WS MoreOrLess: The numbers of 2013 - part 1

Summary

---

More or Less: The Numbers of 2013 – Part 1

Host: Tim Harford
Date: December 28, 2013
Podcast: BBC Radio 4 – More or Less

---

Overview

In this special episode, Tim Harford and guests take a lively look back at some of the most fascinating, surprising, and delightful numbers of 2013. With contributions from statistician David Spiegelhalter, business correspondent Linda Yu, and writer Simon Singh, the episode explores figures relating to happiness, economic inequality, and even pancake mathematics. The tone is witty, inquisitive, and educational, providing both statistical insights and some unexpected fun.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Happiness Numbers of 2013

• Guest: David Spiegelhalter (Professor, Cambridge University)
• Main Statistic: Average happiness score in the UK – 7.3/10
  • Based on survey by UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) with 165,000+ responses.
• Breakdown:
  • 15% rated their happiness as 10 ("completely manic").
  • 1% chose 0 ("really miserable").
  • 10% gave 4 or less.
  • Average life satisfaction was 7.5/10.
  • Factors: Higher among married individuals, women, and those aged 65–79; lower for unemployed and those aged 45–54.
• International Context:
  • UK: 7.3
  • Denmark: 8.4 ("smug Danes," despite grim TV dramas)
  • Bulgaria: 5.5 (lowest in Europe)
• Notable Phenomenon:
  • Will Rogers Phenomenon: Moving happiest Bulgarians to the UK would lower both countries' averages due to statistical effects.
  • Quoting Will Rogers: "When the Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, they raised the average intelligence level in both states." [01:44]
• Global Average:
  • Eurozone: 7.1
  • North America: 7.6
  • Africa: 4.4
  • Togo: 2.9 (least happy, out of 156 countries)

---

2. Economic Inequality During the Recovery

• Guest: Linda Yu (BBC Chief Business Correspondent)
• Main Statistic: 95% of post-2009 income gains in the US went to the top 1%
• Analysis:
  • UC Berkeley study:
    • Top 1% saw incomes rise by 31.4%
    • Bottom 99% saw only a 0.4% increase
  • Points of debate between Nobel laureates:
    • Stiglitz: Inequality is the core reason for slow recovery
    • Krugman: Disagrees, thinks it's not the only factor
• Underlying Issues:
  • Recovery driven by "easy money" (low interest rates, central bank policies), which feeds stock market gains.
  • Wealth primarily accumulates to those owning financial assets, not the broader population.
• Quote:
  • "It's really hard to see how the recovery could be broad based." – Linda Yu [03:46]
  • "That's not enough to support the rest of the economy. And that's one of the reasons why we still don't have economies recovered, for instance, in Britain at two pre crisis levels." – Linda Yu [04:26]

---

3. The Intrigue of Pancake Sorting

• Guest: Simon Singh (Author & Science Writer)
• Main Statistic: 22 (the pancake number for 19 pancakes)
• Explanation:
  • Pancake Sorting: Math problem where pancakes (of varying sizes) must be sorted biggest to smallest using only "flips" with a spatula.
    • 1 pancake: 0 flips
    • 2 pancakes: 1 flip
    • 3 pancakes: 3 flips (worst-case)
    • 19 pancakes: 22 flips (maximum)
    • 20 pancakes: Pancake number unknown
• Applications:
  • Computer science (data sorting)
  • Biology (gene sequence reordering)
    • "Cabbage and turnip have similar genes, but in a different order. They've been pancake flipped." – Tim Harford and Simon Singh [06:13]
• Memorable Note:
  • Bill Gates wrote his only academic paper on this problem (pancake numbers).
  • David X Cohen (Simpsons & Futurama writer) tackled the "burnt pancake problem" (orientation matters as well as order).
• Mathematics in Cartoons:
  • Simpsons and Futurama feature deep mathematical references (e.g., Fermat’s Last Theorem, P vs NP, Klein bottles, Aleph Null).
  • "All of this stuff is kind of just smuggled into the background of these two shows."– Simon Singh [07:57]
  • Example of real-world maths − pineapples feature Fibonacci spirals (8 and 13), which Spongebob’s pineapple does not reflect.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Will Rogers Phenomenon:
  "What Will Rogers was getting at that if the dimmest Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, where they were brighter than the brightest Californians, then the average intelligence level in both states would go up." – David Spiegelhalter [01:44]

• On Economic Recovery:
  "The richest 1% saw their incomes rise by 31.4% while the bottom 99%, so the rest of us, saw their incomes go up by only 0.4%." – Linda Yu [03:17]

