Blog Post Content

The DodecahedronMy favorite dog-earred, page-stained book growing up was The Phantom Tollbooth. I must have read over 40 times about Milo’s quest through the Kingdom of Wisdom to reconcile the rulers of Dictionopolis, the lover of words, and Digitopolis, the lover of numbers. The conclusion of this book, and of John Allen Paulos’ recent post in The New York Times, is that both language and math should reign equally.

Paulos, a mathematician and professor, argues that while narratives and statistics play important roles, people approach them both with different mindsets:

“Despite the naturalness of these notions, however, there is a tension between stories and statistics, and one under-appreciated contrast between them is simply the mindset with which we approach them. In listening to stories we tend to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained, whereas in evaluating statistics we generally have an opposite inclination to suspend belief in order not to be beguiled.”

He goes on to demonstrate this tension by citing examples of statistical errors that are completely natural in storytelling, like the conjunction fallacy.

Journalism, to me, seems to be the attempt to reconcile that tension by finding common space between the data and the narratives. Do you think there is an inherent difference in how we mentally approach statistics and stories? Or is it a tension which can be bridged?

Image above: The dodecahedron, from the children’s book “The Phantom Tollbooth,” has 12 faces each showing a different emotion. (illustration by Jules Feiffer)

Leave a Comment

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><span><div><img><!-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Embed content by wrapping a supported URL in [embed] … [/embed].

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.


Shubha: Your comment "Journalism, to me, seems to be the attempt to reconcile that tension by finding common space between the data and the narratives." is a tension I, and so much of the scientific community, have been struggling with. (See Randy Olson's Don't be SUCH a Scientist.) I see hints from many fields (science, religion, medicine, government, etc) that we are seeking to reach beyond our particular "information silos" (data) and connect to the larger world, to the world of experience (narrative). I believe that this transition is being facilitated by our quest for living consciously (i.e. in the full complexity of the beings that we are). My beacon of hope for moving into comfort with the full complexity of who I am as a "being", rather than simply who I am in any of my roles, is Karla McLaren's Language of Emotions which brings meaning to my seemingly chaotic internal world of emotions, and thereby allows me to live more consciously, more intentionally. By finding meaning and order in my world of emotions (narrative), I can widen my experience, with more sure-footedness, to include narrative and thereby that tension between data and narrative becomes relaxed. I am hoping that Being will interview Karla McLaren as her work has brought me the scaffolding on which I can now build my quest into the "big questions of life" - a quest for which your podcasts and media space are instrumental in allowing me to witness deep conversation on these topics.