The media space is crowded everywhere with ready-made percentages, reducing everything like 70% or 80% of Jordanians, presented as final summaries of a complex economic, political, or social reality, with numbers dropping as if they represent the whole truth.
These percentages are not presented in their statistical context, but are used to shape public perceptions, steer discussions, and perhaps justify positions and policies, and under which decisions are taken.
The deeper issue is not in the number itself, but in what it is supposed to represent. When it is said that this percentage represents Jordanians, it implicitly means there are significant common denominators in attitudes and experiences, a presumption that requires rigorous scrutiny in a society diverse in its composition, interests, conditions, and challenges.
However, do these numbers reflect a stable general trend, or are they captured in a fleeting sensory moment, linked to a specific economic, political, or social circumstance?
Analyzing the numbers first requires understanding the framework on which they are built. If the sample is limited or unbalanced, the result might not necessarily be wrong, but it becomes partial and inflated when generalized for the purposes of attracting attention with big headlines. Moreover, the absence of details, such as sample size, geographic and social distribution, and measurement tools used, deprives readers and policymakers of the ability to engage in critical analytical reading and turns the number into a tool of influence, not a source of knowledge.
The situation becomes more complicated when these numbers are accompanied by a comment from an expert or analyst, many of whom are numerous, without a clear definition of their identity, scientific background, or professional position.
Here, the analysis must add depth and interpretive reading, as in the absence of transparent references, it turns into a sent impressionistic headline, gaining its weight only from the common attribute that cannot be assessed or questioned.
The analysis of the results is not complete unless linked to the general context and other indicators. Large numbers may reflect a high level of anxiety or dissatisfaction, but they do not explain the reasons, determine the extent, or distinguish between different groups.
Numbers do not answer a fundamental question, whether we are facing a long-term trend or a temporary wave that quickly changes.
Reading numbers in isolation from their temporal and social context leads to misleading conclusions, where the real danger lies not in publishing the results, but in utilizing them selectively, serving quick narratives at the expense of a deep understanding of reality.
We cannot build a mature public discussion based on mere percentages or analyses of unknown identity and reference.
What is required today is not more numbers, but a deeper dive into presenting and analyzing them, as aware societies keeping up with the rapid pace of change in the world do not study themselves through bold headlines, but through thoughtful reading.
