3 ms·
The article mentions that one of the consequences of numerical illiteracy is the formation of a technocracy. From the looks of our current culture it seems like
by xel02 17y ago
The article mentions that one of the consequences of numerical illiteracy is the formation of a technocracy. From the looks of our current culture it seems like the opposite. Government is filled with politicians not of a scientific/mathematical background but instead capable of rhetoric (or not capable at all =D).
I think the actual effect is that a government stagnates technologically because the numerically illiterate masses tend to vote for people who share their opinions, and hence there is a void of technocrats in government.
The trend seems to be changing now though, possibly because those 'smart' people (like the readers of HN) are making money, and impressing others. Blogs probably also increase the sociability of 'nerds' and they are sharing their opinions in a medium that the masses can read and appreciate.
- gabrielroth 17y agoYou're assuming that elected officials are the only wielders of government power. But the technocratic work is done by two groups of professional analysts: civil-service employees who work for agencies like the Congressional Budget Office or the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and private-sector employees who work for the lobbying and government-affairs divisions of corporate interests. On questions requiring any technical sophistication, the elected officials base their decisions on the recommendations of those technocrats.
- xel02 17y agoYou're right in that politicians look to advisers for recommendations. However the problem of numerical illiteracy is still there. What happens if say for the problem of climate change there are two conflicting recommendations -- one from a scientist working for a lobby group, and the other from academia. Certainly the politician isn't expected to have enough knowledge to fully compare the two different reports, but a solid understanding of fundamental mathematics, statistics, and just basic physics could result in a good or bad decision. I remember as an exercise one of my physics professors asked us whether it would be possible to make up the energy deficit in British Columbia through wind turbines. Using back of the envelope calculations, basic physics, and some generous estimates we proved that it would be unlikely -- if a politician were able to do this it could very likely affect his decisions on whether other energy sources are needed.
- gabriel 17y agoGovernment is filled with politicians not of a scientific/mathematical background but instead capable of rhetoric (or not capable at all =D). The word instead stuck out to me here, because I don't think these two qualities are an either/or quality. Further, don't be so quick to demonize the rhetorician. Unfortunately the Rhetoric today is all but extinct, to the point that the word is used derogatorily, much like the word Hacker. You want to make a difference today? Learn rhetoric. Take two weeks and research the term. Find the people who spoke directly to this issue. Your search will take you to the limits of the history of ideas. I agree, xel02, that a rhetorician must not be solely a rhetorician. That would be like a Hacker who only chooses Hacker methods of communication and then wonder why he/she gets blackballed in the workplace and why no one listens. Being an expert, by itself, isn't enough to entitle one to the responsibility of speaking for others. The rhetoric, lets now say the Politician, has the responsibility to make decisions for a group, and while these decisions require technocratic involvement, they have other non-technocratic elements to be considered.
- ableal 17y agoI, as an engineer, was appalled to learn from a lawyer that they didn't study rhetoric in law school in our corner of Europe. And debate teams, in high-school or whenever - forget it. That's like sending soldiers to war without a single visit to the shooting range. Never mind the common citizen.