> "And to that point: the number crunchers say it’s okay, and I believe them."
No, actually, the number crunchers say what the numbers are, and then the voters say what’s okay. On Sep 27, 2023, at 6:34 PM, Lis Herbert <lisherb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don’t believe for a second that numbers don’t matter — far from it. > > But I have no doubt that there is a vocal minority of people who seem to > believe that by throwing numbers around — only the numbers they have seized > upon as important — they give the impression that they must know what they > are talking about, and should be taken seriously. > > The reality is that they won’t accept any level of public spending, even > well-justified public spending for the greater good. And unfortunately, a not > insignificant group of people seem to be buying into the argument because, I > guess, “numbers”. There is a thin veil of credibility implied in what they > are saying, and some people seem to be lapping it up — whether because they > believe it, or they themselves want to punt this forever, too, and the charts > and numbers make them feel like they are making a reasoned decision. > > Numbers do matter. And to that point: the number crunchers say it’s okay, and > I believe them. > > Lis > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Sep 27, 2023, at 6:08 PM, Edward Young <nedyoun...@icloud.com> wrote: >> >> >> The idea that someone would advocate that the residents of Lincoln should >> pay millions of dollars of their money to a construction project on the >> basis of vague aspirations about “values and beliefs", without a close look >> at the relevant facts -- including the relevant numbers -- is so mind >> boggling that words fail me. >> >> >> Message: 24 >> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:04:53 -0400 >> From: Lis Herbert <lisherb...@gmail.com <mailto:lisherb...@gmail.com>> >> To: Lynne Smith <ly...@smith.net <mailto:ly...@smith.net>> >> Cc: Dennis Picker <dennis.pick...@gmail.com >> <mailto:dennis.pick...@gmail.com>>, Lincoln >> <lincoln@lincolntalk.org <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>> >> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations >> Message-ID: >> <CA+LeGX1Oe7XTQxNKfa6L_f1e-64iB5r30=jub8eaxvmmqa8...@mail.gmail.com >> <mailto:CA+LeGX1Oe7XTQxNKfa6L_f1e-64iB5r30=jub8eaxvmmqa8...@mail.gmail.com>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> I'm sorry, but the hair-splitting -- 13,000 vs. 11,400 sq. ft. -- so clouds >> the discussion that it becomes meaningless, especially when there is a >> suggestion to make up that 1,600 sq. ft. with other spaces in town. Aren't >> there administrative costs -- time and staffing -- associated with that way >> of thinking? What is gained by slimming things down by less than 10%? >> >> I've read through these threads, and the numbers -- oh my god the numbers. >> When I listened to a podcast this week from the London Review of Books >> related to this piece (which I urge you to read) >> <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n18/john-lanchester/get-a-rabbit >> <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n18/john-lanchester/get-a-rabbit>> all >> I could think of was the Community Center, and the discussions that go >> round and round about the usage, the square footage, the justification (or >> not) for those numbers, the need to survey further, the need to start >> again, etc. To quote Mr. Lanchester: >> >> Discussions that were once about values and beliefs ? about what a society >> wants to see when it looks at itself in the mirror ? have increasingly >> turned to arguments about numbers, data, statistics. >> >> >> And: >> >> As the House of Commons Treasury Committee said dryly in a 2016 report on >> the economic debate about EU membership, *?many of these claims sound >> factual because they use numbers.?* >> >> >> The idea that numbers convey credibility is nonsense. We are meant to >> believe that some people possess some level of numeracy that the rest of us >> can't, and that only they pay keen attention to stats and figures. And yet >> these same people really just don't want to see anything built, at all: >> some of them voted against the trimmed down, tiered budgets at the vote >> last winter, after loudly proclaiming by email (spewing numbers everywhere) >> that what we need are trimmed down, tiered budgets to choose from. This is >> not arguing in good faith, this is muddying the waters so people feel like >> they can't agree to anything. >> >> Outside Donelan's last weekend I heard a woman tell CCBC volunteers "I only >> know we're going to be screwed". Really? How can anybody feel good about >> convincing people (or trying to convince people) of things that simply >> aren't true? And should a decades-long initiative be scuttled because the >> numbers are off a little bit, because a few years have gone by and things >> have changed, or population has shifted, or or or?? What happens when you >> survey people again, and the slow churn of committees and bureaucracy means >> that new number is outdated? (Hint: that's the point of the exercise.) >> >> And has anybody bothered to ask how many people don't take advantage of >> these programs -- all of them -- because the facilities aren't up to par, >> accessible, pleasant, etc.? That is a number worth talking about. >> >> Lis >> >> >>
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
