YESSS! I have trust issues!
While reading How to Read Numbers, I received two notifications on my phone about 15 seconds apart. The first one read, “Thousands Killed in Turkey-Syria Earthquake” [1]. The second one read, “40% of American children have a parent who works outside the traditional daytime schedule.” [2].
Normally, I would have responded to the second notice by thinking, “Oh, okay, thank you for the good information.” But while reading Chivers’ book, I have become a little more skeptical about statistics. Therefore, this time, I responded, “How do you know it’s 40% and not 37% or 44%? What Americans did you talk with and how many? What is the traditional daytime schedule? What are the ages of these kids? Is it a problem for the children if their parents work outside the traditional daytime schedule? What’s the denominator?” I would not have asked any of these questions before I read Chivers’ enlightening book.
Now I was beginning to understand the statement, “The media, though, is built around stories.” [3]. The media knows big numbers catches the attention of the readers. Numbers (statistics) help to enhance a story or make a story more believable. At least that’s what the media wants you to believe. I need to be more skeptical because I am a very trusting person. And some how Chivers has convinced me to become more skeptical. He did this by exposing me to many ways numbers deceive me. For example, two ways are:
1. Biased Samples: When the media’s sample isn’t representative of the population, they’ve taken it from. It refers to a situation in which the research sample favors a certain group of people. A biased sample threatens the validity of a study because it doesn’t provide an accurate representation of the population.
2. Absolute versus Relative Risk: For example, let’s take getting a disease. Relative risks are often reported in newspaper headlines, but without the context of absolute (or baseline) risk, this information is meaningless. Absolute risk numbers are needed to understand the implications of relative risks and how specific factors, or behaviors affect your likelihood of developing a disease or health condition.
Until I read Chivers’ book I was not aware of biased samples, absolute versus relative risk, or the other reasons mentioned in the book, not to completely trust the media. I can honestly say with joy, when it comes to the media, I HAVE TRUST ISSUES…and it actually feels good. Before I read How to Read Numbers, I did not have trust issues with the media. Now I can see that was actually a flaw in my character. Who would tend to trust every statistic he or she reads? Now I need to take some time to search within my soul to see why I was so trusting of just about every statistic I read. Ouch!
After reading through the book and being exposed to ways I have been deceived, I am now convinced of two things:
1. Be careful of new studies that do not appreciate the studies that go before it. I need to think critically about new studies by asking, Is this what the whole literature is saying or is the author just giving his opinion? Since I read in the area of trauma, the brain, epigenetics, and addictions, it’s important when a new study comes out to stay up to date. But now I’m wondering if sometimes, up to date actually means out of date or just wrong. For example, last week, I came across an article in the magazine, ScienceNews. The article is from July 2022 and the headline reads, The idea that many people grow following trauma may be a myth. [4]. I have not read the article yet but I’m already questioning it by asking, How many is “many people” What is your definition of “grow” How do you measure “growth” or “non-growth” How do you define a myth? What does the literature say for the past 25 years about how people grow from trauma? Why would it be considered a myth in 2022? Just a few questions.
2. Always put statistics in some point of context because the point is to help people make decisions and navigate the world. Context is king. I need to think about what is going into that number. What does that number represent? Think about what they are not telling me. Don’t panic. Think very hard before I speak about it. Is it consistent with other bits of evidence. Do I trust the organization that produces the statistics. Is there evidence the media intentionally left out the context? Just a few questions.
Well, I’m being very consistent. For the third straight week I was not looking forward to reading the book, just because of the title. But for the third straight week, I am very glad I read the book. Nearly every day I help traumatized patients face their deep-rooted trust issues. But this is one guy who is happy to have trust issues.
