4 ms·
> But now, see, how most people just don't understand the concept of very large/small numbers and can't interpret what it means exactly. I think the argument i
by ohazi 5y ago
> But now, see, how most people just don't understand the concept of very large/small numbers and can't interpret what it means exactly.
I think the argument is that this particular form of innumeracy should no longer be acceptable if you're making decisions where this matters. At a minimum, this would be police officers, judges, lawmakers.
- lmilcin 5y agoBut they are normal people and so are our lawmakers. Unfortunately you can't build the system based on assumption that officers, judges or representatives are Vulcan and only use logic. Any system like that will necessarily be pretty bad. The safety in the system is general public scrutiny, but as we see it is failing miserably, too.
- ohazi 5y ago> But they are normal people and so are our lawmakers. Okay, then this kind of innumeracy is no longer acceptable in society, full-stop.
- lmilcin 5y agoSo how do you propose to do that? You know, this might be shocking, but around half of all people have less than average intelligence... Do we euthanize half of population? You know, then a significant portion of surviving population will have less than average intelligence...
- Nasrudith 5y agoMost people are not qualified to be doctors. We don't just throw up our hands and conclude genocide would be the only answer and it is unacceptable therefore we need to let anybody do organ transplants. Statistical literacy isn't so low we cannot make it a requirement to be a judge. The gatekeeping for once would be the start of a solution - make statistical literacy a qualification for well paying jobs and many will steer themselves to it.