Is Poor Numeracy Ruining Lives?

Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports on how millions of people struggle to understand a payslip or a train timetable, or pay a household bill. Government figures show that almost half the working population of England have only primary school math skills, and research suggests that weak math skills are linked with an array of poor life outcomes such as prison, unemployment, exclusion from school, poverty and long-term illness. 'We are paying for this in our science, technology and engineering industries but also in people's own ability to earn funds and manage their lives,' says Chris Humphries. He is the chairman of National Numeracy, an organization seeking to emulate the success of the National Literacy Trust, which has helped improve reading and writing standards since it was set up nearly 20 years ago. The Department for Education wants the vast majority of young people to study math up to 18 within a decade to meet the growing demand for employees with high level and intermediate math skills. 'It is simply inexcusable for anyone to say "I can't do maths,"' adds Humphries. "

Comments

I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[peter303]

Often either a customer or the cashier makes an arithmetic mistake and neither catches it. If the errors didnt average out over time, then I might have said something. Dont want to slow down the line.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Rary]

Cashiers used to be expected to be capable of some basic arithmetic, but not so anymore.

It used to be that they would confirm the change amount by adding it up from the owed amount to the paid amount. Now, they just pile the change on top of the bills and silently try to slide it onto your hand, which invariably results in some of the precariously piled change falling onto the counter.

And if, after they've rung it in and had the cash register tell them how much change to give, you try to give them a little extra change so that they'll give you back a nice round bill instead, then they'll just stare at you like you're trying to pay with live snails.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of that isn't the cashiers fault. It's amazing how many people get confused if you try to count back change like that now.

On the other hand, I've seen some registers that instead of showing change due as $14.68 will show
1x$10
4x$1
2x$.25
1x$.10
1x$.05
3x$.01
Except with pictures of the coins and bills.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[beelsebob]

She probably knew her till was already down, and was trying to rebalance it.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[oldmac31310]

? Whenever I pay by cash the change amount is worked out on the register from the amount tendered. Seems like there is actually no need for any basic mathematical skills these days apart from just counting up the change to match the read out on the register. Not saying it is right, just that the modern cash register has made all but the most fundamental mathematical skills redundant at the cash point.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[CPTreese]

mod ^ funny

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[chill]

I get the same thing when I make a purchase of something like a cup of coffee for $1.21 then tell them I want $18.79 in gas. They are AMAZED that it adds up exactly to $20, which is what I was holding.

I actually had a cashier -- 50-year old woman, not a kid -- comment on that yesterday. "How do you do that?"

Sad.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[khallow]

She probably pocketed the difference. Apparently, men are easy prey for this sort of skimming the till since they don't count the change very often. The store doesn't notice anything wrong since they get the money they expect to get.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[fph il quozientatore]

Sometimes, when I buy just three or four items, I add up the bill in my head while I am in the line. The following scene already happened to me two times: the cashier tells me the total, I realize it doesn't match, I make a strange face and say something, I double-check the bill, I realize that they have scanned an item twice. The saving was trivial, but the impression you make on the cashier is priceless.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[js_sebastian]

And if, after they've rung it in and had the cash register tell them how much change to give, you try to give them a little extra change so that they'll give you back a nice round bill instead, then they'll just stare at you like you're trying to pay with live snails.

This is also the case, for different reasons, in Japan. If you give someone extra money to make the change a round number, they give it back to you first, and then give you change. And the most hilarious thing is that vending machines there have the exact same behavior.

Disclairmer: I am no expert on japan, but this was the experience I had on a short trip there several years ago.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Trapick]

This is terrible thinking. You're right, the cashier doesn't have to know anything about arithmetic to give out change - unless they accidentally hit the wrong button the register. Which they do. Because fingers are fat and slow, and registers are dumb machines. So when the cashier hits $10.00 instead of $20.00 for the bill I gave him, I want him to know enough math to give me an extra $10 in change - since that's what he owes me. If you think this is a trivial example, manage some cashiers sometime. A quarter will correctly adjust (correctly) instantly, a quarter will simply not notice and give a person too little (or too much) change, and half will realize they hit the wrong button, stop, panic, and call someone for help to sort it out.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[yodleboy]

ex wife goes to a store armed with a 25% off coupon. buys a few items and goes to register. the cashier can't figure out 25% off, even with a calculator. so she calls the manager. they slap some buttons for a while and eventually decide on an amount that's 25% of the price... ex wife wishes she'd bought a cart load.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Xandrax]

I get a dumbfounded look from a cashier every now and then when I give more than owed so I can get a large bill back as change (rather than ones). They'll take, for example, the $22 I gave them for a $16.50 bill and just stand there staring at the money in their hand. Some even go so far as to try to hand me the extra $2 back.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[lgw]

Back when I delivered pizza, I had one of those hand change-makers on my belt, which with a bit of practice would allow you to dispense a given amount of change very quickly. When someone would hand me a $20, and seemed to want the change back, I'd give them the exact amount in a hurry.

Some people looked at me like I had just pulled a rabbit out of my hat. They were dumbfounded that, if the bill was $16.83, and I could just hand them $3.17, that the amount would be right. I had regularly had people ask me "how did you do that" - they really couldn't understand that I could easily a number from 100, and thought there must be some secret trick.

And that was back in th days before you were allowed to use calculators in math class. That level of innumeracy still amazes me.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Pope]

I went to my local Starbucks a year or two ago, and my order came out to $3.66 after tax.
I gave the cashier $5.16

She looked at it. Added it up. Said to me with a bit of hesitation "You gave me..."
I said "$5.16"
She asked me if that was right?
I said yes.

She punched the $5.16 into the register, it calculated the change, and she gave it to me, still with a bit of a puzzled look on her face.

She was in her 40s I'd say, so certainly not some recently graduated teenager.

I think she was trying to figure it out in her head but just couldn't do the subtraction, which made me wonder: if she wasn't all that great at math, why not just let the machine do all the work?

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[FooAtWFU]

That's not really a terrible idea for a cash register. It seems like it would make things less error-prone, even for people who are good at counting cash. When they switched from manual price stickers to UPC barcodes, fat-finger errors in the "here let me type that price in" process became a thing of the past.

Of course, at the local Safeways, the cashier gives you back change in bills and an automatic device dispenses all the coins. This is faster than handling the coins. The self-checkout stands can dispense bills as well.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Hatta]

Why do you think she's a cashier at 50?

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[chill]

Because she's co-owner, with her husband. Family labor is cheaper and infinitely simpler from a tax standpoint.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[retchdog]

with few exceptions, i always correct the cashier. overall, in the past five years, this has resulted in a net "loss" of maybe $20.

the exceptions are when the cashier is a dick. decency is a mutual axiom; if you violate it, so will i.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[Ihmhi]

Why do they even allow cashiers to open the drawer anymore? Couldn't cash registers have those money dispenser dealies? You know, the things they have on the Self Checkouts now. It would virtually eliminate errors.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[canadian_right]

.. cashier does no math ...

Or offer the cashier something other than a couple of big bills to avoid getting a pocketful of change, and watch the light turn on when your change is a twoonie instead of 13 coins.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[hairyfeet]

You wanna know what is sad? I ended up getting $25 worth of groceries free last year because the local grocery was gonna have to shut down because their cash registers went on the fritz. i told them "If you need them so bad why don't you just send someone down the street to pick up some cheapo calcs?' but since they were short handed the manager offered to pay me for the calcs AND give me my groceries for free if I'd go do it. They were late teens/early twenties and not a single one could count change without a machine! my oldest was like "Geez, you go get the calcs and i'll help them, otherwise by the time you get back the line will be around the block".

I think that in the nutshell is the problem...we have become too dependent on tech. I'll admit while basic maths i'm fine at i doubt seriously I could do algebra anymore as i'm used to having a calc that can solve for X. I'm just glad they have great tutors at my oldest boy's college because there was no way i could do college level trig and algebra anymore, if I ever run into a problem like that I have an ex NASA engineer i can call. You give him his classic HP with RPN and a slide rule and I doubt seriously there is anything he can't figure.

Maybe that's the answer, teach everyone how to use the cheap calcs. hell the $8 calcs now are nicer and have more functions than the $200 calcs they had when i went to HS, its just so many kids don't even know how to input the data to get the results.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[EdIII]

That might actually be required.

CompUSA, before it went bankrupt, had some of the worst cashiers and managers of all time.

I have tried to purchase a $30-$40 dollar item before, handed the girl a $100 bill, and she handed me back ~$160 dollars in change. I just looked at her for a moment and then nicely asked if she wanted to double check that. She acted like I was trying to rip her off and failed the double check. Gave her a quick math lesson and walked off.

She needed the visual indications for what change to give me.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[w_dragon]

I worked at Wendy's through high school, so I have some experience with cash registers and handling those small amounts of cash. I also have a degree in math - simple arithmetic has never been an issue for me. That quarter of people who adjust quickly were either paying extra attention to you for some reason, or were new at their jobs. Handling a cash register is a simple, repetitive task so your brain quickly makes a habit out of the normal transaction and you do it unconsciously. When someone tells you you've made a mistake your brain turns off autopilot and dumps you into a situation you haven't really been aware of. They shouldn't need to call for help, but it does give you a moment of panic, like walking in the front door of your house and not remembering the trip home because you weren't really paying attention. That moment makes it look like you don't know what you're doing, but that isn't always the case.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[w_dragon]

For vending machines that may make sense, they may be able to give you back part of your money without going to their stocked change reserves, which means they can go longer without someone adding change (at least here the money you put in usually just goes into a big bucket, it's not recycled in the machine).

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[w_dragon]

Many of my university level math exams didn't allow calculators. I see the need for calculators for science courses and statistics perhaps, but for most math they're unnecessary if the teacher is good. Either you're testing the arithmetic and a calculator would defeat the purpose, or you're not testing arithmetic and the numbers should be picked to work out well.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[jackbird]

I spent a summer working a register, and I can tell you that while at the start of the summer I could make change in my head fairly quickly and accurately, something about the mental state of using the register to figure change absolutely ruined that faculty. Took a couple of months for it to return in the fall.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[eharvill]

Cashiers used to be expected to be capable of some basic arithmetic, but not so anymore.

When I worked at a fast food joint in 1991 the management realized I could do basic arithmetic in my head and put me at drive through duty the majority of my shifts. Our antiquated (old even for 1991) cash registers could only handle one order or transaction at a time. Given the nature of drive through I typically had 3-5 orders to deal with at a given time. Any change I gave back had to be calculated in my head vs relying on a fancy cash register. Anyone else who worked the drive through had a calculator handy to calculate change. So based on my experience, even 20 years ago most cashiers failed at basic math. Maybe we have to go back another 20 years for these competent cashiers?

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[oiron]

Visiting Japan was like visiting Mars or something, that way... So utterly other-worldly!

When there's no cash register, there's at least a calculator on the desk, and to confirm that he has the correct figure, even if it's two items - heck, even if it's one item, the cashier will punch it into the calculator and hand it to you for checking... Then you put the money in a little tray and they do another subtraction on the calculator to get the change amount...

All this is not because their numeric skills are lacking - they will tell you the amount as they're punching it in... It's just a cross-check and validation...

Robot people!

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[The Wild Norseman]

they really couldn't understand that I could easily a number from 100, and thought there must be some secret trick.

I see you perform the same secret trick with English too!

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[u38cg]

In the UK, cashiers routinely have their floats counted out and in every time they get on a register. Variances over a certain amount - usually a pound - are disciplinary action territory. If you can't count, you stack shelves until you see the error of your ways.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[TheRaven64]

If a calculator is any help, then it's not maths, it's arithmetic. Another good rule of thumb: if the question doesn't start 'prove that...' then it's probably not maths either.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[omglolbah]

I can count on one hand how many times I have seen someone pay with cash at the local grocery store in the past few months..

Stores HATE cash here, use your debit card.. takes much less time (poke card in slot, punch 4 digit code, hit ok. YAY) and eliminates the wait.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[djnewman]

18 years in the grocery business tells me that when the cash registers started figuring out the change was the end of checkers that could count. (here comes the when I was young story) When I started, the registers were mechanical and did their best to add the bill. When the order was done, you asked the customer for $18.75 and got a $20. You counted back the change - ".25 is $19 and $1 makes $20". If you handed the customer $1.25 like they do now, you'd be looking for a job. It still drives me crazy.

Re:I am amused standing in a cashiers line

[billcarson]

I must admit I rarely check the change a cashier passes me back. However, this is mostly because I don't want to hold up the waiting line any longer than necessary. (I find arithmetic without a piece of paper very hard).

If you can't

[gurps_npc]

If you can't add, you can't buy things.

If you can't multiply / divide , you can't run a business.

If you don't know anything about combinatorix (odds), you get suckered by any form of gambling, including insurance, warranties and the stock market.

If you don't understand exponential math, you can't become wealthy.

Re:If you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance is not quite the same as gambling... while it is true that *if* you can afford it, self insurance (i.e. none) is generally more economical in the long run, most people are not able to absorb the high impact, low frequency damages that insurance protects against. If you can't absorb losing your house @ $250k, then you get fire insurance. If you can't absorb the cost of a new car in the event you crash your own, you get car insurance.

The warranties thing is definitely true, though, as most people can afford a new computer ($1k) if their current one breaks. Given the price of extended warranties, if you buy it three or four times you have spent enough to buy a new machine anyway.

Re:If you can't

[Mindcontrolled]

Oh well, if you do not understand exponential maths, you can become an economist preaching that the status quo is sustainable. Good money to be made there.

Re:If you can't

[gewalker]

Well, we could add the rule, if you can't do some simple arithmetic, you can't vote. Maybe that would change some outcomes in a positive way.

Before you decide this would be unconstitutional (in the USA) let me advise you, you would be wrong. Nothing in the US Constitution recognizes an unconditional right to vote, it just establishes that certain forms of voter discrimination are not allowed (e.g., racial or gender) and leaves most of the rules up to the states. States that gave literacy tests were ruled unconstitutional (rightly so), because the practice was designed and practiced as a form of racial discrimination. Nothing is inherently racial about a literacy test or math test. I also understand that many courts would disagree with me -- matters not, judges don't actually follow the constitution as is clear in a number of cases. If you doubt this, compare what the constitution actually says to dred scott v sandford, roe v wade, the slaughter house cases, plessy v ferguson and kelo vs new london.-- I put in cases that offend the both the left and the right. They all offend me because they are blatantly bad from a constitutional basis. This BTW does not mean that they are bad from a policy basis -- however, the correct solution is to amend the law.

This does not mean it would be a bad idea. Most governments have so really stupid laws practices that would benefit society most by immediate termination.

Re:If you can't

[Sique]

Car insurance covers much more than just the new car. Car insurance mainly covers the damage you could inflict upon others if you make a mistake while driving. I don't know if you are able to pay the care for someone who is quadriplegic for the rest of his life because you hit his motocycle in an accident.

Re:If you can't

[w_dragon]

You're probably only required to have liability though. That won't get your car replaced if you crash.

Re:If you can't

[roc97007]

> If you don't understand exponential math, you can't become wealthy.

I know a guy who married into wealth. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a test...

Re:If you can't

[tibit]

Car insurance has limits, and the legally mandated minimums are silly in some places. In many, if not all, U.S. states, the minimums are at or under $20k per person in bodily injury liability coverage. If I'd be seriously injured by someone in a car accident, then say $20k pretty much pays to get me in the door of a hospital and may cover a relatively simple trauma case like a simple fracture of a leg, say. It won't cover any rehabilitation, loss of wages, nor any complex procedures that include external circulation and such, nor will it cover more than a couple of days of stay in the hospital. IOW: it's a joke. I personally carry injury coverage for more than 25x that, and I seriously consider doubling or tripling that.

