The thing about numbers, is

Well said. The people problem is compounded- as we’ve seen in our present day and age from everyone from “common” folk to world leaders, when those without the expertise or subject matter knowledge trust in others without knowledge over so called “elites” who actually understand what they are talking about. Science and data science often yield conclusions that contradict instinct or intuition. On this site several days or so back was posted a picture of a table suspended and supported by chains. Several I showed it to (I was thinking of building something based off the idea) thought it must be a trick.

Even where science and engineering can explain why something works that seems counter intuitive- people often don’t want to believe it. Sometimes even showing them first hand doesn’t change their mind. They just won’t grasp reality if it argues with what they believe to be reality.

A fool will trust their own fool judgment, or the judgment of a likeminded fool, before they will trust a knowledgeable person who gives them truth they don’t like or any understand. What’s amazing is that humans are most prone to do this with things like scientific fact or math and statistics- people who know well enough that if they don’t know how to fix their car or install a sink in their home or remove an appendix- that they need to trust a knowledgeable expert.

Likewise, in public speaking certain words are specifically chosen because of how thy are perceived. The choice of words between “rioting” and “terrorism” or “protests turned violent” changes our perspective on the issue- with “violent protest” being the most sympathetic choice. Most public apologies invoke phrases like “deeply regret” vs. “I’m sorry...” because of perceptions and the projections of weakness vs strength, sincerity vs obligation.

With numbers it is no different. Wether you’re talking to a National Leader, a business executive, or a busy “joe anybody,” most people don’t have the time and or attention to go much further than initial impressions. So depending on the reaction you want to get- you use a numeric expression that is true, but will sound either like a bigger deal or a smaller deal. Because...

At the end of the day, most people don’t have a head for math. Corona virus or the lottery or even the example of an increased chance of birth defects from .5 to 1 percent are all examples. Most people just assume that anything which is a small percentage change is trivial. You’ll find plenty of people who don’t grasp the importance that 3% on a mortgage can make vs. 2%- we have an entire housing crises that occurred to show you that even when put in numbers- “your mortgage is $3,000 a month....” people would look and say: “no problem. I make $4k a month! I’ll eat out less...”

That didn’t go so well- because almost all of us are terrible at understanding math. If you happen to be, or happen to work with or have experience with critical science or engineering, you have some better grasp on the issue (if you’re any good at it that is...) most people believe that “50/50” is good odds. Those are TERRIBLE odds. Do you think NASA would launch a shuttle in a window with “50/50 odds”? (They wouldn’t...)

A shift of .5 percent to put that in perspective- Corona virus has a relatively low mortality rate but has killed at least 1.3 million world wide. .5 percent of that is about 6,500 hundred people. Which doesn’t sound so bad- unless you happen to be one of those people or their loved ones. In some cases 6,500 is more people than live in a town or village. BUT- that’s misleading. An increased mortality rate of .5% wouldn’t mean 6500 more deaths. It would mean that every one of the over 41 million infected would have a .5 percent higher chance of dying.

It’s very hard to stress how big of a deal that is. You MIGHT still end up with the same death toll anyway and all 41 million plus, or most of them, would beat the odds. But you could also end up with a MUCH higher death toll. As many are keen to point out about the Flu- at least since reliable numbers have been tracked, the common flu has killed more people in a 10 year period than Corona virus has. The numbers don’t lie.

But we are talking 10 years vs less than a year. Also understand that the common flu has a mortality rate around 0.1-0.2 percent. At 0.1 percent it has killed over a million people in 10 years. The mortality rate of Covid is debated but is, by available data, Covid is said to be 10 times more- “Only” about 1-2%. At 1-2% it has killed more people in less than a year than flu does in 10- which somewhat fits the “10x” mortality rate one might say- although again- bad math- it’s coincidence that it fits, not a reflection of the mortality rate as number of deaths depends on number of infections and other factors.

People
Suck
At
Math.

Knowing people suck at math, we can use numbers to manipulate people- sometimes arguably for “good,” since as the previous example shows- many people scoff at a “paltry” 1% mortality rate and would not fear anything less than some Hollywood-esq number like 30-50% or more. Many people don’t understand that a 1% increase to lifetime cancer risk is a BIG DAMN NUMBER, especially when you factor in that most people don’t know enough about medical science to understand that if you live long enough- you will get cancer. So increasing the risk of something that is a certainty providing you live long enough- essentially just shortens the line on a graph you have before your chances approach infinity. A 3% increase in risk is HUGE.

Almost everyone on earth has about 1% chance to develop cancer from natural background radiation. Not a huge percent. But actually yeah- huge. Why are we fighting cancer so hard if 1% is so small? 1% of 7 billion plus is a huge number. But your odds of getting cancer aren’t 1%. There are other sources of radiation exposure like medical tests, environmental contaminants, radiation used in technology, security scanners such as at airports, etc. your risk factor goes up based on exposure (not even mentioning other carcinogens.) a single CT scan can increase your odds by 1:10000. That’s small enough that when needed, it’s worth it to get a medical diagnosis- but large enough that those around these machines must limit their own exposures because repeat exposure even at those odds represents a significant health risk.

Even the radiation levels left behind by nuclear disasters or weapons only offer a relatively small increase to long term cancer risks by “common math”- and yet.... we banned nuclear testing and Chernobyl is still a big deal encased in an exclusion zone no? Because people who are good at math understand what those tiny seeming numbers mean.