[raleur]

Wow, I'm glad you guys are getting it. Bad maps are one of my pet peeves: it's an insult to my profession. Bad maps that are used for propaganda are an insult to my humanity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"all the Germans"? All, like, six of them?
Subtle way to make my point about maps being deceiving.

Am I misreading the colors?

[Spheric Harlot]

You're falling for the same trap as the rob:

The areas with overwhelmingly German descent are areas where hardly anybody lives at all.

[subego]

You're assuming I'm making an absolute statement (question) instead of a relative one.

If I'm in the middle of Nebraska, where there's only three people, if two of them are Germans, I still ask "what's with all the Germans?"

[raleur]

Historically speaking, that's always a prudent question.

[Spheric Harlot]

^ tread softly there, raleur.

Originally Posted by subego 

You're assuming I'm making an absolute statement (question) instead of a relative one.

If I'm in the middle of Nebraska, where there's only three people, if two of them are Germans, I still ask "what's with all the Germans?"

And "most of America" voted Republican.

[subego]

I'm having trouble connecting your statement to mine.

[knifecarrier2]

So.... I guess I hate black people. Weird. I never knew I was racist... but according to my maps, I am.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm having trouble connecting your statement to mine.

The map shows that large stretches of land are populated primarily by people of German descent.

Other maps show that nobody lives there. So looking at one map, you wonder about "all those Germans", but in fact, there's really not that many of them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

So.... I guess I hate black people. Weird. I never knew I was racist... but according to my maps, I am.

According to the logic you've been using in this thread, you probably should be.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The map shows that large stretches of land are populated primarily by people of German descent.
Other maps show that nobody lives there. So looking at one map, you wonder about "all those Germans", but in fact, there's really not that many of them.

Stop dissing Wisconsin.

[knifecarrier2]

Wisconsin is pretty sparse, save for the two counties I live in. I hate it here. It's not so much my state that's bad, it's the surrounding states. Flat nothingness. To get anywhere interesting you have to drive over 10 hours. That sucks.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The map shows that large stretches of land are populated primarily by people of German descent.
Other maps show that nobody lives there. So looking at one map, you wonder about "all those Germans", but in fact, there's really not that many of them.

I'm not talking about all those Germans in the entire country, I'm talking about all those Germans in Nebraska.

To put it another way, of the people who live in those empty areas, why are they German?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To put it another way, of the people who live in those empty areas, why are they German?

The land was cheap in the late 40s?

[subego]

Racist.

[raleur]

Well, although I may get in trouble with Harlot for saying so, most of the "German-ness" of those areas is rooted in historical circumstance.

Look up "Forty-Eighters" and you'll see that the largest wave of German immigration came after 1848. Their arrival coincided with another cycle of westward expansion, which this time took place in the Great Plains and the newly-annexed Texas.

So, short answer: they are there because when their ancestors arrived, that's where the cheap land was.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Wisconsin is pretty sparse, save for the two counties I live in. I hate it here. It's not so much my state that's bad, it's the surrounding states. Flat nothingness. To get anywhere interesting you have to drive over 10 hours. That sucks.

Move

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Wisconsin is pretty sparse, save for the two counties I live in. I hate it here. It's not so much my state that's bad, it's the surrounding states. Flat nothingness. To get anywhere interesting you have to drive over 10 hours. That sucks.

What about the cheese?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I've heard buttermilk is awesome there as well.....you can buy it in 512ml drink cartons? Wild

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Wisconsin is pretty sparse, save for the two counties I live in. I hate it here. It's not so much my state that's bad, it's the surrounding states. Flat nothingness. To get anywhere interesting you have to drive over 10 hours. That sucks.

Wisconsin has the world's most complete museum devoted to torture devices and the world's largest six-pack. Those seem interesting.

[knifecarrier2]

Been to both places already. Not really that fun.

[Waragainstsleep]

You hear on american TV shows that Wisconsin is the best place (in America) for cheese. Do you get much imported cheese over there? Do americans make any good blue cheeses?

[andi*pandi]

Vermont! Cabot Cheese FTW!

That said, I have been on the Heileman Brewery tour. I was however underage and not allowed to tastetest at the end of the tour.

[subego]

Most good Wisconsin cheese is exported out of state.

You can get good (internationally) imported cheese in cities.

Blue cheese is gross.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Blue cheese is gross.

No, the blue cheese that you have tasted is gross. You now need to taste good blue cheese.

[Waragainstsleep]

Mmmm. Stilton or Roquefort?

There is also a nice blue made with buffalo milk.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Well, although I may get in trouble with Harlot for saying so, most of the "German-ness" of those areas is rooted in historical circumstance.

