62% of U.S. adults admit little or no statistical knowledge, survey finds
More than half of adults in U.S. say they lack basic statistical understanding
A Penn State-led study of 1,000 U.S. adults found that 62% report little or no understanding of basic statistics, while only 11% regularly use stats in daily life. Despite this gap, 90% say they'd rely on statistics more if they understood them better. The researchers, who analyzed survey data from the 2025 Joint Statistical Meetings, emphasize that statistical literacy is crucial for evaluating evidence in news, social media, and policy debates. They suggest that basic, intuitive introductions to statistical concepts can help people trust or question data more effectively.
Statistics does not provide certainty; rather, it works with the uncertainty present in nature and society to provide a reasonable approach for making decisions.
- bruce511
>> found that 62% of respondents reported no or limited statistical knowledge
The other 38% didn't understand the question...(my extrapolation)
I did a couple semesters of statistics at uni. And I can confidently say that the number of people who can answer 3 simple questions on statistics (like say mean versus medians, confidence levels or margins of error) is, well, a rounding error from 0.
Indeed, statistically, no-one has a clue how statistics work.
I did however learn enough to know that statistics can tell you absolutely anything you want them to say. Assuming you don't just make them up, they're trivial to manipulate to generate the headline you want.
When used to evaluate risk, the comprehension goes down further (a fact willfully exploited by any decent marketing.)
Statistically, most statistics are meaningless.
- LandR
I was having a conversation with my dad about how if a virus had a 10% death rate it would be terrifying.
His reply was that 10% was nothing, that means you've got 90% chance to survive. Then said you've probably got a 10% chance of being hit by a bus every time you cross the road. Just absolutely no idea what probabilities are at all or ability to extrapolate probabilities from real world lived experience.
- ghm2199
One of the simplest ways to measure risk in stocks, bonds, crypto, mfs etc for ordinary people is Maximum Drawdown. Once you understand how it works, it takes the stress out of making and managing your own portfolio P — espexially your non retirement account. The question you have to ask your self is: "Given some portfolio with returns of X%, am I ok with this asset being down by Z% over T years — i.e the _computed/inferred_ drawdown?" If the answer on one end is no I cannot afford P to have any drawdown at all, then just put your money in a cash/MMF and call it a day. Generally people are ok with some risk on some percent of P and stash the rest in cash, and you _risk adjust_ for Z and T. The portfolio choices are surprisingly simple.
No other question matters. There are some risks but the key element is the understanding of the statistical variance because that allows me to say that "ok 50% of P can afford to be down for 3 years and I won't be homeless".
Most people don't know this but most money managers(managing money for ordinary Americans) that you hire compute this number _once_ and make tiny adjustments to your portfolio(I am talking once a year maybe) and take 1-2%.
I follow this guy called Dave Stein who has a B2C product called money for the rest of us that taught me this. I am not affiliated with them in any way.
- NitpickLawyer
I'd say in reality it's way more than that. The first statistics course in uni was a very humbling experience. I realised that while I thought I understood a lot (and I was coming from a CS heavy background, olympiads and such) real statistics is way harder and a lot more counterintuitive than I thought. Granted, this talks about "basic" statistical understanding, but even that is way more complicated than most people assume.
- cm2187
This is also a political problem. Most of the debates about racism for instance are between people who are illiterate in term of basic statistics, on both sides of the debate. They take extreme tails of distributions as benchmarks, think in term of stereotypes rather than distributions, infer rules from a handful of samples, etc. It makes the whole exercise sterile.
It is not just journalists and politicians that are guilty of that. I see that from many academics who should know better, particularly in humanities departments.
- tescreal
How correlated is the lack of understanding with anti-intellectual views? A lot of people aren't even curious in my experience.
- dr_dshiv
“Fortunately, concepts in statistics are grounded in intuition and rationality.“
Yeaaah… let’s talk about that.
Seems like a fair bit of stats were designed to intimidate —so as to get people to stop asking questions. Or at least that is the effect!
Stats designed for intuition are few. See Kill Math for how it might be done: https://worrydream.com/KillMath/
- giantg2
Everyone is hating on statistics, yet HN posts studies all the time.
Yes, stats can be used deceptively or incompetently used, but they are generally useful. You just have to look at the full study to see what the starting data was and all the actions taken on it. Then you have to make a judgements call on if/how you want to apply that to your own choices, political policies, etc.
A great example of a stats being used by two sides of an argument and political positions would be gun control. See Everytown Research and Crime Prevention Reseach Center. You can see what gets measured, included, excluded, etc by each side and how those results get fitted for support of political policy.