Re:If you can't

[gurps_npc]

You presumed that gambling is a bad thing and that buying insurance is gambling. Neither is correct.

Gambing is fine - if the odds are in your favor. I.E. If someone offers you a 2:1 odds in favor of Ron Paul being president, TAKE THE BET!

Failing to buy insurance for large purchases, such as a car or home is not only gambling, but the odds are not in your favor. You should do it because the set amount of money each month is more than worth the hell you go through if you need the insurance and don't have it.

I do agree that most warranties are a bad bet.

Re:If you can't

[gurps_npc]

When a guy marries into wealth, he doesn't become wealthy, his wife remains wealthy. Ask any divorce lawyer.

Note, that is not always true about women marrying into wealth. Judges still discriminate, at least in my personal experience.

Re:If you can't

[gurps_npc]

I was talking about the kinky version.

Seriously, though, it's been 20 years since I took the class and when I googeld it, google auto fixed my spelling and I did not realize it.

Re:If you can't

[bill_mcgonigle]

you get suckered by any form of gambling, including insurance, warranties and the stock market.

Ever wonder why the State Gambling Commissions revenues go back to schools? Probably to buy equipment for the sports programs.

Re:If you can't

[lgw]

Insurance in cases where you could afford to self-insure is certainly gambling, and it's always a bad bet. Only when you can't afford the sudden loss would it make any kind of sense. This is why most warentees suck, and why most people make bad choices amoung health insurance plans - simple innumeracy.

My favorite example: at both my current and previous jobs, you had two health insurance plans offered by the same insurer. One had a deductable $3000/year higher, and cost $3000/year less. Almost everyone chose the other (and these were working professionals, who could certainly absorb a $3000 hit if they really had to). Trying to explain made me realize what "innumeracy" meant.

Re:If you can't

[Cid Highwind]

"If you don't understand exponential math, you can't become wealthy."

Not understanding that exponential growth can't continue forever on a planet of finite mass and energy input qualifies you to be an economist, and a few of them become wealthy! (Though most toil in obscurity teaching freshman-level classes and make 1% of what the football coach does...)

Re:If you can't

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Car insurance mainly covers the damage you could inflict upon others if you make a mistake while driving.

In theory yes. In practice car insurance protects your personal wealth from being taken by the people you inflict damage on in an accident. If you have a net worth of zero, they aren't going to even bother suing you. But if you have a couple of million you are now a juicy target. So rich people carry a lot more car insurance than poor people do because it is all just CYA.

Re:If you can't

[Hatta]

Of course, if most people were required to bear complete financial responsibility for an accident, they'd be unable to drive. That would grind the economy to a halt. The real solution to this problem is universal health care. If you get into an accident, it shouldn't matter how wealthy the person at fault is.

Re:If you can't

[lgw]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

Re:If you can't

[bigbird]

If you don't understand exponential math, you can't become wealthy.

If you don't understand exponential math, you might be silly enough to buy a lottery ticket, and just might win it :)

Re:If you can't

[Fjandr]

This BTW does not mean that they are bad from a policy basis -- however, the correct solution is to amend the law.

It's too bad so many people believe the ends justify the means. That's usually the reason the above caveat is necessary, and I myself have certainly encountered the sort of knee-jerk outrage that stems from not putting up such a disclaimer. So many people assume I'm a left-wing or right-wing fanatic (depending on what I'm disagreeing with at the time) simply because I disagree with the method, usually despite saying I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome (well, the intended outcome, since the two are rarely the same thing in politics).

Re:If you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't add, you can't buy things.

If you can't multiply / divide , you can't run a business.

If you don't know anything about combinatorix (odds), you get suckered by any form of gambling, including insurance, warranties and the stock market.

If you don't understand exponential math, you can't become wealthy.

if you can't spell ("combinatorix?"), or you don't know proper mathematical language ("exponential math"?), you post on Slashdot...

Re:If you can't

[canadian_right]

Where I live only the car insurance that covers your damage and liabilities to others is mandatory. I expect that is common. Collision (what we call own damage) and fire/theft/etc... is optional.

Re:If you can't

[stephanruby]

If you can't add, you can't buy things.

If you can't multiply / divide , you can't run a business.

Not exactly true. They did a study on Brazilian homeless kids who sold fruits on the streets. They couldn't formally add, subtract, or multiply, but when it came time to selling fruits, giving back change, and doing all kinds of complicated transactions, they could do all the math correctly then.

And no, I'm not trying to disagree with your main point, I just like to nitpick sometimes -- even if I agree with the person's main message.

If you don't know anything about combinatorix (odds), you get suckered by any form of gambling, including insurance, warranties and the stock market.

And yet, there are still people who know all these things rationally, but who do not act on that knowledge when making decisions.

Re:If you can't

[Roachie]

yes, a combinatorix is someone who will come over and spank your ass in countless different ways.

Re:If you can't

[nomadic]

How many times exactly have you been divorced?

Re:If you can't

[EdIII]

I know a guy who married into wealth. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a test...

In his case the alphabet probably helped him more. Specifically, licking it.

Re:If you can't

[w_dragon]

That doesn't solve the problem, although it may reduce it. Here in Canada if you injure someone such that they can no longer perform their job you may be on the hook for the wages they would have reasonably made. Want to guess how much it can cost to permanently injure a dentist's dominant hand?

Re:If you can't

[w_dragon]

What's doing the growing? Because we can fit a lot more digits on those bills, and if 128-bit numbers can no longer represent my bank account we can damn well switch to 256-bits. Economic growth != more physical things necessarily. These days it often means the opposite. Which has more value, an original iPod or an iPod nano?

Re:If you can't

[nedlohs]

Sure but lots of people in additional to that type of coverage get insurance against theft as well, when they could choose not to.

Re:If you can't

[ubernostrum]

Hit it on the head. Insurance isn't about odds, it's about turning unpredictable liabilities into predictable ones.

Re:If you can't

[Cederic]

Yeah, but buying car or home insurance these days consists of entering your details into a website and clicking the button marked, "show me the cheapest price". No real need for you to do any calculations yourself.

Gas providers on the other hand use complex pricing schemes that require a full on bloody spreadsheet to cope with. I hate switching power supplies, but do so regularly to mitigate the repeated price rises.

Re:If you can't

[Cederic]

I don't think I know two people that own their homes outright.

Wait until you get older. My elder colleagues are there already, one friend is and I'm £4k short if I want to (but I don't want to).

Re:If you can't

[toddestan]

The type of insurance that is required for automobiles is liability for damage that you may cause in the case of an accident for others property and their medical expenses. Insuring your own car for damage that you might do it in an accident is strictly optional.

Re:If you can't

[gurps_npc]

None. But I have friends that are divorced and my father got divorced twice. The first time, amicably, the second time was hell (Note, my father made several stupid decisions, including picking a lawyer that was used to dealing with amicable divorces.)

Don't know about Numeracy

[Oswald McWeany]

Don't know about Numeracy - but numerology ruined my life. Fortune cookie told me 05 14 46 52 56 were my lucky numbers. I ran up huge credit card debt expecting to win the lottery with these numbers... then I found out fortune cookie didn't give me the powerball number.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Anonymous Coward]

My fortune cookie told me 4 8 15 16 23 42 and I ended up trapped for years in an island, only to find out I was dead. It was awful! No more fortune cookies for me.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Gilmoure]

That can't be true otherwise you wouldn't be able to pre-roll all the 1's out of your 20 sided before you start gaming.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Hognoxious]

Where did he say he played them for the same draw, genius?

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[roc97007]

You were playing the wrong game. It was a Megabucks number.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[jeffmeden]

Where did he say he played them for the same draw, genius?

It would be pretty hard to go into debt only playing once per draw... Genius. Powerball only draws 2 times per week, the tickets are $2, so if he "ruined himself" by increasing his debt by $4 a week then I suspect he either has been playing since 1988 or he hasn't made the minimum payments on his card and allowed the late fees and interest to compound relentlessly (which, sadly, I would not be surprised happened.) Still, he has then fallen victim to predatory lending instead of poor probability skills...

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Culture20]

I do that by carving an extra "0" on the "1" side. I get more 10's as a result, but I never critically fail!

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Culture20]

Not to defend Hognoxious, but

I ran up huge credit card debt expecting to win the lottery

could easily (and I inferred it to) mean that he ran up credit card debt on other things, expecting to win. Since he never mentioned that he played, his problem could have been that he forgot to buy a ticket. But since it was clearly a joke anyway, I doubt that was really his problem.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[stephanruby]

Now, you're being silly. You should have played a lottery based in China, that's where fortune cookies originally come from.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[EdIII]

Actually.... playing them for the same draw has some advantages.

Sounds strange, but there have been plenty of instances in which more than one person shares the jackpot. If there are 5 winning tickets, each person gets 20%. There have been some instances in which the split for was considerably more than 5.

They are just $1. If you are playing non-random choices getting an extra ticket increases your share of the pool.

It's a real edge case to be sure, but it's not like there are no advantages to playing the same numbers in the same draw. It's just a much greater gamble. Like putting $400 dollars down on rolling eight the hard way in craps.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[TheRaven64]

There was a case in the national lottery in the UK some years ago where so many people guessed six numbers correctly that the payout for guessing five was more than the payout for guessing all six. The total was greater, but only one person got just five, and the amount allocated to jackpot winners divided by the number of jackpot winners was lower.

Re:Don't know about Numeracy

[Your.Master]

But if somebody else won with the same numbers, but you had way more tickets, you could still claim the vast majority of the prize.

Given an oracle that you are totally certain is telling the truth about the winning lottery numbers, you'd be foolish not to buy in multiple times to decrease the impact of a lucky other person dividing your earnings. Well, unless you're afraid that such a suspicious action will draw the eyes of law enforcement.

And the sad part is...

[sconeu]

That many people are proud of their innumeracy.

Re:And the sad part is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. Sad thing is that the three of us can't change the world.

Re:And the sad part is...

[Ihmhi]

At least two halfs of the 4 brazillion people on this planet have -0 idea how to do maths.

Re:And the sad part is...

[Twinbee]

I suppose if you had to force that to try and make sense, they could say they don't need math, and they still get by fine and are happy. So presumably with math, they'd be even better off.

They could even think that because they don't math, they get by *better* which is pushing it a bit I know, but one could say that the brain power/space can be used for 'more important' things such as the arts, socializing, or other types of logic.

Re:And the sad part is...

[thetoadwarrior]

lol math is for nerds

Re:And the sad part is...

[Culture20]

At least two halfs of the 4 brazillion people on this planet have -0 idea how to do maths.

According to Wikipedia, 190,732,694 brazillion people were counted in the 2010 census. I'm only a math minor, but I'm sure 190,732,694 is not equal to 4, even though they rhyme.

It's worse than that.

[mosb1000]

The generally poor understanding of numbers on the part of others adversely affects my life as well. Not only to the extent that they make poor decisions for themselves, but from the way they make poor decisions on my behalf. Damn politicians.

Re:It's worse than that.

[sensei moreh]

despite having been in honors and AP math during high school, I was totally unprepared for college calculus.

Huh? My AP math was calculus. Perhaps that's changed in the last 40 years.

Re:It's worse than that.

[WastedMeat]

Perhaps that's changed in the last 40 years.

Maybe, but not in the first 30. Ten years ago there were two classes that qualified as AP math at my school, and they were meant to be equivalent to Calc I and II in college. Perhaps he is confusing the common course "college algebra," taken by those that do not go the calculus route, as an AP class.

Re:It's worse than that.

[khallow]

College calculus can be much harder than high school AP calculus.

Re:It's worse than that.

[mrchaotica]

There also existed (as of 10 years ago) AP statistics. It tended to attract those who were on the honors/gifted class track (and thus had to take an AP math senior year) but who didn't think they could hack it at calculus.

Re:It's worse than that.

[WastedMeat]

Ah, we didn't have that one. We also had no math requirement senior year, but that was not the world's best school district. That is an easy question for google though, so perhaps I should have checked that before posting.

Re:It's worse than that.

[eharvill]

Nearly half of the students in my freshman Calculus class failed although most of them had taken AP calculus in high school. Not all calculus classes are created equal.

Re:It's worse than that.

[sensei moreh]

Not all calculus classes are created equal.

I whole-heartedly agree. I was under the impression that an AP calculus class is designed to prepare students for the AP exam, which, if passed, allows students to receive credit for, and thus skip, some or all of freshman calculus. IMHO, if it's not working that way, the system is broken.

Re:It's worse than that.

[TheRaven64]

I was actually really surprised to hear that you can stop mathematics at the end of middleschool and that you can go into section like computer science without doing a bachelor in maths.

That depends on the university. The reason why some don't require it is that none of the maths covered in the A-level syllabus is really relevant for computer science. At A-Level I learned how to calculate orbital paths and work out the trajectory of a rocket launched from the surface of a planet. Great for people doing engineering and physics, but there was no discrete maths at all. No game theory, no graph theory, no number theory, so little set theory that there may as well have been none. Certainly nothing like lambda calculus. The only real advantage that A-Level maths give you in a computer science degree is that you are still in the habit of working with mathematical notation when you get to university.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[cptdondo]

uneducated != stupid

years studying does not imply results

[RichMan]

The education system needs to require results not just apply time and expect education to happen due to exposure.

Re:years studying does not imply results

[Fjandr]

The education system needs to require results not just apply money and expect education to happen due to exposure.

Fixed that for you*.

*For all the /.ers out there with no sense of humor, this is a joke.

Reminds me of a quote by John Wayne

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is hard; it's harder when you're stupid.

Re:Reminds me of a quote by John Wayne

[Gilmoure]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Re:Reminds me of a quote by John Wayne

[RandCraw]

Not John Wayne. It's Dean Wormer (played by John Vernon) in Animal House. He's admonishing Flounder (Stephen Furst).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes

I don't think they factored that equation properly

[bunhed]

Seems to me it's the Department for Education is the one that "can't do maths" in this equation.

Must be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Innumeracy is what keeps the mythology of supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve alive.

Re:Must be said

[Mindcontrolled]

Innumeracy is what keeps the mythology of supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve alive.

The usual Laffer curve argument doesn't even rely on innumeracy, it relies on the inability of those to be indoctrinated to do basic logic. Has anyone actually *seen* this fabled curve? All you get is the trivial cases of no revenue at 0 and 100% tax rate, and, ergo *jedi hand wave*, we must lower taxes. If you do actually plot revenue against rate for different countries, you get a complete mess which you cannot fit against any meaningful function. That is not the purpose anyway, the whole Laffer curve argument relies on that Jedi hand wave.

Re:Must be said

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you do actually plot revenue against rate for different countries, you get a complete mess which you cannot fit against any meaningful function. That is not the purpose anyway, the whole Laffer curve argument relies on that Jedi hand wave.

Your comment is the Jedi handwave. I've seen the econonomic papers on the 'Laffer' curve, or at least the general case of solving for an optimal tax rate for maximizing government revenues. IIRC, it was 17.35% (real rate, not nominal).

I didn't understand the economic math myself (oy, innumeracy), but it's even available on one of the House members' websites for review.

But, good try on "this is not the math you're looking for."

Re:Must be said

[kqs]

That is not the purpose anyway, the whole Laffer curve argument relies on that Jedi hand wave.

Or the far more powerful Jedi Lobbyist Money Wave,

Re:Must be said

[Mindcontrolled]

Here is an example of real world data. I know such things can be very disturbing if you bought into the economic woo spread lately, but hey, believe what you want. Reality, however, is independent of your personal religion.

