Quantitative Illiteracy is driving me absolutely batshit

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Perhaps that's a made up term, "quantitative illiteracy," but what DO you call it when people don't understand quantititave data and simple statistical terms?

I am going to go fucking apeshit if one more person attempts to debate by mistranslating a statistical finding or by rebutting a statistic with a personal anecdote. I confess this has been inspired by one particular thread but I'd rather not link to it because this is not a problem confined to one debate.

I am sympathetic to those people who aren't comfortable with math (for whatever reason) and it's not their fault if someone declared them educated without making goddamn sure they understood a few important things about odds, means, and sampling. But you know what? They ought to acknowledge this shortcoming and stay the fuck out of specific arguments that involve statistics. You don't see my ass jumping in on discussions that involve the theory of relativity or the correct translation of bible passages. Why? Because I don't know enough and I KNOW I don't know enough.

While I am at it, a tangential rant about stats: USA Today can suck the dick I unfortunately lack. They have this STUPID feature called "A look at the statistics that shape our lives" or somesuch and it always involves revealing something like the percentage of bowling alleys owned by immigrant bangladeshis. This shapes our lives? What?!

[Sublight]

Innumeracy?

[Freyr]

CrankyAsAnOldMan wrote:

Perhaps that's a made up term, "quantitative illiteracy," but what DO you call it when people don't understand quantititave data and simple statistical terms?

My stats professor back in college called it numerical illiteracy. The inability to understand the informatoin derived from number, mathematics or statistics.

And it is shocking. It really brings home the ole saw about lies:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[jayjay]

One of the few Heinlein aphorisms that continue to make me uncomfortable is his insistence that a human being who can't do differential calculus or figure out the hypothetical orbit of their hypothetical spaceship isn't really human, but a form of talking beast.

I'm math illiterate. I can do arithmetic and simple algebra, and the easier practical geometric exercises, but the rest is like hearing Chinese. I squeaked through trig in high school, thanks mostly to an incredible teacher who was patient enough to walk me through things to the point where I could simulate knowing what I was doing, but when I got to college I spent an entire semester sitting in a calculus class and not understanding a single word that the instructor spoke. Not even tutoring could help me. It was like an opaque wall between me and the subject matter. I've tried since then to go back to an area that I did know and work my way through to the higher maths. Didn't work. I simply don't speak math, other than a pidgin form that allows me to figure out how much I owe Uncle Sam and make sure the cashier didn't cheat me on change.

Despite the above, I do agree with Cranky. I try to keep my nose out of threads (and conversations in real life) that require some knowledge of higher maths. I understand the vague concepts of statistics (like the difference between mean, median and mode), but not enough to actually contribute much to a conversation centering on it.

jayjay (No speakee talk-talk bilong Newton)

[Wolfian]

66.666% of Dopers agree with Cranky, but there was this one time...

All kidding aside, I feel you. After taking two semesters of stats I drives me batty when people make simple stats errors. As boring as it was, maybe all college students should be required to take at least one semester of stats.

[jayjay]

Originally posted by drayton
All kidding aside, I feel you.

Only Dopers could make a rant about mathematical illiteracy into a flirt thread in four posts.



jayjay

[Trucido]

Quantitative illiteracy? Muh pappy jes' called it, "Eat up with the dumb-ass."

Seriously, though, the number of people who can't or won't grasp basic statistical and numerical concepts boggles the mind. Math has never been terribly hard for me, and I have difficulty empathizing with people who are still deeply afraid of long division. I say the only way to cure it is early introduction to the concepts for children, that or horsewhipping.

[december]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan
Perhaps that's a made up term, "quantitative illiteracy," but what DO you call it when people don't understand quantititave data and simple statistical terms?

John Allen Paulos has written a couple of books calling it innumeracy. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...325550-3144603

Douglas Hofstadter (author of Godel, Escher, Bach) had written on this subject a bit earlier than Paulos did.

