Taking lessons from Goldacregate, I’ve removed all the rant and sarcasm from this post.
In this article in today’s Observer, we’re advised that this:
PA = gUG + min(k – g, (1 – g)(1 – r))
is an “intimidating” equation”. Only if we’re easily scared! It relates the profit gained from dynamically priced airline tickets to some variables. This equation really is a very straightforward it says:
“profit equals two things multiplied together plus the smallest of two other things”
Using a Greek letter (capital pi) with a superscript following is a bit of showmanship, P would have done perfectly well in this instance. You can read the paper from which it is drawn here. It is written in the style of a paper in pure mathematics, which might explain the intimidation of the journalists in question.
I wrote a little bit about maths a while back: maths is the language of much of the science I do, but its a convenient tool – it’s not an end in itself. The seed of “Goldacregate” was a query by a journalist as to how to read out an equation, the thing is that practitioners rarely speak equations out loud: they scribble them on the nearest available surface (often illegibly, and incorrectly) or fight endless battles with machines to get them into electronic documents. Furthermore there is a long and dishonourable history of public relations companies using essentially meaningless equations to promote products and services.
For non-users of equations they are simply a cloak, a cloud of chaff thrown up to hide the truth beneath. For users, they are a compact and exact way of writing down the truth.
The next time you see an equation, don’t be scared beneath it there is something simple which can be said.
Unexpurgated version: Ah, bless, the economists are playing at being scientists by using an equation and the journalists have got the vapours at the impossible complexity of it all. Nasty equation: please, don’t hurt me.
Tag: rant
Aug 22 2010
“Intimidating equations”
Aug 15 2010
Journalists unable to cope with the conditional?
A short rant on the newspapers today. Is there something in the style guides that says either something must happen or something is not happening? I take as an example, this piece in the Observer:
In its first few months in government, the coalition has delivered one major housing reform after another – from plans to cut down on “garden-grabbing” to crackdowns on housing benefit and the unexpected announcement by the prime minister that council tenants would no longer be guaranteed a right to lifetime occupancy.
This (emphasised) statement is simply not correct. Or it’s only correct if you believe it’s an accurate reflection of this reply the prime minister made to a question at a PM Direct event:
At the moment we have a system very much where, if you get a council house or an affordable house, it is yours forever and in some cases people actually hand them down to their children. And actually it ought to be about need. Your need has got greater … and yet there isn’t really the opportunity to move.”
“There is a question mark about whether, in future, should we be asking, actually, when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period, because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector….
“So I think a more flexible system – that not everyone will support and will lead to quite a big argument… looking at a more flexible system, I think makes sense.
I’m a simple scientist not trained in the intricacies of the English language (particularly the apostrophe), but even I can tell the difference between asking a question and making a definite statement of policy. It seems important to me that events should be reported accurately and not simply re-worded to suit your prejudices. The article I quoted here is actually quite good, and interesting, but given this example of a deviation between what was said and what was written, how can I trust the rest of it?
*Preparation for this blog post hindered by @HappyMouffetard’s Tourette’s Syndrome breaking out whenever she hears the voice of David Cameron.
Aug 06 2010
An Englishman’s Home is his Castle
 |
| Corfe Castle* |
Back to rant for the blog post, this time on housing.
A house is like a millstone around your neck, once you’re in it the reluctance to do anything that might cause you to move out is massive.
I’ve been somewhat itinerant since leaving university after my degree, I lived in Durham, in Cambridge and then in Poynton and now in Chester. It goes with the job, I’m sufficiently specialised that I need to travel to find work. For families containing two academics this leads to an even greater “two-body” problem; not every town or village needs a research scientist of my ilk. The downside of this is a degree of rootlessness and a lack of a handy family network. I’m not sure how common this rootlessness is across the population as a whole, it’s true for many of the people I know.