1. Tara Subramaniam and Rhea Mogul, “Thousands Killed in Turkey-Syria Earthquake.”
CNN News, February 6, 2023, sec, U.S. https://www.cnn.com/webview/middleeast/live-news/turkey-earthquake-latest-020623/index.html
2. Betty Henderson, “40% of American children have a parent who works outside the traditional daytime schedule.” CNN News, February 6, 2023, sec, U.S. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/01/23/detroit-24-hour-daycare-lifeline-contd-orig-jk-lr.cnn
3. Tom Chivers and David Chivers, How to Read Numbers: A Guide to Statistics in the News (and Knowing When to Trust Them) (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2021). P. 17.
4. Sujata Gupta, “The idea that many people grow following trauma may be a myth.” ScienceNews, July 6, 2022. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/trauma-ptsd-growth-myth-cultural-narrative-mental-health?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_share
About the Author
Todd E Henley
Todd is an avid cyclist who loves watching NASCAR, photography, and playing Madden football. He is addicted to reading, eating fruits and vegetables, and drinking H2O. His passion is talking about trauma, epigenetics, chromosomes, and the brain. He has been blessed with a sensationally sweet wife and four fun creative children (one of which resides in heaven). In his free time he teaches at Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary and is the Founder/Executive Director of Restore Counseling Center.14 responses to “YESSS! I have trust issues!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Last night I got caught by a statistic from Apple News that said something like 12,000 deaths from the Syrian Turkey earthquake. I was horrified and still am by that number. Each statistic is a human being who has lost her life – not to mention thethousands of animals who also died. Even though I had just written my blog post on this book earlier in the day I realize now that I didn’t pause to think, “Hm, is this a realistic number or is it somehow inflated to catch my eye?” In this case I hope it is inflated because the tragedy of the earthquake was overwhelmingly awful when the numbers said 4000 dead. But 12000? That is completely horrifying. Anyway, I say all this because your post was a good reminder that these numbers are coming at us all day every day. I do not have the bandwidth to question every statistic I see but perhaps I will be able to pause and wonder about the statistics that matter to me, maybe even dig a little deeper, especially when the numbers represent a human life.
Hey Kally! thanks for mentioning how you felt about the number of deaths. I felt Chivers book was quite cold in this area. It would have been helpful for him to say, any number of deaths is terrible. Period. Honestly, if 100 people actually die, that means approximately 400 to 900 people experience the pain or consequences of death. So, even a small number can be a big number. Maybe we should be more sensitive with our numbers!!!!!
Hi Todd,
Thank you for your post. You highlighted the perspective that it is sometimes good and wise not to trust. Trust is earned! I was talking to some ladies in one of my groups about trust. It’s easier to just believe what you are told, but it is often not safe to do so. I wonder how having our senses dulled with so much information or lies as in the case of my clients contributes to not having the energy or courage to take a closer look or even notice how we feel about the information we take it. I wonder if we don’t numb out sometimes. What are your strategies moving forward when your gut is telling you to question and not blindly trust?
Hey Jenny, you are so right, it is SO EASY to believe what we read or hear because it really doesn’t take any work. And this leads to my strategy moving forward. When I am interested in a statistic, I will simply ask tough questions and do research myself to find out how true the statistic is. I will also keep in mind who is presenting the statistic, because there just might be some personal bias involved in the statistic. Thanks for asking the question!
How many is “many?” How does one measure “growth?” What is has the literature said before the headline came out? — Todd, I love the questions you raised with your post. As I read Chivers and Chivers, I found myself questioning just about every recent, or not-so-recent headline, story, research report I could think of. If anything, I found myself wanting to / needing to step it up when it comes to research. I want to bring transparency to my limited view. Can any research report be truly objective? There may be an overly obvious answer to that question. Nonetheless, the discipline required to operate with a “context is king” framework has to be foundational. I’m curious how your take on Chivers and Chivers may affect the way you go about researching your NPO topic.
Hey Travis! I love what you said about “bringing transparency to your limited view.” That’s humility man! I wonder how to bring transparency to a limited view. What are the factors involved to keep it transparent?
