[stcredzero]

You know they can do better, but they traded rigor for money and fame.

This is a relatively uncommon viewpoint. I thank you for sharing it. One should automatically suspect the popular interpreters of any field of trading "rigor for money and fame." If you have any blog posts on this subject, I'd be curious for the URLs. The Freakonomics guys have a bit of popular recognition which could be leveraged for marketing an OkCupid book. That said, it's likely that OkCupid has enough popular recognition to leverage for book sales on its own.

[jaredmck]

On errors in the "abortion lowers crime" study http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/11/im-shocked-shocked-to-see... overview of freakonomics 2 and how it shouldn't have been surprising that the errors were numerous and more obvious than in the original, due to the authors being less familiar with the topics in addition to selection bias http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009...

Detailed discussion of blatant, blatant errors on their article refuting climate change. Makes you wonder if they knew their contrarian position was weak, and still put it in the book for controversy and the headlines it brings. http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-erro...