Re:Must be said

[artor3]

Link to a paper then. There is no evidence I've ever seen to support the notion that the maximum of the curve exists at a lower tax rate than we currently employ. The fact that a member of the Republican party says otherwise holds about as much value in my mind as a drug dealer assuring me that heroin really isn't all that addictive.

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

All you get is the trivial cases of no revenue at 0 and 100% tax rate, and, ergo *jedi hand wave*, we must lower taxes

It is a consequence of three things, the assumption that revenue as a function of tax rate is continuous (loosely, that small changes in tax rate mean small changes in revenue), the above assumption that there is zero revenue at 0 and 100% tax rate, and Rolle's Theorem. The combination of those three things yields the Laffer curve. The theorem is unassailable. That means one of the two assumptions have to be wrong before the Laffer curve model is wrong.

You aren't really complaining about the Laffer curve, but rather about a rhetorical and unwarranted jump from existence of the curve to deciding that tax rates must be lowered. That only would be true, if a) the current tax rate is above the optimal rate, and b) maximizing or increasing tax revenue is a primary goal, neither which was established in your example.

It doesn't help that figuring out what the Laffer curve looks like is extraordinarily hard. For example, there's no reason to expect that the Laffer curve for the US and Sweden would be the same. The primary reason just being the relevant effectiveness of public spending in each country. The US is remarkably less effective at spending public funds (at all levels of government) than Sweden is.

So one would expect that a lower tax rate would be more effective in the US for increasing overall revenue (that is, private sources are more effective at increasing value and future revenue relative to public means in the US than the same in Sweden). And actual tax rates (including state and local levels) in the US are usually lower than those in Sweden.

Re:Must be said

[bill_mcgonigle]

There is no evidence I've ever seen to support the notion that the maximum of the curve exists at a lower tax rate than we currently employ.

You're making a false assumption. Real US corporate tax rates are at about 12.5%. Of course, they're very heavy on small businesses and at zero for the likes of GE ('works as intended'), so 12.5% is only an average.

Re:Must be said

[bill_mcgonigle]

Here [wikimedia.org] is an example of real world data. I know such things can be very disturbing if you bought into the economic woo spread lately, but hey, believe what you want. Reality, however, is independent of your personal religion.

Your chart doesn't contradict my post. Read it again.

Re:Must be said

[Mindcontrolled]

Yes, agreed. I am complaining about the fact that the usual argument presented is "Laffer Curver therefore lower taxes". As you said, the actual problem is multivariate and there is no real meaningful model connecting tax rate, wealth and economic growth for any particular given situation. Therefore, the Laffer Curve *argument* is rather pointless, regardless of the validity of Laffer's work in the theoretical realm.

Re:Must be said

[TheRedSeven]

There's a HUGE difference between saying "The Laffer Curve is crap" and saying, "We don't know which side of the Laffer Maximum we're on."

The theory of the Laffer Curve is pretty accurate. It says, basically, that at some rate between 0% tax and 100% tax is how the government can maximize its revenues. It's trying to determine the actual (real life) rate that puts us at the maximum (slope = 0) that is a near-impossibility. That could be 1% or 99% or 43% or 17.5%. We really don't know.

You are correct, however, in stating that when a Republican says, "We need to lower taxes to increase revenues because of the Laffer Curve," they're being misleading at best and downright deceptive and self-serving (wait...I already said politician...) at worst.

Re:Must be said

[geekgirlandrea]

So are you claiming the revenue is zero or negative for all tax rates other than 0% or 100% under all conditions, or concede that, holding all other parameters equal, there necessarily must exist some tax rate within that range which maximizes revenue? Apparently, freshman calculus is ideologically motivated. Who would have guessed?

Re:Must be said

[artor3]

You can't just look at that one rate. You have to look at the aggregate effect of corporate taxes and income taxes and payroll taxes and sales taxes and so on. The aggregate tax rate in the US is much higher than 12.5%, and I see absolutely no evidence to support your claim that 17.35% is ideal.

Re:Must be said

[Mindcontrolled]

And here we go. "All other parameters equal". They are not. There is no straightforward dependency of revenue vs. tax rate. It is a highly complex multi variable dependency. Show me one curve based on RL data that shows a meaningful dependency of revenue on tax rate *alone*. Reducing the debate to the Laffer curve is argument by anal extraction.

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

Therefore, the Laffer Curve *argument* is rather pointless, regardless of the validity of Laffer's work in the theoretical realm.

I disagree. The Laffer curve argument came about in response to innumeracy, here, to combat the idea that raising taxes always raises tax revenue. It's not surprising that this simple argument is being misused the other way, but the reason for the Laffer curve argument still exists.

Re:Must be said

[Cyberax]

The problem is, macroeconomics is not amenable to ab-inito analysis. And real-world data show that Laffer curve in reality doesn't happen at all.

Re:Must be said

[bill_mcgonigle]

You can't just look at that one rate. You have to look at the aggregate effect of corporate taxes and income taxes and payroll taxes and sales taxes and so on. The aggregate tax rate in the US is much higher than 12.5%

Quite so.

and I see absolutely no evidence to support your claim that 17.35% is ideal.

I mentioned that was the claim of an economic analysis on the House website. Somebody could probably use Google to find it and post that here (I'm a bit busy at the moment to play research assistant, but this is a distributed collaborative web forum).

Re:Must be said

[jasomill]

The theory of the Laffer Curve is pretty accurate. It says, basically, that at some rate between 0% tax and 100% tax is how the government can maximize its revenues. It's trying to determine the actual (real life) rate that puts us at the maximum (slope = 0) that is a near-impossibility. That could be 1% or 99% or 43% or 17.5%. We really don't know.

Why not 43% AND 17.5%? The "Laffer Curve Argument" is either "a continuous, real-valued function on a closed, bounded interval has a maximum value" or "any real-valued function on a finite set has a maximum value." Both are true. Yet it's trivially false in either case to claim the unique maximum value is obtained at a unique point in the interval. Obvious counterexample: f(x) = a for any constant a.

Furthermore, why restrict admissible "tax functions" to constants? Perhaps we could maximize (multi-year) revenue by making the tax rate, say, a sinusoidal function of time?

Re:Must be said

[EdIII]

Reality, however, is independent of your personal religion.

Not at all.

Most people don't have a "personal" religion. It conforms to a few templates, and generally, with a low rate of deviation.

Reality, as a philosophical term, simply refers to that which exists. Even that varies. Some people say that reality is comprised of your perceptions and that it is existence that represents the actual state independent of your perceptions. Only philosophers that are serious enough to study and interact with other philosophers tend to have more standardized terms.

In any case, religion motivates actions, actions have an affect on reality, and this results in reality being dependent on religion to a much greater extent than I personally find to be safe.

It's quite unfortunate and sad really. If what you said was true, the "reality" would be that we would have a society with laws and education based on logic, statistics, and common sense about what helps a society prosper without regard to some mythical bearded man in the sky, thetans from across the galaxy, or consequences that are not verifiable and never have been.

Re:Must be said

[Mindcontrolled]

Very well.

"The observable state of a thing does not change directly and immediately because of his personal religion disagreeing with the observation. There may, however, be feedbacks and consequences caused by actions undertaken by him on the basis of his personal religion, which may alter said observable state."

Better? Mate, I write legal and technical crap all day, let me get away with some sloppy logic when I post at night after a couple of beers, ok? ;)

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

That's true, I'm imparting a hidden assumption, implied by this wording. I doubt there's enough complexity to this particular dynamic for a point of inflection to exist. But if there is, then my statement should be more accurately "the current tax rate is above all optimal rates"

Re:Must be said

[Starker_Kull]

It is a consequence of three things, the assumption that revenue as a function of tax rate is continuous (loosely, that small changes in tax rate mean small changes in revenue), the above assumption that there is zero revenue at 0 and 100% tax rate, and Rolle's Theorem [wikipedia.org]. The combination of those three things yields the Laffer curve. The theorem is unassailable. That means one of the two assumptions have to be wrong before the Laffer curve model is wrong.

Really? You do realize a seismograph plot of an earthquake is legitmate Laffer curve then, right? As is a flat line? Or a sine curve? Or my personal favorite, y=x-x cos(2pi/x)? (Go ahead, plot it. You know you want to :-) So, if by the 'Laffer curve model' you mean that tax revenues can jump around any which way with tax rates, I guess it's correct. It's also useless.

When I look at the diagrams that Laffer himself suggested, and that most others use to argue with, they have many, many more assumptions, frequently including a single, narrow peaked curve. Rolle's theorem says nothing about that - Laffer himself is more careful, and does not invoke fancy mathematics (n.b. I was a math major, so I recognize when math is being used to illustrate an idea, obscure it, or decorate it with some authoritative words) to justify his napkin drawing, and he acknowledges there may be multiple peaks and a complex curve shape. His deception is more subtle. His argument was (back in 1974) that raising tax rates would probably not lead to greater federal revenues (using the Laffer curve diagram to illustrate this), so therefore lower tax rates would not lead to reduced federal revenue (which sounds good but doesn't logically follow from the previous statment), and that previous periods of tax cutting in the U.S. lead to desirable outcomes. To quote Laffer directly:

"Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric."

However, once you admit that you may have a more complex curve than a single peak, you should then honestly say that the only thing you can conclude is you don't know if tax revenues will go up or down with decreases (or increases) in tax rates. That is about the intellectual content of the Laffer curve, and anything beyond that is selling something. Laffer was selling tax cuts to an enthusiastic audience: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in 1974. Considering that the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts of the mid-20's were followed by the Great Depression within 5 years, and the tax cuts of Reagan were followed by rise of the public debt from 22% to 40% of GDP, stating that "Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric" indicates his ideas of public policy metrics were very narrow, or he was selling something. I think it was the latter.

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

Really? You do realize a seismograph plot of an earthquake is legitmate Laffer curve then, right? As is a flat line? Or a sine curve? Or my personal favorite, y=x-x cos(2pi/x)? (Go ahead, plot it. You know you want to :-) So, if by the 'Laffer curve model' you mean that tax revenues can jump around any which way with tax rates, I guess it's correct. It's also useless.

Yep. As I noted in my original post, there's really only one valid reason for the Laffer curve as I presented it. To defeat the argument that a higher tax rate means more tax revenue. Anything past that will require both a better model and better data. Your post confirms that.

And your interesting story about Laffer's career during the time he developed and promoted the Laffer curve is a good reminder that a lot of economists are basically the modern equivalent of astrologers, sooth sayers, etc. They go through mystic rituals to reach the conclusions that their patrons wish them to reach.

Re:Must be said

[u38cg]

The Laffer curve is not meant to be "real" in any usable sense. It's simply a useful pedagogical crutch that explains that increasing tax rates does not necessarily imply increasing revenue. A country's real Laffer curve, such as it is, is affected by all sorts of things and it makes no sense to suggest that it is possible to move up or down on it.

Re:Must be said

[TheRaven64]

If you do that, then you should also provide error bars. When you do that, you see that the error margin in your nice elegant curve is so great that it's basically meaningless. Overfitting works when you have a strong correlation. When you have data like this, all it does is provide an example for How to Lie With Statistics.

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

But even if you did, that does say nothing at all about revenue at e.g. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% tax rate.

Hence the need for continuity.

As to the bit about the black market, there are two observations to make. First, that you aren't collecting revenue from black market operations. Second, that you not only encourage your country not to comply with your taxation scheme, you require them to in order to make money.

Re:Must be said

[khallow]

Continuity is powerful jedi magic.

Hence, why it is an assumption not a fact. In practice. I doubt it's anything other than continuous, unless there is some weird additional cost or benefit that triggers as tax rates are changed (eg, businesses get to write off your taxes in another country as a deduction, but if they pay more than 50% taxes on income in your country).

Re:Must be said

[thejynxed]

Because none of those equations or methods matters when the people in charge keep moving the goal posts when it comes to what the starting rate, the medium rate, the maximum rate, and the average rate are supposed to be.

That's what makes that Laffer Curve ridiculous at the outset. They assign the minimum value at 0 when in reality that 0 really means "That baseline is actually at the 20% (or whatever) we're currently using, and may change in the future whenever we attach a rider to a mandatory spending bill."

One of the posters above me mentioned Jedi mind tricks, it really isn't so far off from the weaselly slight of hand it really is.

Sure

[Scareduck]

Just ask anyone relying on Social Security's solvency in 20 years.

Re:Sure

[khallow]

The financial situation of the US has been steadily getting worse with each block of decades. So it may be "people with an agenda and a simple answer to sell the gullible", but the truth gets closer to their claims as time moves on.

Long Term Illness

[Artea]

Two plus two is ten.
Shit I just caught asthma.

(In base four I'm fine!)

Re:Long Term Illness

[Erbo]

Actually, two plus two does equal ten...for sufficiently large values of two.

Re:Long Term Illness

[getSalled]

... or in base 4.

Re:Long Term Illness

[sudonymous]

...that's what I said.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[erroneus]

This would be true if it weren't for the great possibility that the problem is cultural/social. In this case, it would mean the decline or end of humanity.

We have a lot of social and cultural focuses which are pushing against education and general intelligence. Those need to be remedied in some way.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[mc6809e]

uneducated != stupid

Yeah but usually ineducable == stupid.

Re:Maths??

[Dzimas]

Don't be a pedant. Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics. Therefore, the statement "I can't do maths" is akin to stating, "I can't read" when you don't know the letters of the alphabet.

Re:Maths??

[bigstrat2003]

That distinction doesn't exist in the broader use of the English language, and it doesn't freaking matter. It was clear to everyone what was meant.

Citizenship math

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

A large part of the problem is that if they got math at all then it was part of the track to the physical sciences (algebra -> algebra 2 -> calculus -> differential equations).

Voters who aren't in a physics-based career need math, but not the same branch of it. Statistics is critical. Understanding what correlation means and what it doesn't, what a control group is for, recognizing sample bias, and definitely the base rate fallacy are all vital for resisting propaganda.

Re:Citizenship math

[tibit]

Percentages are just fractions, and that really is multiplication by non-integers, so yeah, people can't multiply even two very short significands (perhaps just 1 decimal figure) and shift the decimal sign around. We covered that in my village elementary school in 2nd grade. SIGH.

Re:Citizenship math

[SomeKDEUser]

Actually, people need to understand what are models. And yes, this includes understandings statistics, and errors.

It is essentially the same skill that makes you understand that "this move will cut x$ from the budget" contains no information and what order of magnitude your change is supposed to be. You create models all the time: a car approaches: should you cross the road? It depends on the speed of the cars and yours. You could calculate the results, but the important thing is that you can identify which are the factors, why they matter and that you could bash them together to get a numerical answer. Then, you can decide whether you really want to do that.

The point is that people bemoan innumeracy in terms of "people can't add numbers in their heads very well". Well duh. This is why before calculators, we had abacuses, and why computers used to be people. But it is irrelevant: the basic skill is making models of reality, realising that you can get numbers out of them if needed, and that what matters is the _model_ of the guy selling you this insurance/car/political programme. His numbers may be crap, but you may fix that. If his model is based on the interpretation of the multiply mistranslated myths of bronze-aged shepherds, then beware.

Re:Citizenship math

[EdIII]

That cannot be emphasized enough.

There is plenty of math that has no practical application for the vast majority of people in their daily lives. I did very well with chemistry class, but I can't remember much about it today. I have not had a job or a daily task in which I needed to remember Avagadros number of any of the Ideal Gas Laws.

