criteria: not holding a life insurance policy. There is nothing particularly clever or insightful about this. Another chapter, on prostitution, is full of minor facts and points, most of which are rather obvious.

Whether buoyed by overconfidence or driven by pressure to replicate Freakonomics' impact, the authors were too ambitious. The book's subtitle perhaps indicates the former; it seems like Levitt and Dubner tried hard to find sensational topics to examine, but in doing so, were unable to properly analyze them to make gripping conclusions.

The parts on altruism and cheap fixes to big problems are better, offering up a few interesting facts such as how something simple, like doctors and nurses washing their hands, led to a drastic drop in infant deaths in the 18th century.

The most fanciful idea featured in the book has to be a project by former Microsoft chief of technology Nathan Myhrvold that purports to solve global warming by creating a structure to pipe sulphur into the stratosphere. The authors have received a significant amount of criticism over this section for their supposed misleading and inaccurate arguments , including from one of the scientists mentioned in the chapter, Ken Caldeira. Dubner and Levitt seem to have a lot of faith in Myhrvold's wacky idea, belittling global warming advocates and deeming Myhrvold a genius ahead of his time.

SuperFreakonomics is still a decent book that is quite enjoyable. But a more modest approach by the authors, and more time spent writing, might have made it better and not so disappointing.