Literacy is a topic that frequently garners attention. It is axiomatic that understanding how to read and write are important skills for members of society. A quick Internet search will yield many analyses and comparisons of literacy rates, comparing groups, nations, and even professions. Recently the British Broadcasting Service (BBC) published an article regarding a similar, but less publicized, concern of society: becoming innumerate. No, the opposite of innumerate is seemingly not numerate, though one thesaurus lists that as an antonym.
The BBC argues that numerical proficiency is a societal imperative, and sounds the alarm regarding challenges that we face regarding mathematical ability. It notes that currently "most of us" are acquainted with and use math in our daily lives. We use it to "handle bank accounts, evaluate choices in the supermarket, make estimates, and spot errors." But, this is not the end of our engagement of numbers and math. The BBC contends we similarly engage "our number sense when we decorate a room, bake a cake, go out for a meal, or pop down to the shops."
The perceived problem is a diminishing societal mathematical knowledge or fluency, secondary to the tools now commonly at our disposal. As a society, it seems, we are increasingly reliant upon calculators, computers, and programs. We are devolving from mathematical proficiency in the "simple maths," and in our ability to conceptualize calculations and comparisons.
The BBC argues that these skills are critical for us individually. It cites examples in which math knowledge are critical, including determination of the actual cost of a car (purchase versus lease, life-cost of fuel or maintenance, etc.), comparing prices, adjusting recipes to feed a particular number, and more. It contends that "numeracy is how we interpret and apply our mathematical knowledge to the world around us." Numeracy is "the confidence and skill to use numbers and mathematical approaches in all aspects of life," according to National Numeracy, a charity promoting awareness of and improvement in numeracy. It contends that numeracy compliments literacy, and that both "are needed to function fully in modern life."
This topic caught my attention because I have spent many hours over the years dealing with lawyers on topics of math, particularly in the realm of calculating benefits, reducing sums to present value, calculating statutory penalties and interest, and more. Lawyers are perceived as notoriously poor at mathematics. A recent Above the Law post posits "We’ve long known that law is a refuge for people who are afraid of numbers." In the hours I have spent both learning and explaining math to lawyers, I have lamented that many do lack basic mathematical skills. As an aside, math has always challenged me personally, as have statistics, writing, and public speaking. I cannot think of anything that came to me naturally, that is without a great deal of effort and practice.
The BBC contends that data supports poor numeracy skills influence people's lives. It suggests that there are both career impacts and health impacts. Examples include the inability to understand interest calculations, currency conversions, and even splitting a "bar tab with friends." Not only are people challenged with the calculation of product costs, but they are not appropriately prepared to compare effective costs, such as "between two mortgages or even two differently-sized cans of soda." Thus, as consumers, those who are innumerate face a series of challenges. Though the article mentions health impacts, there is little explanation. Perhaps, those effects might involve calculating daily caloric intake, body mass monitoring, blood pressure, etc. Though all of those are numeric, perhaps no one really does the math on them daily (sorry to those who think the calorie listings on restaurant menus will solve American obesity).
The more imperative point, however, is that researchers believe that "the problem seems to be getting worse." Researchers have devised testing for "numeracy proficiency." They report that "scores of 16-65 year-olds in the US is significantly below average." This may be because schools are not emphasizing math, or perhaps the "new math" is not living up to the promises?
So, we are dependent on our smartphones in yet another way. That is troubling. But, furthermore, there is a promise of coming artificial intelligence, a more intrusive, intelligent, and pervasive invasion of technology than we have yet seen. The BBC quotes one scholar who believes that "we are close to the moment when machines will help not just with arithmetic calculations but with numerical reasoning.” The scholar quoted by the BBC notes that calculators have thus far replaced our need for many mental efforts. But, as yet, we have been required partners in the application of math to the problems that surround us in our daily lives.
Think of the car example above, not just comparing the monthly payment of lease versus buy, but the monthly cost based on fuel consumption, maintenance, etc. Today, you might use a calculator to reason that analysis. But, what if you could just ask "Siri, which car is the better option if I drive it for "x" years, an average of "y" annual miles?" What if Cortana could reply to such a query and ask "How much of "y" will be highway and how much city?" What if Alexa could reply and ask "Have you considered the insurance and storage (parking) costs? You should consider ride-sharing apps instead." Should Google suggest features and options to maximize vehicle enjoyment (radio, seat covers) or to minimize cost (mileage, maintenance schedule)? What will these AI components do for (to?) us?
