The upside is that numbers are firm, concrete, nonjudgmental, measurable. The downside is that numbers are unforgiving, non-intuitive and don’t necessarily reflect circumstance.
So let’s talk numbers:
- 3,000 – number of cowhides it takes to make footballs for one NFL season
- 200 to 1,000 – years it takes for 1 inch of soil to form
- Eight billion – dollar amount government distributed in farm payments (2007)
- 241 billion – total farm production expenditures (2007)
- 33,827 – dollars of net cash income average per farm (2007)
What the numbers don’t say
Scientists who study the brain tell us that counting functions, such as those listed here, are quite separate from data-calculating functions. They even happen in different areas of the brain.
In other words, someone may be a whiz at calculating math functions but totally inept at relating numbers in a meaningful way. While numbers are absolute, subsets and meanings can surely be skewed to support any ideology or agenda.
Let’s take one number, and just for fun we’ll misinterpret the heck out of it – take eight billion, which is the dollar amount the U.S. government distributed in farm payments according to the 2007 evaluations.
Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? It is. It is a big number if we’re talking about dollars in a single operator’s farm budget. It’s huge. It’s a big number if that’s what taxpayers base a loan payment on, for crying out loud.
But it’s really small compared to total farm production expenditures for the same period – $241 billion. Insignificant even. Miniscule.
See what we did there? We took a number, an absolute, and made it bigger than life, and then conversely made it insignificant. Neither view is fair. It’s eight billion.
No more, no less. It is what it is. It’s only the meanings we attach to it that make the waters murky, and we better attach meaning (correct meaning) in order to understand what eight billion really represents.
Extrapolation is another process that can skew numbers, whereby we predict trends for the future. Basically, we say, “This thing happened over a set period of time; ergo, it will continue to happen
.” Except that might not be true, as extrapolation doesn’t account for changing circumstances. For instance, if five years ago a man had no wife, and today he has one wife, when we extrapolate those numbers, we’ll predict a trend of acquiring one wife every five years. So predicting trends by extrapolation, while useful, may be fraught with peril.
Correlation of meaning to numbers can also be flawed. If we say, “Studies found when most drowning incidents occurred at the beach, ice cream sales were at their highest,” it doesn’t mean ice cream caused the drownings.
Correlation is misused by special-interest groups all the time to prove a point that can’t otherwise be logically proven. But it sure creates a stir, and unless we evaluate the claims, consumers will likely be sucked in. We’re too dang gullible.
So why the numbers diatribe? It’s January. You’re going to see a lot of numbers and statistics being thrown around – from seed sales to corn prices, and acres harvested to operating budgets.
And those numbers will be analyzed, extrapolated and correlated to death. So, while your farm projections, statistics and budgets, for example, are heavily math-based, it’s a mistake to separate them from reality, which really limits their value.
They’re helpful, but only if we’re careful and discerning about applying correct meanings to them. Don’t get caught in the numbers game. Evaluate numbers fairly, insert reality, and don’t believe everything you hear. FG
Lynn Jaynes
Editor
Progressive Forage Grower
