As I’m
interested in mathematics and statistics and how these are portrayed and used appropriately
through the medium of language, I have possibly railed on previously about the
kinds of adverts which try and sound impressive by displaying ‘statistics’ such
as ‘71% of 84 people agreed when asked that our skin cream was
effective/fantastic/not a total con’* or such like. Even if I have railed on
about such inane and misleading statements as you’ll see I carry on a bit in
the footnotes.
More
particularly, at the moment, I want to focus on misuse of language when it
comes to the authorities posing an inappropriate survey question on the public.
(The like of which children are expected to call out in their GCSE exams incidentally
by identifying similar misdemeanours.) I’m going to refer to it as: The Missing
Third Question. Indeed, I’d like to call on your creativity to suggest what The
Missing Third Question** should be.
In case you
weren’t aware of it the government produced a survey to test out the national
enthusiasm for the re-introduction of imperial measurements. The question was
posed in this way: “If you had a choice, would you want to purchase items: i)
in imperial units ii) in imperial units alongside a metric equivalent.”
Hence the
mysterious Missing Third Question.
Other than
the obvious omission I would be interested to know what you might suggest. My
suggestion is: “iii) or would you prefer to throw off all the trappings of
modernity and scientific advance and go back to living as we did in the Middle
Ages?”
Even if the antiquated
forms of measurement are reinstituted wouldn’t it be time to rename and
recalibrate them? Surely now that we have a new monarch who rather than ruling
over an imperial empire presides over a commonwealth, could they be renamed
‘Commonwealth Measures’. Also, could they recalibrated to the length of King
Charles’ body parts rather than those of King Canute or whoever it was?
Alternatively,
how about a new form of measurement based on the principles of the imperial
system? Namely that: i) That they be based on one specific everyday item, all
the others of which are not likely to be of exactly the same length, weight
etc. ii) That the multiples connecting the different forms of measure be as inconvenient
as possible.
In the same
way that the metric system brings together the dimensions of length, weight and
volume***, I propose that the basic unit of measure be The Hamburger, which of
course enjoys all three qualities. The Hamburger could be sub-divided into
seven Gherkins, which of course could be divided into milli-Gherkins. (This
would be the only time a sensible multiple would be utilised.) The next scale
of measurement could be the standardised Distance From Gaming Chair To Screen,
which would be equivalent to 28.5 Hamburgers. Here I’m beginning to flag but
once again I invite your ideas. I have thought that the near equivalent to the
Ton (or Tonne!!) weight could be The 4 By 4, which would be equal in weight to
3004 Hamburgers.
I look
forward to receiving your suggestions!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*I always
wonder what happens to the 29% who apparently don’t think the face cream is
fabulous. Since it seems highly likely that with such a small sample they asked
their mates and work colleagues, do the colleagues end up sacked and the
friends forever ostracised?
Also, maybe
I’m interpreting the closing message of one of the relevant advertisements too
pedantically but are they suggesting that our value as a human being is only
equivalent to that of a tub of face cream?
Just to get
a little perspective re ‘71% of 80 people’. There are apparently around 68
million people living in the UK, most of whom could be prospective customers. There
are about 11.8 million children under the age of 16, the majority of which,
though by no means all, could be excluded – leaving 56.2 million. It’s probably
largely fair to split that number in half, even though many men buy skin cream
(or as in my case nick some of my wife’s) leaving us with approximately 28.1
million potential customers. So the sample is in the ratio of 80 : 28 100 000
or 1 person representing 350 000 others. Not a very representative sample.
**It sounds
like the title of an Agatha Christie, doesn’t it? ‘Aye ‘Ecule Poirot ‘ave
uncovered Ze Missing Third Question and so aye can reveal ze culprit oo ‘as
omitted to use eet. ‘E is…’
***Rather
cleverly a 10cm cube of pure water has a volume of 1 litre and a weight of 1
kilogramme. Clearly far too sensible…
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You might be
interested to watch my poem about averages – mainly aimed at children – with a
nod to being suspicious about the statistics being bandied about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agl9THnIfGY
No comments:
Post a Comment