Thank goodness for the innumerate people. It's because of them, that we numerate people have value. (Otherwise I might really have to work for a living, and wouldn't have time to post on SDMB. )

[wring]

got any stats on that problem Cranky???

[Colibri]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan
While I am at it, a tangential rant about stats: USA Today can suck the dick I unfortunately lack. They have this STUPID feature called "A look at the statistics that shape our lives" or somesuch and it always involves revealing something like the percentage of bowling alleys owned by immigrant bangladeshis. This shapes our lives? What?!

Well, this sort of thing does shape my second cousin's life, but that's another story.

[celestina]

Cranky said:

"I am sympathetic to those people who aren't comfortable with math (for whatever reason) and it's not their fault if someone declared them educated without making goddamn sure they understood a few important things about odds, means, and sampling. But you know what? They ought to acknowledge this shortcoming and stay the fuck out of specific arguments that involve statistics. You don't see my ass jumping in on discussions that involve the theory of relativity or the correct translation of bible passages. Why? Because I don't know enough and I KNOW I don't know enough."


Cranky, of course this makes sense, but how else are folks going to learn that they don't know enough unless they take the plunge and try to respond about statistics, or the theory of relativity, or correct translations of bible passages? As painful and frustrating as it is to see someone post something completely out in left field about a topic one may know more about, I guess the best way to keep one's sanity is to try to educate them. My inability to do math hasn't stopped me from trying to do it or use it to explain concepts. And I've usually found that I've learned more from my failures than the few successes I've had.

Even though I am a math idiot, I feel for you too. I don't know why statistics isn't taught more, especially since it's used so much in so many ways. Looking back at my troubled math past, I think I would far rather have taken statistics and basic accounting rather than Algebra. I don't know why math is such a high anxiety subject for so many folks, myself included. I think that I have a complex against math, or maybe I just try too hard, or maybe I'm learning disabled when it comes to math. I don't know. But here's something weird for you. One time a friend of mine who is a math genius was taking a graduate level statistics exam, and he read me all the questions. For example, one question cited numbers for a survey and ask if X number was the minimum acceptable amount for a random sample. Anyways, after he'd read the question, I'd immediately answer yes, that's statistically possible, or no, that's not statistically possible. I'd even provide a few brief explanations for how I'd come to my conclusions. He then went on to use some elaborate formula to get the answers. He told me that I got every one of the questions right. He was amazed and a little pissed because he knows I can't count to ten without using both of my hands and feet--It is truly painful watching me trying to figure out the phone bill or something--but somehow when I heard those questions, I just knew whether or not they'd make sense to do statistically. And I've never had a statistics class in my life, although I guess I've gotten friends to explain a few of the concepts of averages and random samples and stuff to me.

You know it just occurred to me that I just told a personal anecdote in a thread bashing folks who rely on anecdotes rather than statistical analysis to get their points across. Don't hurt me, Cranky. I'm sorry.

[celestina]

Oops, I forgot to add to my other post. I think on that graduate level statistics exam that I *aced* [giggle] there were 7 questions. What's the statistical probability that if I was just guessing on the answers that I'd get them all correct? Or, is this a proper statistics question, or more along the lines of a probability question? Oh, my head hurts. I'm so confoosed. Someone who can do math, please help me understand.

[celestina tiptoes quickly out of this thread]

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan

USA Today can suck the dick I unfortunately lack.

It's comments like this which make me love you even more, Cranky.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

celestina, you're right, actually.

I guess it would help if, after providing a careful and polite explanation about the meaning of a statistic here on the boards, one would hear "Oh, now I get it! Thanks!"

Even better would be if they said "Say, isn't tutoring paid $25 an hour? Can I send you a check?"

