If you rely on people making the same precise distinction between "percent" and "percentage point" that you do, then you'll have more misunderstandings rather than fewer. It's like "next Friday." If today is Monday the 3rd and I say "next Friday," I don't rely on anyone outside my immediate family understanding that I mean Friday the 14th, since many people understand it to mean Friday the 7th.
I "rely" on the person saying that it went from 10% to 12%. I'll refer to such a change as a 2 percentage point change, but if the other person calls it the wrong thing, I don't really care. I'd be much more concerned about someone getting worked up about the semantics of the it and ignoring the context of the numbers. E.g. If they want to call it a 20% change and leave it at that, the misuse of terminology is the least of our problems.
Communication is at the heart of our problems. Your attitude is rather toxic. The xkcd you linked does little to soften your stance which appears to I don't care if the other person and I don't agree on terminology; to quote, "but if the other person calls it the wrong thing, I don't really care."
There is REAL value in being able to communicate complex ideas effectively. In my opinion, agreeing on definitions for terminology is step #1 to having an effective conversation / discussion.
Look, this isn't a matter of "agreeing on the terminology." I know and use the correct terminology, but I don't get bent out of shape if the person I'm talking to doesn't know it. Especially when their mistake is obvious and I can correct for it in my head. I don't see how it is "toxic" to be lenient when talking to non-specialists who misuse terminology.
By and large -- and, hey, you'll think this statement is toxic -- people who spend a lot of time worrying about whether something is called a "percent" or a "percentage point", outside the context of a classroom, do not know what they're talking about and have no business teaching anyone how to interpret statistics. Sometimes a change from 10% to 12% matters a lot. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it would matter a lot, but is estimated so imprecisely as to be indistinguishable from noise. Sometimes it is measured very precisely but is meaningless. I could go on. This context-dependence is true whether you call it a percent, a percentage point, or just a "change."
Most smart people understand this regardless of their statistical training. But then they read that, no, what really matters is what people call the change, and then they either 1) conclude that statisticians are pedantic morons who should be ignored and/or 2) psych themselves out and doubt their instincts and wind up worrying about trivial, trivial shit.
Communication is important, but not the way you claim. It is important that specialists (be they statisticians, programmers, whatever) be able to explain things to clients/nonspecialists. It is also important that the specialists be able to interpret what the clients/nonspecialists want to understand and do. The burden falls entirely on the specialist, and any guide that spends any amount of effort to get nonspecialists to use the "correct" terminology is misguided and wasted at best. Which is what I meant by the "toxic" statement, "but if the other person calls it the wrong thing, I don't really care."
I'm sorry but I have to interact with non-technical managers on a regular basis. I consider it part of my job responsibilities to ensure that we are communicating using the same terminology. When I tell a client his conversions are up 35% because of some change we made before A/B testing, I need to know that he understands what that means.
I didn't mean toxic as a personal slight, sorry if you took it that way.
If the other person 'calls it the wrong thing', then how do you know they understand what you're talking about? I think it's worthwhile in that situation, if not necessary, to take a few minutes and define, specifically, what the terms you're using mean.
I simply disagree that communication is not as important as I claim. The value you bring as a statistician is not running a z-test. Any high-school kid with a computer can go to Wikipedia and be running a z-test on some data 10 minutes later. The value comes from being able to understand the results and communicate them effectively to your clients.
Reread my last paragraph -- you misunderstand my position (phrased for maximal irony). I care very much if my students or (hypothetical) employees misuse terminology. But the best way by far to communicate that a value changed from 10% to 12% is to say "xyz changed from 10% to 12%." I hope that the next step in the conversation is not a discussion of whether that means that the value changed by 20% or by 2%, but whether the change is important and measured precisely...
but I am a little worried that you call them z-tests instead of t-tests (even when using Gaussian critical values) (and, to belabor the point, I try to call them "Gaussian" critical values because "Normal" may be interpreted ambiguously by a non-technical reader, but I can usually tell whether someone I'm talking to means "normal" in a technical or vague sense).
My apologies, I'm only an amateur statistician. I'll defer to your knowledge in that area. =) (and I'm joking here, I'm decent with the stats, just wanted to focus on the broader issue).
I don't want to get bogged down in the stats discussion because I was making a broader point and don't claim to be an expert in statistics. We could extend the example to any area where one person has more technical expertise in any certain subject than the people they are communicating with.
So, let's step outside the arena of statistics for a second. If you were teaching someone to cook, would you really explain the process using terms like a 'pinch' or a 'dash' of salt. Sure, to an expert chef or grandmother, a pinch of salt is a perfectly reasonable quantity to add to the recipe. The student just learning to cook can only guess at what that term means. That's why most recipes come with specific amounts or weights of ingredients to add, because we need a common terminology to correctly express the recipe.
Taken totally as an argument for teaching or explaining statistics, I see your point. It's far more important to discuss and quantify the significance of the change rather than simply noting that something did change and by how much.
And yeah, irony went right over my head. I blame Friday. =)
For cooking: I'd say 'pinch' or 'dash' and then clarify if the person asked for clarification. If he or she looks puzzled, I'll offer the clarification unsolicited and as naturally as possible. When I cook pancakes on the weekend with my three year old daughter, we talk about how the appearance of the edge of the pancake changes as it gets closer to being ready to be flipped. To get even further off topic -- if you like cooking, take a look at "Tartine Bread" which is damn near the pinnacle of this sort of communication.
Well, that will teach me to argue with an Econ professor! And I also find myself hungry after staring at pictures of bread on google for the past 10 minutes. Thanks for the interesting discussion. =)
