From a lady we have known for many years, now in her mid-70s, in the middle of a discussion about AI: “But I thought AI was just the voice?”
From a state pension age lady of modest means: “I’m going to write to Mr Burnham and tell him to stick his pension rise, I’m not going to pay tax, I’ll be a lot worse off than if we had no rise!” (and no amount of explaining by me could convince her that, in the worst case scenario, she would only lose 20% of the amount over £12,570, not 20% of her entire income – the media have a lot to answer for in the way they have headlined this story this week)
From another of the same group of 3 ladies over state pension age, when I pointed out that those receiving ‘state benefits’ (which they were discussing in a derogatory way) actually included all those people, such as themselves, receiving a state pension: “But there are only 4.1 million people getting state pension in the UK!” I then pointed out that that could not possibly be true as there are over 70 million people in the UK now, with a median age of around 40. No amount of explanation could convince her otherwise as she said she’d “heard it on the news”. Investigating on getting home, I discovered there are 13.2 million people receiving state pension overall, of whom (in the recent past) 4.1 million people were receiving the new (from 2016) state pension rates. Why common sense is so uncommon these days, and how people’s inability to think logically about numbers baffles me.
From me to Mr BW when he retorted to my comment that the t-shirt he was wearing was filthy and what would today’s delivery men think, by saying that at least he was dressed: I was still bimbling bout in my dressing gown: “But I’m not customer facing!”
mr BW
And there wasn’t much I could say to that…
On the numbers front, I do think everyone should listen to Radio 4 ‘More or less’. It is a great programme which looks at the statistics which are thrown about but just don’t sound like they could be true, or are a correlation but not causation.
The one I always like to quote to anyone who simply believes the statistics at face value is about running shoes. In that, statistics show that people who buy running shoes are fitter than those who don’t. Does that mean that if I buy running shoes and pop them in the cupboard then I will become instantly fitter or does it mean that people who are already fitter are more likely to buy running shoes? Many an eye glazes over at this point.
The other one that annoys me is the often used ‘50% more likely to……’. When working I realised that far too many people used to think this meant that if the comparison was against something that was ‘10% effective’ then this new one was 50% more and so 60% effective. Reality of course is that a 50% improvement over a product which is ‘10% effective’ is 15%.
Far too many people just don’t understand this, which I am sure advertisers are only too aware of.
Zoë
I’m not justifying the retention of the triple lock, though that’s easy for me as I’m not reliant on a state pension, but it’s surprising how many people seem to think that money will be saved by doing away with it. They genuinely don’t appreciate that the bill will still go up, albeit by (possibly, depending on the format used) by slightly less. And I agree, few people have a clue how statistics work.
I used to say to Russell, if I dressed to his standards, he’d be embarrassed to be seen out with me. I was remarkably tolerant, even so.
Tim W.
Another long-term fan of “More or Less” here!