Numbers make things appear predictable and stable. Saying 'He is six feet tall' is more definitive than saying 'He is tall'. We like things to be measurable and finite. Go to any bookstore and look at the self-help section. You will see all sorts of topics reduced to a finite number of things - Seven Habits, Five Ways, Ten Values, etc., etc. It is comforting to find that things can be specified in this manner. They look manageable. 'Five Easy Fixes' is more attractive than 'One Hundred Ways' to do something.
We are so addicted to numbers that we have started to apply them even when dealing with intangible things. The nurse asks a patient to describe the intensity of his pain on a scale of 1 to 10. How does he do that? I have no clue but this is a standard question used by medical professionals now. I suppose if the pain is unbearable, the patient will say 10 and get medication. If on the other hand, he says 4, he may merely receive some words of comfort. The point is tolerance to pain varies widely from one individual to another. What is level 10 anyway? Do I even want to know? Instead of asking the patient, maybe the nurse can be trained to gauge the pain level by poking the part in question. If the patient merely winces it is level 3, if he swears loudly then it is 7, and so on. If he faints, then it is surely level 10.
It is now fairly common to employ a scale of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 to measure almost anything. The problem is there is no reference point to know what this actually means. I am sure you have been to restaurants that want us to specify the level of spiciness in their dishes using this scale. Without a common basis, level 5 in one eatery may merely be 3 in another. One diner may find that level 10 hardly tickles his taste buds while another may feel like he is on fire with a mere 3. So the scientific sounding measure turns out to be pretty useless in this case.
Numbers can be used to lull us into a false sense of confidence. Advertisers know this well. An ad claims that four out of five people preferred product A over B in a blind study. But we don't know the actual sample size. What we may not know is that they actually surveyed 50 people and dropped many data points and used only 20 so that they could 'truthfully' claim four out of five chose A. The 30 people excluded may have chosen B! On the other hand, if they only surveyed five then it is a very small sample size and the result is suspect. As they say in many ads, your results may vary. So numerical data can be stated to appear more respectable than they are. Here's another example. If a job applicant says he was among the top ten in his class, it merely means that he was actually the tenth. If he was any higher, he would have been more specific. In any case, without knowing the class size, we cannot be sure if this is good or not.
Don't get me wrong. Of course, numbers are important. The human body needs many parameters to fall within narrow ranges. Small variations in certain hormone levels, for example, can wreak havoc on one's health. We are very much like Goldilocks in this sense. But extreme dependence on numbers is a little unsettling to me. My entire health is being reduced to a set of numbers and decisions are made on the basis of where they fall on a chart. Are my numbers within the range or outside? That is certainly useful to know. But now complicated formulae are used to arrive at a number and they in turn decide whether I should be put on a drug regimen or not. 'Your risk of a cardiac event in the next ten years is x %. So you should start taking this tablet (usually for the rest of your life)' - I am not sure I want to go that far. I wonder if doctors are being relieved of their responsibility with this reliance on digital diagnosis.
To be fair, one must also consider the plight of doctors. Research studies come out with various confusing guidelines now and then. The drug companies keep pushing medicines through intense advertisements that urge you to 'ask your doctor about' their new wonder drug. The internet is full of all sorts of articles that purport to give medical information. Second opinion these days most likely comes from Dr. Google. In fact, Google can help you obtain third, fourth or as many opinions as you want. I am sure many patients are bringing the wisdom gained online to the consulting rooms. I wonder how the poor doctor deals with them.
If you find comfort in the numbers, you may be disturbed by research that's constantly contradicting previous findings. Or moves the goal posts by changing the numbers. For example, saturated fats are supposed to be bad. Or are they? Lower cholesterol levels mean better heart health. Or do they? Statins work by lowering cholesterol. Or maybe their benefit comes from something else. Of course almost every study also says that we should not change what we are doing on the basis of the study. All a lay person can do is reach a state of learned ignorance after reading about different studies and their conclusions. This actually makes the case for asking your doctor who is best equipped to deal with the deluge of information.
