Pulling Numbers From the Air
Back in 1975, when I was hosting a talk show in Nashville, Congress was passing the Metric Conversion Act, and the government was pushing its balky citizens away from yards and gallons toward meters and liters. One of my guests was a proponent of the change, and he trotted out a figure that represented how much the auto industry alone would save in a metric world. I don’t remember the number, but it was very large and very specific. Since such an impressive number could only be arrived at by adding up a lot of smaller numbers, I asked him how much less the average car would cost. He looked at me as if I had asked him how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and he repeated the really big number for the industry as a whole.
It hit me then, and I’m periodically reminded, that our government is quite adept at creating enormous numbers designed either to frighten us or to get us to act in a certain way. The trouble comes when you try to find out how these numbers were extrapolated. If we plan to cut 400 billion from the budget, for example, what are the smaller numbers that add up to the big one? That becomes a bit more tricky. In fact, I’ve come to believe there must be some top-secret agency buried somewhere in Washington whose sole purpose is to generate really big numbers. This agency—let’s call it The U.S. Department of Making Up Numbers (DMUN)—has the task of creating figures that are large enough to generate a desired reaction, but not too large so as to be unbelievable. When it does its job well, the numbers are picked up by news agencies and advocacy groups and repeated often enough to make them real.
The DMUN can tell us how many people haven’t been counted in a census; it can give us revenue numbers for the next decade; it can tell us how many jobs will be created by industries that don’t yet exist; it can produce a number for just about any time frame on any subject. And I’m sure there’s lots of high-fiving that goes on in the DMUN cafeteria as employees share stories about where they’ve seen their made-up numbers appear. “Hey, look Mike, the Post mentions that thing about the 150,000 species we’ll lose if they don’t pass that climate bill. Damn! Should have gone for 250,000.”
On another subject, I’d like to thank the 2.5 million Ricochet subscribers who responded so positively to my last post.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
There's a joke about exorcising the DMUN in there somewhere...
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
a) Whenever I read you, Pat, I miss Ronald Reagan. I can just see him. He'd have printed this post, then folded it neatly, tucked it into his jacket pocket--and spent the next month pulling it out to read it to everyone he met.
b) This establishes that you've been a conservative since at least 1975. I've never been able to nail you down on the date of your conversion, but us Sajak watchers are taking notes.
c) The metric system? What do people think we are? French? Anyway, over my dead body--and, come to think of it, not even then. Unless my coffin measures 7 feet by two-and-a-half feet, Pat, don't let them put me in.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 10:35amRe: Pulling Numbers From the Air
I'm sure I've received higher praise, Peter, but I'm having trouble recalling when that might have been.
You can count on me, but actuarially speaking, it's unlikely I'll be around to guard against it. By that time, it's likely I'll be 1.8288 meters under.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 10:18amSep '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Pat, your post contains some deep insights on statistics. Most people don't understand statistics at all and are easily duped by their abuse.I especially like your analysis of making very precise big numbers from many small numbers. However, I disagree with your idea about DMUN. Any government agency of this importance must have a TLA (three-letter acronym), to to be confused with the self-referencing TLI (three-letter initialism).
My favorite book on the subject is Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. I'm happy to see it's still in print. You can even get it on Kindle. I treasure my thirty-year-old paper copy, obtained from a used bookstore. Remember used bookstores?
Oct '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
There's a place for all of God's creatures, right on my dinner table.
Aug '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
I'll never understand the American cultural aversion to metric. It's the one area of discussion where I won't defend the USA against the slings and arrows of my Canuckistani brethren. Metric simply makes so much more sense in so many different areas.
When it's below zero degrees, it's cold. When it's over 100 degrees, it's dinner. SIMPLE!
I can't drive 100, let alone drive 55.
But this doesn't hold for all areas.
I don't know anybody who knows how much they weigh in kilograms or how tall they are in centimetres. For height and weight we use pounds, feet and inches. You'll also find carpenters and handymen measure their materials in fractions of inches rather than millimetres.
Sometimes, the Canuckistani metric/imperial mishmash can get a little confusing. When I do graphic design work, the paper I use is 8.5"x11", yet I measure everything on the page in millimetres because it's a pain to use fractions of inches.
I think when the task requires precision, metric tends to rule. Where a rough estimate is sufficient, then imperial does the job.
Aug '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Exhibit A
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Mike LaRoche
There's a place for all of God's creatures, right on my dinner table. · May 20 at 10:55am
That reminds me of one of the most interesting sets of statistics: those that claim to show the extinction rate of plants and animals not yet discovered by humans. I'm not surprised to hear that living things may disappear before we even know they're there, but quantifying that is a truly impressive feat. In fact, environmentalists are experts at the art of pulling numbers from the air. I'll bet you a nickel you can't get through this.
