Statistics Are Being Abused, but Mathematicians Are Fighting Back

It's not always easy to understand statistics. Ionica Smeets noticed that it was hard for lay people to understand scientific explanations of statistics when she was a mathematician. She changed that.

Smeets speaks about her field on television. She is well-known in her home country of the Netherlands, where she works as a professor of science communication at a university. She studies how to present research results in a way that is easy to understand. Smeets teaches people how to reject statistical conclusions.

Smeets spoke to the German edition of Scientific American about misleading statistics and how to improve communication between scientists and the public.

The transcript of the interview has been changed.

Which is your favorite example of a flawed conclusion?

It was thought that chocolate could cause headaches. Many people with migranes don't eat chocolate because of that. There are certain reactions in the body that cause you to crave fat and sugar, and this mechanism works the other way around.

When did you realize that you had to fight for the truth?

I talk about manipulated statistics because I think it is important. A few years ago, a lawyer approached me and said he had won a case because of one of my lectures. I wanted to know if he could debunk his opponent's claims. He said that he had used what he had learned to make a misleading chart. He was very pleased with it. If you teach people how to spread misinformation at the same time, they will do it themselves.

I didn't want to give lectures like that. I thought, "You have to talk about these things a lot more." The other side wouldn't have been fooled if they knew about it.

Do you ever fall for a misrepresentation of statistics?

Yes. I continue to do. Statistics is an area where you can make mistakes. It is easy to fall in love with it. I always make sure that the expert on my project is onboard. People think that if you are a mathematician you know statistics. It can be hard to understand probabilities. I don't trust my instincts.

What can you do to prevent suchmisunderstandings?

There are many studies that address this question. When a research paper discovers a connection, it is usually presented in the same way in the media. Most of the media will communicate the same if the university is communicating correctly. Correct communication is a must in the universities. The more precise you are, the more journalistic articles you will produce.

People blame each other. The media exaggerates issues and the schools are to blame for that, according to universities. Journalists say that universities are more interested in their image than their research. The people are pointing at the other.

Which one do you think is correct?

Things can be improved, but they should begin with the universities. Science should take more responsibility. I returned to university because of that. Students are learning how to communicate science in a master's program. We do research as well. If you don't just want to inform, but you also want to get people to change their behavior, that's very exciting.

What do you do to do that?

Communication is very important. I was talking to a scientist about how anecdotes and stories are more persuasive to most people than numbers. He didn't think I was telling the truth. He wasn't convinced after I showed him statistics and studies. He told me a short time later that he owns a motorboat. Everyone knows not to swim in the water with a motor running, according to my colleague. A child went to the hospital after getting caught in the motor of a friend's car. Things turned out well. My colleague was more careful after seeing this story. He had heard a lot of statistics and rules, but that anecdote was more impressive.

Which form of communication is most appropriate?

There is a question of how to communicate during a Pandemic. There is a reason why the World Health Organization's information videos are different from the popular clips on YouTube that deal with the coronaviruses. We work with filmmakers, technicians and anthropologists because of that. While scientists focus on the content of a shot, someone else considers how to get the sound across in the best possible way

The same actor conveys different messages in a short video. We interviewed test subjects to find out how they think. We studied what people think when the actor is a scientist or salesperson.

If you want a research career, science communication may not be taken seriously.

The Sagan effect is a name for this phenomenon. He was a brilliant astronomer, but he was not taken seriously because he was too popular and did too much TV. He did a lot of research and wrote a lot.

That still happens. I am part of a group trying to change this. Some scientists are better at communicating their knowledge to the outside world. You should make sure that some of your employees do.

Is the concern justified? The people involved in communication may not have enough time to research.

There are studies that show the other way around. In other areas, researchers who are involved in science communication do better. Science communication used to be seen as only for students who weren't very good. I wasn't happy about that. Some were told not to get involved in the field. That is changing fortunately.

Permission was granted for this article to be reproduced.