What does nth least X mean?
« previous post | next post »
I've thus far avoided hearing or seeing many political ads (not having cable television or listening to commercial radio has its advantages), but yesterday I happened to hear an ad for Meg Whitman's California gubernatorial campaign. For those not in the know: Meg Whitman is the Republican candidate for governor, running against Democrat (and former California governor and current state attorney general) Jerry Brown; she's also the founder a former CEO of eBay. [Thanks for the correction, Atario.] As a successful businesswoman, much of her platform is about making California more "business-friendly", and so she talks a lot about the apparent fact that California is currently very "unfriendly" to business.
Anyway, in the ad Meg Whitman says the following. Please note that I don't recall the exact wording of anything other than the part in boldface.
California is the 48th least business-friendly state.
I know what she means, of course: of all 50 states, California is extremely unfriendly to business — near the bottom of the list, just two up from the absolute least business-friendly state (whatever that one is). But is that what "48th least business-friendly state" really means? For me it means there's a list arranged from #1 least friendly to #50 least friendly, with #50 being the #1 most friendly. Under that conception, #48 is pretty damned good for business, isn't it?
David L said,
October 21, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
The Washington Post made the same mistake in a story on Sept 25 about Rand Paul's election campaign in Kentucky:
"As he stumps across this heavily rural state, the 47th poorest in the country, he rarely talks about agriculture or about collecting aid from the federal government."
On the online version of the story there's now a correction at the top:
"This article about the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky incorrectly described the state as the 47th poorest in the country. The reference, based on Census Bureau data on the poverty rate for 2008, was to its being tied for 47th richest, or fourth poorest, among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. According to more recent census data, Kentucky has the nation's third-highest poverty rate."
keri said,
October 21, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
I've started interpeting "nth least X" to mean "nth, one of the least X". So "California is the 48th least friendly…" means "California is 48th, one of the least friendly…". It seems to me that by citing the ranking and then the opposite of the expected list, the speaker is trying to emphasize the negative (or positive) aspects. It reminds me a bit of "I could care less" meaning "I couldn't care less".
Atario said,
October 21, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
Factual correction: Meg Whitman is not the founder of eBay. That would be Pierre Omidyar. Whitman was hired as President and CEO in 1998, well into the life of the company.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay#Origins_and_history
[ Thanks for the correction; it's been noted. — EB ]
Troy S. said,
October 21, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Reminds me of an apocryphal tale of an officer-enlisted football game where the enlisted men win. The next day, the command plan of the day reports: "Officers power through to a second place finish; enlisted men barely manage to come in next-to-last place."
rpsms said,
October 21, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
I am definately going to find a way to use "next-to-last in a 2-man race" in a conversation!
Darryl Shpak said,
October 21, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
I have to agree with you here. Presumably there's a "most business-friendly" and "least business-friendly" state, and thus a "second-most business friendly" and "second-least business friendly" state, and so on. "Second-least" is better than "least", "third-least" is better than "second-least"…there's a proof by induction in here somewhere :-)
If you use a loose semantic interpretation and agree that "48th-least business-friendly state" is a bad things, and yet you also agree that "2nd-least business-friendly state" is a bad thing, where's the flipping point between these two interpretations?
Of course, saying "48th-most business-friendly state" might be semantically accurate but it's a rhetorical disaster, since it sounds too positive. Maybe "third-least business friendly state"? Or "third-unfriendliest to business". Or rephrase it entirely, as "in the bottom three".
Ellen K. said,
October 21, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
What strikes me is that understanding correctly what she actually means by "48th least business-friendly state" requires knowing how many states there are. Because only then does "48th" translate to near the bottom of the list. I don't think the logically backwards statement would be so easy to correctly parse (as in, understand what the speaker means) otherwise.
Diane said,
October 21, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
@TroyS
I've heard that one before, but regarding a footrace. I don't feel that the joke works with a football game. I mean, who comes in second in a football game? You either win or you lose.
Gabe Ormsby said,
October 21, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Reminds me of my dad's worn-out joke, proudly delivered: "Did you know I graduated in the top 90% of my class?"
Yuval said,
October 21, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
@David L: if D.C is included, that would make KY the fifth-poorest (47th richest out of 51), not fourth.
J. Goard said,
October 21, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
@David L:
Regarding the WP's correction:
The reference, based on Census Bureau data on the poverty rate for 2008, was to its being tied for 47th richest, or fourth poorest, among the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Wouldn't 47th richest be fifth poorest, since it's apparently out of 51?
J. Goard said,
October 21, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Sorry, Yuval — you were second slowest there! :-/
Mr. Fnortner said,
October 21, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
As long as people say The single most x y rather than The most x (single) y, we will have statements like the one myl identified, and no one will actually notice. Examples: The single most important factor, rather than The most important (single) factor.
