A ‘simple’ math problem has divided people 50/50. It’s a great metaphor for social division.

In theory, a math problem involving four single digits and basic arithmetic—no algebraic functions, no variables, no exponents—should be easy for any high school graduate to solve. So why are people split right down the middle on the answer to this seemingly simple problem? 6 ÷ 2 (1+2) = ? You may have gotten 9. You may have gotten 1. If you take this poll shared by World of Statistics on X, you’ll see how others answered. As of this article’s writing, over 1.3 million people have voted, and the split is nearly 50/50. We’ll get into the actual math problem and why people are so split on the solution shortly. But to me, the debates surrounding it represent something bigger. Nearly every element of the problem, its solutions, and people’s insistence that their answer is correct is a metaphor for divisions in society. It really is that deep. Stick with me here. Many of us think math has strict rules and definitions because we were taught that early on. We likely learned that multiple methods can solve an equation, but they should ultimately lead to the same answer. Basic math is straightforward. Answers are either right or wrong, and if you get the wrong answer, you messed up your calculations somewhere. We’ve internalized that idea as fact since childhood. But what if some problems just aren’t that simple? The vehemence with which people insist they are right One way the divided responses to this math equation reflect social divisions is in people’s insistence that their solution is correct. Some folks are adamant that the answer is 9, and anyone who says otherwise is “a moron” and the reason “we are doomed.” We also have people insisting the answer is 1, and anyone who says differently “doesn’t fully understand math” and “needs to go back to school.” 1+2 =3 2(3) =6 6/6 =1 gotta do the things in the parenthesis first then 2(3) are together so technically u do that next n then u divide— gmo nikita (@nikitalyse) October 26, 2026 The vehemence with which people argue that their answer is correct and disparage those who came to a different conclusion is familiar, isn’t it? Instead of saying, “Huh, I came up with a different answer. What are we seeing differently in the problem that led us to different solutions?” we have people saying, “I’m right. You’re wrong and also an idiot.” Hold that thought while we do the math. The role our education plays in understanding problems and solutions The biggest source of disagreement with this problem appears to stem from what people learned about math in school. The order-of-operations rule (memorized through acronyms like PEMDAS or BOMDAS) plays a big role. Here’s the problem again: 6 ÷ 2 (1+2) = ? Those with a solid grasp of PEMDAS felt secure in their answer of 9. Following the order of operations, you must calculate inside the parentheses first, then multiply and divide from left to right, which makes the equation 6 ÷ 2 • 3 = 9. Those who have studied math in different contexts, such as physics, or who have learned different conventions are likely to see 2 (1+2) as implied (or implicit) multiplication, also known as juxtaposition. The lack of an actual multiplication symbol (x or •) as part of the equation means 2 (1+2) is essentially treated as a singular term. So we end up multiplying 2(3) first, which gives us 6 ÷ 6 = 1. (Don’t argue with me. Argue with the mathematician who explains the PEMDAS paradox.) The problem is actually the problem itself So which answer is right? Technically, both. Isn’t that maddening? (But maybe a little freeing, if we can accept it?) Mathematicians have explained that this math problem is ambiguous the way it is written, which is why people solve it differently and get different answers. Mathematically, there isn’t enough context to interpret the problem and solve it in a “correct” way. It’s either a “gotcha” problem designed to create the debate we’re seeing or a poorly written problem that should be notated differently. That also feels familiar, doesn’t it? How often do we see people talk about societal problems and solutions while leaving out necessary context? A lot. And what we end up with is people arguing over solutions with no way to agree because the problem itself is poorly presented. (Or purposefully presented with missing context to create division—politicians pay consultants big money to determine how problems should be framed to justify their preferred solutions.) Away from black-and-white thinking, and toward more clearly defined problems One of the biggest problems with modern social discourse is simplistic, black-and-white thinking. The further you advance in math, however, the less black-and-white it becomes, and the same should go for our thinking as we deepen our understanding of social issues. We also have a clarity problem. In the YouTube video above, Dr. Trefor Bazett, an associate teaching professor of mathematics at the University of Victoria in Canada, shares in his explanation of this math problem debate: “The whole point of using symbols in mathematics is so that I can communicate with you—that a complex, complicated idea, I can convey it in a clear and unambiguous way. And if I’m not doing that, if I’ve written something down that leads to a viral math problem controversy trending, then what that means is that I am using a bad choice of symbols.” Politicians and other powerful people love presenting problems ambiguously. They hire consultants to frame problems vaguely enough to keep them out of trouble but specifically enough to lead people toward their preferred solutions. We need to insist on clearly defining the problems we face, or we’ll keep digging into solutions that are equally right within our own understandings. Being right doesn’t always mean others are wrong We won’t always see eye to eye on everything. Some real-world social issues are inherently ambiguous, so perfect clarity isn’t always possible. But perhaps if we could resist the urge to say, “I’m right. You’re wrong and also an idiot,” when discussing problems, we could actually solve a lot more of them. Imagine if we took a beat when we disagree and said, “What are we seeing differently in the problem that led us to different solutions?” And what if we went even further to, “Yeah, I can see how you got there. Here’s how and why I got to my answer.” That approach may not make for good social media drama, but it sure seems like it could help us get a little closer to agreement on solutions to real-world problems.