What and Why?

Both what and why will evolve.

I read Gigerenzer et al’s mongraph: Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics.^[1] The monograph is elegantly written and persuasive that statistical illiteracy is a collective problem.

In this monograph, we—a team of psychologists and physicians— describe a societal problem that we call collective statistical illiteracy. In World Brain (1938/1994), H.G. Wells predicted that for an educated citizenship in a modern democracy, statistical thinking would be as indispensable as reading and writing. At the beginning of the 21st century, nearly everyone living in an industrial society has been taught reading and writing but not statistical thinking—how to understand information about risks and uncertainties in our technological world. The qualifier collective signals that lack of understanding is not limited to patients with little education; many physicians do not understand health statistics either. Journalists and politicians further contribute to the problem. One might ask why collective statistical illiteracy is not a top priority of ethics committees, medical curricula, and psychological research. One reason is that its very nature generally ensures that it goes undetected. [pg 54; bold emphasis added.]

I expected more of the same from Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science so was heartily downcast to learn just what an intellectual dead weight humanities graduates are and how they are impeding the march of science and evidence. Goldacre pays lip service to the idea of the problem of “collective statistical illiteracy” but the subtext seems to read as if he believes that the problem is located with humanities graduates.

Gigerenzer et al demonstrate that it is possible for someone to write an extensive monograph or even book that persuades the audience of the need for an understanding of the scientific method and its appropriate representation and analysis (by statistics). This was done by addressing issues that the reader understands and without alienating them with what Richard Smith refers to as a ’sneering and unattractive’ manner.

To date, Gigerenzer et al have convinced me that if I can find an appropriate course of study to follow, then I should do it. However, I’m not Goldacre’s target demographic for his book, so I’m unlikely to find it as persuasive as others may do.

As I read Goldacre’s book again, I may add in observations or findings from my additional reading that interest me. I hope to keep away from the ‘gotcha’ style of criticism that can be lazy and offers nothing constructive. 

I blog my response to articles, books, authors and commentators: my perspective is that of a arts graduate who is curious about the world and aware that media reporting can be woefully inadequate and misleading. The Glasgow Media Group were active in commenting about media manipulation and the insidious creep of editorialising and commentary rather than news reporting in the 80s although there seems to be less coverage of their work today.

From time to time I’m going to keep an eye on Daily Mail and other outlets to track the media depiction of women and the unbearable scrutiny of women’s physical imperfections and what Olay would probably term the 7 signs of ageing. Like Alone in the Dark: Fear and Despair in the Daily Mail, this reflects the Daily Mail’s circulation and is a tribute to the ease of navigation of its website.

The disdain for arts or humanities graduates and the vilification of the female form reminds me of Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt. In this unnerving film the charismatic Uncle Charlie has a dinner table rant about wealthy widows; he articulates a familiar and contemporary-sounding contempt for them.

[H]orrible, faded, fat, greedy women… Are they human or are they fat, wheezing animals, hmm? And what happens to animals when they get too fat and too old?

Of course, according to the Daily Mail, women are probably too old when they crest the age of 30: they can be too fat when they are size 4.

Bad Science is lively, timely and much-needed: however, better editing, some updates and better context-setting would have made it a much stronger book or even a classic of its niche. My opinions about the book and various topics it discusses may change or remain the same after re-reading it.

References

[1] Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Helping Doctors and Patients: Make Sense of Health Statistics (pdf). 2007; Psychological Science in the Public Interest; 8 (2), pp 53-96.