Another wonderful guest post from Jags Anderson!
Jags Arthurson is the pen name of a Brighton, UK writer. Jags has been a research chemist and company director. He has lived and worked in over 40 countries. His novel, the crime thriller Pagan Justice, is available on Amazon with all proceeds going to charity. His new novel, Runner: A Crime Novel, is available on Amazon and Kindle Unlimited. He will be offering the book free to my readers. Stay tuned for more info.
***************************************
It was Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century British Prime Minister, who is credited with coining the phrase, “There are three types of lies … Lies, damned lies and statistics.” Actually, the mathematical discipline of Statistics is very rigorous and precise, but people will often use (twist?) the results of statistical analysis and other numbers to demonstrate a case they wish to make but that the figures themselves do not support.
This came to mind the other day as I was waiting for the Number 7 bus that would transport me with ease and in comfort to the delights of Brighton Marina when I noticed the sign on the side of the vehicle that proudly boasted that it ran, “Up to every 7 minutes,” and this got me thinking. A quick check on the timetable confirmed my suspicion that, in fact, seven minutes was the shortest time one would have to wait for this diesel-electric, low-energy, environmentally friendly behemoth.
Now, if I promised to do a job, say clean your car, you would rightly ask for an estimate of the cost and I might proclaim, “Up to seven quid, boss.” On that basis, you would give me the work. So how would you feel if, job done, I then held out my hand and demanded a tenner?
“Ten pound!” you would be justified in exclaiming in alarm. “But you said, ‘Up to seven pounds’ so how do you get to ten?” My only defence would be to point you at The Brighton and Hove Bus Company and respond, “Well, that’s what they do.” But I don’t think it would hold water.
So B&H Bus Co. is actually misleading its customers and should repaint the signs on the buses to say, “Down to every 7 minutes” or “At best every 7 minutes,” but I suspect they won’t because it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
All this got me thinking of other numbers that businesses and politicians use in order lie to us. I saw an advertisement that said a certain disinfectant would “kill up to 100% more bacteria” than a named competitor’s product. So what percentage more bacteria would it actually need to kill in order to justify this claim? In truth, any number above the competitor’s. If it killed 0.0000000001% more, then it would have met its ‘up to’ promise. In fact, the only way it would break the promise would be if it killed the same (or less) than its competitor or, perversely, if it killed more than twice as many … because it said “up to 100%” not “more than 100%.” Although that, in itself, would be impossible because the ‘named competitor’ claimed to kill ‘99% of all known germs’ so for the ‘up to 100% more’ claim to be exceeded it would have to be capable of killing 198% of germs … pretty impressive!
And it is not alone in this trick as, for example, Duracell promises its batteries last up to 100% longer, and various internet service providers allege their broadband speeds are ‘up to 100% faster.’
Also, as an aside, notice how ‘100% more’ sounds so much bigger than ‘twice.’
Are there any clues that can help us tell when somebody is using numbers to deceive? Let’s start by looking at the accuracy. Does the claim appear to have a suspiciously high degree of precision?
Look at the old classic that “37.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” Note that number. Not ‘a lot’ or ‘most’ but an absolutely precise number accurate to the first decimal point so it feels as if it must be true. But, of course, it is not.
Another example can be gleaned from when the anti-communist McCarthy told the United States that there were 57 card carrying members of the Communist Party in the State Department. Were there? It’s highly unlikely, but who could prove it one way or the other? Card carrying members of the Communist Party would have tended not to advertise the fact (did they even actually ‘carry cards’?), and it is now widely accepted that his ‘fact’ was a blatant lie. But because of the precision … not ‘several’ or even ‘about fifty’ but precisely ‘57’ … people felt he must be telling the truth. After all, if anybody could be that accurate they must have knowledge of the facts unknown to the rest of us.
That leads us to the second clue: the credibility of the number. How could anybody even calculate what percentage of statistics is made up? But sales people, in particular, use this sort of trick all the time.
For instance, a certain beauty product promises to make your eyelashes, “twice as luscious.” But can anybody tell me the International Standard measurement of lusciousness? Because I’ve looked and I can’t find one. If one cannot measure ‘lusciousness’ how can anyone suggest any degree of increase? So the claim must be at least suspect, if not totally false.
Even statistics that appear to be superficially accurate can be used to mislead. For instance, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ordered Colgate to stop claiming that, “More than 80% of dentists recommend Colgate” even though this was, in fact, true. The deception here is that the ‘80%’ claim implies that only 20% of dentists would recommend other brands and what the company had failed to reveal was that in their survey they had given dentists a list and allowed them to choose more than one. So, whereas it was true to say that “More than 80% of dentists recommend Colgate,” it was possible that the same number – or even more – would recommend other brands as well!
And a final clue of deception might be the credibility of the claimant. For instance, if it’s made by a politician … well, enough said.
*****************
I can’t behave; it’s genetic – I inherited it from myself. 🙂
We appreciate you!
Statistics is the method used to arrive at those numbers, not their use. What you have there are the “lies,” or, more kindly, exaggerations, perhaps employing the results of statistics.
Exactly my point, Dave. People often claim that ‘statistics lie’ when, in fact, others twist the statistics to make an often untrue point.
Jags
68.4% of your readers thank you for this blog post. 36.5% of your readers are reading it more than once. 0.1% are statisticians and say it is a damned lie. 🙂
😉 😉
Sam Wood has a good sense of humor.
Behave yourself!
😉