George said,
October 21, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
I suspect that Meg's statement presupposes that being business friendly is a positive thing for ordinary citizens. Which state is #1 and which is #50? Would Californians prefer to live in No#1 over #48?
Henning Makholm said,
October 21, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
I agree with Ms. Whitman — California could have been a real powerhouse in the U.S. economy it it hadn't been for the state's famous business-unfriendliness. Imagine if companies like Google, Apple, Intel, Pixar, Safeway, Chevron, Disney or Mattel had settled there instead of … oh, never mind.
C. Jason said,
October 22, 2010 @ 12:25 am
@Yuval
@J. Goard
The correction claims Kentucky as being tied for 47th richest;
skip 48, due to the tie, and you only have three states (or administrative districts) below them on the list. Reverse the list, and Kentucky becomes tied for 4th poorest.
Joe said,
October 22, 2010 @ 1:16 am
You can see what the logic is: the list is obviously one of "business friendly states," and at some point in the list, it's a bit jarring to say, "nth most business-friendly state," because the numeral is at odds with "most." So the characterization flips from "most" to "least" but not the ordering. (Not sure where that limit is, 10th most business-friendly state is fine, but 48th most business state is obviously not).
Thinking aloud here, I also wonder the construction itself could be due to a trend(?) to make noun phrases denser by liberal use of pre-modification. Something like, "California is ranked 48th on a list of business-friendly states" is perfectly clear to me," but I wonder whether it would be as common as one in which the noun phrase itself contains all the information.
Richard Sabey said,
October 22, 2010 @ 4:20 am
As well as "third least business-friendly" (similar to what Darryl Shpak wrote), there's "third most business-unfriendly".
C. Jason said,
October 22, 2010 @ 5:17 am
Hmmm…
"47th least business-unfriendly state" has a nice ring to it.
Kylopod said,
October 22, 2010 @ 5:47 am
Alright, here's what I want to know: where did she get this stat from? I'm curious because it occurred to me that maybe the study concluded that Cali is the 3rd most business friendly state, and her campaign decided to say "48th least business friendly" because it's technically true but will lead viewers to nearly the opposite conclusion?
Levi Montgomery said,
October 22, 2010 @ 6:10 am
This is the sort of thought I have every time I hear the phrase "my worst enemy." Wait, isn't that my best friend?
Alan Palmer said,
October 22, 2010 @ 6:34 am
As Kylopod asks, where did she get this stat from? How is business-friendliness measured?
bkd69 said,
October 22, 2010 @ 8:37 am
That phrase reminds me of "the best reviewed movie of the year," which really, really makes me want to read that movie's awesome reviews, which are, most likely, infinitely better than the movie in question.
I wonder if this style of ambiguous comparatives is big enough to merit a name of its own?
Jon Weinberg said,
October 22, 2010 @ 10:18 am
@Kylopod & Alan Palmer:
My guess is that Whitman may be relying on the "Small Business Survival Index" produced by an organization calling itself the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. That document rates California 49th in a list of states with the desirable (to the authors) characteristics of little government regulation and low taxes. The top four states on the list: South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming, and Alabama. Whitman presumably thinks California should be more like them.
Mr Fnortner said,
October 22, 2010 @ 11:21 am
It seems to help me understand if I reword the statement as "California is the 48th most business-unfriendly state." This now implies that California is quite friendly since it trails the most business-unfriendly state by 47 places. With the logical error so evident, the speaker has a chance to rephrase it as "California is the third most business-unfriendly state."
JimG said,
October 22, 2010 @ 11:32 am
This theme reminds me of a usage I've seen in book plates showing a group of people: Where the lineup is A-B-C-D-E-F, B is described as "second from the left". I'd prefer, "next to the left." And D is "from the right, third."
Whitman might have been more precise if she had written, "Of business-friendly states, California ranks 48th."
KevinM said,
October 22, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
This is an example of debased political discourse producting debased grammar. The writer didn't care about logic; the writer just didn't want the words "most business-friendly" anywhere near the word "California."
April K said,
October 22, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
@ Alan Palmer
Here in Texas – where the governor loves to tout his "business friendly" policies – it seems to mean low taxes, lax regulation and the environmental compliance agency will bend over for you.
Craig Russell said,
October 22, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
I dunno. This seems to me kind of like the old "still unpacked" construction: if you think about it it's wrong, and yet it still somehow seems right. Lots of people here have suggested lots of ways of rephrasing it, and yet none of these logically more correct versions is (in my opinion) as elegant — or even as easy to quickly understand! — as the "incorrect" Whitman formulation. A radio ad has to grab your attention and impart information with as few words as possible, without forcing you to think about what they mean.
"48th most business-friendly state" has the obvious problem of including the word "business friendly"
"3rd least business friendly state" is understandable, but it somehow doesn't pack the punch that "48th least business-friendly" does. The latter conjures up a picture of a list of all fifty states which the camera zooms down to find California near the bottom. The weight of the 47 more successful states weighs heavily on it.
