3 ms·
2022 It seems covid hysterics feel they are much better at understanding numbers, and if only the rest of us did too, we'd be just as hysterical. I also rememb
by version_five 3y ago
2022
It seems covid hysterics feel they are much better at understanding numbers, and if only the rest of us did too, we'd be just as hysterical. I also remember being repeatedly told that only the enlightened can understand what exponential means.
To be a bit more serious, not reacting in the same way as you is not the same as not understanding. This smug "if you were as smart as us you'd agree with us" attitude causes a lot more problems than it solves, it's just playing to the base.
- ggm 3y agoAs rebuttals go, it's pretty empty. You basically just asserted "I don't agree" and then dived into ad hom against a straw man. My dad wrote out a million by hand as marks in the 30s or 40s to teach himself what it felt like (he was a mathematician) but ultimately it's still just "the one (1) book I wrote a million marks in" I tend to think of a million in terms of stadiums of people which are usually 50,000 or so, and then try to imagine 20 of them. To me, this also means aside from an inductive quality of counting sheep and inferring a million is out there, I fail to grasp it except as a meta set of something I know I can visualise. Which is pretty much what the articles author is on about. We use scientific mega/giga prefixes to reduce large numbers to instances of smaller ones our brains are built around. One, two.. lots isn't far off how we're wired. Also.. Bedford's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law