As the New York Times says so clearly: "The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of big numbers. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same."

So when trying to communicate the annual cost of the Iraq war, the New York Times article compared it to things we could understand, like healthcare, schooling and cancer research. After all: if you don't spend the money on war, you can certainly spend it somewhere else: "The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions."


This is just great. Suddenly the big numbers mean something. The only other place I deal with big numbers is at work though. So perhaps next time I have to communicate the benefits of a project at work, I'll compare it to the things that money could otherwise be spent on: like shorter lines at the checkout (more checkout staff), cheaper veg and such like.

I remember seeing this when The Times first published it in early 2007 and loving it. Glad I finally got around to posting it on the blog!