An interesting article

Good article, Rob. No wonder no one has a handle on things.
 
Thanks cant.

The problem is that numbers fall into the category of facts, and facts are supposed to 'prove' things. Unfortunately there are enough facts around to prove anything.

Understanding is better than proof in my estimation anyway.
 
It's pervasive as hell, isn't it?

Back when I was in high school and taking algebra, I can remember breezing right through it - it was one of my favorite classes. Many of my classmates had this almost superstitious awe of anything that was remotely related to mathematics. It struck me as silly then, and it still does. And, it's not just mathematics, but anything with numbers seems to activate some type of switch in their brains, and they convince themselves that they can't possibly understand it - even very bright people.

The bad thing about it is that it seems to be accepted as normal, and is even passed down from parent to child. When I've been at school for meetings, or whatever, with my kids, I've often heard a parent tell their child, "Just do the best you can, but don't worry about it. I never liked math, either."

:eek:
 
I have a weird problem with math.

Pure mathematics seems to not sink into my brain. Practical math is absorbed like a sponge absorbs water.

I remember being utterly confused in a calculus class, then going to physics and having no trouble with basically the same calculus. I believe it's because I can imagine the behaviour in physics. I have some idea of how the phenomena occurs and can model it.

Pure math is so abstract I have trouble getting a grip on it.

I find that trait useful. If, when I'm reading numbers, my brain starts to glaze over, I can be pretty sure that the numbers aren't related to reality. ;)
 
That's a wild article, Rob. (And what a wonderful word, "innumeracy.")

I myself have dyscalculia. It went undiagnosed through childhood. My teachers and parents could not understand how I could be so adept at geometry and formal logic and flunk anything that involved too much arithmetic. :rolleyes: I was left to develop my own compensatory techniques, which, during middle school, included such brilliant strategies as truancy. :eek: :cathappy:

IMO, stats and probability (and, most importantly, the interpretation of same) should be taught more feverently than alegbra and and any liberal arts education is dangerously flawed without it. Zeb designs and (IIRC) codes actuarial software; I'm sure this is one subject we can agree upon.

Less polynomial exercises, more Bayesian debate! The probability of a pregant woman having a boy or a girl is 0 because the sex of the child is already determinate, dammit! ;)
 
Ever heard of the old adage "Figures lie and Liars Figure?"
 
The_Fool said:
Ever heard of the old adage "Figures lie and Liars Figure?"
Yep, and all the more reason to have taken Stats I. One semester of statistics demystifies the whole thing, and allows you to have a basis to critique the bullshit.
 
cantdog said:
Yep, and all the more reason to have taken Stats I. One semester of statistics demystifies the whole thing, and allows you to have a basis to critique the bullshit.

Indeed.

I took two full years of statistics, and hated every minute, but it sure opens your eyes.
 
It never had, for me, the repellent quality it seems to have for most people; I saw it as the math of random processes.
 
cloudy said:
Indeed.

I took two full years of statistics, and hated every minute, but it sure opens your eyes.

What's the old saying??... Lies, damn lies and statistics. ;)
 
I have used arithmetic on money, and statistics almost all my working life.

When I joined a Social Services department I felt like a sighted man in the company of blind people. At first I couldn't understand that my colleagues couldn't see trends and anomalies that seemed as obvious to me as 2 + 2 = 4.

I didn't need to analyse a column of raw data to see the exceptions. I could guess a trend within seconds and hand draw an approximate graph.

What was the point? My colleagues couldn't read a graph and a bell or bathtub curve was gibberish to them. Eventually they could use Excel to plot a 3D coloured graph to illustrate simple concepts and thought they had invented presentation of figures. They couldn't find fraud in financial transactions; the oddity that needed explanation in work schedules; the repeated cost that would break a budget.

As for the media? Graphs without scales; truncated graphs; selected data; unreasonable comparisons - all feature in news reports and very few notice.

Being illiterate is shameful; innumerate is just accepted.

Og
 
Back
Top