Pedro Lilienfeld

It has been said that knowledge of math, some math, can provide the individual with tools to fend off irrationality, ignorance, even superstition. I do subscribe to that assessment. A smattering of statistics helps to understand data. Indeed, there are many benefits garnered from a bit of math literacy.

I’m going to give an illuminating example of how even the most basic numbers awareness empowers to shield against irrationality.

Around the 1970s there was a rampant fad that was centered around the concept of so-called chain letters. It was one more manifestation of the ready acceptance of the occult, of mind bending pursuits, of the belief in the supernatural, etc. It was implied that the distribution of these letters was a mysterious duty that had to be followed to ensure the wellbeing of those involved in such a charade.

Here is the case that involved Evelyn, my spouse, and an acquaintance. One day, Evelyn received a letter in the mail from that acquaintance. It was a chain letter that this person had received from someone else. It requested that the recipient mail out to family, friends and other acquaintances, 20 copies of that letter. I do not recall any details of the contents of the letter, except that it warned the recipient — Evelyn in this case — of dire personal consequences if the requested distribution of those 20 copies were not to be followed forthwith.

Evelyn, somewhat sheepishly, asked me to make those copies, post them and send them out. My reaction was swift. I refused to carry out the letter’s instruction, to me a nonsensical demand. Evelyn appeared bewildered and uncomfortable by my reaction and pleaded me to reconsider. She did not want to tempt a possibly unpleasant fate.

Following her reaction, I reflected for a minute, or so. I sat Evelyn down and told her the following: “Let us assume that every recipient of this chain letter is as gullible as you. After the first round of 20 letters, the second round will be 400 of them, the third, 8,000, the fourth, 160,000, the fifth, 3,200,000, the sixth, 64,000,000, and by the seventh round there will not be enough people in the USA to receive the letters”.

Evelyn’s reaction to my very basic numerical dissection was immediate. She smiled, and said: “Forget these stupid letters, you made your case well”.

The story, however, did not end at that point. About a week later, Evelyn’s chain letter friend phoned inquiring whether she had sent out the 20 letters, as instructed. When Evelyn responded that she had not, at my advice, her friend became outraged and hysterical and requested that I speak to her on the phone which I did, upon which she directed at me her outbursts. I eventually hang up having failed to impart some sense to her after she insisted that I would be responsible for any unfortunate consequences to Evelyn. We never heard of this acquaintance again.

Lesson: Verbal logic by itself may not be convincing enough. A minimal support from numbers, however, may decide the argument.