And FTR, I've got no problems with anecdotes on general; they're often helpful. But if someone uses an anecdote to supposedly refute some study that surveyed 5000 people.... well, that's when I start looking for a high bridge with no guardrails.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by jayjay
I'm math illiterate. I can do arithmetic and simple algebra, and the easier practical geometric exercises, but the rest is like hearing Chinese. ....
Not even tutoring could help me. It was like an opaque wall between me and the subject matter. ...
I simply don't speak math, other than a pidgin form that allows me to figure out how much I owe Uncle Sam and make sure the cashier didn't cheat me on change.

jayjay (No speakee talk-talk bilong Newton)

Is there room for one more on the Math Illiterates bench, jayjay?
Me + Math =

[archmichael]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Roger Brinner

[Scarlett67]

There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't.

Scarlett, math textbook editor now and then

[kitarak]

Agreed that a failure to understand statistics is annoying. However, speaking as a person who frequently has to help friends with their maths (I'm a mathematician, they're scientists, engineers or worse... economists. ) there are many people who, no matter how hard you and they try, simply Do Not Get It. Fortunately I haven't been exposed to the type who do not get it and refuse to accept that they are wrong, but then I am at Cambridge, so we have to have some kind of minimum standard.

Basically what I'm saying is yes, there are decent people who generally have trouble with maths, but there are also some people who have no clue about maths and refuse to believe they're wrong. Even worse are the people who say "Yeah, but that's just numbers. It doesn't have any relevance to the real world." I had a friend like this. The only way we've remained friends is that we've learned to never ever get into arguments, especially if it involves something which I know about and she doesn't have a clue (There are of course subjects which she knows lots about and I don't have a clue about, but I'm willing to admit that I'm clueless. ).

[jayjay]

Sometimes I really do regret not being able to understand mathematics. It's like I'm standing on the beach of a whole ocean of knowledge and all I can do is wade in the shallow end because I can't swim and don't have the coordination to learn.

Occasionally I get a vague awareness that there's a whole body of literature that I'm missing out on because I can't grasp how the "letters" of the language of mathematics go together to spell "words", or the "grammar" of how those "words" go together to form a coherent "sentence".

I regret that I can't grasp the meaning. But I just can't.

jayjay

[wring]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan
well, that's when I start looking for a high bridge with no guardrails.

for them or you?

(geek alert) I actually took elective math classes in high school, placed past the math requirements in college. Tutored many folks (am personally responsible for my Buddy Paul getting through MSU's algebra classes).

One of the things I used to do while tutoring it, I treated it as a foreign language, so we 'interpreted' a problem.

worked for some.

[Larry Mudd]

Innumerate people aren't inferior, they've just been the victims of poor educational methods.

When I finished school, I had only the most rudimentary grasp of arithmetic, and division and fractions made my head hurt.

The prettiness of fractals gave me a desire to improve my math abilities, and before I new it, I was a math geek.

Yes, I learned how to do spherical trigonometry because it seemed like fun. I can remember calling a friend, ecstatic, because I was able to visualize a problem in phase space mentally. What a rush.

Same with symbolic logic. How the hell do people get by without it? Sure would make debates around here less frustrating if it was still part of the basic curriculum.

How the hell do educators present these things in such a way as to make them seem dull? Ah well, they manage to work the same voodoo on history, I guess it's possible to suck the excitement out of anything.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by Larry Mudd
Innumerate people aren't inferior, they've just been the victims of poor educational methods.

Not necessarily. I think some people are "number" oriented and some people are "word" oriented.
Spelling always came easy for me. I was an early reader.
I still love to read. I usually read two books at a time (not simultaneously, but I alternate between them).
I'm a grammar Nazi.
Much like Cranky's OP, I am going to go apeshit if I see 'your' and 'you're' mixed up one more time. Or if someone spells it 'wierd.' Or doesn't capitalize 'I' or use proper punctuation.
Don't even get me started on those damned extraneous apostrophes.
It's just so easy. Why doesn't everyone get it?



Math on the other hand...ugh.
I don't even like to balance the checkbook.

[wring]

Kinsey don't hate me please... sometimes the apostrophe problem is my typing or my eyesight or or or...

[kambuckta]

I too am mathematically-challenged (although not arithmetically for some reason).
And I also wish I'd been exposed to better teaching methods in my formative years: It might have helped, but it might not have either.
And stats are WORSE than a foreign language.

