This is the month when school lets out, and students and teachers traditionally kick up their heels a bit. This department—given over the year round to sober discussion of achievement in the social sciences—here permits itself an excursion into the realm of fantasy. Whether the apparition presented belongs to its author alone, or whether it may represent a dim shape that comes to haunt all social scientists in the early hours of the morning, we cannot say.
_____________
We now find it hard to believe that the recent disaster came upon us so fast. Nor can we tell for sure when the thing began. It was first brought to public attention just two years ago, towards the close of the 1955 basketball season, when the man who conducted a syndicated rating index for college basketball teams was suddenly struck with the realization that his predictions were proving 100 per cent accurate. In his defense, it must be said that he had never made extravagant claims for his ratings of relative strength. He was always careful to state that they were based on records of past performance, and that they took no account of such variables as injuries, school spirit, home court, ineligibilities, and temperamental vagaries. While a team with a power rating of 60 had a theoretical 10-point scoring advantage over one with a rating of 50, that was no guarantee of winning the game.
Nevertheless, in spite of these modest demurrers, not only were the predictions as to victory coming true, but the final scores duplicated the rating index exactly. Thus the score of the Duquesne (74.0)—Villanova (72.0) game was 74 to 72, and of the California (67.0)—Stanford (66.0) game was 67 to 66. Thousands of fans wrote in to point out the amazing success of the index. It was observed also that once a team with a rating carried to the first decimal place—such as Kentucky (74.1) or St. Louis (67.9)—arrived at the integer score, it was thereafter unable to shoot another basket. Yet the ball appeared to make a determined effort to score a fractional basket. It would seem to go into the hoop, but would roll around the rim a number of times (corresponding to the figure in the decimal place) and then fall out again.
Although the general run of basketball fans are not mathematically sophisticated, most of them did grasp the implications. Suppose that a team of 68.8 power were to meet a 68.5 team. Could either one ever win? The test came very soon with the Ohio State (78.9)—Holy Cross (78.5) game. It was fast and close, and about seven minutes from the end the score went into the 60’s. As the 70’s approached, hysteria gripped the fans and nervousness palsied the players. Finally, with two full minutes to go, the score stood at 78 all. Surely another score could not be avoided and the jinx would be broken. But no! Suddenly the shooting grew erratic and the game turned into a comedy of errors. Set-ups, lay-ins, and free throws were missed wildly. Once an Ohio State man threw what looked like a sure basket, only to have the ball roll around the hoop nine times and come out again. The same sort of thing happened to Holy Cross. Was it merely jitters? Or was some supernatural agency operating? Whatever the cause, the game went into three overtime periods, but neither team could score again. The players were exhausted and completely unstrung. For the first time in basketball history, the referees called the game off, with the score tied at 78.
Contrary to what might have been expected, there was no uproar in the stands. Instead, as scoreless overtime followed scoreless overtime, an unnatural hush fell upon the spectators. They talked in subdued whispers. And when the game was at last called off, they unfolded their overcoats and silently stole away. The editorials in the morning papers ranged from veiled charges of collusion to dire warnings of divine retribution for the increase in juvenile delinquency. Statistical experts at Ohio State, when interviewed, pooh-poohed the notion of a supernatural agency and attributed the strange results to a kind of mass self-hypnosis. However, the next night the same thing happened when Missouri (68.6) met Bowling Green (68.2). Again the game went into three scoreless overtime periods, and finally had to be called off as a tie.
_____________
At first this phenomenon did not appear to extend beyond the realm of basketball, though a few of the more discerning sports writers quickly realized that perhaps here lay the explanation, if such it could be called, for certain baffling occurrences during the past football season. Commentators had already remarked that never before had so many field goals Cat three points each) and safeties (at two points each) been made in a single season. One inquiring reporter went back over the records of the games and compared them with the predictions of a widely syndicated rating for college football. He discovered that apparently teams had been compelled by some unknown power to be consistent with the predictions. Hence, when Notre Dame had been rated 23 to Southern California’s 17, the final score actually turned up as 23 to 17, even though, in order to accomplish this, Notre Dame had to score a freak safety in addition to its three touchdowns, and Southern California had to kick a 43-yard field goal at a queer angle against a strong cross-wind.
Revelations of this sort did cause some buzzing among the sports antiquarians. But soon after the close of the 1955 basketball season, both popular interest and the sense of alarm died down. For a month or two the whole thing was forgotten, except for a few belated cartoons; and magazines which had commissioned articles on amazing coincidences of bygone days wrote off the advances as a bad investment. However, people gradually became aware that the predictions and statements made by widely circulated advertisements, if presented in numbers, were coming true. For example, whenever five persons met together, instantly four of them began to bleed at the gums—evidently infected with pyorrhea. Similarly, it was noted among doctors that when four of their profession got together—whether for a consultation or a game of golf—inevitably, three would find themselves agreeing fatuously yet vociferously that a certain brand of cigarette did not irritate the throat.