Statistics on the other hand, is useful every day of your life. It not only reinforces logic, which is another skill lacking in society, but allows you to evaluate plenty of situations with more sophistication and make better decisions.

I am not as well versed in statistics as I would like, but it was quite recently that I found the standard deviation equation to be useful for some financial calculations. Using just the average gave me a number that was about 20% higher than the STD. Made a big difference in what I was trying to calculate and why.

Re:Citizenship math

[qwak23]

The point isn't always to ensure you "know" something, but rather that you understand it. You may not need Avogadro's Number or the Ideal Gas Law on a daily basis, you may not even remember them, but if you know the concepts behind them, you can apply that to your everyday life, often times in unexpected ways. Sure, you can survive without ever learning about calculus, people did for thousands of years, but once you know it, you can find all sorts of ways to apply it, even if only from a conceptual standpoint. Oh and hey, pretty much any science/math class reinforces logic.

I'm not saying that statistics isn't important, in fact it's one of the best classes I've ever taken, however I wouldn't say it's any more important than calculus, chemistry, physics, biology etc.

I'm of the opinion that algebra, geomtery, trig, calculus, and statistics should be mandatory courses for high school (in many places, my own high school (new york state) for example, only basic algebra and geometry are required (at least in the 90's)). Additionally I feel that physics, chemistry, biology, and economics (both macro and micro) should also be mandatory at the high school level. As an example again, my HS only required 2 science courses, typically "earth science" and biology.

Even if you wont use the concepts often in a practical sense in your daily life, you will understand the world around you more which you know, may a(e)ffect your participation in the democratic process.

Re:Citizenship math

[TheRaven64]

I can't imagine how anyone could call themselves a physicist without having the ability to analyse the damn data that they're collecting

Clearly you have not spent much time reading arxiv.org...

Struggling with this in my household

[manonthemoon]

My eldest son is a whiz- he's a couple years ahead and should get through AP Calculus and Stats by the time he gets through HS.

On the other hand we adopted 5 girls from foster care and it is a STRUGGLE. I don't know how much of it is organic (all of them were exposed to drugs/alcohol in utero) and how much of it is early formative, but they all have incredible difficulty making the most basic inference or deduction or story problem. I'm really concerned for them because I forsee them potentially running into the roadblocks referenced by the article summary. But there are in fact SOME excuses for saying "I can't do maths." Some people may never be able to master the basics no matter how hard they try.

Not to say we are in any manner giving up. They get extra tutoring at school and spend hours doing homework, despite being in elementary school, but different people have different top levels of achievement and sometimes that level is below what any of us would like.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[BagOBones]

Children's brains use it or loose it.. For children developing their brains are strengthening the connections they use and pruning the ones they don't. A large amount of this activity happens up to age 5-6 and almost completes between 14-18. Not to say you can't learn at that point, but it is much easier before then to develop new skills.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/adolescent.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[smagruder]

You strike upon an important point.

In my own experience, the hardest part about math is mastering the basics (simple arithmetic). But after that point, learning most things mathematical is like jumping between baby steps.

If it's possible, I would advise working with your girls for as long as possible with the basic math skills until they get if, even if takes years. It would be nice if all schools could be configured to let some students work at their own pace (whether behind or ahead), but since they don't in general, non-stop tutoring until they "get it" is probably the best way to go.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[willworkforbeer]

Am I the only one who feels the urge to raise a toast to someone who adopted not 1, but 5, children from foster care? Well done.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[manonthemoon]

Once we met them we really couldn't 'pick and choose' - they are all sisters- it would have been impossible emotionally.

In for a penny, in for a pound...

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[artor3]

You might want to look up "verbiage" in a dictionary before criticizing people.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[madprof]

Maybe they were making a statement about excessive use of technical language too? :)

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[Gilmoure]

And find games that encourage this. D&D / D20 stuff is one thing my daughter's taken to and there's all sorts of opportunity to slip in basic arithmetic and geometry.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously five. If you can't tell that from the preceding posts, innumeracy is ruining your life.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[tibit]

You're my hero of the day today. Well deserved, too. Kudos!

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Have you considered that they aren't necessarily "mathematically challenged" but instead need to approach it from a different angle? For example, I've worked with a handful of physical trainers (as a client) and universally all of them thought they were bad at math - not even able to understand compound interest bad.

But all of them that were good at their job also had a natural intuition for things like geometry and even calculus because those maths were all part of their jobs. For example, the body is a bunch of interconnected levers with ranges of motion described by arcs and different rates of change in motion can be safe or dangerous. They work with math all day long but they don't recognize it as math - they even had a hard time understanding that it was math when I tried to explain it to them - their schooling had so completely failed them that they couldn't recognize the math right in front of them.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[SplashMyBandit]

Yeah mate. What an awesome thing to do! Hope things go well in the future for you all. Despite their difficulties, they probably don't yet realise how lucky they already got (to have a Slashdotter as a Dad :)). It is always saddening to think that some orphans unfortunately never get picked (for whatever reason).

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[hey!]

Not to say we are in any manner giving up.

Well, while I wouldn't want to adopt the Japanese philosophy of education wholesale, one of things I think that's worth copying from their culture is the way people don't automatically make this kind of inference: "I'm not good at X THEREFORE I shouldn't have to do X."

If you can put that behind you, then you can think this way: "I may not be naturally talented at X, but if I work hard enough I can learn to do it well enough."

Not to minimize the difficulties you're experiencing with your adopted children. I think you're taking the right approach; rather than saying "you can't do this", you're saying, "we don't know how to help you do this -- yet." It's worth remembering that ability gained through effort is *more* worthy of pride of than ability that comes from natural aptitude. I've known lots of people with remarkable talent who've never accomplished anything, but *nobody* with remarkable self-discipline who hasn't made something of their lives.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[hey!]

Seconded.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[bigbird]

Yes, well done indeed.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[KingBenny]

yea, without getting into the boys-vs-girls thing, what happened to 'having a knack' for something, you can't just expect everyone to be on the same level and have the same capabilities to do everything alike, i sincerely feel that scouting out particular personal talents and interests would be way more helpful than forcing advanced math down every kids throat, imo that would lead more to frustration than to improvement in a lot of cases, i'm not a wiz of any kind, i could fix your pc, do your little homenetwork and stuff, and a few other things maybe but don't ask me to build you a brick wall if you gotta sleep next to it ... talent? interest, not the compound type

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[EdIII]

But after that point, learning most things mathematical is like jumping between baby steps

I would say very few things mathematical are like baby steps. Jumping from basic math to algebra requires some more complicated logic and the ability to conceptualize certain problems.

Working in geometry and trig into it requires different concepts as well.

Personally, there was a wall for making the leap into calculus. I made it, but I had problems with some particular logic, like a number never actually reaching zero. That was strange to me because I had problems conceptualizing anything that did not have some sort of physical application. Chemistry was a good example. The exponential rate of nuclear decay (IIRC) stated that mathematically it never reached zero, while common sense said that the last atom would eventually decay and reach zero.

Going from calculus to a lot more complicated math involved in quantum mechanics, topology, etc. requires even more skills to conceptualize abstract problems.

Baby steps implies that anybody can be Stephen Hawkings if they just stick to the road and keep grinding away. I am not so convinced. Perhaps it really does require a "beautiful" mind to make those steps.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[ffflala]

Am I the only one who feels the urge to raise a toast to someone who adopted not 1, but 5, children from foster care? Well done.

This. Here here.

Incredible talents can develop from a natural *disinclination* in a skill: see Demosthenes, or Eliza Doolittle. In some cases the intensive & extra effort needed to progress in an area will eventually bear fruit not only later than average, but with a corresponding intensive & extra depth.

Re:Struggling with this in my household

[CtownNighrider]

I'm actually taking AP calc right now as a HS senior. I think people that tend to be "good" at math are able to picture problems accurately in our heads, so maybe they have difficulty with the word problems because they just see them as words on a page rather than an actual scenario. Once I can picture a problem I can figure out what's being asked and the best way to attack that problem. Also, thank you for being such a wonderful person as to adopt 5 girls!

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lnunes]

You never watched Idiocracy, did you?

Re:Can't do Maths?

[The Raven]

Waste of mod points, but: that is completely proper British English, you insensitive clod. This is an article written in the UK.

Inexcuseable

[geekmux]

"...'It is simply inexcusable for anyone to say "I can't do maths,"

It is also simply inexcusable for people to live well beyond their means riddled with massive amounts of pointless debt, but let's go ahead and blame calculus for the reason most people are flat-ass broke, living paycheck to paycheck. Lord knows we wouldn't want to offend anyone by telling them they SUCK at saying "no".

Re:Inexcuseable

[smagruder]

Why not a combination of factors? This isn't really a black-and-white thing.

Re:Inexcuseable

[geekmux]

Why should they say "no"? Society and television tells them to say "yes." How can they objectively verify whether their budget and financial planning can afford that new SUV or a 50 inch flatscreen TV? Without the ability to "do math" and more importantly "do word problems" they simply can't quantify (and therefore can't meaningfully answer) your question.

Ah, I'm sorry, but television and society? Is it peer pressure forcing people to live well beyond their means, or a lack of common sense, because (yet again), I doubt in most cases you can blame the math. Uh, and when was the last time you were forced to sit down to perform ANY financial transaction that was laid out in the form of a "word problem"? C'mon now. These people DO possess BASIC elementary math skills, which is all you really need. It was the financial sector that chose to get "creative" with loans that require an advanced degree and a CPA to explain how someone making $40,000/year qualified for that $300,000 sub-prime-variable-rate-semi-balloon-no-money-down mortgage. For someone possessing even a tiny amount of common sense and basic math, most purchase ARE black-and-white. You can either afford it, or you cannot.

It hardly takes even basic math skills to understand managing money these days. I don't even remember the last time I "balanced" my checkbook (yes, I still use those things) by hand. Excel, Google, cell phones, iPad/iTouch apps, websites...so many different sources can you use today to manage finances so you do NOT have to even "do math", so even not knowing BASIC math skills is hardly an excuse anymore.

Of course, you asked how can people verify whether they can afford something or not? Well, let's now look back at the banks that approve (and therefore enable) people lacking in self-control to live well beyond their means. Sorry, but a broke-ass college student with part-time job should not qualify for a $20,000 platinum card. A lack of common sense is a financial tool that makes banks hundreds of billions of dollars every year, so unfortunately I doubt much has changed since 2008. Even with that said, banks aren't making peoples purchases FOR them, so really one can only blame the enablers so much here.

As I said before, this has little to do with peoples basic math skills (which they do possess) and much more to do with a lack of self-control and/or common sense, which is a much larger problem these days. Perhaps the "Just Say No" slogan should be used for something other than drugs.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Mindcontrolled]

Newsflash - Idiocracy is not a documentary, but rather a poorly made satire which apparently appears most to those suffering hardest from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[TWX]

Man is powerful because of his intelligence. The stupid should be left behind, to make room for the next stage of human evolution.

If it worked that way I might agree with you, but unfortunately generations upon generations exist without demonstrating this, and ultimately they act as a burden on progress because they don't understand it or what kinds of benefits can be found from it.

It's frightening

[devphaeton]

This is one of a series of articles where I've seen that the British can't do math and have trouble with spelling, grammar and apostrophe use. The worst part though, is that most of them end with "at least we're doing much better than those in the United States."

It worries me how bad the U.S. is getting. I should get out more, but now I'm worried about what I'll see.

Re:It's frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in America we have it easy - we only have to learn one math, not an entire "programme" featuring an assortment of "maths".

Re:It's frightening

[tibit]

Perhaps a highly educated society would be able to deploy technology to replace menial labor. Hmm, that would be a novel thing, let's patent it, say: a hardware and software system to replace switchboard ladies. Hmm...

Re:It's frightening

[khallow]

Even if all you do is haul garbage, there's still a lot of quality of life improvements from better math skills such as better ability to save and invest money, figuring out when people are conning you, running a business for yourself, building and repairing things, etc. And if everyone is too well educated to haul garbage, then those that actually do are paid more.

Mathematics skills don't make me anymore able to deal with society in general than driving skills.

Another highly valuable skill.

is is pure bunk, but I'm not surprised that this crowd feels compelled to pick up this ridiculous train of thought and run with it.

I'm quite confident that some day you'll even be able to come up with evidence to support your assertion.

Re:It's frightening

[colinrichardday]

May the ghost of Noah Webster fart in your general direction!

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Ender_Stonebender]

You don't understand how natural selection or evolution work, do you? The innumerate are winning at the natural selection game because they can't figure out how bad having another kid is going to be for them financially. And the "survival of the fittest" doesn't imply fittest for anything but producing lots of offspring. (Of course, this is self-limiting, since this planet has a finite carrying capacity, and the innumerate are incapable of running a space program...)

Not Hardly

[MacGyver2210]

I think it's more of a matter of people being exceptionally lazy recently versus in the past than it is a matter of poor numerical comprehension. Everyone's attitude seems to be "I don't need to understand it, there's an app for that." ...then again, I'm a computer programmer who deals with charts and numbers thoroughly on an hourly basis, and I don't think I've ever had to read the "How to use this guide" section on the 40-some page bus schedule in my town to figure it out.

Sometimes I wonder if a global-scale EMP or solar flare would be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

Re:Not Hardly

[CodeHxr]

Be careful what you wish for... especially if you're wishing for that!

Re:Not Hardly

[Fjandr]

I don't think the general amount of laziness has changed. What's changed is that the landing for those who crash due to their own laziness is much softer these days. Prior to the modern era there were strong disincentives to not "figuring it out." Even as hard as times are now economically, the disincentives are far easier to deal with for those who choose not to look beyond their narrow worldview of what is and is not "possible."

Re:Natural Selection at work

[roeguard]

uneducated != stupid

Agreed.

I would go further and say neither being uneducated or stupid makes you a bad person. It may make your life more difficult than it needs to be, but it doesn't drop you a rung on the moral ladder.

Big Deal.

[korgitser]

Millions of people struggle to understand. Whatever. We do remember that we come from a times when there was no math around at all, right? So how much time do we spend being happy abouth the fact that millions of people do understand a payslip or a train timetable? Making fuss about these millions without context shows poor skills in philosophy and can ruin lives.

Some important questions to ask around these skills and the millions are here:
How many and much total skills do people have?
Is the total going up or down?
Is the relative amount of math skills in this total going up or down?
What are the other skills that might be replacing or being replaced by math skills?
Which skills should be priorities? For which professions?

Re:Big Deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many and much total skills do people have?

I'm sorry. I can't do maths.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[beelsebob]

No, and while the GP was a troll, there is a point to be made here –the problem in the UK is that people don't want to be educated in maths. There's a large segment of society that thinks that it's good to be numerically illiterate. They wear "I don't know maths" as if it's a badge of honour. That is stupid.

Ob

[Hognoxious]

weak math skills are linked with an array of poor life outcomes such as prison, unemployment, exclusion from school, getting a knighthood for services to the banking industry and then having it revoked.

FTFY

It's Not All Bad

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

My college career was greatly aided by the fact that many of these people will play poker for money.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Mindcontrolled]

Or indeducable == ideologically entrenched. A portion of the populace which is not to be neglected.

We're morons basically..

[improfane]

I come from the UK and personally find mathematics pretty difficult. I can work through problems on paper but my mental arithmetic is atrocious. By the time I two operands and an operator in my head and have broken up the problem into a simpler problem, I have forgotten the original two numbers...

That said, mathematics should come the more you practice. I like to blame the school curriculum -- it is shit. The only reason why I am valuable is because I acquired computing skills playing on computers as a child.