Travis, excellent question about relating Travis to my NPO. Honestly, I don’t believe I will get the transparency I want. How many church leaders are willing to admit, that they struggle or have failed to help men heal who have serious sexual struggles? I will really need to think through whatever question I ask to make sure it’s understood based upon NPO and that leaders are willing to provide anonymous proof for their answers. But this eternal optimist is quite pessimistic about getting transparent results.
Hi Todd,
Thanks for your post. I am on the other end of the spectrum where I tend to be initially skeptical of most things. I’m not sure either extreme (being overly trusting or overly skeptical) is a healthy way to live, and it’s complicated by the continual inundation of information that we now have to constantly process from such a variety of sources. I think back just a generation ago and our parents were likely reading the paper in the morning and perhaps watching one of the three news reports on TV at 6pm. Most of the news outlets were saying similar things at the time and our parents were having to ingest and process national and global information a few times a day.
How things have changed!
Numerous sources of information with their respective worldviews that are constantly relaying information via radio, TV, social media, text….it’s too much to possibly investigate, verify, and process. How do we navigate this information age so that we end up wise?
Hey Sir Scott! You’re right, being overly trusting is not a healthy way to live. This tells me there is a flaw in my thinking and how I receive information. Chivers and Chivers have definitely helped my to become more skeptical…which is very good for me.
Navigating this information Age takes so much time because it’s important to check facts. But it’s the best way to honor transparency. I actually feel I was more like you and maybe the Lord will help me to think more like you. I need to in order to grow!
As I’m reading your post my mind is flooded with different words we use to describe someone who is trusting vs someone who is not trusting. Open-minded. Naive. Gullible. Idealistic. Cynical. Jaded. Suspicious. Don’t dig deeper into a thesaurus – there are some pretty unflattering descriptors out there. As you’ve discovered, and as others have pointed out, it seems that finding the right balance is key. Even Jesus told his disciples, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16). In light of all this, my question for you is how does your trusting nature (or your newly more suspicious outlook) affect your interpersonal relationships?
Ooooh, Kim! I’m wondering if you are a real person or an angel in disguise?!? Or both?
Anyway, this is an enjoyable question because it is causing me to go inward. I’m not if my newly suspicious outlook will affect my interpersonal relationships much. As a therapist I am always hearing the terrible things people say about themselves and I help them work through it. I also see the skills, gifts, talents in people I hang around with and I do not hesitate to let them know who God created them to be.
even when people constantly put themselves down, I tend to challenge their erroneous theology to help them see themselves through God’s eyes. For example, it’s been said quite a few times, that when I confront people about something bad or terrible in their life, they actually feel encouraged to change in the midst of the pain of changing.
But, and I mean BUT what I need to work on more than anything is my people pleasing nature. I just finished my LCP last week and one of my goals is to get together with an older man in my church to help me work on this flaw in my life. I purchased some good material by Leslie Vernick and together we will go through this “Overcoming My People Pleasing Nature” so I can be more like Jesus of Nazareth. Thanks again for the wonderful question!
I was not looking forward to the reading this week at all and like you, I was so surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I found the chapter on sample size so interesting. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard a news report and thought “how did they come up with those numbers?”, especially when it’s about a topic that I have first-hand knowledge. There is such a danger in not researching the truth for yourself and believing what is being presented as fact. I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to self-reflect.
Hey Jonita! Your post made me laugh because I have also said, “How did they come out with that number?” You’re right about the danger of not researching for the truth. After reading Chivers I have decided, if it is important for me to know, I need to follow through and get the truth. The statistic might be correct but I still need to do my research in order to be transparent in all ways.
Thank you for your writing, Todd!
Your writing has helped me to be more cautious when reading news information or research results. My question is, do we have to reach the point where we have trust issues, or should we adopt a critical thinking approach toward media, and research results, and so on?
Hey Dinka! As usual, you are definitely right. We should adopt a critical thinking approach toward media and research. I have never had trust issues, so I thought it would be fun to use that phrase. 😊