Can you put a number on it? How to understand the world | 你能识破那些用数字说出的谎言吗? - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

Can you put a number on it? How to understand the world
你能识破那些用数字说出的谎言吗?

‘If we are willing to go with our brains rather than our guts, any of us can think clearly about things’
如果我们更多地使用我们的大脑,那么我们每个人都可以更清楚地认识自己所在的世界。
00:00

How far can common sense take us in the field of statistics? At first glance, not very.

The discipline may be vital but it is also highly technical, and full of pitfalls and counterintuitions. Statistics can feel like numerical alchemy, incomprehensible to muggles — black magic, even. No wonder that, as I described last week, the most popular book on the topic, How to Lie with Statistics, is a warning about disinformation from start to finish.

This won’t do. If we are willing to go with our brains rather than with our guts, any of us can think clearly about the world by using statistics. And since much of the world — from US electoral polling data to the spread of Sars-Cov-2 to the hope of economic recovery — can most reliably be perceived through a statistical lens, that is just as well.

A useful first step is to find out what exactly the numbers are measuring. Statisticians are sometimes dismissed as “bean counters”, but most of the things in the world that we might want to count are more ambiguous than beans. For example: some studies suggest that playing violent video games causes violent behaviour.

There is no jargon here. All we need is some curiosity about what lies behind the numbers’

Before you leap to amplify — or deny — that conclusion, ask yourself whether you understand what is being claimed. What is the definition of a violent video game? Pac-Man devours sentient creatures, which sounds violent. But perhaps the researchers had something a little edgier in mind.

To move to the question of real-world violence: every time there is a mass shooting in the US, we are reminded that nearly 40,000 people there are killed by guns each year.

It is a shocking number — but few of these deaths occur during mass shootings, and more than half are suicides. The problem is vast and urgent, but it is not necessarily the problem that we assume.


Such questions suggest that the subject of statistics is even more confusing than we thought. Perhaps this is true, but there is nothing particularly technical about the answers. These are questions about the world and the words we use to describe it. There is no jargon here. All we need is some curiosity about what lies behind the numbers. And if we have no curiosity, I am not sure there is a cure for that.

The second step is more fun: faced with a statistical claim, find a way to put it into context. Is it going up or down compared with last week, or last year, or a decade ago? Is it big or small, compared with something more familiar?

Not all such attempts make sense. There is a long history, going back at least to a 1981 speech by President Reagan, of comparing the US national debt to a towering stack of dollar bills. The bigger the debt, the bigger the stack. This may help to create a sense of alarm but it doesn’t do much for clarity.

In 2011, NPR’s “Weekend Edition” tried to illustrate the US national debt by saying, “If you stack up 14.3 trillion dollar bills, the pile would stretch to the moon and back twice.

That does not help. Indeed, it is triply unhelpful, since most of us lack an intuitive grasp either of how far away the moon is or of how many dollar bills there are to the yard, and even if we had both we would still be stuck with the question of whether $14.3tn was a worryingly large debt or not.

More useful is to think of the debt as a sum per person. At the end of 2019, US federal debt was nearly $23tn, which is about $70,000 per US resident. I don’t know whether that is more or less alarming than trying to measure it out in trips to the moon but it is certainly vastly more informative.

Try the same trick with the UK health secretary Matt Hancock’s summertime claim that the NHS could save £100m in five years if all overweight people lost five pounds. A few seconds with a search engine and a calculator will tell you that this works out as 30 pence per person in the UK per year.

Everyone should familiarise themselves with a few basic facts about the world. If you know the population of the country you live in, or that it is about 3,500 miles from London to New York, you can use these landmarks to orient yourself when encountering a statistic for the first time.

When you meet a strange number, says Matt Parker, the author of Humble Pi, you can use one of these more familiar numbers to make an introduction so that you better understand the stranger. I love that way of putting it, not least because it suggests that every number is a potential friend rather than a traitor waiting to be exposed.

I’m all in favour of expertise, including statistical expertise. But in many cases it is neither necessary nor sufficient. There is a lot to be said instead for being curious, asking questions and stopping to think.

Tim Harford’s new book is ‘How to Make the World Add Up’

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

美国房屋建筑商股价下跌,因担心加息和特朗普关税

成本上升的威胁让疫情后的反弹戛然而止。

中东的老将们将在2025年受到考验

几乎没有理由对巴勒斯坦问题感到乐观,但西方可以帮助叙利亚重新站起来。

在人工智能时代,投资研究还有意义吗?

大型语言模型在某些领域可以胜过分析师,但人类的直觉是无可替代的。

“这就是Maga经济学”:特朗普在贸易上将美国引向何方

特立独行的经济学家出身的总统顾问彼得•纳瓦罗帮助恢复了一个权力优先于经济交换的世界。他会证明他的批评者是错的吗?

为什么日本是50岁人士的天堂?

在一个已成为全球老龄化先驱的国家,重要的生日显得不那么重要——无论好坏。

透纳250周年——他为何如此受人爱戴?

这位画家的影响是即时且感性的,他的主题广泛而包容:人与自然、现在与过去、帝国的兴衰。难怪他一直令人欣喜。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×