I'd like to blame mathematics textbooks but I cannot. My generation and a few before me have lost the willpower and motivation to actually study and learn things properly. Our education system does not really promote mathematics that well. My school staff was rife with young twenty somethings fresh out of university with no real ability to teach...

Teaching has lost its respect and professionalism in the UK too. Add to the fact it became okay and even cool to be ignorant in modern culture.

Re:We're morons basically..

[GmExtremacy]

US public schools pretty much destroy all the fun in learning, too. Not to mention that there's this "teach to the test" mentality going on. As long as you can pass a test, that is all that matters. Memorize and forget (which is what usually happens).

Re:We're morons basically..

[hawguy]

Don't feel bad. Doing math in your head has been replaced by calculators. Application of math is where it's at.

I know plenty of people who can do math in their head, but can't actually use it for anything outside of homework.

But you don't always have a calculator when you need one (or don't want to take the time to pull out your phone and start up the calculator app). Being able to do simple math in your head can be a huge advantage in life to do a quick sanity check on lots of things.

I recently spotted an error in some home purchase paperwork A number that was supposed to be 3% of the purchase price was actually 7%. The listing agent didn't believe me that it was wrong until she pulled out her calculator to run the numbers. It's trivial to estimate 3% of a number in your head - finding 3% of $325,000 means rounding down to $3K for 1% and multiplying by 3 to get $9K. It's not exact, but often a rough estimate is enough. I later ran all the numbers through a calculator to be sure they were exact, but I saved myself another day of waiting for corrected paperwork by having her correct it in her office instead of waiting until I got home to discover the error.

While it's true that most people have a calculator close at hand these days, how many people take the time to actually use it, especially when they think that someone else already used their calculator to calculate the numbers, so they assume it's already correct?

And I really can't believe how many people have to get a calculator to evenly add a tip and divide a lunch bill 4 ways! And then proceed to say "Ok, everyone owes $8.79" instead of just saying "$9".

Re:We're morons basically..

[tibit]

It's worse than that. Today's society requires, IMHO, as part of the basic literacy, to not only know how to read and write, but to have good numeracy skills, and to have decent understanding of basic science and of issues related to applied computing -- at least as far as security, social engineering, etc. is concerned.

I think that the real issue is that things are taught in a way that separates them in the heads of the pupils. Instead of having a coherent image of science and technology, overlapping and applying to everyday experiences, the knowledge is built in an abstract way and seems to be decoupled from real life. People seem to be horribly unable to apply basic principles from grade level maths, physics, chemistry and biology to everyday life. That's why you see so many people go "dumb" when they see computers: no one taught them in a way that links computing to other knowledge they have. It's black magic to them because it was never shown to them to be otherwise; they don't understand that computers fundamentally process numbers according to fixed recipes, etc. That's why there's so much bad legislation around: the lawmakers don't have a clue how their laws relate to reality, they only see political buzzwords.

Re:We're morons basically..

[tibit]

I agree. To me, not being able to do math in your head is akin to being unable to spell properly without a dictionary/spellchecker. If you can't write properly, you'll be called illiterate, the same IMHO should apply if you can't figure out the math of basic everyday things -- frontloading of debt repayment with interest, dealing with change when paying for things, how MPG is a nonlinear scale, etc.

Re:We're morons basically..

[sunderland56]

I like to blame the school curriculum

If you look at the actual curriculum, it is fine - it includes basic addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, which is all the normal person really needs.

Whether that curriculum is taught correctly, and whether the students absorb and retain the knowledge, is another thing. But the basics seem to be there.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Minwee]

If you have to pull out your phone, fiddle with the buttons, start up a calculator application and fiddle with the buttons again just to figure out that that the $27.50 plus 12% tax that you owe is substantially less than the $34 you were just charged, then perhaps you should just give up and expect to pay a 10% innumeracy tax on every transaction you make for the rest of your life.

Saying "But I have a calculator! Somewhere." is no substitute for being able to perform simple math on your own.

Re:We're morons basically..

[zakaryah]

Terribly insightful post - I wish that every parent who hated school thought about this. This force-feeding may be one small reason why the brightest kids tend to gravitate toward careers in IT or finance over science and math - every decent first course in programming shows a kid how to do or learn to do almost anything he or she can imagine doing, and with no oversight from the teacher. It's rare that a math or science teacher has the expertise to guide a student through any interesting independent project, and this is neglected in most curricula anyway. Instead you learn adding and subtraction for 5 years or more, then multiplication tables, then long division, and eventually basic algebra for word problems and differential calculus in the form of tables, again, if you are "advanced". On the other hand, once you've learned to program, especially with a computational bent, the jobs in finance and IT pay more and require less training that an academic job in math or science. It's silly to separate fundamental disciplines in such an artificial way, and it leads to exactly the symptoms described here.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Shifty0x88]

LOL, yeah how do people go around without knowing at least how to estimate tax and tip on a bill, or realize they are being overcharged for something because a salesman slipped in a $100 convenience charge just to get more money out of you.

I mean what if you don't get the correct change again, how would you know? Get your calculator and make sure $20 - $11.87 is actually $8.13, or is it $7.13? Hold on let me get my calculator.........


Right so it is $8.13, good thing I have a calculator to do simple math, NOT maths!!!

Re:We're morons basically..

[Roger W Moore]

Every computer and mobile phone has a calculator.

...and if you know nothing about maths how are you going to be able to use it let alone catch any mis-entry of numbers when you do use it.

Re:We're morons basically..

[tom17]

I guess it's what you grew up with. If you come from a country where tax is included in the displayed price, and where tipping is not a screwed up part of the culture, then it's nontrivial to train yourself to have to do these sums you are simply not used to doing.

Tips, I can understand I suppose, it's part of the culture here and the wages are adjusted down to account for tips, I am sure. But why the hell not display the *actual* price of a product? Pisses me off lol.

Re:We're morons basically..

[tom17]

Oh and my fave one has to be the dollar store. Sorry, I mean the $1.13 store... Errr....

Re:We're morons basically..

[Hatta]

Doing sums in your head has absolutely nothing to do with numeracy. Understanding the principles is far, far more important than being able to crunch through the mechanics.

If you actually have to do sums in your head, just estimate. If it's not important enough to bother getting a calculator, your precision isn't going to matter that much.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Hatta]

I think that the real issue is that things are taught in a way that separates them in the heads of the pupils.

Are they? I remember when I was in school a lot of kids used to complain that math was irrelevant to daily life. And then we learned word problems, and they complained about how awful word problems were. Somehow it never got through to them that word problems were exactly what they were asking for, a demonstration of how to apply math to real life.

I don't think that students are not taught how math applies to real life. I think they are merely incurious bastards.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Provocateur]

And I really can't believe how many people have to get a calculator to evenly add a tip and divide a lunch bill 4 ways! And then proceed to say "Ok, everyone owes $8.79" instead of just saying "$9".

You see this? This is the world's smallest violin...

Re:We're morons basically..

[tibit]

I agree somewhat with your 1st paragraph, even though many word problems I've seen are fairly horrible (many unspoken assumptions, they show a fair lack of engagement by the author, etc).

The deal is that once there is a barrier made up in one's mind, anything further that appears in the tests or problem books is automatically filed behind the barrier. There's some sort of positive feedback there. I believe that word problems need to be, at least initially, dealt on an entirely interactive level. You literally need to talk to the kid and figure out something that applies directly to their situation, ideally to a fairly recent experience (same day if possible). Once the barrier is broken you can start abstracting things back, getting an impersonal book in the place of conversation, etc.

The "incuriosity" I think is not a cause, it's an effect. Once the idea is planted into a pupil's head that the "school stuff" belongs in school, and real life is a wholly another thing, you need quite some active effort to reverse that. Before the barrier is torn down, I agree that you can observe what passes for incuriosity. It seems to be incuriosity because the "school stuff" is simply not interesting to many kids, just as many kids won't be interested in any particular fictional world (fad biases aside). I've been observing this barrier start to get erected in my daughter's mind. It was a startling observation. We worked hard and took swift steps to make sure she understood that it's all about real life, though.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Hatta]

The weird thing is that the kids who hated math because it was useless outside of school seemed to love English class, which really is useless outside of school. Somehow they're able to get over the barrier of "school stuff is only useful in school" for English, but once they get into math class they have no imagination at all.

I suspect it really is incuriosity. They like English class because it's easy, you can make up whatever you want, and it doesn't have to be right because there is no right answer (although I seem to be very good at coming up with wrong answers somehow). If they applied some critical thinking to the situation, they'd realize it's a waste of time. Math on the other hand requires you to think.

Re:We're morons basically..

[bigbird]

A calculator is of little use if you cannot make a reasonable estimate of what the expected answer should be. You have no way of checking whether you made a mistake otherwise.

Re:We're morons basically..

[demonlapin]

Well, go to Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, or Delaware. No sales tax in any of them. Of those, I've only been to Delaware, but I remember the first time I stopped to get a drink at a gas station and it was... 99 cents.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Dr_Barnowl]

I used to suffer horribly in classes like English, because I *was* looking for the right answer.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the problem is teaching children how to play with numbers.

In your example of 3% of 325,000 I instantly thought of the decimal rule where if you divide or multiply by ten you shift the decimal point one digit to the left or right respectively. In 100 there are two units of ten (probably not the right term, but I hope you get the point) so I just read 1% as being 3,250 and tripled it to get 3% or 9,750.

In the sample questions on the BBC article about preparing quantities of bleach I performed a similar operation whereby I recognised numbers were a factor of 10 so multiplied up to the quantity required for 10L then shifted the decimal point to the amount needed to prepare 1L and from there cut in half to get to get the amount to prepare 1/2L and doubled to get the amount to make up 2L.

If children are simply allowed to punch numbers into a calculator then they don't have any reason to learn these simple rules and tricks you can use to work things out.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Starker_Kull]

The weird thing is that the kids who hated math because it was useless outside of school seemed to love English class, which really is useless outside of school. Somehow they're able to get over the barrier of "school stuff is only useful in school" for English, but once they get into math class they have no imagination at all.

I suspect it really is incuriosity. They like English class because it's easy, you can make up whatever you want, and it doesn't have to be right because there is no right answer (although I seem to be very good at coming up with wrong answers somehow). If they applied some critical thinking to the situation, they'd realize it's a waste of time. Math on the other hand requires you to think.

I laughed at your 'incurious bastards' comment, too - there is, no doubt, a large component of laziness and dullness that results in students avoiding what they find hard. But the deeper issue of why they find Math hard and English easy is interesting, because as you acknowledge, you found English class difficult.

English class is about analyzing, above all, what someone else was feeling or why they did something. These kinds of questions admit no definite answers, but some kinds of reasoning about how other humans act and feel is far more plausable than others, and so some answers are better than others without there being a 'right' & 'wrong' answer. This focus on human motivation and emotion & with it a lack of precision is something that comes easily to many people. It is a natural ability we have, to empathize and gossip and wonder why someone else feels the way they do - no doubt, it is a skill that was evolutionarily highly selected for. The analysis of how other humans feel and why they act has been around as long as modern humans have, which is minimally tens of thousands of years.

Math, on the other hand, is a very recent development. It does NOT come naturally to most people beyond very basic size estimates and globbing and unglobbing small, easily visulaizable quantities. Unlike English studies, it is a highly structured, precise, deep and ordered discipline. The depth and ordering is the biggest problem from an educational perspective; if you, at some point, never quite 'get' fractions, it will be hopeless for you to try to understand anything that depends on them, which includes algebra, modular arithmetic, calculus, and all the mental models of the world that depend on them. When I used to tutor people in math (20 years ago - I'm getting old), that was usually the biggest problem - there was some previous bit of it that they never quite got, and all their subsequent math education was trying to pile bricks on sand. They usually gave up trying hard after a year or two of cluelessness. In essence, learning math takes a much longer peroid of time and it is much harder to teach correctly and effectively than English, and one big hole along the way will sink your future efforts.

In addition, knowing what math is useful for requires, well, knowing what math is useful for. You know it. I know it. But if a kid's teacher doesn't, and their parents don't, and society teaches that Math is for nerdy boys who will never kiss a girl (and don't even bother if you ARE a girl) well, that will squelch a lot of curiosity. I learned it from my dad. He taught me from a very young age how to navigate a boat. It was amazing - you draw lines of some plastic, run some numbers through a whizz wheel, steer your boat as it says, and you wind up where you want to go when you expected to get there! So for me personally, lines and courses and degrees and speeds and drift and times all had a reality and a practicality and a power - a power to predict the world - from as young as I can remember.

On the other hand, I found Shakespeare, as taught in schools, tedious at best - incomprehensible was more like it. The words were all weird, these people were running around knifing other people for no reasons that I could understand, random suicide

Re:We're morons basically..

[omglolbah]

A teacher friend of mine had the class do problems on world of warcraft gear as "word problems".
It was a direct result of a challenge to the age old "I will never use this".

When it can show that gamer that by setting up a simple spreadsheet he or she can gain 200 DPS, they sometimes see the light :p

Re:We're morons basically..

[Cederic]

Not to mention, what the fuck is difficult about calculating a tip? It doesn't have to be precisely 10, 12 or 15% of the price. If I pay £18 for a meal, here, have a £20 note. I don't know what percentage that is because frankly it doesn't matter.

If I'm in a group of 8-9 people and we spend around £400 on food & drinks and the bill includes a service fee, the tip is £0. If it doesn't, the tip is around a fiver each. Tell you what, I'll pay the bill, you pick up the tip.

Stop getting so fucking anal about it, and learn the basic arithmetic needed to get "close enough" in your head.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Hatta]

Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading that this morning. FWIW, I tried pretty hard in English classes, to the point that I'm pretty sure I passed a few only for class participation. Turns out that "how do you know that's a symbol and not really just a cigar" is a pretty hard question. Never got a good answer to it.

Re:We're morons basically..

[Xtifr]

You'd have a good argument if the word problems in most textbooks weren't so incredibly stupid and utterly fail to show any relevance to real life. (If you don't already know this, you haven't read enough Richard Feynman.) Who cares at what exact minute to trains happen to pass each other? If you want relevant, ask 'em if they'll be able to make a connection between the two trains, or get stuck on the platform overnight.

Re:We're morons basically..

[tibit]

Very interesting. I think I can relate to your observations. Good job.

Re:Maths??

[mikael]

Unfortunately, while we used to have separate exams for arithmetic and mathematics, the powers that be decided that the best way to narrow the gap between low achieving inner city schools and high-achieving middle class schools was to merge the many different exams into single subjects; arithmetic and mathematics became general mathematics; physics, chemistry, biology and APH became general science.

Back 30 years, there used to be adverts on TV at every lunch-time to help people with literacy and numeracy skills, titled "On the move". They just mentioned a hotline anyone could call to arrange an appointment with an adviser (information pack or application forms wouldn't be much use). These days, it's cheaper for employers to employ East Europeans with English as a second language.

You mean I can't afford that mortgage?

[gelfling]

The one for 1.5 million dollars on my $15/hr paycheck with zero down and $200/month for 5 years until the whole balloon comes due? I knew me some numbers I coulda avoided that debacle. Who knew?

Re:You mean I can't afford that mortgage?

[berashith]

dont worry about those pesky details. Statistics show that most people move every 3 to 4 years, so you just sell the house before the balloon is due. The way that real estate always appreciates, you should be able to cover your next down payment with the profits from selling this one.

Re:You mean I can't afford that mortgage?

[mrchaotica]

That's actually a damn good deal, except for the part where it trashes your credit (just think of it as renting).

Re:You mean I can't afford that mortgage?