Anyway, from a rhetorical point of view, perhaps (her opponent) Jerry Brown could celebrate California's status as having the third-best consumer protections against corporate greed?
George said,
October 22, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
@Craig Russell: I agree. I suspect most of the voters in California understood what she meant without undertaking a logical analysis. The key is "least business friendly" and a ranking.
maidhc said,
October 23, 2010 @ 1:47 am
I think that politicians are only concerned with the emotional charge of their statements, not whether they have any meaning.
James Martin said,
October 23, 2010 @ 5:56 am
First place is just the 0th loser.
Kevin Iga said,
October 23, 2010 @ 11:28 am
Sounds a bit like the issue of double negatives. As a math person I might expect every pair of negatives to cancel, but in many circumstances, cross-linguisitcally, negatives are required to pair: "No tengo nada" is Spanish meaning literally "I don't have nothing", whereas *"No tengo algo" (I don't have something) or *"Tengo nada" (I have nothing) is not allowed. The model seems to be that negatives are required to follow agreement, just like case agreement.
Likewise, "47th" and "least" must both be negative, in order to agree.
John G said,
October 23, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Perhaps the reason that Ms Whitman's formulation sounds right to Craig Russell and others is that the image is of a rising ranking, so that 50 would be at the top (except for those who remember that maybe DC should be included, so the top would be 51).
In other words, the largest number shows increasing quantity or quality of the characteristic mentioned. That characteristic is 'less business friendly', which in a comparative chart, tending to the absolute, becomes "least business friendly".
Perhaps the absolute at the favourable-to-business end of this scale is 'business friendly' compared to which every other state is 'less business friendly', right up to 'least business friendly'.
The top of the 'less business friendly' list will be the least business friendly, and that one is number 50 (or 51). So being number 48 is pret-ty bad.
I think it makes sense to count like that even when counting a negative (a state is less and less business friendly as its ranking goes up) because it's easy to understand, in a critical statement, that less is more…
When 'less' should become 'least' in such a count is a separate question to the apparent reverse order ranking that launched this thread.
Steve Bacher said,
October 23, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
All this puts me in mind of one of my pet peeves: the references to California as "the world's 7th largest economy" (or whatever the purported ranking is). This makes no sense whatsoever, because California is not a member of the list of the world's largest economies (or economies of any size), as the reference is implicitly to the economies of sovereign nations. If we ranked all the subdivisions of all the nations of the world (states, provinces, and so on) as to their economic size, then you could speak of California's ranking in that list — but I suspect it would then be quite further down the list than #7.
This trope started out in life as "If California were a country, it would have the 7th largest economy in the world", which annoyed me too, because it left unstated whether the United States would be on that list in its present configuration (including California) or as a country from which California had seceded. Apparently the media then began eliding the "if" clause and merely asserting the illogical statistic as a fact.
Matthew Helm said,
October 24, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
@Levi Montgomery: In two ways, no. First, while a friend could be an enemy, an enemy is not a friend and a friend is not an enemy. There is not a single friend/enemy dimension across which a single number can be used to gauge how much someone is your friend/enemy. Second, while worst enemy could mean the enemy who is worst at being your enemy, meaning they are the least severe enemy, it could also mean the worst of my enemies with worst in this case not meaning anything other than the one that I dislike the most. So while worst enemy is an awfully ambiguous term, it does not mean best friend.
Chris Winter said,
October 24, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Eric Baković wrote: "As a successful businesswoman, much of her platform is about making California more "business-friendly", and so she talks a lot about the apparent fact that California is currently very "unfriendly" to business."
I could object to this: Meg Whitman's platform is a successful businesswoman? But that would be churlish, because blog posts are informal writings, and because the context makes it clear what you mean.
Likewise, as ambiguous a construction as Whitman's sentence is, how can what she means be in doubt given the context?
Frank said,
October 24, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
It's not SUPPOSED to parse. It's supposed to provoke the desired response, presumably among people who don't think those things out, but just go "48? That's big. Unfriendly? That's bad. I get it."
Which is a lot like what KevinM said.
And I suppose that pointing out that "business-friendly" and "corporation-friendly" are two independent sets of criteria, without necessarily a lot of overlap, is unreasonably partisan.
BTW I find "next to last in a two-man race" more useful in public discourse if I leave off the "two-man race" part. Why dilute the point you're trying to make with unnecessary complications?
Andy Klein said,
October 25, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Thank God I'm not the only one to notice this. I posted about it on Facebook about ten days ago, hoping to get confirmation that I hadn't misheard the ad. I've been unable to find the ad online. I finally heard it again a few days ago and confirmed what it said. How long has it run? How many people in Whitman's campaign had to hear it without noticing this idiotic phrase? How many people have heard it on the radio?