The matter was no longer merely trivial or amusing. People grew afraid to assemble in small groups, and, indeed, shunned any gathering unless the number was an uncommon one like 17 or 29. Invariably in groups up to 10 or 12, something terrible or ludicrous or humiliating happened to one or more of those present. A woman might be on the instant afflicted with acid stomach or a severe headache. Likewise, a man might find himself having to brush dandruff from his shoulders or with a decidedly unpleasant film on his teeth. Whatever the event, investigation usually showed that somewhere at some time the causative prediction or statement had been published in numbers.
As the apprehension spread, people refused to get into elevators, unless it was one at a time. Automobiles might as well have been one-seaters, for other persons would not join the driver. Hostesses had trouble with guest lists, and the small dinner party practically became extinct. One enterprising firm began to publish lists of “safe” numbers, such as 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 27, etc. These lists had a wide sale: soon no one would be without them. But they had to be revised constantly and kept up to date. As a specific number was found by experience to be “unsafe,” it was struck from the list, and an expert was set to searching for the original culpable statement or prediction. The sources of trouble were not always advertisements. In fact, many unsafe numbers were traced back to government reports or to the learned journals of sociologists, psychologists, and economists who had grown enamored of the precision of statistics and figures.
A mortal blow was dealt the lists when one psychologist, having worked out the psychological probability, published his findings that 2 out of every 37 gatherings based on the so-called safe numbers were likely to prove unsafe. The consequence was immediate. Thereafter, at 2 out of every 37 “safe” gatherings, some misfortune occurred, and, what was even worse, the particular numbers involved were in turn “contaminated.” One could foresee a day when there would be no safe numbers left.
_____________
There was, of course, much speculation as to what was really going on. It was noted that America was the only country thus afflicted. And it was recalled how foreigners visiting us had often remarked upon our reverence for figures and statistics. No one could say who the original offender among advertisers was, though it may well have been Ivory Soap with its claim to be 99.44 per cent pure. Certainly the learned journals had the same fundamental reverence. It was numbers for numbers’ sake and percentages for percentages’ sake. Thus, brakes stopped with 35 per cent less effort, automobiles had 20.7 per cent less air drag, television blacks were 58 per cent deeper, and tooth powder made teeth 38 per cent brighter.
Of all the hypotheses suggested, two were given the greatest credence. One asserted that the sheer belief of so many people in figures and statistics had generated an occult dynamic which saw to it that every prediction and statement published in the form of numbers went into effect. It was Time magazine, the principal exponent of this hypothesis, which brilliantly coined the name “Statisdemon” for the extra-sensory power behind the scenes. The other view, perhaps with more scientific basis, held that by some means a cluster of electronic impulses had got loose from one of our new super-calculators and continued to operate in the upper air in a manner still not understood.
Whatever the reason, dismay spread rapidly through the nation. A few ruthless individuals and firms were quick to take advantage of the unknown force. They printed full-page ads with figures predicting the universal sale of their products. And instantly there arose in the public a compulsion to buy in accordance with the prediction. Despite protests and warnings, other firms followed this example. There could be no doubt that trade was stimulated, and soon a super-boom was on. Many of the leading economists gave this new development their blessing and saw in it the means of insuring an ever continuing prosperity. In fact, one Harvard professor announced: “The Statisdemon has given Free Enterprise a shot in the arm.” Of course, objections and clashes could not be avoided. When one watch, for example, claimed that its new mainspring eliminated 99 per cent of all watch repairs due to steel mainspring failures, there was an outcry from the National Association of Watch Repairmen. The consuming public, too, complained that its homes were becoming cluttered with the commodities it was compelled to buy, whether it needed and wished them or not, and whether it could afford them or not.
However, it was not long before the full scope of the impending disaster began to strike home, even among advertisers. Probably the first profound realization came after one of the principal airlines stated that its flagships completed 95.2 out of every 100 scheduled miles. Presently, its flagships began to drop from the sky or to fall apart bizarrely at exactly 95.2 miles after the take-off; and soon the airline dared not schedule a flight of more than 99.9 miles. But the greatest panic followed the publication of life-expectancy figures by a leading insurance company. Thereafter, no matter what their state of health, every woman fell dead at precisely 68.3 years, and every man at 67.1. Curiously enough, the only agency which enjoyed immunity from the Statisdemon was the Gallup Poll. Its statements and predictions produced no effect whatsoever.
_____________
Now, at long last, the President and Congress are aware that drastic action must be taken. Such is the intention behind the President’s radio talk to the nation a week ago, which began so dramatically: “There is no safety in numbers.” The President himself has drawn up a bill, for, as we know, during the past year neither the Cabinet nor the Congressional committees have ventured to assemble. The bill prohibits the publication of any statement or prediction which includes or involves figures, numbers, percentages, or statistics. Moreover, it provides for the ultimate destruction of all calculating machines and numeral type-faces. But how the President will get the law passed remains extremely uncertain. For only last night a prominent Washington columnist rushed into print with the statement: “I predict that 65 per cent of Congress will vote against the President’s bill.”
_____________