Some people don't get the math thing (Reverb.com Rant)

[ravindave_3600]

Remember, the new Nashville Teles have a 12" radius

Or was that a 12' radius?



Not to get completely off-topic, but Reverb charges me tax on shipping. My state doesn't tax shipping. I complain ("7% tax on $300 is $21, not $24.50. The only way to get $24.50 in tax is if you charged me 7% on the $300 price AND the $50 shipping"), some poor schmuck tries to explain it, and with every email his theory confidently changes. I never get a call from a supervisor. I assume Reverb is making a bundle illegally but their staff who can't do math are not to blame.

 

[radiocaster]

Or was that a 12' radius?



Not to get completely off-topic, but Reverb charges me tax on shipping. My state doesn't tax shipping. I complain ("7% tax on $300 is $21, not $24.50. The only way to get $24.50 in tax is if you charged me 7% on the $300 price AND the $50 shipping"), some poor schmuck tries to explain it, and with every email his theory confidently changes. I never get a call from a supervisor. I assume Reverb is making a bundle illegally but their staff who can't do math are not to blame.

I understand your point of view, but the other way around it also wouldn't work, because there would be nothing stopping someone from charging $50 for the item and $300 for the shipping as the system works now.

And I also got charged the full customs fee once for a guitar from China that offered "free shipping".

 

[joe.attaboy]

Very few people actually learn math in public school. They learn to manipulate columns of numbers but not how numbers work. A few more get a basic grasp of arithmetic but it’s from checking receipts, not from school. Mathematics is taught as manipulation, calculation if you will but there is little understanding of what the calculations are for. Probability and statistics are baffling to anyone who doesn’t rely on them professionally. That’s why there are so many fools who think they’ll be winners at the craps table.

One thing related to this that always makes me chuckle: the reliance on the machine to give you your answer. Case in point: a lot of us on these forums probably recall going to the grocery store with Mom or Dad, having the checkout clerk manually punch in the prices of our groceries, then, when through, be able to do the subtraction necessary to give the correct change.

Today, if there actually is a clerk at the register (or you're not using a debit card at a self-serve register), if the register didn't tell them how much change to give you, they might not be able to figure it out in their head.

 

[teletail]

I meant to say that I’m not sure that I agree with probability and statistics being the be-all end-all but I 100% agree with “They learn to manipulate columns of numbers but not how numbers work.”

I don’t think the vast majority of folks outside of STEM really have a fundamental conceptual grasp of mathematics. I’m certainly no left-brained wizard (and I guess equally deficient in right-brained endeavors, master of none). But they really don’t teach you that in K-12, or even most higher ed classes not meant for STEM majors.

I didn’t really understand math until I was like 30 and had to go back to school for a technical degree. A lot of folks out there who master arithmetic manipulation and basic algebra are lying to themselves as far as understanding.

As has been attributed to Mark Twain, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Without proper context you can make statistics say anything. Biggest lie ever is that marijuana is a gateway drug because X% of hard drug users used marijuana before they used hard drugs. To me that's like saying drinking milk leads to alcoholism because X% of alcoholics drank milk before they drank alcohol.

 

[drumtime]

That's why it makes a difference if a study is well designed, well excecuted, and paid for by an entity which has no stake in the outcome and/or findings & conclusions.

Reprinted many times, and used in some college courses. Good stuff

 

[ce24]

Teaching math is on the teacher...learning math is on the student....he may not have done his end of the deal.

 

[Timbresmith1]

It has to be, like any language it is virtually defenseless. The desire for hipness outweighs any appeals to taste, functionality, common sense etc.

Word.

 

[SASouth]

He just dropped the price down to $599 but still sticking with the $150 shipping price.

If it were me I would just but it new with the warranty. At least you will have peice of mind.

I’ve noticed a trend of where a seller will post an item at a low price and then add a ridiculous amount to shipping to mask true amount you’re paying.

I don’t know who they think they are fooling. Maybe they think that the low price will generate traffic. To me it’s sneaky and disingenuous.