And all you clever-dicks who reckon that ANYONE can do it if they put their mind to it, or who get pissed-off with those of us who aren't competent with numbers/symbols, Get Naffed.

[Primaflora]

Innumerate here but I still know how stats work in that you cannot use an anecdote to refute hard figures. And that not all research is born equal

Just read that thread and oh my!

[Enderw24]

You know, I read somewhere that around 50% of people are below average when it comes to statistics.
Sorry I don't have a cite to back this up.

[Kaitlyn]

One of the stated goals of the current administration at my school district is for 90% of all students to score at or above the 50th percentile on the big end of the year norm-referenced test. When I pointed out that this is impossible, I was criticized for not believeing our students could meet high standards.

One of the problems in the 5th grade textbook asked students to find the perimeter of a triangle with sides of 10cm, 10cm, and 25cm. Three of my students were able to spot the obvious mistake without any prompting, and more than half found it when I told them there was a big problem with this triangle. How this got past the editors, I'll never know.

The innumeracy gaff that grates on my nerves every time it see/hear it--and I hear it on the news all the time--is using "x times greater than" to mean "x times as great as". These are not interchangible.

It also irritates me to hear something described as "100 times smaller than", as if it were the opposite of "100 times as great as". Dammit, nothing can be more than 1 time smaller than anything else. If a is 100 times as great as b, then b is 99% smaller than a.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Originally posted by Number Six
The innumeracy gaff that grates on my nerves every time it see/hear it--and I hear it on the news all the time--is using "x times greater than" to mean "x times as great as". These are not interchangible.

How do you use these phrases?

[Second Echo]

Originally posted by celestina
Oops, I forgot to add to my other post. I think on that graduate level statistics exam that I *aced* [giggle] there were 7 questions. What's the statistical probability that if I was just guessing on the answers that I'd get them all correct? Or, is this a proper statistics question, or more along the lines of a probability question? Oh, my head hurts. I'm so confoosed. Someone who can do math, please help me understand.

[celestina tiptoes quickly out of this thread]

Yeah, it is definitely more a probability question. The answer depends on how many choices are available for each question. Obviously, you've got a better chance of getting your questions right on a true/falese exam than you do on a multiple choice exam. A statistics question would consist of something like taking the test scores for the entire class and then finding a percentile rank for a given score. Or perhaps, given raw data from a ficticious experiment, running a T-test to see if there is a correlation between actually trying to answer test questions correctly and high test scores vs. just blindly guessing.

And Enderw24, that was funny. Very good.

[JRDelirious]

Originally posted by Number Six
One of the stated goals of the current administration at my school district is for 90% of all students to score at or above the 50th percentile on the big end of the year norm-referenced test. When I pointed out that this is impossible, I was criticized for not believeing our students could meet high standards.

Egads.

BTW, in the last year I actually read in a newspaper a blurb that said that some particular change in maritime shipping policies would result in "a savings of over 400% in some products"

[ENugent]

Kinsey, what you describe isn't inconsistent with Larry's statement. I am probably just as much of a word buff as you are, but I also am good at math and have a PhD in engineering. Being good at one doesn't mean you have to be bad at the other - it's entirely possible that you would be much better with numbers if you had had different teachers when you were younger. Many people aren't math-phobic when they enter school, but at some point, they decide that they just can't do that stuff, and stop trying. (I know that there is such a thing as dyscalculia, and I'm not trying to say that everyone who has a problem with numbers had a bad education or whatever. But the number of people who don't like to read is a heckuva lot higher than the number of people with dyslexia, and I don't see why numeracy should be that different).

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by JRDelirious
BTW, in the last year I actually read in a newspaper a blurb that said that some particular change in maritime shipping policies would result in "a savings of over 400% in some products"

Y'know, that could have been a typo.

But somehow, I doubt it.

[BlackKnight]

I heartily reccomend the book "How to Lie with Statistics". It was written some time in the 50's, but is still a terrific little book.