[TheRaven64]

That actually seems like a pretty good idea. You're paying $200/month to live in a $1.5m house - pretty cheap rent! - and after five years you either move or remortgage. Sounds great to me...

Re:You mean I can't afford that mortgage?

[toddestan]

Except the part that after 5 years the house is suddenly only worth $950,000. Oops.

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Perhaps being bad at "maths" is nothing but a symptom of exactly the same problem that's causing them to be bad at life. Wonder if the cause could be laziness?

Re:Natural Selection at work

[jeffmeden]

Man is powerful because of his intelligence. The stupid should be left behind, to make room for the next stage of human evolution.

If it worked that way I might agree with you, but unfortunately generations upon generations exist without demonstrating this, and ultimately they act as a burden on progress because they don't understand it or what kinds of benefits can be found from it.

Yeah, right, as if the lower class has no purpose. I WOULD like fries with that, and make it snappy...

Is Poor Numeracy Ruining Lives?

[dtmos]

It seems there are three alternatives -- innumeracy makes peoples' lives better, worse, or doesn't affect them at all. In the 21st Century, arguments that it makes peoples' lives better, or doesn't affect them at all, would have to be pretty creative, so I think we can stipulate that it makes peoples' lives worse. We're then left to determine whether the worsening of their lives rises (falls?) to the point of ruination. To do this, one would have to take a random sample from a population of innumerates, determine the average quality of life of the sample, and perform a statistical hypothesis test, using the one-sample z-test . . . oh, wait.

If they can't do basic math...

[GmExtremacy]

then something is wrong. "Maths" is so vague. Plenty of people can get by without calculus and trig, for instance. Basic math is actually useful for almost everyone (I don't know a single person that wouldn't find it useful).

Re:Numeracy != math

[Sique]

That's akin to claiming that not knowing the alphabet is not the same as illiteracy. Of course there is more to literacy than knowing the letters, and there are some cases of people knowing a large body of literature while being technically analphabets. But in general, people not knowing the alphabet are illiterate, and people not knowing arithmetic are seriously challenged by math.

Maybe if the schools actually taught math

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of worrying about diversity, inclusion, and social justice this wouldn't be as much of a problem. In addition, if they actually taught arithmetic instead of trying to have kids reconstruct it from first principles, it might be less confusing.

Re:Maybe if the schools actually taught math

[selven]

In addition, if they actually taught arithmetic instead of trying to have kids reconstruct it from first principles, it might be less confusing.

No, that would make it more confusing.

"This is a derivative. The derivative of the nth power of x is n times x to the power of n minus one. The derivative of the sine is the cosine, and the derivative of the cosine is the opposite of the sine. The derivative of the exponential is proportional to the exponential itself multiplied by the logarithm of the base. Memorize that, test next monday"

What would work better - that, or intuitively explaining to people what functions and slopes actually are and why all those things are the case? Education isn't about shoving stuff in, it's about having students bring it out by themselves - that's right there in the etymology

Other subjects require more instruction time

[sithkhan]

I wonder if they are able to name the great LGBT scientists, or explain how evil Western Culture is today, or demonstrate how to properly apply a condom to a banana. I understand this is an article bemoaning the fate of the UK - but it is coming to the States, and we happily grease the tracks for the train.

Re:Other subjects require more instruction time

[spire3661]

Why is their sexual orientation relevant? A scientist should be judged on his work, not by whom he sleeps with. This kind of shit is why the term LBGT is becoming annoying. Self-segregating does nothing to further that cause.

Re:Other subjects require more instruction time

[kqs]

Dunno about those things, but you can see that the poor math skills are already here in the States when people argue that lowering taxes will help the deficit, or that those scientists are making up their climate change data, or that abstinence education reduces teen pregnancy. Some simple addition and statistics training would fix that right up, but it seems that the more afflicted you are, the more you believe that you don't need more training. Tragic, both for the person and for the rest of us.

Re:Other subjects require more instruction time

[sithkhan]

But those points are not mathematics - those are data interpretations. Is statistics a math? Yes. The interpretations? No. A salient point, nonetheless.

Re:Maths??

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Of course everybody here will be aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic, but how to get this through to the arts graduates at the Beeb?

Somehow I must have missed that vital piece of information in the course of getting my math degrees. I'd say "the arts graduates at the Beeb" have a better grasp on the situation than you do.

Even at university level...

[Animats]

From the article:

For less prestigious universities, "the inclusion of mathematical requirements can reduce the number of applicants to unsustainably low levels"

The owner of the DNA Lounge in San Francisco once noted this conversation with some construction people:
Noewell: Hey, do you have a calculator?
Barry: (Hands over his Palm Pilot.)
Noewell: (Looks...) No, I need one that can do square roots.
Barry: Huh??
Noewell: You know, Pythagorean Theorem?
Barry: Uhhhhh...
Noewell: A^2 + B^2 = C^2?
(Waits...)
I'm hanging a diagonal cable, and I know the width and height and need to know how long to cut it?
Barry: So this is that actual real world use of geometry that they told us about! I didn't believe it! I never expected to see this happen!

Re:Even at university level...

[blueg3]

Hell, as long as you're okay with some slack, you really only need to do all the figures in feet and then find the smallest integer C whose square is larger than a^2+b^2, which one should be able to do in one's head pretty well.

Re:Maths??

[grumling]

Work pr0n into that statement and you pretty much describe the whole Internet.

Think of the Bankers!

[Anonymous Coward]

If people were better at math, bankers would lose power.

Think about it.

Wrong causal direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the Bell Curve. Folks with low IQ will do badly in math and life in general. Its not that lack of math causes smoking, but more lower-g folks will smoke and be innumerate.

Re:Wrong causal direction

[madprof]

The Bell Curve? The book with racist undertones that is scientific horseshit?

Re:Numeracy != math

[Anonymous Coward]

You got that right. I studied mathematics, have a master's degree in statistics, work as a statistical programmer; but I can not do arithmetic. I can write GEE code in my sleep, but I can't balance my checkbook.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[mc6809e]

You don't understand how natural selection or evolution work, do you? The innumerate are winning at the natural selection game because they can't figure out how bad having another kid is going to be for them financially.

Having another kid ISN'T bad for them financially. The welfare state is there to make sure of that.

Schooling and education were once considered important because they provided a way out of poverty. Now the government provides. Why bother with pointless chores like learning arithmetic?

Dark times

[M0j0_j0j0]

Not just maths, i get the feeling that sciences are loosing ground.

Re:Dark times

[colinrichardday]

sciences are loosing ground.

Naw, that's just geology.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Gilmoure]

You're stupid enough to eat at those restaurants?

Reading the payslip don't require Maths!

[CurryCamel]

What are these people smoking?
One needs to be a bleeding lawyer to *know* what to calculate intp the payslip in the fist place. One needs to deduce the communal tax ( some 20% depending on the city, but its not stated anywhere on the slip!). Then there is the progressige national tax. Which I think is calculated after the communal tax. Anyone (who don't work with the tax authorities) care to tell me what the progression levels are?
And once we have done that, lets deduce the pension ensurance (which I think is comparable to the pay) and health insurance (which should not be comparable to pay).
And when this is calclulated, lets take into account the tax reductions that are taken in advance, lowering the tax rate.

Anyone who says everybody should be able to calculate their payslip is an egocentirc arrogant SHAAH.

And the other point - train time table. That is easy - and again don't require maths. The train is late. And the nice lady will announce it when it arrives. (If it arrives).

Perhaps life is more formal in the UK, where TFA originates. But here in Soviet Finland, we have this thing called "reilu meininki".

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[CanHasDIY]

This.

Perhaps being bad at "maths" is nothing but a symptom of exactly the same problem that's causing them to be bad at life. Wonder if the cause could be laziness?

Probably not; some of the hardest working people I know have abysmal math skills.

I would keep that theory to myself when around factory workers, farmers, and pretty much anyone else who does a fair amount of physical labor (but very little math) for a living.

Re:Can't do Maths?

[CanHasDIY]

Damn fog-breathers, acting like they invented the English language or something...

Re:Natural Selection at work

[CPTreese]

We have a lot of social and cultural focuses which are pushing against education and general intelligence. Those need to be remedied in some way.

I think our problem runs much deeper than a simple education problem. We live in a society that preaches that all opinions are equally valid and equally true. Further we teach that there is no social foundation for morality other than "we evolved this way". Then with the next breath we say "do good things". Good things like doing well in school, taking care of the family, obeying traffic laws ect. When our children ask why what can we say other than "because society demands it". What if they are different from society? What if their evolution took a different path? In short there is no decent moral ground to stand on in this society. We truly believe that our interests are more important than others. We desire short term gain over long term goals. Every problem we have in society at this point is rooted in the fact that our own personal desires take precedence over anything else.

Physics != Science!

[iamhassi]

That's arithmetic not math!

That's akin to saying "That's physics not science!"

"Mathematics can, broadly speaking, be subdivided into the study of quantity, structure, space, and change (i.e. arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and analysis)."

So yes, arithmetic is math

Re:Natural Selection at work

[maxwell demon]

Being uneducated can make not only your own life, but also the life of others around you worse. Since being uneducated is a condition which is easily changed by getting education, being uneducated may therefore well be immoral provided that being uneducated is your fault.

Poor Life Outcomes

[ZombieBraintrust]

such as prison, unemployment, exclusion from school, poverty and long-term illness.

Seems this study is biased by the life outcomes they chose to judge by. Would there still be correlation if they judged based on outcomes such as these:

number of children, number of grandchildren, length of life, average amount of stress

Re:Natural Selection at work

[artor3]

These people aren't uneducated. They went to school. They received an education. If after years of schooling you still can't divide 114 by 6 given a pad and pencil and a couple minutes of quiet time, you don't get to claim "But I'm just uneducated!". You're stupid, either willfully or otherwise.

Really, you should be able to do the above in your head in seconds, but out of necessity we're setting the bar pretty much on the ground.

Even Here

[drooling-dog]

The other day - in a discussion of quantum computing, of all things - I was downvoted into oblivion and called a "stupid fuck" twice for pointing out that a quantity that grows at a constant rate follows an exponential growth curve. Now I don't think the people behind that were necessarily innumerate, because one of them managed to misapply some first-semester calculus in his argument. What does often happen is that people who learn some math in a rote way are unable to apply it to real-world problems, or even to interpret them correctly. Taking a math course or two - unless focused on creative problem-solving - isn't necessarily going to help much.

Re:Even Here

[WastedMeat]

A quantity that grows at a constant rate grows linearly. A quantity that grows at a rate proportional to its value (which is necessarily not constant, unless it is zero) grows exponentially. What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus). I wouldn't go as a far as calling you a "stupid fuck", but what you are saying about constant rates is incorrect.

Re:Even Here

[_0xd0ad]

I'll nip this in the bud and post something similar here to what I posted in the thread which drooling-dog referred to.

"Rate" is ambiguous. You can have a fixed rate of acceleration, which means linear growth; you can also have a fixed interest rate, which means exponential growth. Neither is really any more correct than the other, and the meaning of the phrase "constant rate" is very hard to interpret without any context to indicate what is meant by it.

Re:Even Here

[WastedMeat]

In the context of physics, 'rate' on its own almost always means 'first time derivative.' Also, a constant acceleration implies quadratic growth. The irony in the GP is that, of the the many interpretations of rate, he fixes on one that is inapplicable in the current context and can only be considered correct through the abuse of semantics, while accusing others of being unable to apply their own knowledge.

We can probably debate the meaning of the word 'irony' now.

Re:Even Here

[w_dragon]

A fixed interest rate means linear growth between any two points where interest is paid, it does not mean exponential growth unless you refer to compound interest, which actually has nothing to do with the interest rate. If a constant rate of growth followed an exponential curve then O(n) would be equivalent to O(n^2), directly, with no wiggle room, since as n grows you're saying you'll be able to see growth that follows an exponential curve. Obviously this is incorrect, and really makes me think of http://xkcd.com/816/

Re:Even Here

[drooling-dog]

No, the actual context was the use of the phrase "grow exponentially" to mean greatly accelerated growth, (or a quantum leap) of a technology due to a dramatic breakthrough. Frankly, it seems a little silly now that it has become this much of an irritation.

Anyway, what made me a "stupid fuck" was to say that growth at a constant proportional rate was exponential growth. The reasoning given was that the derivative of e^x is simply e^x, and hence the growth rate itself is growing exponentially. That derivative is correct, but a misapplication, because the expression for proportionally constant growth is not e^x but actually e^(xt), and the time derivative e^xt of this is simply x, the rate constant. I don't know where in physics a growth rate would be interpreted otherwise.

Anyway, I got my feathers in a ruffle not because someone was wrong on the internet, but because of the insults and down-voting that accompanied it. I'd wager that anyone else would feel the same.

Re:Even Here

[drooling-dog]

True, but the original point was that exponential growth does not imply a growth rate that itself is increasing exponentially, as many people seem to assume. So your example involving arithmetic growth clearly doesn't apply, since it generates linear and not exponential growth. I don't see any ambiguity at all.

Re:Even Here

[drooling-dog]

What you describe is something like x-dot = c, which is linear growth. Something like x-dot= c x is exponential. (if you are familiar with the symbols from calculus).

The original context was my (pedantic?) objection to the use of the idiom "grow exponentially" to imply a dramatic acceleration in the growth of something. So pretty clearly, we're already in the realm of your x-dot = cx, or d(e^cx)/dx, since that defines exponential growth. The value c is often referred to as a "rate constant" (e.g., in chemical kinetics), and of course it doesn't change even though the slope of the curve does, in proportion to x.

The counter-argument that made me a stupid fuck was, in your notation: x-dot = e^x, asserting that a growth rate itself must increase exponentially in order to generate an exponential growth curve. His (I'm guessing gender because of the insult, not the math) differentiation was correct, but on the wrong function.

Anyway, enough of this.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[roeguard]

Being uneducated can make not only your own life, but also the life of others around you worse. Since being uneducated is a condition which is easily changed by getting education, being uneducated may therefore well be immoral provided that being uneducated is your fault.

I think what you are referring to is Willful Ignorance. I would agree that is immoral.

But you can be educated and still be willfully ignorant about a great many things. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Keeping up...

[jkiller]

"Chris Humpries" should know that his name is spelled with a "K." . . . . . Fuck, I hate my girlfriend.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

So the holocaust wasn't bad?

Not more or less than anything else that human beings have done.

Re:I talked with Laffer two weeks ago

[Mindcontrolled]

Interesting. I wasn't criticizing Laffer so much as the brainless crowd who is reducing all tax debate to the Laffer curve. Sure, revenue depends on tax rate. In reality, however, and that makes predictions unfeasible, as you say, revenue depends on thousands of other parameters too.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Beorytis]

the problem in the UK is that people don't want to be educated in maths. There's a large segment of society that thinks that it's good to be numerically illiterate. They wear "I don't know maths" as if it's a badge of honour. That is stupid.

And it's also a problem in the USA. I was really saddened by a family member (who is a primary school teacher) in casual conversation calling math "yucky". I'm sure the 6- and 7-year old children in her class are readily inculcated with this feeling.

Re:Correlation != Causation

[kqs]

Interesting; I've never seen any strong correlation (positive or negative) between physical attributes and mental abilities. I'm rather overweight, but am fairly successful, well read, and enjoy statistics and the theory behind algorithms. My co-workers are all quite smart and successful but also have a wide range of body types.

