Tuesday, June 19, 2007
firstly, to riyan.
if you think me being a christian is just for show, you are so wrong. i have long forgiven you but as you noe, i am a psycho and i love to play with ppl's minds. lol. didnt picking up your call that day gave you a hint already?
happy birthday to you! you are getting old my fren. enjoy the last year of the decade. thanks for the movie today.
well fantastic 4 aint that fantastic a show. true it packs quite some punch in it, and the cgi is good, but it really aint worth much. i would probably give a 3/5 stars for this show. mainly contributed by the cgi.
next up, 200% of nothing. a mathematical abuse.
HOW MANY LIGHT BULBS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE AN ELECTRIC BILL?
yes you read it right. isn't it rather catchy? the ad promised wonderful savings with its new, high-tech, energy-efficient light bulb and fixtures. this ad also promised extraordinary savings on energy. and this is where the problem lay. one screw in fixture would save the energy-conscious consumer 65 percent of the energy. if a standard light bulb used 100 watts, the screw in fluorescent bulb would require only 35 watts. this seems like an attractive savings, but it was nothing compared to what the ad promised a little further down. there, by installing a metal halide fixture the consumer is offered a $50 rebate and promised an amazing savings of 200 percent on energy.
this is a truly astonishing claim and before falling prey to the wonders of modern advertising mathematics, we are well advised to pause and reflect on the logic involved. to save a mere 100 percent on energy, after all means to save ALL of it. a light bulb that saved 100 percent on energy would burn brightly without absorbing the slightest amount of power, a physical impossibility. but the ad claimed something even more preposterous. were the metal halide bulb to save 200 percent on energy. not only would it consume no energy, but it would actually produce an excess 100 percent of energy!!
in this case of abuse, however, there is no question of correct math and faulty interpretation. the math is clearly wrong. when math is mangled in this way to enhance its persuasion power, we can easily enough discover that something went wrong. but by figuring out how it went wrong can be more difficult. can anyone tell, just by looking at a car that wont run, what is wrong with it?
peering under the hood of an abuse, though sometimes perplexing, can make and enjoyable speculative game. for example, someone might quickly discover if there is any method in the madness of a 350 percent savings. how did the people responsible for the utilities ad arrive at their saving figures? did they simply exaggerate the numbers or did they discover a way to pervert percentages?
i hesitate to publicize the percentage-pumping formula. what unscrupulous practicioners of public persuasion might get hold of it? percentage pumping can be applied to almost any situation that involves ratios.
this excursion into percentages illustrates some of the typical features of a math abuse. the best way to outline the subject as a while, however, is to start with numbers and counting, watching as math abusers overcount to inflate numbers, then undercount to avoid embarassing information. the subject moves on to ratios, fractions, and percentages. here the abusers add and subtract percentages with abandon to produce numbers that look impressive but are wildly wrong. the next area concerns the compound growth of numbers. the innumeracy i call compound blindness encourages some abusers to impress you with growth that is actually normal. when numbers get really big (or really small), number numbness sets in and math abusers stand ready to make exaggerated claims, to make even more than 200 percent out of nothing.
i shall talk more tomorrow on other examples. stay tuned for more fun facts.
- I contemplated at 7:57 pm
