If the world were a village of 100…
Posted on 14/02/2012 | 0 Comments
How do we make sense of numbers? Last year when when the economic crisis loomed the Federal Reserve and Treasury Secretary urged Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout of struggling financial institutions. I remember politicians and media going to great lengths to try and put this amount of money in context. What does $700 billion mean to me? How do I relate that to my standard of living? Every technique was used... Shock - Its over twice the amount of all money given to all charitable organizations in the United States in any given year. Comparison - There are about 300 million men, women, and children currently living in the United States, so the bailout is equal to roughly $2,300 per person Arbitrary - an average public school classroom filled up about 70% (between 2/3 and 3/4) of the way with salt! But perhaps the best technique to explain figures like $700 billion is not to go big, but to go small. I recently came across the work of artist Toby Ng. One of his latest projects tries to make sense of global numbers by simplifying them - what would gloabl statistics mean if the world were a village of 100. 
In the field of mental health we have the same problem of making sense of numbers. Often when numbers are too large they become intangible, inhernetly meaningless and are no longer able to appeal to a person's emotions. How do we put into context that "only a small minority of the 450 million people suffering from a mental or behavioural disorders are receiving treatment"? (World Health Organization). Mental illness can affect anyone regardless of sex, age, race, religion, ethnicity or socio-economic class. In any given year one in five people are estimated to suffer from a mental illness and the economic and social costs of these disorders is staggering.
Mental health and mental illness are complex issues. They are complex to understand and require complex solutions. But perhaps the best way to start the conversation about them is to present them simply.
(Note: The image below is my own creation - an homage to Tony's art project)
~ D. Venn
Blog Tag Cloud
adhd anxiety disorders attention award awards behaviour bipolar blog brain & neurology bullying canada care carter center conference confidentiality control coping criminal justice system cruelty cutting depression discrimination doctor driving eating disordersRecent Comment
This is a great set of comments and rings very true.
I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles. After all, scientists are human beings too! But science is different than scientists.
The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict. Science is not about finding truth. It is only about being less wrong most of the time. The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe. The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct! It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”. It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.
t does not drive our beliefs. It does however challenge our beliefs. In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context. That is one of the great features of science.
But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding. And thus it is nasty, brutish and long. As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.
By Christina Carew on May 11th
You can find us here too!
We would like to say thanks...
Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.
Be the first to leave a comment
What do you think?