I've certainly seen correlations between education and other mental skills, though I believe that that is only partially causation. Education can teach you to read and calculate better, but the mental machinery which makes math easy and reading a pleasure also makes school easier.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[tibit]

There is a point at which you can't make good decisions without knowing stuff. You'll be hurting yourself and/or the others, the question is: is it your fault, and there's admittedly no clear answer to that. For example, a fool of a politician, legislating stuff that's genuinely bad, while having all the good intentions and truly not realizing the error of his/her ways...

Re:Natural Selection at work

[tibit]

That one major thing I like about Japan. Their attitude is the exact opposite I think.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Sectoid_Dev]

Having another kid ISN'T bad for them financially. The welfare state is there to make sure of that.

Schooling and education were once considered important because they provided a way out of poverty. Now the government provides. Why bother with pointless chores like learning arithmetic?

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter of empty rhetoric and angst filled superiority.

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[kqs]

I completely agree. Just like my inability to see well is mostly caused by laziness; if I just got off my ass and tried harder, I could finally get rid of these thick glasses.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[roeguard]

So the holocaust wasn't bad?

Not more or less than anything else that human beings have done.

So something like the Civil Rights Movement isn't any better than the Holocaust? The two are roughly the same, taking all things into account? That's your argument? Could you expand upon the economics behind that equivalency?

What you did there...

[oakgrove]

I saw it.

Re: ideologically entrenched

[tibit]

Basically by the simple fact that the endpoints are at zero, and the function itself is not a zero constant function, it must have a maximum somewhere (perhaps more than one). That's calculus 101, stuff that should be taught in grade 9. Now it may be that the optimal point is very sensitive to overall economic conditions, or simply that the maximum is a broad peak, so the curve may not be very practical, but it doesn't change its basic properties. Alas, the "curve" is a completely abstract thing, it's pretty much impossible to produce the data for such a curve in reality, so it's a mental exercise only.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[RyoShin]

Agreed; this is actually something I realized myself recently. Much like how politics is actually a grid (where X is financial stance and Y is social stance, or vice-versa) instead of a straight line where you're either left or right, so is intelligence. It is made up of a grid where X is ignorance (for lack of a better word at the moment) on the left and knowledgeable on the right, while Y is "smart" (common sense might be a better term, but isn't quite right either) at the top and "stupid" (or lack of common sense) at the bottom.

This is how someone can be incredibly intelligent (i.e. they know [i]a lot[/i] of useful stuff) but still make horrible mistakes (they have the wrong knowledge for a situation or are unable to apply the knowledge they do have to the situation) while those with "common sense" can do alright in life but without knowledge won't have many opportunities for advancement.

A better term instead of "common sense" might be "comprehension" or "situational awareness".

No... for sufficiently small values of 10

[sudonymous]

2 + 2 = 10: 2x4^0 + 2x4^0 = 1x4^1 + 0x4^0

this article brought to you by the number 8

[Gravis Zero]

8. Ah! Ah! Ah!

Teach beyond minimum level

[Roger W Moore]

Whether that curriculum is taught correctly, and whether the students absorb and retain the knowledge, is another thing. But the basics seem to be there.

It is not enough to have the basics there - you have to go beyond the basics because post-school people will forget much of the what they learnt most recently. In teaching more advanced concepts you use the basics over and over again and it gets drilled into your skull for good. The old O' levels which I took went up to basic, polynomial calculus and I do not seem to remember any complaints the people did not know primary school maths at that time. If the UK raised the academic standards of schools to what they once were the problem will go away because, when we had those standards, it did not exist.

Re:Teach beyond minimum level

[GmExtremacy]

Not really. You use the basics in life regardless of what you do (likely).

Anecdotal evidence, but I know many, many people who were forcibly taught things such as geometry that do not use it and have forgotten everything about it because of that.

I can't justify forcing people to take years of classes just to help them memorize the basics. It sounds more like it's appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Re:Teach beyond minimum level

[GmExtremacy]

I do not seem to remember any complaints the people did not know primary school maths at that time

Maybe you didn't hear about it. Maybe this study isn't even valid. There are many possibilities.

Re:Teach beyond minimum level

[Roger W Moore]

I can't justify forcing people to take years of classes just to help them memorize the basics. It sounds more like it's appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Ah but that is the beauty of the "old" system. The lowest common denominator did not gain much from the more advanced topics other than learning the basics. However as you go up the ability spectrum people retained more and more and so could use maths in more complex ways - compound interest for mortgages or savings, basic trig and geometry for carpentry, gardening etc. It is the current system, where nothing but the basics are taught, that is aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Given that there clearly is a problem now with declining knowledge of basics maths (and science) there are only two possibilities: either general intelligence is declining or the quality of education is declining. Since I doubt that intelligence can possibly decline so rapidly, given evolutionary timescales, the only reasonable conclusion is that educational standards have dropped. This is easily backed up if you look at the current GCSE maths syllabus vs. what it was 20 years ago with the last O' levels. The same applies for A' level physics - indeed you know need to do a 4 year degree in physics if you want to move into research because of the declining standards at schools.

Re:Teach beyond minimum level

[GmExtremacy]

Ah but that is the beauty of the "old" system.

Prove that the "old" system was better, first.

However as you go up the ability spectrum people retained more and more and so could use maths in more complex ways

Good for them. They can take those classes on their own, and do well in them.

It is the current system, where nothing but the basics are taught, that is aimed at the lowest common denominator.

If that's the case, I'd say it's aimed at people who don't want to spend years of their life learning things that they won't need (the lowest common denominator/layperson). I know plenty of people like that.

Given that there clearly is a problem now with declining knowledge of basics maths (and science) there are only two possibilities

Oh? You instantly believe the study? How do you know these people would do better?

either general intelligence is declining or the quality of education is declining.

The public education system, with its focus on rote memorization and test taking skills, has always been bad (it's especially bad in the US). Sometimes the answer isn't to force things on people, but to leave the option open for them.

Trial and error

[ZedNaught]

I was behind a woman at the gas station who was buying PowerBall tickets @ $2 apiece. She was clutching two $20 bills in her hand.

Woman: Give me 8 QuickPick tickets .. Cashier: That'll be $16
Woman: OH! give me three more.
Cashier: That'll be $22
Woman: Hmm give me three more..
Cashier: $28
Woman: Try 3 more. Cashier: (exasperated) How much do you want to spend???
Woman: $40
Cashier: so you want 20 tickets ....
Woman: If I have enough money yes, give me 20..

Re:Trial and error

[VVrath]

She was playing the lottery. That's more evidence of a lack of numeracy skills than the resultant conversation, IMHO.

Re:Trial and error

[TheRaven64]

Less folks for my kids to compete against when they finish university.

Your kids will either be in some vaguely intellectual occupation, in which case they will be competing with people worldwide, or they will be in purely menial jobs, in which case they will be competing with robots. More importantly, however, most of the people that they will be collaborating closely with will be people geographically close to them. If they have no competent local collaborators, then they will find it very difficult to compete with teams in china and the rest of the world.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[izomiac]

If you remain uneducated then I would argue that is a form of stupidity. It's not exactly a difficult thing to acquire between mandatory schooling, public libraries, and the internet. A basic education is absolutely beneficial. And I think it's fair to call someone stupid if they consistently and knowingly chose a detrimental course of action over beneficial ones.

That said, if those conditions do not apply, then it is possible to be uneducated and not stupid. I know such a person. He's a deaf-mute who was never taught any language because his parents kept him out of school. Most people have no such excuse for lacking a basic education. (And even he, with his massive disadvantages, went on to teach himself how to fix or build most any type of machinery, which enables him to earn a living and take care of himself.)

TFA is itself an example of poor math

[iliketrash]

"weak math skills are linked with an array of poor life outcomes such as prison, unemployment, exclusion from school, poverty and long-term illness"

How about this for an example of bad math? Researchers post an article making the age-old mistake of equating correlation to causation.

Re:TFA is itself an example of poor math

[pitkataistelu]

YES THANK YOU. I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find this sentiment expressed. Isn't the natural inference that bad maths skills are linked to low intelligence (however that is defined), which correlates with "ruined lives" in one or more ways? The same results could surely be found for poor spelling/illiteracy and a host of other symptoms of a larger problem. My maths skills are dreadful, and it only takes primary school maths for me to understand that anecdotal evidence is statistically irrelevant. Yet I suspect the fair few people I know who like myself have a PhD in combination with societally average maths skills and are hardly living the life of crime may be signal, not noise.

Re:TFA is itself an example of poor math

[rackeer]

Linked with means related to. There's no causation implied, sorry. Xkcd's comic had a lot of success and since then it's a knee jerk reaction to accuse people of confusing the two terms, but it often pays off to count to three.

Ban Calculators

[Alwinner]

Calculators should be banned from Maths classes. They are OK in subjects such as physics or design & technology, but calculators add as little value to maths classes as paint by numbers does to art. And, while the UK worries about numeracy, perhaps they could also concentrate on language. I'm appalled by the lousy grammar in England, and it amazes me how impressed British people can be by those who are fluent in another language. Mental arithmetic should be exercised at primary school level, and at secondary school pupils should be encouraged to solve problems, not compute answers.

Re:Ban Calculators

[K. S. Kyosuke]

At the college physics class (two-semester course of physics for Electrical Engineers), we were told to keep our calculators in out pockets and do the math in our heads. This being a course for engineers, we were given a 20% error margin. Since I had been doing this in high school anyway, I found myself being able to guesstimate ("mental quarter-precision FPU") the results with precision somewhere around 1%. It takes some practice, but it works. I guess it's the result of me having been an occasional slide rule/log tables user in high school (geeky, I know) - you learn to quicky interpolate between known values of functions with a surprising precision.

BTW, there is no such thing as "lousy grammar", only careless writing. Grammar is what linguists come up with when they study the language that people actually speak, not the other way around.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

There is no good or bad attached to events. They just happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

You may have an opinion on certain events, giving them a certain quality to your eyes, but that doesn't make those events bear that quality in an absolute referential.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Cyberax]

Well, maybe because YOU are an idiot? Yes, I'm speaking about you.

Most of intelligence is determined by social environment, not by genes (oh sure, there is an inheritable component in the IQ, but it's not that large). And by making sure that people STAY dumb you're lowering the chances of your children.

Would you child be interested in math if that's 'uncool'? Oh, and by the way, your child has just committed you to a nursing home for seniors because he has gambled away your home. I hope you don't mind.

Math skills

[volmtech]

I have four children, the oldest has her PhD, first son has a law degree, the youngest is in his third year of collage with a 3.4 GPA. My other daughter graduated manga cum laude from high school but it took two years of summer school, night classes, plus some cheating to pass the math part of the Florida FCAT. She was unable to attend collage because she said she would rather stab her eyes out than take another math class. She is graduating from cosmetology school this month. Her teacher told her that she was the best student she ever taught. She just has to be very careful with any procedure that requires fractions.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[couchslug]

If they don't fight to BECOME educated, they are stupid.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[roeguard]

There is no good or bad attached to events. They just happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

You may have an opinion on certain events, giving them a certain quality to your eyes, but that doesn't make those events bear that quality in an absolute referential.

Ah, so you are a moral nihilist. Never mind then.

Re:Math education doesn't help

[khallow]

The question that students ask when they hit geometry/trig ("when will I ever use this") is reasonable...unless you're going on to higher math, those two subjects are nearly useless.

Or you build or design something nontrivial. I had to make by hand some foam ellipsoid partitions for a balloon structure. (In the picture in the first link, that's me, Karl sucking up polystyrene shavings like an intellectual giant, I wore a mask for the next one.) Making accurate true ellipsoid markings and cuts is not that difficult, but one needs to understand the geometry of ellipses and make some trig calculations to get the right numbers.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

"Ideologically entrenched" is just a kind of stupid. I fight that all the time at work, often in myself.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Belial6]

I was kind of thinking the same thing. The examples they gave of "only having a primary school education" should have been "don't even have close to a primary school education". Does primary school end much earlier in the UK than it does in the US? Because my 7 year old can do the examples they give without difficulty. Their solution sounds like a case of throwing good time after bad. If you can't add/subtract/multiply and divide by the age of 12, another 6 years isn't likely going to make a difference.

Re:Math education doesn't help

[khallow]

The wings of the balloon structure had ellipsoid partitions wrapped in plastic. Not only did I need to make these partitions, I also needed to wrap them with a plastic sheet of appropriate dimension. It turns out that the perimeter of ellipses doesn't have an exact formula, but does have adequate approximations. That allowed us to make useful mass calculations on the design (mass here being a critical parameter of balloon systems which determines not only how much the balloon can lift, but even whether it can fly at all) without having to build and weigh the structure.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

People who believe what you believe tend to have very shitty lives. Comunities who believe that tend to influct the shittyness on those around them. Whether or not you believe a moral compas is correct, it's inarguably useful.

Anyhow, actions and events such as the holocaust or civil rights movement certainly are "good" or "evil" - because that's how those words are used in everday English. You may wish to use them differently, but in doing so you've invented a private language. Again, not the most useful approach.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Belial6]

My impression is that intelligence is a grid that gets added to the education grid. With intellegence, you have memorization, and critical thinking. Many people can memorize huge amounts of information, but the can't grasp how the different parts work together. Others can't remember things as well, but can reanalyze information, so what they do remember can be used in new or old forgotten ways. They are both sliding scales which means that some people are good at both, some people are good at neither, and some people are good at every other combination of the two.

That is the physical potential side of it. The other side is education. that works the same way, but uses will and access for it's axis. Add them together and you end up with how 'smart' a person is.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[BurningFeetMan]

Thanks to Khan Academy, I did do that in my head in about a second!

I know division, whoa...

Khan Academy has been the absolute bees-knees for myself in MASSIVELY improving my maths skills. All the stuff I'd either forgotten from high school due to not using thus losing it, or even the stuff I never could understand, is now all making a lot of sense. Sites like Khan Academy should reaffirm hope in everyone concerned about the future of education.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

I htink you've got that backwards, though. For most of history, having more children was a good and necessary thing, and the only way to have any hope of being taken care of in your old age. Most people simply stop having so many once industrialization makes kids an expense, not wealth. The fact that there are a few pockets here and there where having more kids is still incentivized is not som e new crisis that will destroy humanity, merely the hold-over of how most people lived for most of the existance of humanity.

Personal Finance Classes

[acoustix]

Ever since I graduated high school I've been advocating for schools to require a personal finance class. We have unprecedented access to tools that allow us to do most or all of our own financial planning. There's absolutely no reason for people these days to not understand how to spend, save, invest, etc. I firmly believe that the housing bubble could have been avoided if people truly knew what ARM mortgages were. But then again, Alan Greenspan was heavily promoting them too.

I thought it was an IP address!

[wisebabo]

I always wondered if it would direct me to some secret govt. web site. Or maybe a fortune cookie factory.

I wasn't sure what the extra numbers were for. A port?

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

I only care about things that are useful.

Deceiving oneself with fallacies of what ought to be, what is right or what is wrong is not useful.

It is important that people understand that all those morals society lives with are completely arbitrary. As part of society, one has to follow the norm to get things done, but one should be critical of people using such unfounded beliefs to justify facts that would stigmatize or impair certain people, which might end up wasting the society's resources when fixing those problems later on.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, true, I give you that. The word "stupid" just lacks precision. Ideological entrenchment more often than not is not caused by lack of intellectual capacity, but rather by willful ignorance.

Re:Maths??

[Tim Ward]

I suggest you have never met a mathematician - it is a sure identifying characteristic that they can't do arithmetic.

Just like Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, and Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal, it is also the case that Real Mathematicians Can't Do Arithmetic.

