On the numbers front, I do think everyone should listen to Radio 4 'More or less'. It is a great programme which looks at the statistics which are thrown about but just don't sound like they could be true, or are a correlation but not causation.
The one I always like to quote to anyone who simply believes the statistics at face value is about running shoes. In that, statistics show that people who buy running shoes are fitter than those who don't. Does that mean that if I buy running shoes and pop them in the cupboard then I will become instantly fitter or does it mean that people who are already fitter are more likely to buy running shoes? Many an eye glazes over at this point.
The other one that annoys me is the often used '50% more likely to......'. When working I realised that far too many people used to think this meant that if the comparison was against something that was '10% effective' then this new one was 50% more and so 60% effective. Reality of course is that a 50% improvement over a product which is '10% effective' is 15%.
Far too many people just don't understand this, which I am sure advertisers are only too aware of.
Posted by mr BW on 20 September, 2026 at 9:22 AM
I'm not justifying the retention of the triple lock, though that's easy for me as I'm not reliant on a state pension, but it's surprising how many people seem to think that money will be saved by doing away with it. They genuinely don't appreciate that the bill will still go up, albeit by (possibly, depending on the format used) by slightly less. And I agree, few people have a clue how statistics work.
I used to say to Russell, if I dressed to his standards, he'd be embarrassed to be seen out with me. I was remarkably tolerant, even so.
And there wasn't much I could say to that...
On the numbers front, I do think everyone should listen to Radio 4 'More or less'. It is a great programme which looks at the statistics which are thrown about but just don't sound like they could be true, or are a correlation but not causation.
The one I always like to quote to anyone who simply believes the statistics at face value is about running shoes. In that, statistics show that people who buy running shoes are fitter than those who don't. Does that mean that if I buy running shoes and pop them in the cupboard then I will become instantly fitter or does it mean that people who are already fitter are more likely to buy running shoes? Many an eye glazes over at this point.
The other one that annoys me is the often used '50% more likely to......'. When working I realised that far too many people used to think this meant that if the comparison was against something that was '10% effective' then this new one was 50% more and so 60% effective. Reality of course is that a 50% improvement over a product which is '10% effective' is 15%.
Far too many people just don't understand this, which I am sure advertisers are only too aware of.
Posted by mr BW on 20 September, 2026 at 9:22 AMI'm not justifying the retention of the triple lock, though that's easy for me as I'm not reliant on a state pension, but it's surprising how many people seem to think that money will be saved by doing away with it. They genuinely don't appreciate that the bill will still go up, albeit by (possibly, depending on the format used) by slightly less. And I agree, few people have a clue how statistics work.
I used to say to Russell, if I dressed to his standards, he'd be embarrassed to be seen out with me. I was remarkably tolerant, even so.
Posted by Zoë on 22 September, 2026 at 9:34 PMAnother long-term fan of "More or Less" here!
Posted by Tim W. on 23 September, 2026 at 7:11 AM