It was when I was house hunting in 2000 that I got some hint of the credit crunch, I’d gone off to see the financial advisor upstairs from my estate agent to ask about offset mortgages (having been mildly burnt on payment protection insurance, I was trying to work out the hitch on offset mortgages). We had a bit of a chat; after some reassurance on what I was trying to get he pointed out that I was ultra-cautious and if I wanted he could get me a x4 joint salary mortgage. I’d done the sums on this, and frankly it was scary but clearly a lot of people were doing this.
People often have a go at estate agents but personally I think it’s the other punters that really fuck you up. Estate agents at least have to make some pretence of professionalism whilst the punter is free to do as they see fit and since they’re unlikely to have bought and sold more than a couple of houses they can either by malice or ignorance make your life miserable. The bank and the solicitor’s ability to find another little fee to slice off you on the way irritated me too. “Searches” caused me particular ire – it’s not like they actually went and “searched”, they got someone else to do an indexed retrieval, it’s not like they went rummaging anywhere for something lost. Searching for documents these days takes bugger all time and effort. It’s perhaps for this reason that I thought HIPS were a good idea, because I was pretty unimpressed by the system currently in place.
House price inflation is apparently the only good sort of inflation: no one is pleased if cars, carrots, or computers get more expensive every year but for houses it’s different. For those of us on the housing ladder this inflation is no problem, for those not on the ladder it is the sight of the bottom rung being wound up beyond reach. Compared to the 1950’s houses are about x4 more expensive in real terms today, they’re about twice as expensive in real terms as when we bought our first house, about 12 years ago.
The real point of this post was a mild bit of ranting about care for the elderly and the sale of houses. Houses appear to be sacrosanct, you can be sitting on a house worth half a million pounds but rather than sell that to pay for your care the expectation is that the State should provide. Personally I’m hoping for my parents to piss away the inheritance in their twilight years and leave nothing to me – this includes the house. This attitude to housing and inheritance seems to affect every strata of society:
The move towards mass ownership of housing is relatively recent – mainly post-war in the UK (see page 12 here), and around Europe home ownership rates are broadly comparable, there are a couple of anomalies. I guess the reason for this is that home ownership fulfils a deep need for security, and literature and recent history reveal plenty of evil landlords.
I suppose the general point I’m making here is that we all want to pass on an inheritance, this is a very natural feeling but the effect of this desire impacts those that are still living and don’t benefit from an inheritance. I actually quite like Billy-Gotta-Jobs proposal on taxing all houses as capital gains on death, as a way of cooling house price inflation.
Update: as supergoonybird points out in the comments, BillyGottaJob’s proposal is actually for capital gains tax on *all* house sales – not just on death. This is a radical idea – but certainly one that strikes in the right place.
*Corfe castle because it’s close to where I was born and lived until I was 18. Image from here.
Jul 15 2010
On choice
Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a big fucking television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electric tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage payments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite and higher purchase a wide range of fucking fabrics. Choose D.I.Y. and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting in a large couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows stuffing fucking junk food in your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish fucked-up brats you’ve sworn to replace yourself. Choose your future, choose life. But why would you want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose something else. – Trainspotting by Irving Welsh (Screenplay by John Hodge)
For the last 20 years or so politicians have been keen on offering us choice, my message is “I don’t want choice”!
Choice of schools is something of an academic question for me since I don’t have any children but I grew up in rural Dorset and there the offer of choice would have been hollow. There were two primary schools in my village : one Roman Catholic and one Church of England, following that we went to the local “Middle School” one mile away – next nearest offering five miles away, followed by an upper school five miles away and the nearest alternative 10 miles and above away (to be honest I don’t even know where the alternative would be)… and this in an area with a rural transport system, not an urban one. A great deal of effort is expended in trying to rank schools, there’s evidence showing this process is not very accurate – the vast majority of schools are statistically indistinguishable. And who says schools are so important for education? My educational success is down, in large part, to the support of my parents but no-one seems to mention that. No one wants to say: actually your child’s education is very much down to you.