[Billdo]

Originally posted by Number Six
One of the problems in the 5th grade textbook asked students to find the perimeter of a triangle with sides of 10cm, 10cm, and 25cm. Three of my students were able to spot the obvious mistake without any prompting, and more than half found it when I told them there was a big problem with this triangle. How this got past the editors, I'll never know.

Oh, you mathematical illiterate, haven't you heard of the famed Curved Hypotenuse Right Triangle.

[Kaitlyn]

Originally posted by Tyrrell McAllister

How do you use these phrases?

"X times greater than" indicates that the quantity has been increased by the stated factor. "X times as great as" indicates that the quantity has been modified by the desired factor.

When you say a is x times as great as b, you are starting with a value, b, and multiplying that value by x to find the result, a.

a is x times as great as b --> a=bx



When you say a is x times greater than b, you are starting with a value, b, and adding to that value an amount equal to bx.

a is x times greater than b --> a = bx+b or a = b(x+1)


Think of it another way. Would you rather have a salary that is 50% more than your current salary, or one that is 50% as much as your current salary? If the two phrases mean the same, there would be no difference between these two. Personally, I'd go for the 50% more.

[kferr]

The media are bad enough at stats that this organization was set up to keep an eye on them.

[jjimm]

WRT the OP - I think the term is "people who buy lottery tickets".

[Wikkit]

Originally posted by jjimm
WRT the OP - I think the term is "people who buy lottery tickets".

That isn't true either, since many of the big lotteries get to the point where it is statistically sound to buy tickets.

Scratch tickets and pull tabs, on the other hand...

[kabbes]

Actually, utility theory can show that it is entirely logical for people to buy lottery tickets even if the expected payout is negative.

If you don't agree with this statement, I'd ask you why you buy insurance.

kitarak, which college? Old Magdalene mathmo here.

pan

[december]

Originally posted by kabbes
Actually, utility theory can show that it is entirely logical for people to buy lottery tickets even if the expected payout is negative.

If you don't agree with this statement, I'd ask you why you buy insurance.

These are both examples of purchases with negative expected returns. However, the insurance reduces one's uncertainty, whereas the lottery ticket increases it.

An early utlity theory paper by Milton Friedman and ___ Savage created a theoretical utility scale that would justify both purchases.

[kabbes]

Originally posted by december
These are both examples of purchases with negative expected returns. However, the insurance reduces one's uncertainty, whereas the lottery ticket increases it.

But they both increase utility

An early utlity theory paper by Milton Friedman and ___ Savage created a theoretical utility scale that would justify both purchases.

Quite.

Most people's utility curves are somewhat "S"-shaped. As such, they are happy to either:

* Sacrifice a little money to ensure they don't lose a lot of money
* Sacrifice a little money to have the chance of winning a lot of money.

Although in one case uncertainty is decreased and in the other it is increased, they are both cut of the same cloth.

Or, to put it another way, the key is the semi-variance of the risk; up-side in the lottery example and down-side in insurance.

So you can see jjimm, there's more to the choice of doing the lottery than a straight expected wealth calculation. The punters are more economically sophisticated than you think!

pan

[kitarak]

Kabbes: Pembroke. Best college of them all of course.

[Wikkit]

Originally posted by kabbes
If you don't agree with this statement, I'd ask you why you buy insurance.

Because I'm forced to, of course.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Larry Mudd
Innumerate people aren't inferior, they've just been the victims of poor educational methods.

This is so true. In the most impressionable years of early education, we have generalist teachers who are expected to acquaint us with the wonders of numbers when they themselves are probably more likely to be innumerate than the average person. That's why many of them go into primary education, which usually doesn't demand great mathematical knowledge. [Disclaimer] This statement is based on anecdotal evidence [/disclaimer].

When I finished school, I had only the most rudimentary grasp of arithmetic, and division and fractions made my head hurt.

