Column: Statistics can only say so much

By Rachel Allred

Published Oct. 1, 2010

If you’re reading this, you’re part of the 82 percent of the world population that is literate. You’re probably one of the 307,212,123 people populating the United States. And there’s a chance you’re part of the roughly 78 percent of MU students who are from Missouri.

Statistics play an important role in defining and understanding society as a whole. But their value only goes so far, and individual self-perception shouldn’t be based solely on them.

I am not a statistical or mathematical fanatic. In fact, I have a certain disdain for math. And because numbers are the basis of math, I guess you could say I’m not a big fan of those either. It’s not because I don’t think it’s important; it's because I’m not very good at it. I’ve forgotten pretty much everything beyond fractions and percentages. I see numbers as abstract mathematical representations of amount and quantity and statistics as groups of numbers compiled into data, which illustrates the prevalence of a certain idea, group, practice, etc.

But you don’t have to be a mathematician to know numbers help keep the world in order, and statistics enable us to observe trends and how they change over time.

The roles of statistics are seen in many societal aspects. Governments review them when allocating resources. Statistics in crime reports help citizens be more cautious. Lyfe Jennings even themed a hip-hop song around statistics (it’s one of my most-listened-to tracks). University shirts and posters display data about the student body, such as, “Most MU students value friends more than partying.” Statistics provide a clearer view of values and discrepancies and provide indications of what might happen in the future.

When trying to get an "umbrella view" of society, statistics can be enlightening and beneficial. But here’s a danger in reading into them too much: The "50 percent of all marriages end in divorce" statistic both well-known and widely scrutinized. Author and New York Times reporter Tara Parker-Pope said that statistic is inaccurate and believing otherwise is harmful.

“All the talk about grim marriage stats becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," she wrote. "It makes us ambivalent and more vulnerable to giving up when problems occur.”

I began thinking differently about stats after my parents split. I realized my family had joined the increasing number of families separated by divorce. I was part of the said 50 percent, a group I didn’t want to be in.

That realization led me to think about the other statistical categories that applied to me. Some were positive, some didn’t really matter, and many I couldn’t control, but I focused on the negative ones the most. For some reason, those statistics, and knowing I was part of them, upset me. I got so caught up in the numerical data I started to see my life in numbers, something that fit into a statistic. I imagined myself as a dot on a line graph, a slice in a pie chart.

It wasn’t too long before I left my phase of statistical bitterness and started believing, “I’m more than just a number, hey, hey, hey.” Drake would be proud. On paper, statistics might seem like a bunch of numbers separated into categories. Off paper, they’re real people, real circumstances. Numerical data can’t graph a society with complete accuracy, and it certainly isn’t an adequate representation of individual people.

Statistics can’t account for individual circumstances and experiences. We can learn from them, be proud to be part of some percentages and disappointed to be part of others, but who we are as a society and as people equals a lot more than abstract mathematical representations of amount and quantity.