Why do we take innumeracy so casually?

2+2=LOL WHO CARES AMIRITE?

By Alex Hern Published 07 June 2012 12:24
A German child in a maths lesson. Photograph: Getty Images
1-2-3-4, it comes across as very poor, 5-6-7-8, to think innumeracy's great. Photograph: Getty Images

Kids: It's not cool to be innumerate. Struggling with basic maths is as crippling to your daily life as struggling with basic reading and writing would be, and while shame isn't answer (self-improvement might be), pride certainly isn't the right reaction either.

Not that you'd know it from Suzanne Moore, who is positively beaming as she announces in the Guardian:

We are silenced by some jargon and bogus maths (sorry, probabilities) because we are mostly innumerate and because economic orthodoxy presents itself as a higher faith. I am not the only person uncertain as to what a trillion means, surely?

Normally, using the third paragraph of a piece to declare yourself ignorant, not only of the subject of the piece, but of the most basic possible building blocks of that subject, would mean that you probably should think twice before opening Word. If you write about the failure of astronomy to predict meteor strikes, and declare in para three that you don't understand what these "planet" things are, you get laughed out the building.

Yet admitting – showing off – that you don't understand maths while you write about economics is apparently a Cool Thing To Do.

It's even more irritating because Moore makes valid points. She writes that:

Economics is not a science; it's not even a social science. It is an antisocial theory. It assumes behaviour is rational. It cannot calculate for contradiction, culture, altruism, fear, greed, love or humanity at all.

Although she is being somewhat hyperbolic, but bringing up real problems with the subject which academics are continually struggling to incorporate into their broader theories. Similarly, she writes:

Some of the free-market economists are right, but politicians can't go there. The free movement of capital really requires the free movement of labour. Go where the jobs are, but do not complain when immigration undercuts your wage.

Again, the half-hearted attempt with which many politicians apply economic teachings to policy is aggravating. There is a tendency to cherry-pick recommendations when the economic rationale requires an all-or-nothing approach. See, for example, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which merrily reduced availability of legal aid, citing a report which argued that "no-win no-fee" arrangements could make up the gap, and then also reduced the availability of those.

But criticisms like this are more powerful coming from someone who has not just proudly stated that they don't know the difference between 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 and don't believe that probability is real maths.

You don't have to believe that people are cold unfeeling automata who exist to maximise utility functions. In fact, most economists don't. But unless you plan to start your next book review with "I can't read, LOL, so this was really boring," don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 
 

4 comments

Matthew Turner's picture

Thu, 2012-06-07 23:44 — Matthew Turner (not verified)

Surely by "bogus probabilities" she is (correctly) referring to economists when they say things like "there is a 30% chance Greece will exit the euro". They are almost always figures plucked from the air, and even if they were not, are meaningless.

McMac's picture

Thu, 2012-06-07 21:50 — McMac

The ignorance as a badge of honour pervades all of our mainstream media. BA's to a man, and woman, I guess.

The issue is getting worse. Even those taking science at GCSE can get quite high grades and understand pretty much nothing.

As long as you write up nice neat notes, and produce the correct answers in your homework you're on your way. A subject that should have your brain bouncing around your head has been reduced to 'effective administration'. The same with computer science, a subject reduced to application training.

As far as I can tell the education system is trying to produce a generation of office administrators.

another AJ's picture

Thu, 2012-06-07 19:33 — another AJ (not verified)

A big problem in Britaian is the way ignorance of basic mathematics and science is acceptable even talked about with pride in a way that ignorance of language and culture is not.

The reality is that when we are thinking about the effects of policies and decisions on society then there are uncertainties and risk in the current situation, and the effects of policies and outcome. The best tools we have to understand and deal with these uncertainties and risks are statistics and the concepts of probability. The scary thing is that the political and social elites have almost no knowledge of either and even worse a contempt for them.

The problem is not one of a split between scientific and cultural society but of a willful celebration and promotion of ignorance by the social and cultural elites. I know of no one with a scientific, engineering or mathematical background who does not actively participate in cultural life through books, films, theare and films but very very few cultural figures who are interested in science. Many actively if perhaps unconsciously promote the idea that ignorance of science and maths is to be celebrated or aspired to and that those who understand science and maths are geeks who should be mocked.

The reality is that the greatest cultural achievement of the human race is our understanding of science and mathematics. No one should consider themselves to be educated unless they have basic understanding of both.

The situation seems to be getting worse. I recruit engineers and it is clear that there is low prestige and interest in the UK but a fantastic appreciation and aspiration to be an engineer outside the UK in India or China for example. The contempt in which the elite in Britain regard those who design develop and manufacture real products in the UK was encapsulated in the 1980s under the conservatives. It was government policy to reduce UK indusry claiming we were living in a post-industrial age. This contempt for those whose business is based in the reality of science and technology is derived from contempt for science and technology generally.

What can we do about it. We should start by supporting science, technology and maths degrees as these are degrees with real strategic value to the UK long term. The tuition fees should be substantially less if not free.
No one should be admitted to a degree course in any subject without basic science and maths qualifications. When I studied natural sciences I was required to have basic language skills, latin, a foreign language and english. It seems to me that the general principle that anyone studying for a degree should a have a basic rounded knowledge is correct.

Lastly we should name and shame through derision anyone who seems to take pride in ignorance.

IanCStirk's picture

Thu, 2012-06-07 14:10 — IanCStirk (not verified)

I completely agree. I almost gave up reading Moore's otherwise interesting article after that stupid paragraph. How can so many British people take pride in their ignorance of even basic mathematics?

Latest tweets