I think it is fitting that I end with some statistics of my own. This piece is among my top 50 posts and as of the time of publishing, one hundred percent of the people who read it, have liked it. Now, if you would like to rate this post, may I suggest you use a scale of 5 to 5?
We are so addicted to numbers that we have started to apply them even when dealing with intangible things. The nurse asks a patient to describe the intensity of his pain on a scale of 1 to 10. How does he do that? I have no clue but this is a standard question used by medical professionals now. I suppose if the pain is unbearable, the patient will say 10 and get medication. If on the other hand, he says 4, he may merely receive some words of comfort. The point is tolerance to pain varies widely from one individual to another. What is level 10 anyway? Do I even want to know? Instead of asking the patient, maybe the nurse can be trained to gauge the pain level by poking the part in question. If the patient merely winces it is level 3, if he swears loudly then it is 7, and so on. If he faints, then it is surely level 10.
It is now fairly common to employ a scale of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 to measure almost anything. The problem is there is no reference point to know what this actually means. I am sure you have been to restaurants that want us to specify the level of spiciness in their dishes using this scale. Without a common basis, level 5 in one eatery may merely be 3 in another. One diner may find that level 10 hardly tickles his taste buds while another may feel like he is on fire with a mere 3. So the scientific sounding measure turns out to be pretty useless in this case.
Numbers can be used to lull us into a false sense of confidence. Advertisers know this well. An ad claims that four out of five people preferred product A over B in a blind study. But we don't know the actual sample size. What we may not know is that they actually surveyed 50 people and dropped many data points and used only 20 so that they could 'truthfully' claim four out of five chose A. The 30 people excluded may have chosen B! On the other hand, if they only surveyed five then it is a very small sample size and the result is suspect. As they say in many ads, your results may vary. So numerical data can be stated to appear more respectable than they are. Here's another example. If a job applicant says he was among the top ten in his class, it merely means that he was actually the tenth. If he was any higher, he would have been more specific. In any case, without knowing the class size, we cannot be sure if this is good or not.
Don't get me wrong. Of course, numbers are important. The human body needs many parameters to fall within narrow ranges. Small variations in certain hormone levels, for example, can wreak havoc on one's health. We are very much like Goldilocks in this sense. But extreme dependence on numbers is a little unsettling to me. My entire health is being reduced to a set of numbers and decisions are made on the basis of where they fall on a chart. Are my numbers within the range or outside? That is certainly useful to know. But now complicated formulae are used to arrive at a number and they in turn decide whether I should be put on a drug regimen or not. 'Your risk of a cardiac event in the next ten years is x %. So you should start taking this tablet (usually for the rest of your life)' - I am not sure I want to go that far. I wonder if doctors are being relieved of their responsibility with this reliance on digital diagnosis.
To be fair, one must also consider the plight of doctors. Research studies come out with various confusing guidelines now and then. The drug companies keep pushing medicines through intense advertisements that urge you to 'ask your doctor about' their new wonder drug. The internet is full of all sorts of articles that purport to give medical information. Second opinion these days most likely comes from Dr. Google. In fact, Google can help you obtain third, fourth or as many opinions as you want. I am sure many patients are bringing the wisdom gained online to the consulting rooms. I wonder how the poor doctor deals with them.
If you find comfort in the numbers, you may be disturbed by research that's constantly contradicting previous findings. Or moves the goal posts by changing the numbers. For example, saturated fats are supposed to be bad. Or are they? Lower cholesterol levels mean better heart health. Or do they? Statins work by lowering cholesterol. Or maybe their benefit comes from something else. Of course almost every study also says that we should not change what we are doing on the basis of the study. All a lay person can do is reach a state of learned ignorance after reading about different studies and their conclusions. This actually makes the case for asking your doctor who is best equipped to deal with the deluge of information.
I think it is fitting that I end with some statistics of my own. This piece is among my top 50 posts and as of the time of publishing, one hundred percent of the people who read it, have liked it. Now, if you would like to rate this post, may I suggest you use a scale of 5 to 5?
