No, I wish this one had been better written and not so contradictory in its own repeated dogma. If they can't live up to the most basic thing they keep harping on others for, then they shouldn't have presented their work as demonstrating a different type of critical thinking. Instead, because they repeat enough times that they're presenting a "different approach" to economics so it's easy to see why the average reviewer/reader is just going to go along with that. In that scenario, yes, both readers and writers are "at fault," but I take more issue with the writers since they're the ones presenting skewed conclusions that obviously fall under the easy causation = correlation umbrella. I don't expect all alternatives to be examined, but too often these scenarios are presented like there are NO other significant alternatives, and like Levitt has stumbled across a type of golden ratio when it comes to breaking down these stats.