We get choice in medical care these days too but how am I supposed to judge the quality of a doctor or a hospital? Set some bright people a target and they’ll do a fine job of hitting it but is the target really representing the thing you want? People are actually quite keen to go to the hospital that’s close to them. Do we really expect patients to make an informed choice of which hospital is best for them from a medical point of view. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t make an accurate choice of the best hospital for medical care. Best hospital for me is easy: it’s the one about half a mile from my house. And what’s the message you’re sending when you’re offering a choice of hospital or doctor and providing data that purports to represent quality?:
“Here’s a bunch of hospitals – make sure you chose the best one. Do you feel lucky?”
I’d much rather you made sure that it didn’t matter which hospitals I went to.
People don’t actually like lots of choice, academic research on jam shows that consumers are more likely to buy jam from a choice of 6 types than from a selection of 24 types, too much choice confuses and causes unhappiness. This chimes with my experience, to a large extent I’ve given up being a rational economic agent, live’s too short to sweat over a choice of 100 different TVs.
This problem of ranking difficult to rank things is quite general, I experience it myself at work in my targets. I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that for people working in areas without clearly quantifiable outputs (number of strawberries picked, widgets sold, football games won), ranking really amounts to three buckets: sack, ok, promote. Your sack and promote buckets should really be pretty small. Yet we expend great effort on making more precise gradings. More interestingly I remember as I sat through an interminable college meeting discussing with an English fellow the marking of students. Normally for degree courses there’s a certain amount of second marking, in physics where there are definite answers second marking works fairly well but for my colleague in English one marker could mark a First and the other a 2.2/3rd, for the same essay!
Don’t give me choice, give me uniformity!
Mar 28 2010
Bashing the bishops
I’m sorry, I try really hard to be a quiet little atheist and not cause needless offence, but sometimes the perfect storm hits and I go a bit “Richard Dawkins”.
The spark that lit my ire today was on Radio 4’s Sunday program. It was the juxtaposition of the reports on further problems the Catholic church was having with covering up child abuse by the priesthood with a complaint that Catholic adoption agencies, unlike any other adoption agency, should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples because they didn’t think any gay couple was suitable to look after children.
Can you hear the sound of me bursting a blood vessel here?
This isn’t an isolated incident either, also in the news today: a letter by six bishops to the Daily Telegraph complaining of the treatment of a nurse who was asked to remove her crucifix necklace, or wear it inside her clothing. The hospital involved has a policy on uniform which excludes the wearing of necklaces, this seems quite reasonable in my view. I don’t want anyone’s necklace dangling in my wounds, regardless of the form it takes. Now it may be that necklace wound dangling isn’t a problem, and the whole policy is pointless. But that isn’t the argument that the bishops are making, they’re happy with the idea that any random atheist should be prevented from wearing, for example, their bourbon chocolate biscuit necklace but the same rule applied to a Christian is a great offence. It’s a dogmatic position too, wearing the necklace inside her clothing (an entirely acceptable solution I would have thought) is not acceptable to the bishops either.
These aren’t isolated incidents, there are exceptions in law covering the slaughter of animals for both halal and kosher slaughter. So whilst it’s a illegal to slaughter an animal without first rendering it unconscious if you’re a Christian or an atheist, as a Jew or a Muslim it becomes legal. What part does the slaughterer’s religion play in the cruelty or otherwise to the animal? Also in the news recently were the ceremonial daggers worn by Hindu’s. In this instance a child was withdrawn from school for continuing to wear his ceremonial dagger, personally I think banning children from taking knives of any sort into schools is a fairly good idea and once again notice the dogmatism – a compromise solution of a knife welded into it’s scabbard was not acceptable.
We have a wide range of laws which restrict our behaviour for one reason or another, some of those laws are good and, no doubt, some of them are bad. My argument is that no behaviour is unacceptable for one person but acceptable for another simply on the grounds of their religion.
Thank you for hearing my rant!