An intriguing, but overly slapstick, film addressed this in 2006, Idiocracy (trailer here). In it, the hero (Luke Wilson) volunteers to be cryogenically, and experimentally frozen. When he awakens 500 years later, he discovers that "evolution" can work both ways. This "common Joe" soldier of the 21st Century finds himself the smartest person on the planet as a result of the devolution of mankind. It is dystopian and interesting, slapstick and sophomoric. But it does illustrate a potential seemingly alluded to by the BBC.
Our world is evolving. The news prognosticates that calculators and phones have decreased our mathematical abilities already. Therefore, there is conjecture the challenges will be increasingly difficult for us. Because we are delegating so much to these machines, we are perhaps losing the impetus to either check the computer output or to challenge it. A professor told BBC that it is imperative that we understand more than the outcome or solution. It is perhaps critical that we "question where the figures come from.” That subject has been oft-studied as regards price tags, comparisons, and shopping, for example, see Psychological Studies on Pricing.
At least for now, the human must remain in the equation. A computer can seamlessly produce an invoice or bill, but the foundation therefore (setting up the formula, selecting the appropriate variables) must be verified by the human. The quoted professor notes "A waiter at a restaurant might hand your table the wrong bill," which a human could check, but artificial intelligence may not yet be up to that task (you know you had the "tofu surprise" selected because of the calorie count printed on the menu, but the bill presented is for an evil, callous, rib-eye steak with mashed potatoes).
The BBC argues that numerical proficiency is a societal imperative, and sounds the alarm regarding challenges that we face regarding mathematical ability. It notes that currently "most of us" are acquainted with and use math in our daily lives. We use it to "handle bank accounts, evaluate choices in the supermarket, make estimates, and spot errors." But, this is not the end of our engagement of numbers and math. The BBC contends we similarly engage "our number sense when we decorate a room, bake a cake, go out for a meal, or pop down to the shops."
The perceived problem is a diminishing societal mathematical knowledge or fluency, secondary to the tools now commonly at our disposal. As a society, it seems, we are increasingly reliant upon calculators, computers, and programs. We are devolving from mathematical proficiency in the "simple maths," and in our ability to conceptualize calculations and comparisons.
The BBC argues that these skills are critical for us individually. It cites examples in which math knowledge are critical, including determination of the actual cost of a car (purchase versus lease, life-cost of fuel or maintenance, etc.), comparing prices, adjusting recipes to feed a particular number, and more. It contends that "numeracy is how we interpret and apply our mathematical knowledge to the world around us." Numeracy is "the confidence and skill to use numbers and mathematical approaches in all aspects of life," according to National Numeracy, a charity promoting awareness of and improvement in numeracy. It contends that numeracy compliments literacy, and that both "are needed to function fully in modern life."
This topic caught my attention because I have spent many hours over the years dealing with lawyers on topics of math, particularly in the realm of calculating benefits, reducing sums to present value, calculating statutory penalties and interest, and more. Lawyers are perceived as notoriously poor at mathematics. A recent Above the Law post posits "We’ve long known that law is a refuge for people who are afraid of numbers." In the hours I have spent both learning and explaining math to lawyers, I have lamented that many do lack basic mathematical skills. As an aside, math has always challenged me personally, as have statistics, writing, and public speaking. I cannot think of anything that came to me naturally, that is without a great deal of effort and practice.
The BBC contends that data supports poor numeracy skills influence people's lives. It suggests that there are both career impacts and health impacts. Examples include the inability to understand interest calculations, currency conversions, and even splitting a "bar tab with friends." Not only are people challenged with the calculation of product costs, but they are not appropriately prepared to compare effective costs, such as "between two mortgages or even two differently-sized cans of soda." Thus, as consumers, those who are innumerate face a series of challenges. Though the article mentions health impacts, there is little explanation. Perhaps, those effects might involve calculating daily caloric intake, body mass monitoring, blood pressure, etc. Though all of those are numeric, perhaps no one really does the math on them daily (sorry to those who think the calorie listings on restaurant menus will solve American obesity).
The more imperative point, however, is that researchers believe that "the problem seems to be getting worse." Researchers have devised testing for "numeracy proficiency." They report that "scores of 16-65 year-olds in the US is significantly below average." This may be because schools are not emphasizing math, or perhaps the "new math" is not living up to the promises?
So, we are dependent on our smartphones in yet another way. That is troubling. But, furthermore, there is a promise of coming artificial intelligence, a more intrusive, intelligent, and pervasive invasion of technology than we have yet seen. The BBC quotes one scholar who believes that "we are close to the moment when machines will help not just with arithmetic calculations but with numerical reasoning.” The scholar quoted by the BBC notes that calculators have thus far replaced our need for many mental efforts. But, as yet, we have been required partners in the application of math to the problems that surround us in our daily lives.