I had to take Algebra I twice, and never made it to Algebra II, let alone Trigonometry or Calculus. I did take "Calculus Lite" (aka calculus for humanities majors) in college, and did fairly well at it, but it wasn't very rigorous. Nor could it be, because the members of the class didn't have the necessary algebraic skill to truly understand the underpinnings of integration and differentiation.

The prettiness of fractals gave me a desire to improve my math abilities, and before I new it, I was a math geek.

For me it was discovering the principle of mathematical induction. Instead of solving a particular "problem", you could solve an infinitude of cases! Then I proved the volumes of the sphere and the cone.

Yes, I learned how to do spherical trigonometry because it seemed like fun. I can remember calling a friend, ecstatic, because I was able to visualize a problem in phase space mentally. What a rush.

Trig still scares me a bit, though I have to learn it in order to proceed with further educational plans. All those ratios to remember, gah!

I find visualization very helpful as a mental exercise.

Same with symbolic logic. How the hell do people get by without it? Sure would make debates around here less frustrating if it was still part of the basic curriculum.

How the hell do educators present these things in such a way as to make them seem dull? Ah well, they manage to work the same voodoo on history, I guess it's possible to suck the excitement out of anything.

See my first statement above.

[sturmhauke]

Originally posted by Number Six
One of the stated goals of the current administration at my school district is for 90% of all students to score at or above the 50th percentile on the big end of the year norm-referenced test. When I pointed out that this is impossible, I was criticized for not believeing our students could meet high standards.

I take it that the percentile score was measured against the school district and not against nationwide students?

[Kaitlyn]

Percentiles on this test are measured against nationwide and statewide norms. I do realize that it would be technically, mathematically possible for a school district to reach the stated goal, but given the sample size (~30,000 students) having 90% above the 50th percentile is a practical impossibility.

[MisterThyristor]

My verbal SAT score exceeded my mathematical SAT score by a good 90 points but I can still enjoy mathematics. I got through calculus and statistics well enough to know how little I know.

Count me among those who believe that almost anyone can learn mathematics if they put their mind to it. My ex-wife was convinced that she couldn't do higher math when she went from straight "A"s in basic mathematics to "C"s in algebra, mostly due to a teacher who didn't take the time to teach her in language she could understand.

She just figured that as an artist, she just wasn't mentally configured for mathematics.

When she recenly went back to school to learn and get certified as a veterinary technician, she had me tutor her in algebra and trigonometry. She ended up getting "A"s. It was mostly a matter of explaining things in more than one way, with one of them eventually sinking in, and the "aha" light coming up in her eyes.

I think that this can happen with anyone, provided they have enough incentive and desire to learn.

[Wikkit]

Originally posted by MisterThyristor
My verbal SAT score exceeded my mathematical SAT score by a good 90 points but I can still enjoy mathematics. I got through calculus and statistics well enough to know how little I know.

I got an 800 on the SAT math, and I had a hard time with calc in college. It is one of the major reasons I took this year off.

I think that this can happen with anyone, provided they have enough incentive and desire to learn.

I agree; I didn't really want to learn calc. It was also the first math that I didn't instantly understand, which makes me empathize with the people who don't instantly understand any math. The fact that my calc teacher tried to cover about three times as much as what was supposed to be in the class*, and that I never did my homework didn't help any.

I've actually disliked math since early elementary school, because they made us do speed tests on multiplication. I've never been fast, so I always did badly, but later I found that being fast isn't everything and is actually one of the least important parts.

I think some innumeracy problems can be attributed to poor reading comprehension. I always understood story problems, but I was constantly reading. There seemed to be a correlation between people who didn't like to read and those who didn't do great in math.

*By midterm, when I stopped going to class, the class was less than half as large as it had been at the beginning. The majority of people switched to other classes just to get away from the teacher.

[kitarak]

Just to say, I'm also in the "Anyone can learn maths" camp. The problem is that for some people it will require a LOT of work on their part and on the teacher's part, often more than they're willing to put in.

[kabbes]

Or put it this way, despire prior protests to the contrary, I've never actually found anyone to whom I couldn't teach maths.