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
I'll check it out. Thanks.
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
drlorentz:
My favorite book on the subject is Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics. I'm happy to see it's still in print. You can even get it on Kindle. I treasure my thirty-year-old paper copy, obtained from a used bookstore. Remember used bookstores? · May 20 at 10:43am
Mine, too! I just pulled it off the shelf and realize I have a first edition copy (1954) in hardback!
Oct '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Pat,
Just lately I have seen several references challenges to false statistics. Seems like the use of them is on the verge of being challenged by some. Good for you to take up the cause. You are an example to us all.
Love the DMUN acronym.
Oct '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Pat Sajak
Mike LaRoche
There's a place for all of God's creatures, right on my dinner table. · May 20 at 10:55am
That reminds me of one of the most interesting sets of statistics: those that claim to show the extinction rate of plants and animals not yet discovered by humans. I'm not surprised to hear that living things may disappear before we even know they're there, but quantifying that is a truly impressive feat. In fact, environmentalists are experts at the art of pulling numbers from the air. I'll bet you a nickel you can't get through this. · May 20 at 11:12am
I owe you five cents, because I couldn't. That guy lost me at "extinction debt". Being an environmentalist means never having to say you're faulty.
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Don't forget, Pat, that the Obama administration has gone even further to obfuscate things on the employment front. Counting the number of jobs created is possible, so they threw in those jobs that were "saved" as well. With the criteria sufficiently muddled, they can pull any number out of any orifice without fear of being proven wrong. But ask them to prove their numbers, as you point out, and they sweat like Bill Clinton in a deposition.
Nov '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Pat Sajak
I'll bet you a nickel you can't get through this.
I'll keep my nickel - I ain't even touching that. My jimmies are already rustling just thinking about what could be there.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 11:56amSep '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Mine, too! I just pulled it off the shelf and realize I have a first edition copy (1954) in hardback! · May 20 at 11:20am
Then you will undoubtedly enjoy this article:
Darrell Huff and Fifty Years of How to Lie with Statistics
Sep '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Misthiocracy: I'll never understand the American cultural aversion to metric. It's the one area of discussion where I won't defend the USA against the slings and arrows of my Canuckistani brethren. Metric simply makes so much more sense in so many different areas
.....
· May 20 at 11:01am
I'd have to agree with this sentiment. While pounds and inches may be quaint reminders of out past, they are a real pain in real life. What makes things even worse is the need to have two sets of tools in the lab: English and metric. I like my 1/4-20's and 8-32's as much as the next guy, but having to also support M6's and M8's is intolerable. Everyone else uses M's so let's get over it. I don't look forward to the conversion process, however.
Dec '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Bullhockey!
I can (and routinely do) divide an inch into ten thousand (10,000) equal segments and use them to do any manner of ultra precise measurement.
Your precious millimeter must be divided similarly to be of any use at these scales as well.
From a machinist's perspective, both systems are pretty much the same, because all units are three orders of magnitude too large to be useful without division anyway.
That said, I still only think in thousandths of an inch, not hundredths of a millimeter, and all the drill bits in my shop are identified by wire gage numbers, letters, or fractions of an inch, as are all the end mills and saw blades. I have no need, nor any desire to switch over to the metric system.
For starters, any time saved by things being multiples of ten is more than offset by the fact that hardware and tooling in metric sizes costs ~1.75X what the same stuff in standard sizes would cost.
Plus, I do so love to watch people who aren't versed in the use of a tape measure struggle to read the thing and then add two dimensions together.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:27pmDec '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
The agency is the Department of Aggregating Massive Numbers for Electoral Deception.
May '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
It's going to take a little time to get used to DMUN. I may just go on calling it by it's old name, the CBO.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 1:04pmDec '10
Re: Pulling Numbers From the Air
Part of this post reminds me of Dr. Sowell's laughter in the recent UK, when Peter quoted him a passage refering to "Household" data, instead of per capita; so much can be hidden by what the agenda-driven choose to measure.
As an environmental scientist (not an environmentalist), I have a terrible time with new, young employees. They can be so accustomed to just pulling things out of their nether regions that you have to comb through their work, thoroughly. One particularly bright young guy had me really puzzled as I reviewed a report of his, one night, so the next day I asked him about some numbers and, sure enough, he had just made them up from whole cloth, never considering the ethical or liability concerns! At the Christmas party that year, I presented him with a sweatshirt from Mississippi State University, which puzzled him, unitl I explained to him that the acronym, where he was concerned, refered to "Makes #$%^ Up".