• On Pancake Sorting’s Relevance:
  "What you're looking, you're reordering data in a way. Computer scientists are interested and biologists are interested... the speed at which that can happen from an evolutionary point of view depends on the number of flips required to reorder them." – Simon Singh [05:49]

• On Maths in The Simpsons & Futurama:
  "Some of it's really obscure things like Fermat's Last Theorem, the P versus NP problem... We have Klein bottles, we have Mobius strips, we have the Aleph Null cinema." – Simon Singh [07:26]

• On Spongebob’s Pineapple:
  "Pineapples have Fibonacci numbers embedded in their pattern... SpongeBob's pineapple does not have eight and thirteen, so it doesn't obey that mathematical principle." – Simon Singh [08:21]

• On the Show’s Comic Tone:
  "I find More or Less hysterical. You often make me titter as I listen to you." – Simon Singh [08:08] "It's just an innumerate cartoon. Impossible pineapple." – Tim Harford [08:38]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:19 – Tim Harford introduces the “Numbers of 2013” episode
• 00:41 – 02:17 – David Spiegelhalter on happiness statistics and the Will Rogers phenomenon
• 02:53 – 04:31 – Linda Yu on economic inequality during the recovery
• 04:42 – 07:22 – Simon Singh discusses the pancake sorting problem and links to maths in popular culture
• 07:22 – 08:42 – Cartoons and hidden mathematics, including Simpsons, Futurama, and Spongebob

---

Conclusion

This holiday episode of More or Less blends statistical curiosity, economic reality, and mathematical whimsy. With expert voices and playful examples, it illustrates how numbers—whether in happiness surveys, financial inequality, or stacks of pancakes—shape the stories we tell about our world.

---

Transcript

[Simon Singh]

This is the short edition of More or Less, first broadcast on the BBC World Service.

[BBC Announcer]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts

[Tim Harford]

hello, and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Tim Harford. It's become a seasonal tradition of ours to take a look back at the most intriguing, striking or just plain delightful numbers, numbers of 2013. First up is David Spiegelhalter, professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge university in the UK.

[David Spiegelhalter]

My number of the year is 7.3. This is the average response given by about 165,000 people when the Office for National Statistics asked them on a scale from 0 to 10, how happy were you yesterday? It's about the same as last year. About 15% were completely manic and said 10. 1% were really miserable and said 0, but only 10% said 4 or less. The question are you satisfied with your life? Got an average of 7.5. Higher if people were married, lower if they're unemployed, slightly higher for females, the most miserable age is 45 to 54. I remember it very well. And the highest is 65 to 79. I can't wait. Those smug Danes, when they were asked how happy they were yesterday, said 8.4, even in spite of the gloomy crime dramas they watch, While Bulgarians said 5.5 were the worst in Europe. That means, though, that if the happiest Bulgarians come to the uk, the average happiness in both countries will go down. Now, this is a curious effect known as the Will Rogers phenomenon. He was an American humorist who said that when he was talking about the Oklahoma migrants going to California before the Second World War. He said when the Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, they raised the average intelligence level in both states. What Will Rogers was getting at that if the dimmest Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, where they were brighter than the brightest Californians, then the average intelligence level in both states would go up.

[Tim Harford]

David Spiegelhalter the average number across the eurozone was 7.1, which lags behind those cheerful North Americans who gave a figure of 7.6. But the average in African countries was only 4.4. And out of the 156 countries included in the World Happiness Survey, the Togolese were the least happy, recording a number of just 2.9. One group of people who may find themselves being happier are the very rich who are, well, getting even richer as Linda Yu, the BBC's chief business correspondent explains.

[Linda Yu]

My number of the year is 95 because it's the eye catching figure of the economic recovery. Five years on from the worst crash in a century, income inequality has risen sharply during the Recovery in the U.S. the top 1% of income earners have captured 95% of the incomes gained since 2009. A study at the University of California at Berkeley found that the richest 1% saw their incomes rise by 31.4% while the bottom 99%, so the rest of us saw their incomes go up by only 0.4%. But because so few people have seen their incomes rise, it's really hard to see how the recovery could be broad based. This was the gist of the disagreement between two Nobel Prize winning economists, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz sees this inequality as a main cause of why the recovery is so slow, while Krugman thinks that is too simple an explanation. I think if you look at how this recovery has been done, in other words, supported by lots of easy money instead of say more government spending, and that easy money has fed into stock markets around the world hitting record highs. If that's the main source of growth, as in stock prices going up, then maybe it's not too surprising that the richest, who own more stocks than the poor, see their incomes go up, in which case they would see more of the gains. But that's not enough to support the rest of the economy. And that's one of the reasons why we still don't have economies recovered, for instance, in Britain at two pre crisis levels.

