Blog

If you are looking for any business-writing course, UK specialists Emphasis can almost certainly help you.

Archive for the ‘Numbers and finance’ Category

Fewer numbers without language

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Those who see themselves more as ‘number people’ than ‘word people’ might be surprised to learn that their understanding of numbers is actually dependent on language.

New research has found that, without language, it is impossible to properly comprehend larger quantities. The findings come from a study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of a deaf community in Nicaragua. With no knowledge of Spanish or formal sign language, these people have created their own signing system; but it doesn’t include vocabulary for numbers. This is despite the fact that they live and work in a numerate society.

During the experiments, members of the group often lost track of specific numbers above three. In one test, participants were asked to respond to taps on the hand by tapping the same amount back, but they tended to be out by one or two. ‘They’re not wildly off,’ says Elizabet Spaepen, the lead researcher. ‘They can approximate quantities, but they don’t have a way of getting to the exact number.’

Although humans have been shown to have an innate numerical understanding, we are only naturally adept at understanding small numbers and estimating large ones. We need words in order to bridge that gap.  ‘What language does is give you a means of linking up our small, exact number abilities with our large approximate number abilities,’ says Daniel Casasanto, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands.

And we wouldn’t be where we are today without this vital link.  ‘It has been the tool that gave rise to the society we live in,’ Casasanto says. ‘The skyscrapers we work in and the computers that we’re talking on right now — all of these things are possible because of exact large number and humans’ ability to manipulate them.’

Something to consider next time you’re managing your portfolio, balancing your chequebook, or sharing out M&Ms in the office.

Name the year

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Almost a month into the first year of the new decade and the time may have come to pick a side: is it ‘twenty-ten’ or ‘two thousand and ten’?

Most people seem to be automatically going with the latter, but they are wrong to do so, claims one American group.

This is NAGG (the National Association of Good Grammar), a small group that may actually just be one bloke, a cat and a kettle (they don’t even have their own website). Despite their size, they are reportedly very vocal on this subject. They’re adamant it should be ‘twenty ten’ and are, frankly, exceedingly put out that we spent the last ten years saying ‘two thousand’. Founder Tom Torriglia points out that we are not following the pattern of the twentieth century.

Prince never sang, ‘Tonight we’re going to party like it’s one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine’, that’s for sure.

And now for a number of points

Posted by Barbara Wilson

If you watched the recent Horizon programme on BBC Two – 31 March at 9pm to be precise – you can’t have failed to have been moved by the power of maths and how we are literally surrounded by myriad aspects of it in our daily lives. Professor Marcus du Santoy, an Oxford mathematician led Alan Davies, comedian, through a series of interesting exercises to help him conceptualise how we assess probability, angles, and one, two, three and four spatial dimensions.

Professor du Santoy’s enthusiasm for his subject was infectious. Maths is fundamental. We use it constantly whether we are aware of it or not. It helps us make good, rational decisions. And yet, how many of us are confident about expressing numbers in print? At first sight this may look amazingly straightforward but recent courses have revealed that lots of delegates are unsure when to use figures or words to express numbers. And many fudge a perfectly good point by using “a number of” rather than the exact amount.

Why not see which of the following you think are correct and why? Then send us in your answers.

1. The Bank of England’s interest rate is now half of one percent.
2. Rates remain exceptionally low after 6 cuts since October last year.
3. The government looks set to inject around 30 billion into the economy through quantitative easing.
4. The government looks set to inject around 30 bn into the economy through quantitative easing.
5. Three sheep stood up to their necks in 3 feet of water.
6. 1,000 curses on your head.
7. His office is on the 1st floor.
8. Let’s meet on Friday the 10th of May.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Posted by Rob Ashton

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. So said Benjamin Disraeli (and later Mark Twain, who was quoting him). Yet the public (and that’s all of us, at one time or another) continues to be sucked in by reports based on spurious logic and ‘facts’ of dubious provenance. If you’ve ever wondered why, you should read Risk, by Dan Gardner. It’s a fascinating explanation of why we fall for sensationalist writing every time.

The ‘link’ between the MMR triple vaccine and autism is one of the latest examples of the triumph of hype over reality. Reports of a link were based on a study involving just a handful of children. And countless subsequent and much bigger studies failed to confirm it. So the UK Government issued a statement saying that there was no link.

And that’s when it all kicked off – probably helped by the Government’s denial. (After all, if the Government’s denying it, then it must be true, right?)

The newspapers began filling up with studies of children who’d received the triple jab and then went on to develop the condition. Queues formed at clinics offering measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in three separate injections (a method that – unlike the triple jab – had never been tested on a large scale for either safety or efficacy). More and more people sought alternatives, such as homoeopathic ’vaccination’. And – crucially – vaccination rates plummeted, to way below that required to produce ‘herd immunity’.

Now, years later, measles infection rates have climbed dramatically – more than 1300 last year in the UK alone, compared with just 56 ten years ago. The World Health Organization has abandoned its hope of eradicating the disease in the short term. And all because of a dubious, almost certainly unrepresentative study.

So why did we fall for it? It would be tempting to say that most people lack the technical knowledge to assess statistics properly. That may be true, but there’s more to it than that. Psychology plays a huge part. Our emotions are produced in the parts of the brain that evolved long before the parts that enable us to reason. And we make judgements – usually subconsciously – based on emotion (or ‘gut feel’) long before we use logic to work out if our gut feeling is right.

Then there’s innumeracy. According to French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, we’re slower to compute 4+5 than 2+3. In fact, humans’ innate skill with numbers isn’t much better than that of rats and dolphins. It’s just that we’ve learned how to overcome it – with a lot of effort. (When polled, 45 per cent of Canadians didn’t know how many millions there are in a billion, for example.) So instead, people rely on gut feel: autism is a Bad Thing, so MMR must be bad. Logic never really gets a look in.

Risk explains in a clear and compelling way why our lives are dominated by irrational fears (as well as why we don’t worry about the things we should worry about). It’s the perfect antidote to the current epidemic of negative news.

And if you don’t want to read that, here’s another statistic for you, this time from the late comedian George Carlin: ‘Think about how stupid the average person is; now realise half of them are dumber than that.’