 

[BigDaddyLH]

I’ve noticed a trend of where a seller will post an item at a low price and then add a ridiculous amount to shipping to mask true amount you’re paying.

I don’t know who they think they are fooling. Maybe they think that the low price will generate traffic. To me it’s sneaky and disingenuous.

Wasn't that always the case, back in the day? Remember TV offers of just $XXX in YYY easy payments (plus shipping and handling)?

 

[teletail]

Wasn't that always the case, back in the day? Remember TV offers of just $XXX in YYY easy payments (plus shipping and handling)?

+1

Try going into a car dealership and buying the cheap car they advertised at the price it was advertised for.

 

[SASouth]

Wasn't that always the case, back in the day? Remember TV offers of just $XXX in YYY easy payments (plus shipping and handling)?

You’re absolutely right. No argument. But the tactic that you point out would at least had to have the buyer perform some arithmetic to see he’s getting the shaft. Some were too stupid or too lazy to figure it out.

Nowadays these sellers figure everyone is too stupid to notice inflated shipping charges by making it so obvious.

I’ve seen shipping costs of $300 for a guitar being sold in the continental United States and it seems to be especially egregious to me when it is pretty easy to check to see what the actual costs are.

There’s enough gaslighting going on in the world I don’t need to have them to piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 

[Tele T]

Never confuse education with intellegence !

 

[JIMMY JAZZMAN]

This is math class, your music class is down the hall.

 

[getbent]

Never confuse education with intellegence !

and never use spelling as an indication of either!

 

[unixfish]

View attachment 984594
Reprinted many times, and used in some college courses. Good stuff

Staticss. Ugh. Here is an example I use.

These statistics are from MadeUpCity, USA.

- Year 2000. 1 driver, killed in his driveway. 0 miles driven, 1 driving fatality, zero miles driven total.
- Year 2001. 10 drivers, 1 mile driven each, 2 driving fatalities, 10 miles driven total.
- Year 2002. 100 drivers, 10 mile driven each, 3 driving fatalities, 1000 miles driven total.
- Year 2003. 1,000 drivers, 100 mile driven each, 4 driving fatalities, 100,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2004. 10,000 drivers, 1,000 mile driven each, 5 driving fatalities, 10,000,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2005. 100,000 drivers, 10,000 mile driven each, 6 driving fatalities, 1,000,000,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2006. 1,000,000 drivers, 100,000 mile driven each, 7 driving fatalities, 100,000,000,000 miles driven total.

By the year 2006, this is one of the safest cities to drive in. However, the naysayer will remind us all that "traffic fatalities are going up every year!" The problem is, they are both right.

If you are not looking for the "statistical lie" every time you see a stat, you may be missing the point.

Example #2. I saw a statistic on-line about weight loss / weight gain. The quote said "humans double their weight every 15 years". (it may have been 14 or 16, I don't remember for sure.) There is no way I will be double my current weight in 15 years. So how can this be true? Then I did the math, and came up with this; they were attributing weight gain as constant upward trajectory.

Age 0. Born 7 pounds.
Age 15. 14 pounds.
Age 30. 28 pounds.
Age 45. 56 pounds.
Age 60. 112 pounds.
Age 75. 224 pounds.

Well, yeah, that works, but it doesn't work that way. However, the statistic is technically right.

Again, if you are not looking for the "statistical lie" every time you see a stat, you may be missing the point.

 

[getbent]

Staticss. Ugh. Here is an example I use.

These statistics are from MadeUpCity, USA.

- Year 2000. 1 driver, killed in his driveway. 0 miles driven, 1 driving fatality, zero miles driven total.
- Year 2001. 10 drivers, 1 mile driven each, 2 driving fatalities, 10 miles driven total.
- Year 2002. 100 drivers, 10 mile driven each, 3 driving fatalities, 1000 miles driven total.
- Year 2003. 1,000 drivers, 100 mile driven each, 4 driving fatalities, 100,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2004. 10,000 drivers, 1,000 mile driven each, 5 driving fatalities, 10,000,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2005. 100,000 drivers, 10,000 mile driven each, 6 driving fatalities, 1,000,000,000 miles driven total.
- Year 2006. 1,000,000 drivers, 100,000 mile driven each, 7 driving fatalities, 100,000,000,000 miles driven total.

