A recent article, curiously enough in the Styles section of the New York Times, had the title: Statisticians 10, Poets 0. The article was about the growing number of numbers reported to \u201cus\u201d (an undefined population, but apparently we all use apps and watch cable TV). Poets 0 refers to the paucity of poetry. With regard to poetry\u2019s losing score, I have to agree 97%, which could be a statistic if I asked myself over and over and over ad nauseum to get a measure of the variation in my agreeing, but I haven\u2019t, so it is a single measurement, not a statistic. Anyway, no argment: there is not enough poetry. I must, however, raise my voice at \u201cStatisticians 10.\u201d The content of the article proves my point: it is mostly about counts and ratios, not statistics. Perhaps he means \u201cstatisticians 10\u201d on a scale of 1-100?<\/p>\n
Let me correct something intentionally misleading in the first paragraph: the author of the article does, in fact, mention some apps that are probably using statistical methods in the background, such as an app that (I\u2019m guessing) counts the times you do various things, like breathe and beat your heart, and from those numbers it infers what phase of the sleep cycle you are in (I\u2019m guessing), so that it can wake you when you are sleeping lightly. This, presumably, makes it easier to wake up and face the day. I\u2019m all for things that \u201cmake it easier\u201d just like I am all for more poetry. Another example of an actual statistic: he begins the article talking about an app that will calculates averages, and an average is a descriptive statistic. It\u2019s not good for much if you separate it from its standard deviation; the author does not mention whether the standard deviation is provided by the app, which is a shame because the app under discussion is one that tracks sexual behavior. Talk about lost opportunities.<\/p>\n
But even though I lied in the first paragraph, the average (mean, median, or mode is not disclosed) is not the kind of statistic that is going to have the devastating effect feared by some of the people quoted. A writer, whose writing I love, is quoted as saying: \u201cmetrics\u2026rob individuals of the sense that they can choose their own path.\u201d Whassat? Knowledge is the opposite of free will? Having a map robs me of the choice of where to go? The end of the quote makes me want to scream: \u201cThe surface and numbers aren\u2019t going to hold if your child gets sick or your wife gets cancer.\u201d When someone I love is sick, my number one first priority is getting them the best treatment. Finding and choosing among treatments means understanding statistics. After we all agree that we\u2019ve given the patient the best chance of recovery, then I go to poetry and literature for solace, never forgetting to be profoundly grateful to the nerds who figured out the medicine, using statistics.<\/p>\n
There is a difficulty though, aptly put by another person quoted in the article: \u201cComing up with the correct meaning is what\u2019s hard.\u201d My fear is that seeing all those averages makes people think they know something more than what they know. Humans aren\u2019t very good at statistical reasoning, on average. And it is not difficult to spout accurate statistics then make it sound as if they support a claim \u2013 pick your favorite example, advertising or political campaigns. There is a great little book called How to Lie With Statistics that will teach you how to do it. The danger is that because the statisticians are definitely not winning, numbers can be abused and we are the losers.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s to be done, what\u2019s to be done. We, defined as everyone reading this plus all teachers everywhere, have to erase the false wall between poetry and statistics. I can even argue that they are quite similar: poetry is to words as statistics is to numbers. Both capture a lot of meaning using a few symbols. I won\u2019t attempt to carry that analogy any further. But my point is that it is not either or. Understanding numbers, even complicated ones like inferential statistics, can not possibly impact our need for art. A lack of understanding of numbers, however, is a dangerous state (see: Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos). Do I need to mention political rhetoric again?<\/p>\n
We need to teach the interpretation of statistics, maybe even before we teach the statistics themselves. We need to teach the difference between description and prediction, (a rhyme, not a poem). We need to teach the difference between correlation and causation, and between measurement and reality, and we need to do it well. We should probably get some help from the poets.<\/p>\n
\u201cA poet must not aim to teach and advance a science as much as to show its advantages and make it loved.\u201d<\/strong> Ren\u00e9-Richard Castel (1758\u20131832)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A recent article, curiously enough in the Styles section of the New York Times, had the title: Statisticians 10, Poets 0. The article was about the growing number of numbers reported to \u201cus\u201d (an undefined population, but apparently we all use apps and watch cable TV). Poets 0 refers to the paucity of poetry. With […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=267"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":402,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions\/402"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/labmath.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}