A Real Mathematician knows about the number zero, and several different versions of the "number" infinity, and can probably cope with the number one on a good day, but any other numbers are arithmetic, not maths, and far too applied to be worthy of their attention.

Re:Maths??

[Grumbleduke]

I have a maths degree, but completely screwed up some basic arithmetic recently. Arithmetic is, as you said, a branch of mathematics, but it not the sum total (pun intended) or even a necessary part. Rather than equating it with not knowing the letters of the alphabet, I'd liken it to being unable to spell:

Good spelling, while useful in every day life isn't nearly as important as being able to write well and understand complex texts; a computer can help you with spelling. Similarly in maths, good arithmetic can be useful in life in speeding things up a bit, but with calculators on every phone and computer it isn't crucial. Whereas the important bits of maths (analytical thinking, the rigours of proof, reasoning, deduction etc.) are much harder to get a computer to help with, and are much harder to spot in oneself if not present.

It doesn't really matter if people can't remember how to do long division or multiplication by hand; what matters is that they find out/work out how to do so when needed. Given that, the OP's point does have some validity, and is not merely pedantic. That said, the title mentions "numeracy", not mathematics.

Of course, the real problem seems to be not that people cannot do maths (which, anecdotally, ime, they usually can when given encouragement and a few pointers), but that they're being taught to answer maths test questions, rather than understand the principles behind the problems; as such, it's easy to forget the specific methods, and hard to work them out later when needed. Sadly this seems to be a problem across much of the UK education system.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Primary grade teachers are commonly weak on math skills.

http://kathyandcalvin.com/national-math-panel-releases-preliminary-report

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/teachers-math-skills-alarmingly-weak-129577963.html

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Person147]

Right, it is just like clerics have high WIS and low INT, and mages have high INT and low WIS Them multi-class mage/clerics are are smart people!

Poor Tax System Ruining Lives

[ljgshkg]

I think an overly complex tax system ruin even more people's life... Wasting time of even the more educated people... to read through.. er... tax/tax-return filing documentations and actually file them...

Re:Numeracy != math

[Tyler Durden]

I don't know why this got modded down because it is dead on. My brother has a Master's in mathematics, and teaches math for a living. (I think he's covering Statistics this year). It drives him crazy to hear someone give him a bunch of number to add in his head thinking that he must be able to do that if he's good at math. Sort of like how us software engineers like to hear questions about doing something in the Microsoft Office tool du jour since we know about "that computer stuff".

Math is proofs. And sometimes it has little to nothing to do with numbers.

Actually, yes, it does drop you a moral rung

[Brain-Fu]

Aristotle pointed out that one's capacity for virtue is limited by one's intelligence.

To put it simply: if you truly want to do the right thing, but you are so uneducated that you can't figure out what the right thing is, you wind up not doing the right thing. The thing you actually do is one of the wrong things, and so it is probably harmful to someone.

Even if the soul of such a person is as pure as untrodden snow, the actual outcomes of their actual actions are equivalent to those of a morally inferior person.

When a person is in a position that his actions could harm others (such as, say, an airplane pilot who’s actions could crash the plane), that person is morally obligated to attain and maintain a high level of competence. However, since we all live as part of an interconnected society, we are *all* in this position. Any action we take could harm others if not thought through, so lifelong self-education is a moral imperative for all of us.

Everyone has genetic limits to intelligence, and limits on opportunities for education, which are forgivable. When you hit those limits and need to make decisions that are beyond them, the morally correct thing to do is seek guidance from someone who is more appropriately educated.

If you do neither; if you insist on remaining ignorant and on directing your life based on this ignorance, then you harm everyone around you. You are therefore guilty of negligence, and therefore you are a bad person.

Re:Actually, yes, it does drop you a moral rung

[Skreems]

Well said. Too many people in our society today have not only forgotten this, but drifted the other way into boastful ignorance.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Maths??

[dintech]

We only need to count to 5.

Re: ideologically entrenched

[AxeTheMax]

Well, if tax rates are 100% then there is no disposable money left, so no economic activity and no tax revenue

No economic activity at 100%? The citizenry may not be spending money but the government will still be doing so; if the money is not spent it will be a meaningless concept. If in this hypothetical situation the government spends the money to to cater adequately for all citizens needs (i.e. the nation becomes an utopian socialism), then there is in theory no problem. It is not necessary for the government to spend the money itself, it is perfectly possible for the government to give every citizen an allowance to spend according their wishes. Don't ask for examples; this is just a rebuttal of the quoted statement, which is not 'obviously correct'. I appreciate it might make more sense in the context of monetarist economics. But that comes with a whole load of preconceptions, which you have taken for granted.

Re:Easy

[Doctor_Jest]

And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.

1...2...5! (three sir!)

THREE!!!

Officially imposed maths classes might be to blame

[D4C5CE]

almost half the working population of England have only primary school math skills

For the U.S. at least, http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf places the blame with the education authorities themselves.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[Krishnoid]

Fictional, but chillingly plausible:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTsyFY9TESo#t=1m30s
• http://www.theonion.com/articles/metric-system-thriving-in-nations-inner-cities,458/

Michigan is different

[witherstaff]

Michigan has no caps on injuries. Everything here is no fault insurance with very high premiums. There have been some ballot proposals to remove the no fault, or to change the no cap injury, but they've failed.

Re:I can't do maths

[SimonInOz]

It has puzzled me for years why Americans (and others) say math - and sports, whereas Brits (and others) say maths - and sport.

Consistency is a wonderful thing.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[AthanasiusKircher]

These people aren't uneducated. They went to school. They received an education.

There's a difference between "schooling" and "education."

A school is a place we use to lock up unruly teenagers and keep them from causing social problems since we decided that child labor was bad. It used to be Communists and socialists, now the threat would probably come from Ron Paul followers... whatever the perceived threat to the social order of the moment. The common characteristics of schooling are trends toward uniformity, obedience, and ability to perform repetitive (and often mindless) drills while memorizing useless (often nationalistic) facts.

An education is literally a "leading forth," where some learned persons help to guide those who are less learned toward a place a greater intellectual ability, understanding, and rigor. The common characteristics of education include encouragement of independent thought, creative analysis of novel problems, exposure to a wide variety of perspectives, ideologies, and methodologies from a broad set of disciplines, etc.

Many more people these days are "well-schooled," but few are "well-educated." And without the broader purposes of education, the drilling and repetitive exercises of schooling never seem to have any purpose and are quickly forgotten.

The person who can't make change without a calculator has forgotten his schooling. The person who can't evaluate the terms of a mortgage lacks education. The former is an inconvenience; the latter could ruin your life.

The real problem here is the lack of education, not schooling, because most students were never taught or encouraged to encounter real-world problems requiring numerical knowledge, which require not just computation but the ability to adapt and solve novel problems. A person may be able to do a lot of abstract math, including even complex (but algorithmic) differentiation or integration, and yet still not be able to evaluate the terms of a loan or a credit card.

That's the problem. It's not that these people are "stupid." They are perhaps "well-schooled," but most of them were never "educated." Without an education, simple computation skills give you very little to survive in the real world of numbers.

Trivial subjects

[Pfhorrest]

This. Basic statistics education for the win.

There used to be a thing in classical education called the "trivium". It's the origin of our modern English word "trivial", and the latter got its meaning because the trivium was considered the basic groundwork that every educated adult was expected to know already. It consisted of three subjects: grammar, (propositional) logic, and rhetoric. We only bother trying to teach the first of these to people today, and generally let them reach adulthood without having really mastered even it.

I think that these three "trivial" subjects should not only be reinstated, but they should be paired with comparable mathematical subjects which should be considered equally trivial requirements for any adult: arithmetic, (elementary) algebra, and statistics.

In primary school, kids should learn their grammar and arithmetic, and be capable of accomplishing basic tasks with words and numbers, writing and understanding qualitative and quantitative statements.

In middle school, kids should learn their elementary algebra and propositional logic, and be capable of meaningfully converting qualitative and quantitative statements between each other, seeing how words and numbers relate to each other in a more abstract way.

In high school, kids should learn statistics and rhetoric, to be able to persuade people with both words and numbers and, even more importantly, to avoid being mislead by others attempting to do the same.

Trigonometry, calculus, and all the more advanced mathematics are awesome and may be necessary depending on what you want to do, but are not necessary just to function in the world. Likewise predicate and modal logics and all the more complex variations on those; anyone who argues for a living (i.e. most politicians, lawyers, etc) should be required to understand them as much as a physicist needs to know calculus, but normal people can get by well enough without them.

But grammar, arithmetic, elementary algebra, propositional logic, rhetoric, and statistics... those are just... trivial.

Or, I guess, "sexial". Which might help sell it? Support sexium education today! It's the other "sex ed"!

Re:Natural Selection at work

[TheRaven64]

I had a really great maths teacher when I was 9. Sadly, she died of cancer a year later. She made the point that mathematicians were lazy. The entire point of most of maths is to reduce the amount of work that you have to do and to solve problems in the simplest way possible. Maths isn't hard, maths is for avoiding doing stuff that's hard...

Re:Maths??

[TheRaven64]

That's why I took computer science. We only need to count to 1...

Re:Maths??

[TrekkieGod]

Both the Today programme and the web site were demonstrating that the relevant BBC people are themselves mathematically illiterate - they go on about how people "can't do maths" but illustrate this with examples of arithmetic!

Of course everybody here will be aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic, but how to get this through to the arts graduates at the Beeb?

I find it ironic that your post demonstrates you don't understand sets.

This is a football

[trinaryai]

I am a math tutor, paid a tidy sum to correct the errors that most teachers make. Test yourself: start counting to 20. Now do it backwards. What number did you start with? Odds are that you started and ended with 1. This is the first mistake, that nearly every teacher makes all the way back in preschool and primary. You always start with 0. Zero means origin. Consider a full number line (1-dimensional) or 4-quadrant graph (2-dimensional). The center of the line or graph is marked zero (or 0,0 in a graph). Starting with 1 is fine as long as all you're doing is basic arithmetic. As soon as you get to fractions, everything falls apart. Consider, we think of 2+3=5; but really what we're doing is 0 +2 +3 = 5. Notice that the sign is attached to the number as opposed to being exclusively an operator. Having the correct starting place is critical to proper numeracy. The second error is even more fundamental. Most inability to perform arithmetic is psychological. If people learned a mantra, such as "If you can count, you can do math(s). Everything else is a shortcut," it would reinforce the notion that math is nothing more than a language to describe relationships. And all the other operations can be reduced to repeated counting. Once the basics are covered, the rest can fall into place much more easily.

Re:Numeracy != math

[Tyler Durden]

English is literature, and sometimes it has nothing to do with words.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not, but both English and literature essentially involve words. However, mathematics does not necessarily involve numbers.

For example, consider a problem from computer science - a branch of mathematics. (Well, maybe a branch of a branch of mathematics). Prove that there is no Turing Machine that can take any TM and tape and decide whether or not the TM will halt when given the tape as an input. This proof, and many others in math, does not use numbers at all.

My point and the point of the OP holds. Being good at math does not necessarily make you good at arithmetic. Leave the petty stuff to calculators.

Re:Maths??

[babthooka]

Don't be a pedant.

What do you mean "don't be a pedant"?? At least 80% of us in slashdot come here to be a pedant! Our pedantic ways are our only consolation price for having endured a perpetual wedgie throughout school and puberty, and now that we can finally laugh back at them, you want to take it away from us? Who do you think you are?!?

Re:Maths??

[RockDoctor]

Not knowing Tim Ward's history, but I do recall my surprise at discovering that in the curriculum of the country that I moved to for university there was actually a separate course of study for "Arithmetic", distinct from "Mathematics". Then, to my further astonishment, my informant told me that it was actually possible to fail the examination for this qualification.

This was, unsurprisingly, as the poor lass struggled (and failed) to calculate amounts of change at the cafeteria, because the till had died. She ended up having to ask people to just be honest. Which probably worked.

(BTW, his observation that real mathematicians can't do arithmetic is spot on. IMHO. But they can generally get away with it, unlike checkout girls.)

Re: ideologically entrenched

[toddestan]

While the endpoints are well understood, what it looks like between them is not well understood. Or in other words you may not have a nice curve with a nice well-defined peak.

Most shocking statistic

[urusan]

The most shocking statistic in that report has nothing to do with math. 20% of Britons are not even embarrased by their illiteracy. I wonder what that statistic is like in the US.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[LQ]

uneducated != stupid

But functionally often hard to distinguish.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

It's foolish to pretend that social norms are arbitrary. Instead, they're the result of thousands of years of experimentation and evolution. As most new ideas that look good on paper are horribly flawed in some subtle way, most new ideas that look good on paper about social behavior are worse than existing social norms. Sturgeon's Law is everywhere.

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

The current social norm is that the social norms from the past thousands years (lack of democracy, slavery, etc.) were very bad.
Yet they were in place for way longer than the current ones.

Thousands of years of history cannot be wrong, right?

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

Democracy started ~2600 years ago. Chattel slavery (the particularly pernicious kind we had in America) hasn't been all that common in history (we really had little excuse for it, even adjusting for the times).

It's not that new ideas can't be better--obviously all good ideas were once new ideas--but that they're usually worse. This is why all good engineers are conservative engineers. "And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'Stick to the Devil you know.'".

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

Democracy started ~2600 years ago.

For a time, and it was isolated and very different to the one we have today.

Chattel slavery (the particularly pernicious kind we had in America) hasn't been all that common in history (we really had little excuse for it, even adjusting for the times).

Slavery has been very common throughout history. Whole civilizations were built on it, like Egypt, albeit it was more forced labor than chattel slavery (not very different in any case).
And even some things which were not technically slavery were pretty close, with often throughout history people being reduced into serving others.

Today's norms of "everyone is to be equal" (which would be utter nonsense for most people in other time periods) and "the majority is right" are not necessarily better.
It could be argued that slavery etc. are better for humanity. At least a minority of people can have an easy and happy life. In a world where everyone is equal no one can. Machines may change the game though, since they'd become the slaves to replace people.

In any case, the same arguments you're using against criticizing norms can be used to criticize them, since norms vary over time, and there is no clear association between "better" norms and "longer period they were valid in". There is no absolute and no God, even to engineers. A good engineer is pragmatic and does work that match the specifications, regardless of whether the specifications are "good" or "bad".

Re:Natural Selection at work

[lgw]

BTW, is there any evidence that Egypt used forced labor in significant amounts? I've heard the latest thinking on the pyramids and other "great works" was the other way, but maybe on other jobs?

Evolution is a good model for societies. Like genetic evolution, it's simple conceit to imagine that evolution moves from worse to better - in society or genetics. Conditions change, and we evolve towards optimal for conditions as they exist. Because we incorporate social norms so deeply, we look at the past as this series of appalling beliefs and behaviours - but of course they'd look at us the same way, as we'd look at the mind-boggling way people 1000 years form now will live.

But for conditions as they exist today, there is Right and Wrong - norms that allows societies to florish, and norms that tear societies apart (or invte external destruction). And, of course, most clever ideas just won't work, because people just aren't built that way. Moral relativism is ultimately empty - a tool useful for nothing - and moral nihilism is worse.

"Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'The Wages of Sin is Death.'"

Re:Natural Selection at work

[loufoque]

Like genetic evolution, it's simple conceit to imagine that evolution moves from worse to better - in society or genetics. Conditions change, and we evolve towards optimal for conditions as they exist.

Evolution projects that men will be weaker, as they will need their physical strength less and less.
How is that "better"? Evolution is not improvement. It's just different.

Society doesn't improve over time. The 20th century proved that. Destruction is the most obvious "wrong", even outside of our norms.