Data, Death and Dresses

The data we see on the news has become weaponized, with political sides finding ways to pick it apart and leverage it to their own benefit.

We all know that data is important, but it’s so interesting how tricky a little beast it can be when it’s being used to uncover or decide our truths and making our daily decisions. And this is a phenomenon that is far from new.

How long did humans used to live? 

And here’s an interesting way to look at how twisty data be. Without googling it, can anyone tell me what the average life expectancy was 300 years ago? Times were tough then right? No antibiotics or water purification or social distancing…

Guess?

I’ve always been taught that it was 35, maybe 40. Shit was hard!!!!

But the reality is that even in centuries past (and I’m including back the to Victorian all the way to the Roman Emperor Tiberius), our life spans haven’t changed all that dramatically. Think 60s to 70s. Impressive and certainly not what your history teacher taught you right? 

But the big difference is how we collect and analyze the data. Century-to-century, our life spans are similar - but we have created a statistical construct that is called life expectancy that doesn’t tell the fact that humans lived about the same amount of time, it’s just now MORE humans are living that long. 

So what’s really happening is that the standard deviation of the average age of death is very high because it basically tells the story of the extent to which different instances in a data sample will vary.  So 200 years ago, people either died very young or they lived to be 65 and up — unless there was a war or a devastating industrial accident that would kill people at working age, life expectancy wasn't so terribly far off from where it is today. Think of Charles Dickens and his little street urchins — if they made it to 5 years old, they would typically live until 70 or 75 years of age. Impressive, right?

And then there’s inaccurate Roman census reporting and confusing tombstones and people (like women, slaves and babies) not even being deemed worthy of counting at all that further skews the data we have access to to decide just what that average life expectancy was.

It’s just in how you do that math, the data you have to work with and the story you pull from it.

The statistical construct that is life expectancy is also what’s hurting our social security program in the modern era. Back in the 1930s, super smart Americans used that average life expectancy math to figure out that the average lifespan was supposed to be 68 — meaning Americans would receive funding for the last 3-10 years of life, but in reality this was not the case. Back then and today, barring wars or pandemics, we’ve seen people retiring at 75-78 years old and not planning on stopping anytime soon after that.

Data matters. Watch your standard deviations.

Why did everyone used to be so small?

In another example slightly less related to death is a look at the importance of sample size. If you’re like me, you’re totally fascinated by antique garments in museums — the detail, the fabrics and… the SIZE!! I remember being taught that the average man was 5’5 and the average woman was 5’0. Everyone was so damn tiny 100-200+ years ago, what the hell happened to us? RIGHT?

Wrong. 

A professor of mine is friends with an acclaimed fashion historian and costume curator who shared the story of how we come to see those garments in museums. For many hundreds of years, a person would really only have 2-3 sets of clothing at a time and these would last them for years if not decades (their marriage/special occasion outfit and a small mix and match working wardrobe). Clothing was crazy expensive — those fancy dresses you see duchesses wearing would cost $25,000-$40,000 in today’s money for a single garment. 

So clothing was crazy expensive, even the basic shit that the very poor wore. What happened was when they wore a garment out, the fabric was cut down and remade for someone else. Clearly, it would need to go to someone shorter and thinner to allow for the worn-out fabric to be removed. This process could go on for 20-30 years with the same garment, with sleeves remade to fit newer fashions and additions added for modesty.

So in the end, the only clothing that didn’t get so worn out that it had to be thrown away were the clothes made for the smallest people. They had a better change of surviving since fewer bodies would be accommodated. Crazy right?

Again, data matters. Watch your sample size.

I bring these data stories to you for 2 reasons:

1. As marketers, we have to recognize that the data we pull from is sometimes a black box. If you can’t see where it’s coming from, don’t have a holistic view of the complete story that wraps around it or can’t trust a sample size - we have to be especially careful in how we counsel out clients and the stories we tell ourselves that drive our personal decisions.

2. COVID-19 is giving us some crazy-ass data, and people are telling crazy ass stories about it. 

In fact, even the WHO and other major health entities are considering the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 a pandemic in itself. Conspiracy theories of vaccines being used to implant chips for Big Brother monitoring that reach more millions of readers and social media engagement than a vetted mainstream media news pieces. Nations holding their pandemic reporting numbers to different standards, in accordance with an apparent diversification of political codes of ethics and the desire to hold on to some appearance of control in the global arena.

And within our own borders, there are national leaders afraid of sharing data at all — whether it’s resisting testing for fear of reported cases of COVID-19 increasing or simply refusing scientifically-backed evidence because… shit, I don’t even know why anymore. 

In the end, data matters. 

We’ve learned this, we know this, we feel this — but sometimes even the most intelligent brain is fooled by standard deviations in the data, an embarrassing sample size or the bias of those who find truth to be a plastic, malleable thing to be used for their own pleasure and gain. 

Mask up and math up, baby.