This post is written by LTF Science Content Editor Paul Hightower.

The Association for Psychological Science has just published a study examining the differences in people who are numerate versus those who are not. “Numeracy” is the mathematical equivalent of literacy, meaning how well one reads and can analyze numeric values and data as with words in a sentence.

The study found that people who are innumerate were influenced by how results were presented, whereas the numerate made better critical decisions based on the same data. For example, many participants saw qualitative differences with data reporting 80% of students passing an exam versus the 20% who failed even though these numbers state exactly the same result. The innumerate saw greater risks in an event having a 1 out of 100 chance of occurring than the same event with a 1% chance.

If some consider this a trivial problem, think of the world of numbers in which we live and conduct business every day. Drugs are approved or denied based on the count of test subjects cured or experiencing side effects. Millions of dollars are gained or lost by fractional changes in a stock price. Cities, highways, airports, and hospitals are planned based on population trends and risk percentages. Would numbers affect your decision to work or live within range of a dormant volcano or coastline? Is a 40% discount on a purchase better than buy two, get one free?

We live in an academic society that places a social stigma on illiteracy, and often goes to great lengths to remedy this problem in adults. However, barely a thought is given to the numbers of functionally innumerate in our population. In a world that is saturated with data—and much of it unreliable or deliberately misleading—that is an educational crisis waiting to happen. Innumeracy needs a social stigma, too.