The Sum of Our Discontent: Why Numbers Make Us Irrational

OK, from a mathematician's point of view there is no proof here that numbers and counting will never make us happy. But the sequence of efforts described by Mr Boyle - from Jeremy Bentham to David Pearce - have all met the same fate. A definite improvement in our understanding of ourselves and our social condition (although not without serious misrepresentation too). But, in the end, there is always the realisation that the initial objectives - so powerfully believed in - are not achieved, that the shortcomings in each method of analysis leave us crying out for just another try. Will we ever tire of trying? Will we just give up and move on to other human endeavours?

As I read this book, and met historic characters I probably hadn't given a thought to since I did High School British History, I couldn't help thinking that there is another book to be written. 'The Tyranny of Bits: Why computers can't make us happy'. For all their achievements computers, like the tools of analysis described by Mr Boyle, can't help exposing their own shortcomings. But does the world - especially the politicians - know this yet? Computer output is so seductive - we desparately would like to have some sort of tool that will take away - reliably - some of our own fallible judgement that we so often have to rely on. As Mr Boyle shows it is not numbers that can do this - I suspect its not computers either.


Numbers Maketh the Man   June 29, 2001
David Morgans (Colchester, UK)
4 out of 12 found this review helpful

With every news bulletin flooding us with a rush of numbers, this is a a long-awaited breath of rationality. Numeracy has infiltrated every aspect of of working and personal lives. Numerology is the easy way out - allowing facts to acquire a curious credibility.

This volume is to be welcomed by all in business who support the concept of Benchmarking - encouraging measurement of performance by non-numeric methods.


No.Keynes was not against the use of numbers in science   November 16, 2004
Michael Emmett Brady (Bellflower, California ,United States)
David Boyle has written an excellent book that would merit five stars were it not marred by a major misreading of the approach to probability,statistics,mathematical expectations,decision theory,and economics supported by John Maynard Keynes(Boyle,pp.131-149).Boyle has fallen for the canard that Keynes was against, or opposed to ,the use of measurement(quantification using numbers)in analysis or public policy except for very general descriptive statistics.Boyle appears to be basing his conclusions,not on what Keynes actually wrote,but on the confused and confusing claims of the historian,Robert Skidelsky.Skidelsky has no training in mathematics,probability or statistics.In fact,Skidelsky is basing his assessment of Keynes's views on quantification on the highly misleading and error filled reviews of Keynes's A Treatise on Probability(1921)written by F P Ramsey in 1922 and 1926.Supposedly,Keynes did not believe that numbers could be used to estimate probabilities except in very rare situations.The opposite is the case.Keynes's approach is that it takes two numbers,not one,to estimate a probability.Keynes is the founder of the interval estimate approach to the estimation of probabilities.The same conclusion would hold,obviously, for the calculation of mathematical expectations. Two expectations,a lower bound and an upper bound,would be required.Keynes supports the use of "inexact numerical approximation"(Keynes's own description of his approach made in chapter 15 of the TP)and not the use of exact,precise,definite single number answers which usually turn out,in economics and business analysis,to be exactly,precisely and definitely wrong.


The Counter Perspective   May 24, 2002
2 out of 4 found this review helpful

After 7 years in the actuarial profession and before beginning to pursue my Ph.d in Mathematics, I decided to read this book. After my experience in corporate america, I hoped that a critical evaluation by an expert might resolve some of the conceptual "difficulties" that I encountered while still a productive member of society as measured by GNP and not a net-capital-zero, ivory-tower academic. Anyway, I was not disappointed.

This book starts slowly, but is well-structured. The background provided on Bentham/Malthus/Mills is sometimes tedious and occasionally superfluous, but mostly necessary and builds the foundational context to appreciate fully ideas presented later in the book. I think that the author includes personal details that paint a POSSIBLY unjustified mechanistic, and thus, inhuman, aspect into the personalities discussed and therefore their theory (utilitarianism). But, maybe the emphasis is necessary to accurately capture the personalities involved. Anyway, the author gets an 8 for objectivity. In my opinion, there's gotta be some polemic content for it to be interesting, otherwise you just have a textbook. He strikes a good balance.

The first half of the book discussed above answers the question "Where did all this [stuff] come from?". The latter half of the book concerns itself mainly with "How did it all come about?". Keynes and his ideas in suitable context is developed here and I personally found the content regarding him to be fascinating. He is now a permanent addition to my previously blank list of responses to the "who would you wanna have dinner with?" question. I never realized how distorted and abused his conception has become.

The remainder of the book brings us up to date and I learned a thing or two. Now, I'm going to put the most important part at the end. In order to enjoy this book at all, you have to accept one of the following two hypothesis:

(1) It is government's role to be concerned with the "general welfare" of the populace

or

(2) Government is going to be concerned with same regardless so at least it ought to make some sort of sense granting the false assumption (1). Whatever the heck that means. In other words, suspend reality and try to find some enjoyment in the simplistic and misguided attempts to get around the problems created by that same false assumption.

It was a good read and thought-provoking, I'm not going to spoil it anymore. I'd give it a 4.3 stars if possible, but they have us restrained to integers. Ha-ha-ha!