By the year 2006, this is one of the safest cities to drive in. However, the naysayer will remind us all that "traffic fatalities are going up every year!" The problem is, they are both right.

If you are not looking for the "statistical lie" every time you see a stat, you may be missing the point.

Example #2. I saw a statistic on-line about weight loss / weight gain. The quote said "humans double their weight every 15 years". (it may have been 14 or 16, I don't remember for sure.) There is no way I will be double my current weight in 15 years. So how can this be true? Then I did the math, and came up with this; they were attributing weight gain as constant upward trajectory.

Age 0. Born 7 pounds.
Age 15. 14 pounds.
Age 30. 28 pounds.
Age 45. 56 pounds.
Age 60. 112 pounds.
Age 75. 224 pounds.

Well, yeah, that works, but it doesn't work that way. However, the statistic is technically right.

Again, if you are not looking for the "statistical lie" every time you see a stat, you may be missing the point.

These things aren't 'statistics' problems, they are people problems. If someone is going to lie (and it is likely they will) they will lie using all manner of detail. It is a 'tell' in the interrogation business. Someone with too many details about minutiae is usually someone to question further.

The whole--> lies, damn lies and statistics is about people who intentionally, or from ignorance misuse use data to prove an end. Fortunately, those folks do it all the time, so, you can rely on them for bad information.

Years ago, I was part of a group charged with teaching critical thinking skills to 11th graders in Indiana. When we tested the teachers, we found that the unit would be problematic to execute because the number of teachers who could demonstrate the ability to critically think was way too small to have success. We did not think this was a situation unique to Indiana. The whole concept was dropped eventually (although some lawmakers did try to force a poor plan as 'better than nothing' but cooler heads prevailed and it was determined that maybe something that would fail was time removed from something else.)

Your example, for example, is fun for a bar conversation but it is a logical fallacy too. Actually misleading in its own way.

 

[unixfish]

These things aren't 'statistics' problems, they are people problems. If someone is going to lie (and it is likely they will) they will lie using all manner of detail. It is a 'tell' in the interrogation business. Someone with too many details about minutiae is usually someone to question further.

The whole--> lies, damn lies and statistics is about people who intentionally, or from ignorance misuse use data to prove an end. Fortunately, those folks do it all the time, so, you can rely on them for bad information.

Years ago, I was part of a group charged with teaching critical thinking skills to 11th graders in Indiana. When we tested the teachers, we found that the unit would be problematic to execute because the number of teachers who could demonstrate the ability to critically think was way too small to have success. We did not think this was a situation unique to Indiana. The whole concept was dropped eventually (although some lawmakers did try to force a poor plan as 'better than nothing' but cooler heads prevailed and it was determined that maybe something that would fail was time removed from something else.)

Your example, for example, is fun for a bar conversation but it is a logical fallacy too. Actually misleading in its own way.

Oh no! I've been called out! I have to post it here since I don't go to bars! No, seriously, I get you point.

Yes - people using "difficult maths" to lie, and not really a statistic.

A very good friend of mine is diabetic. I help them with data, and we logged and calculated their standard deviation. They told their doctor about how good the standard deviation was (about 22), to which they got a blank stare and the question "What is a standard deviation?"

Oh, for [expletive] sake. How did you get through medical school? They switched doctors, as there were other red flags about managing their disease.

Oh. Your blood pressure is 121/81. Time for meds. Oh. Your blood pressure is 120/80. You are fine. No - how does it run normally, what is your standard deviation, what lead to that exact point in time reading?

Sigh.

 

[boris bubbanov]

To the Vendors:

Just please, stop with the Free Shipping BS. It isn't free. Everyone knows it isn't free.

When you control the shipping, you will send it via means that may mean it never gets to me. Example: FedEx and UPS both know how to get to The Cabin but USPS pretends not to. If you don't let me dictate the shipping, the product will never get to me.