[knifecarrier2]

You are ignoring my points and refusing to answer the question...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Here's the answer to your question:

This graph is "optimized" to show the biggest difference, just like you suggest. Can you guess the way in which it is deceptive? Here's a hint: it has to do with proportion.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

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?

It did the exact opposite of what you claim.

The difference between 24.9% and 25% is pretty small, right?
And the difference between 24.9% and 62% is pretty ****ing huge, right?

Why do they look exactly the same on your map?

And to continue:

Why are there two categories covering about ten percent each, one covering 4.6%, and one covering THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT?

These categories weren't chosen to SHOW the difference. These categories were chosen to CREATE a difference.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

You are ignoring my points and refusing to answer the question...

I am REFUTING EVERY SINGLE ONE of your points.

I am not answering your question because your argument goes like this:

"So what raleur is doing is this, right?" (WRONG)

"And what my maps are doing is this, right?" (NO!)

"Well, if that's so, why isn't this…" (BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR PREMISES IS ****ING WRONG.)

"Stop ignoring points and answer my question!" (ER…wha??)


You are insisting upon believing the plumpest kind of propaganda, even after several people have explained to you in exact detail how it works and what is happening.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

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?

It did the exact opposite of what you claim.

The difference between 24.9% and 25% is pretty small, right?
And the difference between 24.9% and 62% is pretty ****ing huge, right?

Why do they look exactly the same on your map?

And to continue:

Why are there two categories covering about ten percent each, one covering 4.6%, and one covering THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT?

These categories weren't chosen to SHOW the difference. These categories were chosen to CREATE a difference.

Well, technically, they're exaggerating a (statistically insignificant) difference into a much larger difference. It's "creating" a significance, not actually "creating" a difference, which would look like nothing if graphed without going so far out of the way to "zoom in" on the scale (just like what was done in the above Fox News graphic).

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes, but the category split points were not chosen arbitrarily. They were chosen specifically to make it look like there was a huge difference, in places where statistically, there isn't at all (especially taking into account the falsified data).

"Exaggeration" is a massive understatement. This, literally, is trend CREATION.



(We're on the same page, Skel — I just won't have any of your namby-pamby mild relativism. )

[raleur]

Harlot has done a great job of explaining why you're wrong, knifecarrier, but I'd like to clarify a few things.

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

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

I take issue with calling what I did "pretty decent": if you take a moment to look at the legend I used, you'll still notice that most of the counties are still very poor. It did not look decent at all as I made it- in fact, it was downright depressing.

But you seem to want to argue that I was denying that the South was poor, which misses the point: I wanted to show that the poverty in the state was not as horrifyingly widespread as your map suggests.

By the way, my legend stops at 49.9 percent because there are no counties in Mississippi with a poverty level higher than 48.4%- there are only three counties in the nation with poverty over 50%, and none of them are in the South.

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

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?

No, it is not. Would you like to be graded according to your worst three scores only? Of course not.

The purpose of an infrographic is to present information as accurately as possible in order to help people understand the situation. The fact is that many people think visually, and can understand certain concepts relationally much more easily than they can from a spreadsheet or list.

When information is exaggerated or otherwise twisted, it becomes propaganda or hype. Your maps are both of these: any decision based on what they purport to contain would be in error.

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

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....

Again, you are just plain wrong.

What I did was to localize poverty, to show where it was most serious. If you were sincerely concerned with fighting poverty and its ills, you could use my map to identify areas that should receive the most attention. Using yours would result in a lot of wasted effort.

But, of course, I'm pretending that you give a damn about poverty, which is not true. It's clear from your original post, and continued defense of this garbage, that you just want to believe that you're better than a bunch of ignorant hicks, and you're willing to toss out several million human beings in order to do so.

[Spheric Harlot]

Just re-reading…

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?

The fundamental problem is bolded, there:

It doesn't help you "show the data"; it helps you GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.

The problem with an accurate and "fairly bland" map is that you have to be able to read it.

I had great teachers in school who taught me how to read and analyze maps.

Most people, apparently, can't, which is why they fall for the easy-to-grasp simplicity of data that has been twisted to support a point, rather than a point concluded from data on a map or graph.

[Spheric Harlot]

raleur, if you lived in France, and you speak French, I *sincerely* hope you are familiar with "Le dessous de cartes" on arte TV?

http://ddc.arte.tv

If you aren't: This is the singular most awesome current events analysis series I have ever seen, bar none.
Should be right up your alley.

French and German only — sorry to the rest of you uncultured slobs.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

raleur, if you lived in France, and you speak French, I *sincerely* hope you are familiar with "Le dessous de cartes" on arte TV?
http://ddc.arte.tv
If you aren't: This is the singular most awesome current events analysis series I have ever seen, bar none.
Should be right up your alley.
French and German only — sorry to the rest of you uncultured slobs.

Wow, I did not know about that, but it looks awesome!

Unfortunately, I seem unable to play the videos- it seems we're not allowed to watch them here in 'murka.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Just re-reading…
The fundamental problem is bolded, there:
It doesn't help you "show the data"; it helps you GET YOUR POINT ACROSS.
The problem with an accurate and "fairly bland" map is that you have to be able to read it.
I had great teachers in school who taught me how to read and analyze maps.
Most people, apparently, can't, which is why they fall for the easy-to-grasp simplicity of data that has been twisted to support a point, rather than a point concluded from data on a map or graph.

In all fairness, I should point out that my map has some problems, too. While it's much more accurate than the original, that's not saying much.

I'd never use this map for anything other than educational purposes- that is, in order to show how NOT to make a map.

The biggest problem it has is that it is not weighted for population density: we have no way of knowing how many people are affected. For example, DeSoto County, with the lowest (9%) poverty, has a population of over 161,000- meaning that just over 14,000 people live in poverty there. On the other hand, Issaquena County, with 45.5% poverty, has a population of just over 1400- meaning that about 600 people live in poverty there.

Neither map can show this because counties are a very poor choice as a unit of measurement.

[andi*pandi]

I'm curious as to where those 3 poorest counties are... I will guess 3 northern states then, without Googling: Alaska, Idaho, and Maine.

Ok, google says wikipedia says it is South Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas. Is Texas not part of the south? Alaska comes in at 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

[raleur]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm curious as to where those 3 poorest counties are... I will guess 3 northern states then, without Googling: Alaska, Idaho, and Maine.
Ok, google says wikipedia says it is South Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas. Is Texas not part of the south? Alaska comes in at 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

A lot of it depends on how you define "poorest"- all of those go by income, either per capita or median household.

For the sake of argument, I used the same data used by the person responsible for the first map- percentage of residents living below the poverty line. In that listing, it's South Dakota, Colorado, South Dakota.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, but the category split points were not chosen arbitrarily. They were chosen specifically to make it look like there was a huge difference, in places where statistically, there isn't at all (especially taking into account the falsified data).

"Exaggeration" is a massive understatement. This, literally, is trend CREATION.



(We're on the same page, Skel — I just won't have any of your namby-pamby mild relativism. )

It's just that you can't gloss over little things that fall in the dupe's favor, or else the dupe will always be distracted by them and say "but still..." (as this dupe is already doing). The fact is that the south did finish first in the race to the bottom. First by just a hair, a hair which was made to look like a leg by fraudulent data manipulation, but if you say they changed the order when they didn't you won't change many minds.

[Laminar]

But then how can I pretend to use facts to justify my latent racism and theologicophobia?

[Shaddim]