The chappie who said, "Numbers don't lie" probably meant it as a statement of fact. You know, like "The Sun rises in the East" or some such thing that people do not like to dispute. The problem is that a lot of people have taken it up as a challenge. "Aha! You think we cannot make numbers lie? Just you wait and see." was probably their reaction. And they got to work on it.
Now this is not about lying about the numbers. Like the guys who create what now has the respectable name of 'Fake News'. Always wondered if it is fake, can it be news? You know, like saying '78% of the people in Timbuktu love koalas', when you do not know if Timbuktu even exists, cannot distinguish a koala from a whale, have no clue about how to work out percentages and put it out. 78% may be a number and this is a lie but THAT is a lie about a number but not a number that has been made to lie.
There are, then, the more obvious ways of making numbers lie. They call it massaging data or some such physiotherapy term. You know, like you check out with your spouse, your sons, your poodle and say '90% of people in India prefer Dairy Milk to Toblerone' or some such thing. No wonder, the first lecture on statistics for me started with, "You have white lies; then you have lies; and then you have statistics."
But what set this off for me is the latest use of numbers, which I keep bumping into on social media. You know the thing. Some government project is proposed and promptly you get memes saying, "For this cost you could have had 8 IITs, 16 IIMs, 32 primary schools etc etc". AND, you see, generally these chaps know how to use calculators, if not computers, and so the division is not erroneous. So, then, what's the problem?
You see, I belong to the old school and I like to know whether the objectives are desirable and whether they are cost-efficient. And, for me, these things say nothing about either, they merely obfuscate the problem.
You think not? That if at the cost 8 IITs can be put up, obviously the project is not worth it? I'll explain why I am confused, maybe you can sort things out for me.
For the cost of feeding one man, you can feed 4 dogs, 8 cats, a score of mice and thousands of ants, say. Now does it make it obvious that you should starve the man and feed the ants? No? Why not?
It is difficult to take a call on the welfare of men and ants, except perhaps for PETA? Okay, here is another question - "For the cost of setting up one IIT, you can set up 20 schools, feed 500 children...", say. Now?
Okay. A third question. If there is a decision to throw a 100 crores worth of copper into the Arabian sea, do you need someone telling you how many schools you could have built with it, or how many people you could have fed? When there is NO desirable goal, there is no need to compare shit like this, you just prove that the goal is undesirable.
Of course, things are not as clear as that normally. THEN, you need to discuss the fact that the goals of the project are LESS desirable than setting up an IIT etc, BEFORE throwing numbers at me. Otherwise, how am I to know that the numbers you are throwing at me is not the same as the 'how many ants can be fed by starving a human' thing?
Is your objection to the cost? Then compare the costs and benefits and tell me that the money is better utilized elsewhere. Or, how am I to know that it is not the same as comparing how many schools can be set up for the cost of one IIT?
If you will only put up this shit, it is only a way of making numbers lie. The numbers say nothing about either the desirability of the goals or about the costs and benefits of the project. AND, by indirection, you try to make the numbers tell me that the project is undesirable. (Witness, if the project is useless, it is useless even if the money will only allow me to set up 1/4th of an IIT or 1/2 of an IIM. But the comparisons never show anything LESS than 1. It is always multiples.) It is like seeing me buy a kilo of apples and telling me I could have got 5 kilos of Onions for the price and trying to make me feel that apples are not desirable.
With me, though, all that these numbers tell me is that you know division...provided you got your sums right.
Now this is not about lying about the numbers. Like the guys who create what now has the respectable name of 'Fake News'. Always wondered if it is fake, can it be news? You know, like saying '78% of the people in Timbuktu love koalas', when you do not know if Timbuktu even exists, cannot distinguish a koala from a whale, have no clue about how to work out percentages and put it out. 78% may be a number and this is a lie but THAT is a lie about a number but not a number that has been made to lie.
There are, then, the more obvious ways of making numbers lie. They call it massaging data or some such physiotherapy term. You know, like you check out with your spouse, your sons, your poodle and say '90% of people in India prefer Dairy Milk to Toblerone' or some such thing. No wonder, the first lecture on statistics for me started with, "You have white lies; then you have lies; and then you have statistics."
But what set this off for me is the latest use of numbers, which I keep bumping into on social media. You know the thing. Some government project is proposed and promptly you get memes saying, "For this cost you could have had 8 IITs, 16 IIMs, 32 primary schools etc etc". AND, you see, generally these chaps know how to use calculators, if not computers, and so the division is not erroneous. So, then, what's the problem?
You see, I belong to the old school and I like to know whether the objectives are desirable and whether they are cost-efficient. And, for me, these things say nothing about either, they merely obfuscate the problem.
You think not? That if at the cost 8 IITs can be put up, obviously the project is not worth it? I'll explain why I am confused, maybe you can sort things out for me.
For the cost of feeding one man, you can feed 4 dogs, 8 cats, a score of mice and thousands of ants, say. Now does it make it obvious that you should starve the man and feed the ants? No? Why not?
It is difficult to take a call on the welfare of men and ants, except perhaps for PETA? Okay, here is another question - "For the cost of setting up one IIT, you can set up 20 schools, feed 500 children...", say. Now?
Okay. A third question. If there is a decision to throw a 100 crores worth of copper into the Arabian sea, do you need someone telling you how many schools you could have built with it, or how many people you could have fed? When there is NO desirable goal, there is no need to compare shit like this, you just prove that the goal is undesirable.
Of course, things are not as clear as that normally. THEN, you need to discuss the fact that the goals of the project are LESS desirable than setting up an IIT etc, BEFORE throwing numbers at me. Otherwise, how am I to know that the numbers you are throwing at me is not the same as the 'how many ants can be fed by starving a human' thing?
Is your objection to the cost? Then compare the costs and benefits and tell me that the money is better utilized elsewhere. Or, how am I to know that it is not the same as comparing how many schools can be set up for the cost of one IIT?
If you will only put up this shit, it is only a way of making numbers lie. The numbers say nothing about either the desirability of the goals or about the costs and benefits of the project. AND, by indirection, you try to make the numbers tell me that the project is undesirable. (Witness, if the project is useless, it is useless even if the money will only allow me to set up 1/4th of an IIT or 1/2 of an IIM. But the comparisons never show anything LESS than 1. It is always multiples.) It is like seeing me buy a kilo of apples and telling me I could have got 5 kilos of Onions for the price and trying to make me feel that apples are not desirable.
With me, though, all that these numbers tell me is that you know division...provided you got your sums right.
Then there are those that leave the calculations to certain other folks and do the important job of sharing these on whatsapp and facebook with their own share of "ridiculous" or "outrageous" in the comments :)
ReplyDeleteHahaha. That, most certainly. 😀
Delete