Look up "Forty-Eighters" and you'll see that the largest wave of German immigration came after 1848. Their arrival coincided with another cycle of westward expansion, which this time took place in the Great Plains and the newly-annexed Texas.

So, short answer: they are there because when their ancestors arrived, that's where the cheap land was.

Bingo.

[raleur]

Just for the sake of comparison, I downloaded the same census information that the original mapmaker used and re-colored the map using standard increments of 10%.

I didn't have time to do the entire country, but chose Mississippi, one of the poorest states, as an example. Here's what I came up with:

6938/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

I tried to keep the same color scheme, although there are problems with that as well.

In any case, you should notice that there's a lot fewer dramatic red spots: obviously, whoever drew the map deliberately chose a method that exaggerated the extent of poverty.


And there's something else I discovered that shows that the map is intended to mislead:

First, some background: When it comes to estimations, the Census bureau never gives exact figures. rather, it supplies a range of three numbers called a confidence interval. These intervals represent the high and low boundaries of the estimate (because not everyone responds to census data, the figures cannot be exact). So, for example, DeSoto county, the only county with less than 10% poverty, has a confidence interval of 7.4, 9.0, 10.6. This means that 9% is the best estimate, but recognizes that it could be as low as 7.4% or as high as 10.6%.

So, when I started populating the map, I noticed some discrepancies where the colors should be the same, but weren't. But then, when I plugged in the high boundary instead of the best estimate, they fell into place. In other words, the original map maker chose the worst-case numbers, not the numbers with the highest confidence.

In short, there's only one reason you'd make such a map: to mislead.


Oh, and real Roquefort is the best cheese ever to exist.

[Spheric Harlot]

A map geek!


We found a map geek!


Awesome work, raleur. Thanks for the effort.


You should post that to snopes.com, along with the original piece of shit that Rob posted.

[Shaddim]

That is awesome, I'm impressed.

[The Final Dakar]

Nate Silver is that you?

[raleur]

Thanks guys!

I'm glad you liked it, but it's just a quick redraw, far from being snopes-worthy. There is still a lot of potential for misleading people with the new map.

[subego]

It's a perfect medium to pull a fast one since Americans seem to lack interest in geography.

Never really understood that lack of interest.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's a perfect medium to pull a fast one since Americans seem to lack interest in geography.
Never really understood that lack of interest.

Yeah, that's a sad fact, especially since geography has a lot more influence over us than most people think.

The other point, one which I should have made more clearly in my discussion with Besson, is that data is never "just data": no complex information ever stands by itself. There's a whole realm of non-verbal rhetoric that takes place when we present images like this, and more often than not, that non-verbal rhetoric is much more persuasive than anything we might say or write about it.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Mmmm. Stilton or Roquefort?
There is also a nice blue made with buffalo milk.

Originally Posted by raleur 

Oh, and real Roquefort is the best cheese ever to exist.

My fav blue cheese is Fourme d'Ambert, from the middle of France. Not as sharp as Stilton, its creamy yet you get that blue cheese 'kick'. I like St. Agur as well but cheese snobs wouldn't approve.

I find Roquefort too strong.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

My fav blue cheese is Fourme d'Ambert, from the middle of France. Not as sharp as Stilton, its creamy yet you get that blue cheese 'kick'. I like St. Agur as well but cheese snobs wouldn't approve.
I find Roquefort too strong.

Yes, those are also good- Fourme de Montbrison is similar, I can't tell the difference between it and d'Ambert.

It's been a long time since I lived in France, so I haven't heard anything regarding St. Agur, and I've never tried it. Why won't cheese snobs approve of it? Because it's not one of the historical cheeses?

[The Final Dakar]

The guy in france and the new poster with a french sounding name talking cheese. Be still my beating heart.

[sek929]

I like a fine American Cheese on a Ritz cracker.

Classy.

[The Final Dakar]

Velveeta on a saltine.

[sek929]

Cheez whiz on Spam

[The Final Dakar]

Spray Cheeze on hand

[andi*pandi]

why get your hands dirty?

[knifecarrier2]

Raluer: color me impressed. However.... even if the person adjusted the scale as to what percentage changes to what color, as long as it was consistently applied to the ENTIRE NATION, how is it misleading? If anything, the values were adjusted to highlight the differences, instead of a simple scale/value change that ends up with a fairly bland map that doesn't tell you much. Isn't adjusting the scale HELPFUL, as it helps show you the data?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Yes, those are also good- Fourme de Montbrison is similar, I can't tell the difference between it and d'Ambert.
It's been a long time since I lived in France, so I haven't heard anything regarding St. Agur, and I've never tried it. Why won't cheese snobs approve of it? Because it's not one of the historical cheeses?

