|
United States24629 Posts
Yep, it's another pet peeve blog.
What does this mean to you:
John used to earn $100,000 per year. However, after his raise, he now earns 50% more.
I don't think there is any ambiguity in that statement. John now earns $150,000. What about this:
John used to earn $100,000 per year. However, after his raise, he now earns two times more.
The way I read that is that he now earns $300,000. Some readers might claim he earns $200,000, so there may be some ambiguity. My reasoning is this: What would it mean if he earned 1x more? That would mean an additional 100k on top of his starting salary thus 200k total. Therefore, 2x more is the starting salary plus twice the starting salary, or three times the starting salary: 300k.
Perhaps the second example above meant to say "However, after his raise, he now earns two times as much." He was earning 100k... now he earns 200k! This seems much less ambiguous to me. What about this one:
John used to earn $100,000 per year. Due to financial constraints, he took a pay cut and now earns 20% less.
This one seems okay. He used to earn 100k... now he earns 80k. 100k minus 20% of 100k is 80k.
John used to earn $100,000 per year. Due to financial constraints, John makes two times less.
WHAT? This is one I see all the time. What the hell does two times less mean? 50% less would mean he makes 50k. To me, two times less doesn't mean 50% less the same way two times more doesn't mean 50% more. I guess people sometimes think of 'two times less' as the inverse operation of 'two times more,' meaning the opposite of doubling, but now you are compounding the mistake I pointed out above with a new mistake (relative increases and decreases are not inverse operations... try increasing a number by 10%, then decreasing the result by 10%; you don't get what you started with)
It seems to me like people often confuse saying Q times more and Q times as much. It is even more confusing for relative decreases. I can't believe I'm the only person who notices these mistakes all the time and gets some combination of confused and annoyed!
 
|
I see what you mean, and I think you're onto something, but I'm under the impression that people who say "John earns two times more" actually mean "John earns twice as much".
"Two times more" sounds like x+2x but people do mean 2x.
As for the two times less well it exists in French too and it makes no logical sense whatsoever and that's language for you 
|
United States24629 Posts
On January 31 2015 07:20 Djzapz wrote:
I see what you mean, and I think you're onto something, but I'm under the impression that people who say "John earns two times more" actually mean "John earns twice as much".
I agree and identified that likelihood in the OP.
|
I think it's ambiguous but at least when you're talking to someone in person you can get them to give you the correct number. I've done a lot of work with newspaper articles and when they have odd formulations like that, you have no way to know what the number is.
|
The worst is "A is 20% better than B"
Does that mean A is 120% to B's 100% or does it mean that A is 100% to B's 80%?
As in, are we talking 20% of A's value or 20% of B's value?
I think 20% of B's value is the correct interpretation but obviously people use it interchangeably. And there's a pretty big difference, especially when ur talking numbers bigger than 20%
|
The reference point should always be 100%. If you lose 20% you're down to 20% and if you're up 20% then it's 120%.
If A is 20% better than B, then it's 120%, because that's what percent implies. If the base is anything else than 1 (or 100%) then you have to specify it.
|
John makes two times less
I always imagine the thought behind that sentence must be, that you earn little, not much. So your wage is not about how much you get, but about how much you don't get. That is the only "reason" I can imagine, where 50 is double 100, anyways 
But yeah, people are not precise in their use of language, especially in math. It's bad, that you get annoyed by it. I always try to think, that language is not about being correct or precise, but to sound right. When I was traveling with a brit, he was smirking about my grammar all the time, but when I asked him, what I was doing wrong, he told me I wasn't doing anything exactly wrong, but I just sounded weird to him because no one speaks like that. :D
Long story short: As long as you know what other people try to say and when they understand you, that's good enough. You cannot educate everyone to say it "right".
P.S.: I'd like to be John. Even without the raise. ;D
|
Kau
Canada3500 Posts
I don't think I've seen "two times less" before. Don't most people say "half as much"?
|
United States24629 Posts
On January 31 2015 09:07 Kau wrote:
I don't think I've seen "two times less" before. Don't most people say "half as much"?
I have definitely seen it. I've also seen three times less, four times less, and I think five times less.
|
I've definitely seen it in French. Quebec French anyway.
|
Canada11355 Posts
If someone told me they make "One times more money" I would imagine 1*m where m=money and assume they misspoke
|
I agree with everything you said. I've always wondered about the "2 times less" thing too. Still don't know what people mean by it.
|
United States24629 Posts
I think they mean this:
x times more is multiplying by x/1
x times less is multiplying by 1/x
They are both wrong, but at least make some sort of sense.
|
I suppose it is technically incorrect for people to say some of the above things, but I'm very rarely confused when I hear it. Your assumptions of what they mean are identical to how I interpret it, and I have never encountered a scenario where they meant otherwise.
It doesn't bother me though. Not any worse than when people say "I could care less" as opposed to "I couldn't care less."
The actions and nature of things that people say and do are far more likely to make me go wtf than these sorts of semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
