by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
Decidedly weaker than Freakonomics and by a large margin.
Freakonomics looked into the idea that economics can be thought of as a “study of incentives”. Furthermore, it also argued that even small/hard to notice and obvious changes can have unintended consequences.
Superfreakonomics, on the other hand, brings nothing new on the table. The second chapter which talks about patterns and details (hockey players having mostly born in Jan, Muslim children being weaker if born in the month of May) was already quite well covered in Freakonomics. The global warming chapter, the chapter on prostitutes and how pimps offer more value for prostitutes than real estate agents, the chapter on unintended consequences and altruisms – were all interesting but nothing in them offered a new view point or idea which was not already covered in Freakonomics. Plus I felt that the global warming, altruism and murder of Kitty Genovese decidedly lacked facts and were very heavy on conjectures.
My recommendation is to study Freakonomics and read Superfreakonomics.