posted on April 16, 2008 04:47:32 AM
I usually listen to Bloomberg Radio in the car; if you're not familiar with it, it's (mostly) a financial news station with a very good economics/analysis program on at 5PM.
There's an ad that runs frequently touting an IQ raising product that, among other things, "will make you read 1000% FASTER." It then goes on to tell you that you'll read 10 books in the time it takes others to read 1. Okay, but I guess it won't raise your basic math abilities all too much, or maybe it just won't teach you the difference between "faster" and "as fast."
The part I find funny is that most Bloomberg listeners are probably capable of "doing the math" and wouldn't pay for a product that can't do simple multiplication and addition. The part I find sad is that it reflects the growing innumeracy in the US.
posted on April 16, 2008 06:32:45 AM
Maybe I should spell this out:
If I'm reading 1000% FASTER, it means that I can read 11 books in the time I read 1 before. If it were 100% faster, that would mean 2 books in the time of 1 (not 1 book in the time of 1).
posted on April 16, 2008 06:38:41 AM
I agree with you... my point was that I don't think it "reflects the growing innumeracy" as much as it reflects poor literacy.
I blame text messages...
******************************
posted on April 16, 2008 06:52:05 AM
You might be right, but I think that numbers are giving people even more trouble than words. Part of the problem is that there is no "shame" in being bad with numbers; you'll find people (usually women, unfortunately) who almost proudly tell you that they're complete ditzes about numbers, whereas the corresponding statement about words is rare. People will acknowledge being dyslexic (and knowing a few, my heart goes out to them), but you won't hear someone say "I can't read worth a lick and there's no neurological component to it, I'm just a dumb $)(#."
After encountering a cashier who got flustered when I gave her $5.28 for a $5.08 purchase (I couldn't make this up), I have lost all faith. I gently asked her to give me 2 dimes, and she said she would have to check with the manager. Maybe I got to witness a real live stroke
Maybe that's how lenders convinced people making $40K per year that they could afford a $500K house.
posted on April 16, 2008 09:18:27 AM
cherished (you don't mind if I call you cherished, do you? ),
Well, the manager never got called, although I'm not sure that she figured out I was correct. I think that between my sympathetic but astounded look (it took me hours to perfect that look, but I used it a lot when interviewing job applicants) and a risk/reward calculation (which even the innumerate perform subconsciously quite well), she decided that risking the manager's displeasure for 20 cents wasn't a good trade. I did feel sympathy towards her, just as I would hope for sympathy if I ever got a job as a ballerina, but then again, I'm not applying for that job (for reasons of gender, weight, and artistic merit).
posted on April 16, 2008 09:55:28 AM
Cash - the best thing about my screen name is that lots of people call me cherished.
I find your cashier story both funny and sad. One of the reasons it's sad is because it's so common. I've seen lots of cashiers who can apparently only do what the cash register tells them to do!
... and if they mis-keyed something into the register, they have no ability to do a "sanity-check" on what they're told to pay back. That's why I insist that my children can do math in their heads; I know that they'll really do the work on a computer, but I want them able to estimate.
A few years ago, I had some McKinsey consultants do a cost analysis at my employer. I don't know if you're familiar with McKinsey, but they make a big fuss about hiring only the brightest of the bright, giving IQ tests before hiring, etc. Anyway, they came to present their results with the usual Powerpoint presentation. A couple of slides in, a number popped out at me as impossible. I asked them if this was the final audited version of the results, they (indignantly) replied that of course it was, they wouldn't present anything that hadn't been proofed, and then the conversation went along the lines of: "So, we have roughly 3,000 employees in NY, right? We don't amortize PCs, so the expensed cost per PC exclusive of support is AT MOST $1,500, more likely less than $1,000, right? So, I'm curious, are you suggesting that 1) the average employee has 6 PCs on their desk that they replace annually, or 2) do they have 1 PC that they replace every two months? Or, 3) how about we skip the Powerpoint and look at your methodology?
Having spotted this gaffe, I decided to drill into everything they did, and there were other equally dunder-headed mistakes that were uncovered.
FWIW, I'm not saying that they were stupid or innumerate. They were just lazy, arrogant, and believed everything that Excel showed as a result, whether it was credible or not.
