The Number's Game (Christine and Tina)

In On the Media's interview with Michael Blastland, journalist and co-writer of "The Number's Game", explain that when numbers are taken out of context, they can be deceiving, because they can seem relatively larger or smaller depending on the perspective of the audience. In their example, 2,000 USD can seem like a large debt for the average person, but when that 2,000 USD is compared to the total income of 50,000 USD, 4% doesn't seem like such a ridiculous amount to pay. Likewise, 50 billion USD might seem like an outrageous loss, but when compared to the total size of the American economy, it doesn't seem so outrageous. Michael Blastland anticipates that at this point, we'll have to "start asking that question, what sort of context do we need to understand this number?" In certain cases, while investors of a certain company A suffer a 100% loss, it's a benefactor for another batch of investors in a certain company B. Likewise, in another piece of context, the loss may not be as great to destroy the industry, but enough to damage confidence.


This debate on what numbers represent within and without context ties to several areas of knowledge: Math, Human Sciences such as economics, and Logical/Rational Thinking. Logical thinking and rational deduction are particularly relevant in this case, as the controversy centers around the effect of bias on representations of facts, which then makes it necessary for us to attempt to separate what we think and what we feel in order to not let the "map" guide us through the "territory".


The value of a number, though constant, can be perceived as relatively large or small when it is within a context. Within context, with sufficient information provided, one can clearly show how the value compares  with its surrounding factors. For example, in the interview, the 2,000 USD is compared with 50,000 USD, demonstrating that the 2,000 USD is a relatively small amount of debt. The downside of putting the value in context is its ability to distort the significance of a set value. For example, a debt of 2,000 USD is a relatively smaller debt than that of 10,000 USD, but it would still pose a significant danger to a person's financial stability. When the context distorts the value, anaverage person with the average income may not realize the severity of the problem at hand.


 Therefore, in certain cases, it helps us see the "truth" by taking the value out of the context, as our perceptions will be less affected by our personal biases. If we only examine "2,000 USD" by itself, it's "just" 2,000 USD: nothing more, nothing less, and this independent piece of information will then be valuable for our understanding of "how much is needed to pay the debt". On the other side however, if numbers were to be taken out of context,  where an average person with an average income was not properly informed of the context within which the 2,000 USD is being quoted, that same 2,000 USD will then seem like a staggering amount.


This disparity between a perceived reality and the reality itself lends to the distortion of perspectives, which means that data can be intentionally manipulated to deceive consumers, to enhance political rhetoric, and  misguide investors. This means that the advertisers, businessmen, and others involved in the world of commerce should take the responsibility of displaying data in the most honest way possible, so that the "lay knower" will not be ill-advised, but the "lay knowers" also have the responsibility of determining whether or not their assumptions are reasonable within the context. So it all really boils down to good judgement of where the territory lies, and being able to recognize the values and limitations of a "map". When it comes to numbers, it pays to double check -- just to see if you're being "swindled" or not.