[Tim Harford]

Linda Yu all this economic talk's all very well, but not terribly delicious. Simon Singh has that covered. He's been thinking about that most Christmassy of foods, the pancake.

[Simon Singh]

My number of the year is 22. It relates to a problem called pancake sorting. And pancake sorting is about imagining you have a stack of pancakes and they're of different sizes and, and they're in the wrong order and you want to get them into the right order by using a spatula. You put your spatula in somewhere in the stack and you flip over some pancakes. So let's imagine we only have one pancake that's bound to come in the right order. So the pancake number for one pancake is zero. Don't need any flips. If you have two pancakes and they're in the wrong order, then the pancake number is one, because you only need one flip to flip them both over. So the pancake number for two pancakes is one pancake number. For three pancakes. Turns out if it comes in the worst possible order, you need three flips to do that. And you can work out the pancake number for various numbers of pancakes. And the pancake number for 19 is 22. Now that's my number of the year and it's my number of the year because nobody knows the pancake number for 20 pancakes.

[Tim Harford]

Now I'm going to ask the typical philistines question, which is, is there a practical application of this kind of maths? But there may be one that we haven't discovered yet. But do we know of any yet?

[Simon Singh]

Yeah, very, very much so. Because what you're looking, you're reordering data in a way. You can look at it from a computer scientist point of view, they would want to know, look, we've got a pile of data, it's in the wrong order, how quickly can we reorder it? So computer scientists are interested and biologists are interested because you can get sequences of genes. I think it's something like the cabbage and the turnip have very similar genes but in a different order.

[Tim Harford]

They've been pancake flipped.

[Simon Singh]

They've been pancake flipped. So the speed at which that can happen from an evolutionary point of view depends on the number of flips required to reorder them. So evolutionary biologists are interested too.

[Tim Harford]

And Simon, why did you get interested in pancakes in the first place?

[Simon Singh]

So I got interested because apart from

[Tim Harford]

that, they're completely delicious.

[Simon Singh]

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, there are two people, two famous people who try to tackle this problem. One of them is Bill Gates. The only research paper that Bill Gates has ever written was on the subject of pancake numbers. And the other person that's published on this area is a chap called David X Cohen and he's taken a slightly different version of that problem, which is not the simple pancake problem, but the burnt pancake problem. In that scenario, you don't just want the pancakes in the right order, you want them in the right orientation with the burnt side down. So it's an even trickier version of the same problem. And David X Cohen is partly famous for looking at the burnt pancake problem, but he's even more famous because he's a writer of the Simpsons and co creator of Futurama and he's one of these sneaky mathematical comedy writers who's been putting mathematics into those two TV shows, the Simpsons and Futurama.

[Tim Harford]

What sort of maths gets smuggled in the Homer Simpson's mouth or Whoever's mouth.

[Simon Singh]

Oh, gosh. Some of it's really obscure things like Fermat's Last Theorem, the P versus NP problem. This is an unsolved problem in mathematics. It's worth a million dollars if you can solve it. And it crops up in an episode called Treehouse of Horror 6. In Futurama, we have Klein bottles, we have Mobius strips, we have the Aleph Null cinema. Aleph Null is a scale of infinity, which suggests there are even bigger scales of infinity. So all of this stuff is kind of just smuggled into the background of these two shows.

[Tim Harford]

So do you think that other cartoon shows should be using more maths? Or maybe math shows such as More or Less should be, you know, being funnier,

[Simon Singh]

I find More or Less hysterical. You often make me titter as I listen to you. But there is an animated Show, I think, SpongeBob SquarePants. Does SpongeBob live live in a pineapple at the bottom of the sea?

[Tim Harford]

I think something like that.

[Simon Singh]

I think so. And pineapples have Fibonacci numbers embedded in their pattern. They have eight spirals going in one direction and 13 spirals going in the other direction. Eight and 13 are Fibonacci numbers, but SpongeBob's pineapple does not have eight and 13, so it doesn't obey that mathematical principle.

[Tim Harford]

It's just an enumerate cartoon. Impossible pineapple.

[Simon Singh]

Yeah. We shouldn't expect all cartoons to have difficult maths embedded in them, but they should at least get the natural mathematics correct within them.

[Tim Harford]

Simon Singh, whose latest book is the Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets. If there are any numbers you'd like us to take a look at, do email us. Our address is more or [e-mail] and you can download this program and previous editions at our website. Bbcworldservice.com More or less from me and all the More or Less team. Happy New Year.

[BBC Announcer]

There are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sports. The details of them all go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.