The reification of numbers: statistics and the distance between self, work, and others
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7392.771 (Published 05 April 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:771
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Several correspondents make useful observations on our personal view
[The reification of numbers: statistics and the distance between self,
work, and others]. We have not felt that we are a reified body of
traditions, and deny that April 1st was anything other than a coincidence.
Increased concentration on numbers may suggest many interpretations,
and we would do well to remember that modern society, including
contemporary medicine, could not exist without mathematics and statistics.
Numerical supremacy syndrome may or may not be becoming more prevalent
(lawyers notwithstanding, according to Byatt, one of our rapid
respondents), but it seems from our own experience and the commentaries,
that it may be particularly acute in medicine. But is a better balance
between words and numbers - or, if you prefer, data and narratives -
required? We suggest so.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Does the increased concentration when numerical data is presented
reflect some competetiveness in the audience, keen to point out that the
figures don't add up or the wrong statistical tests were used?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Might not the explanation for these observations simply be that we
find numerical data more difficult to take in and process than free text?
Consequently, we sit forward with furrowed brow when a table appears, and
lean back and relax when all we are required to do is 'listen' to the
words on the slide.
Just a thought.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Some years ago at a meeting about medicine abnd the law hosted by the
RCP (Lond) I was fascinated to observe that all the medics who presented
used visual aids (overhead projector slides or data projection) and none
of the lawyers used any.
When I tactfully raised this with one of the legal speakers, a judge,
the response was that it was important not to distract the audience.
I find it helpful to see an outline of what I am being told, and I
find pictures helpful in establishing a mental model. This seems to be a
trait shared by many other medics. Lawyers seem to prefer the narrative
(dare I say rhetorical) approach. I am very aware that people differ
enormously in how they process information[1] and how they learn[2].
There seems a major co-variation between our two professions and
information processing styles. I am not sure which is the chicken and
which the egg here!
[1] Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator for career development
Anita Houghton
BMJ 2000;320:S2-7248 (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/S2-7248)
[2] ABC of learning and teaching in medicine - Applying educational
theory in practice
David M Kaufman
BMJ 2003;326:213-216
(http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7382/213)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
This is a well-made and just point. Mathematics is no more than a
symbolic method of representing ideas: ciphers connected to each other by
conventions, which require training to understand. In other words, it is
just another foreign language, which has the advantage of being
universally understood (though not much by me!). Having said that,
however, it is true that some insights may emerge from the representation
of an idea or experience in graphic form, which might not have become
apparent from pure verbal expression. So both verbal and
graphic/mathematical means of conveying a message are valid and useful,
and perhaps the heightened state of arousal among lecture audiences when
viewing slides and PowerPoint arises from the greater effort needed to
follow a foriegn language.
Mind you, the article was published pretty close to the 1st April -
any significance?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
An excellent presentation of hypostating impressions. However, after
reading this article I am left with the feeling that the opinions of the
authors are themselves a reified body of traditions proving that old
habits die hard.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
bored
Another possible explanation is that most lectures, articles and
presentations are so dull that the numerical aspects do become the most
interesting aspect of the talk- at least the numbers still seem to hold
some intrinsic entertainment value, and the powerpoint effects can be
really pretty.
I have known a small number of interesting lecturers, and they all
have
several points in common:
a strong reliance on narrative and suspense
wide ranging and often outside interests that are worked into the
lecture
a sense of theatrical entertainment.
It is good practice to give a talk once in an while without any
graphical
crutches at all. Your audience will rarely doze off if you really talk to
them, instead of at them.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests