Posts
 |
| Tim Harford’s guide to statistics in a misleading age Photo: The Financial Times |
“The
best financial advice for most people would fit on an index card.”
That’s the gist of an offhand comment in 2013 by Harold Pollack, a
professor at the University of Chicago. Pollack’s bluff was duly called,
and he quickly rushed off to find an index card and scribble some
bullet points — with respectable results.
When
I heard about Pollack’s notion — he elaborated upon it in a 2016 book —
I asked myself: would this work for statistics, too? There are some
obvious parallels. In each case, common sense goes a surprisingly long
way; in each case, dizzying numbers and impenetrable jargon loom; in
each case, there are stubborn technical details that matter; and, in
each case, there are people with a sharp incentive to lead us astray.
The
case for everyday practical numeracy has never been more urgent.
Statistical claims fill our newspapers and social media feeds,
unfiltered by expert judgment and often designed as a political weapon.
We do not necessarily trust the experts — or more precisely, we may have
our own distinctive view of who counts as an expert and who does not.
Nor are we passive consumers of statistical propaganda; we are the medium through which the propaganda spreads...
Be curious.
Curiosity is bad for cats, but good for stats. Curiosity is a cardinal
virtue because it encourages us to work a little harder to understand
what we are being told, and to enjoy the surprises along the way.
This
is partly because almost any statistical statement raises questions:
who claims this? Why? What does this number mean? What’s missing? We
have to be willing — in the words of UK statistical regulator Ed
Humpherson — to “go another click”. If a statistic is worth sharing,
isn’t it worth understanding first? The digital age is full of
informational snares — but it also makes it easier to look a little
deeper before our minds snap shut on an answer.
Source: The Financial Times