Think of the car example above, not just comparing the monthly payment of lease versus buy, but the monthly cost based on fuel consumption, maintenance, etc. Today, you might use a calculator to reason that analysis. But, what if you could just ask "Siri, which car is the better option if I drive it for "x" years, an average of "y" annual miles?" What if Cortana could reply to such a query and ask "How much of "y" will be highway and how much city?" What if Alexa could reply and ask "Have you considered the insurance and storage (parking) costs? You should consider ride-sharing apps instead." Should Google suggest features and options to maximize vehicle enjoyment (radio, seat covers) or to minimize cost (mileage, maintenance schedule)? What will these AI components do for (to?) us?
An intriguing, but overly slapstick, film addressed this in 2006, Idiocracy (trailer here). In it, the hero (Luke Wilson) volunteers to be cryogenically, and experimentally frozen. When he awakens 500 years later, he discovers that "evolution" can work both ways. This "common Joe" soldier of the 21st Century finds himself the smartest person on the planet as a result of the devolution of mankind. It is dystopian and interesting, slapstick and sophomoric. But it does illustrate a potential seemingly alluded to by the BBC.
Our world is evolving. The news prognosticates that calculators and phones have decreased our mathematical abilities already. Therefore, there is conjecture the challenges will be increasingly difficult for us. Because we are delegating so much to these machines, we are perhaps losing the impetus to either check the computer output or to challenge it. A professor told BBC that it is imperative that we understand more than the outcome or solution. It is perhaps critical that we "question where the figures come from.” That subject has been oft-studied as regards price tags, comparisons, and shopping, for example, see Psychological Studies on Pricing.
At least for now, the human must remain in the equation. A computer can seamlessly produce an invoice or bill, but the foundation therefore (setting up the formula, selecting the appropriate variables) must be verified by the human. The quoted professor notes "A waiter at a restaurant might hand your table the wrong bill," which a human could check, but artificial intelligence may not yet be up to that task (you know you had the "tofu surprise" selected because of the calorie count printed on the menu, but the bill presented is for an evil, callous, rib-eye steak with mashed potatoes).
The "setup" of the problem (what is eaten) will drive the outcome (price billed), and in that computers could make ineffective selections. You know what you ate (trust me, eat tofu and you will know it, even if it is not a "surprise"), but the computer or AI does not. If the "setup" is thus flawed, then so will the outcome, or bill, be flawed. That's not because the math is wrong, but because the manner in which the equation is set up may be inappropriate for the issue that is to be addressed.
The authors submit that we should address this societal concern in 3 steps. The first is relatively simple, personally decline to rely upon the calculator or smartphone. They suggest that we "do basic calculations in your head or on paper." Admittedly, that is a challenge for sum (sic) who have either not explored math or have had skills atrophy in the age of technology. Second, we must question numerical outputs such as statistics; there must be an intellectual effort focused on understanding the structure of equations and thereby the context of results. Finally, they suggest that we make conscious decisions about when and how computers might help us with understanding and appreciating numbers, and conversely when it remains appropriate for us to instead challenge our own grey cells.
The contention is that we must not blindly rely upon the technology that affords us calculations and results. We must instead remain skeptical, "pitting quantitative analysis against what we’re told is true." The implications of reliance, atrophy, and ambivalence regarding math and numbers is purportedly as important as retaining our ability to read. And, given the ubiquitous nature of microprocessors in our lives, and the ever-evolving computer intelligence, perhaps we need to make these decisions sooner rather than later, while we are still smart enough to both want to and be able to?
The authors submit that we should address this societal concern in 3 steps. The first is relatively simple, personally decline to rely upon the calculator or smartphone. They suggest that we "do basic calculations in your head or on paper." Admittedly, that is a challenge for sum (sic) who have either not explored math or have had skills atrophy in the age of technology. Second, we must question numerical outputs such as statistics; there must be an intellectual effort focused on understanding the structure of equations and thereby the context of results. Finally, they suggest that we make conscious decisions about when and how computers might help us with understanding and appreciating numbers, and conversely when it remains appropriate for us to instead challenge our own grey cells.
The contention is that we must not blindly rely upon the technology that affords us calculations and results. We must instead remain skeptical, "pitting quantitative analysis against what we’re told is true." The implications of reliance, atrophy, and ambivalence regarding math and numbers is purportedly as important as retaining our ability to read. And, given the ubiquitous nature of microprocessors in our lives, and the ever-evolving computer intelligence, perhaps we need to make these decisions sooner rather than later, while we are still smart enough to both want to and be able to?
