This is a fine little—not including the acknowledgements, footnotes, and index, it’s just 114 pages—book. It would be useful as a supplementary text in any statistics or quantitative methods course. It also could be enjoyed by anyone with an interest in data, especially when data are used to formulate public policy. The author, Joel Best, succinctly states his theme as follows (p. 5):
This book is guided by the assumption that we are exposed to many statistics that have serious flaws. This is important, because most of us have a tendency to equate numbers with facts, to presume that statistical information is probably pretty accurate information. If that’s wrong—if lots of the figures—that we encounter are in fact flawed—then we need ways of assessing the data we’re given.
Best makes his case through a set of well-chosen examples. Some are of numbers that are inaccurately high. He warns (p. 11), “. . . keep in mind one rule of thumb: in general, the worse things are the less common they are. . . . Most social problems display this pattern: there are lots of less serious cases, and relatively few very serious ones. This point is important because media coverage and other claims about social problems often feature disturbing typifying examples: that is, they use dramatic cases to illustrate the problem.”
Here are three examples.
Page 10: a claim that “more than four million women [in the U.S.] are battered to death by their husbands or boyfriends each year”. Best notes that four million is far more than the annual deaths of women from all causes. I found this claim repeated in other places such as here and here. How did this claim come about? Best doesn't speculate but I found sites claiming four million batterings but not deaths: http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm and http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=232778 I speculate "batterings" were transformed into "deaths".
Page 19, a classic example. Claim: “Today, a young person, age 14—26, kills herself or himself every 13 minutes in the United States.” But that’s more than 40,000 per year. The total number of suicides by people of all ages was about 32,000 per year. The correct number, Best finds, turns out to be about 4000 (in 2002), or about one every 131 minutes. Best concludes the claimed number was the product of a slipped decimal point.
Pages 44 and 45: What about the trend toward obesity in America? “In 1998, the federal government redefined the category ‘overweight’ . . . The redefinition meant that 29 million Americans whose weight had been considered normal suddenly were classified as overweight?” How many journalists know this? How many adjust the numbers indicating a rapid rise in obesity for the change in definition?
Glenn Reynolds reviews America 3.0. It's quite optimistic and Glenn likes it.
But as Bennett and Lotus note, the problems of America 2.0 are all soluble, and, in what they call America 3.0, they will be solved. The solutions will be as different from America 2.0 as America 2.0 was from America 1.0. We'll see a focus on smaller government, nimbler organization, and living within our means -- because, frankly, we'll have no choice. Something that can't go on forever, won't. If America 2.0 was a fit for the world of giant steel mills and monolithic corporations, America 3.0 will be fit for the world of consumer choice and Internet speed.
Fine, concise review that ends with this zinger:
Allow me to close by complimenting Sandel on writing a book that is sure to be widely read and appreciated. He has taken a position with which almost everyone superficially agrees and supported it with easy-to-understand arguments and examples (despite the failure of many of those examples). Many readers will be left with the impression that they have had a profound intellectual experience.