Its a big brand found in most supermarkets in the UK and presumably France too.

I've not tried either of those two you mention. For me a Stilton from Paxton & Whitfield is really tough to beat, especially for creaminess. I've never found another Stilton to match it. Which reminds me its been ages since I had any...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I bet

[subego]

Wake me up when we get to Dutch Gouda.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Raluer: color me impressed. However.... even if the person adjusted the scale as to what percentage changes to what color, as long as it was consistently applied to the ENTIRE NATION, how is it misleading? If anything, the values were adjusted to highlight the differences, instead of a simple scale/value change that ends up with a fairly bland map that doesn't tell you much. Isn't adjusting the scale HELPFUL, as it helps show you the data?

No, like he said, they're changing the data too, using the worst possible results for the South and the best for other states. The entire thing is hinky.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Raluer: color me impressed. However.... even if the person adjusted the scale as to what percentage changes to what color, as long as it was consistently applied to the ENTIRE NATION, how is it misleading? If anything, the values were adjusted to highlight the differences, instead of a simple scale/value change that ends up with a fairly bland map that doesn't tell you much. Isn't adjusting the scale HELPFUL, as it helps show you the data?

Okay.

Try this:

Look at your map of poverty. Now imagine adjusting the scale to three categories:

0-5%
6-12%
12-89%

All of a sudden, THE WHOLE COUNTRY except for a very few elite pockets looks like a poverty-stricken shithole.

And also: Look! They're all in the category up to 89% poverty! Holy shit, that's not even just a few pockets being "elite", that's the rest being REALLY REALLY BAD.

Notice that raleur's map scaled to 49%. Yours went to 69%.


There's also the outright selective FALSIFICATION of data, by not using the same criteria across the nation. It is exactly NOT what you are suggesting — consistently applied.

There's a number of other ways you are being manipulated by misleading data that could probably be sussed out, depending upon which maps you're looking at.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Okay.
Try this:
Look at your map of poverty. Now imagine adjusting the scale to three categories:
0-5%
6-12%
12-89%
All of a sudden, THE WHOLE COUNTRY except for a very few elite pockets looks like a poverty-stricken shithole.
And also: Look! They're all in the category up to 89% poverty! Holy shit, that's not even just a few pockets being "elite", that's the rest being REALLY REALLY BAD.
Notice that raleur's map scaled to 49%. Yours went to 69%.
There's also the outright selective FALSIFICATION of data, by not using the same criteria across the nation. It is exactly NOT what you are suggesting — consistently applied.
There's a number of other ways you are being manipulated by misleading data that could probably be sussed out, depending upon which maps you're looking at.

Okay.. but like I said.... if you adjust the data you way you suggested, the whole country looks poor. Right? Right. So it isn't a good way to do so, because it makes the entire country look fairly homogeneous.

Now... . on the flip side, if you do what Raleur did, he changed the scales so that the entire state looks pretty decent. Right?

So what the maps I posted did was... use the data that shows the DIFFERENCE most drastically. Isn't that the entire point of an infographical map? To adjust the scales so that some usable information can be extracted?

What you just suggested makes the entire nation look poor. What he did was adjust things so the entire nation looks pretty decent. Neither is very good at teaching us anything, because the whole point of a map like this is to show what changes.

The map I posted adjusted the scales to show the largest difference areas....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Rob

if you adjust the data you way you suggested, the whole country looks poor. Right? Right. So it isn't a good way to do so, because it makes the entire country look fairly homogeneous.

Now... . on the flip side, if you do what Raleur did, he changed the scales so that the entire state looks pretty decent. Right?

No, what raleur did was that he EVENED OUT the scales, to that each category gets equal weight.
THAT is why everything looks decent: BECAUSE IT IS.

If you create a statistic that measures a class in the categories "A+ to A", "A- to B-", and "C+ and below", the whole class looks like shit, except for a few positive outliers.
If you use the categories "A+ to A-", "B+ to B-", "C+ to C-", "D+ to D-", and "F", you will get a decent result, with an average around C.

Which of those two systems gives you realistic picture?



Look at the categories used by your lying sack o' shit mapmaker.

List them.

Take a goooood look at them and think them over.

raleur didn't "change the scales so that the entire state looks pretty decent". He equally weighted the scales to get a more accurate picture of reality. It is REALITY that looks pretty decent.



A wholly separate issue is that the numbers themselves were falsified, by assuming the statistically possible worst-case for all states to be pigeon-holed, and the statistically possible BEST-case for all others. That's not even "adjusting the scales"; that's just using completely different data depending upon location.

To get back to the grading example above, that would be like graphing the test grades for an English exam across two classes, but only using grade results from the non-native speakers in one class, and only using data from the native speakers in the other.