[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You guys have to admit though, there *probably* are relations here which support conclusions similar to at least some of the conclusions in this infographic. I mean, can we leave off our PC/accuracy-robot hats long enough to agree that several of these red states in the south have glaring problems in diet, health, education, etc., and that their redness might relate to the history of those states, as well as the present culture within those states?

I agree that there are a number of correlations between the topics mentioned, and it's my hunch that several of these correlate to voting patterns. At least, that is what my past experience in running campaigns- and my current situation in marketing- has shown me. However, it's only fair to point out that someone on the right could produce a very similar document about the blue states- a lot of poor, overweight, deeply Christian people with minimal educations voted for Obama, too.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

one could probably make the case that the redness and blueness of any state is a random occurrences or an outlier in relation to their statistical breakdown, but I don't buy that, there has to be specific statistical connections...

I know that it's tempting to make the connection, but Phileas is spot on:

Originally Posted by Phileas 

1. Correlation ≠ Causation
2. The plural of anecdote isn't data

Moreover, the overwhelming problem with the image as a whole is that it is nothing more than hateful propaganda that serves to bolster right-wing arguments, i.e. that the left is full of anti-religion elitists. It's the left-wing version of the 47%.

[Laminar]

Your Reddit career is really taking off!

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Your Reddit career is really taking off!

I don't read Reddit. Whose career is taking off?

[raleur]

For a more responsible presentation of information, have a look at these images- and watch the video, it's pretty cool if you're an information junkie/history buff.

And note that while they show clear regional distinctions, they include data that precludes the sort of moronic generalizations that the OP's image makes.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

First two rules of research:

1. Correlation ≠ Causation
2. The plural of anecdote isn't data

You must be new here.

[Shaddim]

I'm still waiting for something "interesting".

[subego]

I think it's interesting you hear the thud in your head.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm still waiting for something "interesting".

I don't think that MacNN rules and guidelines permit me posting pics of my genitals.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it's interesting you hear the thud in your head.

Would a person who has always been deaf hear a thud in their head?

[andi*pandi]

well, you can feel a thud, the vibrations in that picture make you feel like you feel a thud, so I'd say yes.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Would a person who has always been deaf hear a thud in their head?

It might not be a thud like you or I hear, but then whats to say that the thud you hear sound to you like the thuds I hear sound to me?

Maybe your green is actually my idea of blue but you call it green because you were always told that things that colour were green. Or vice versa. Is this interesting?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

well, you can feel a thud, the vibrations in that picture make you feel like you feel a thud, so I'd say yes.

For me though, the noise is definitely localized to my head.

I know there are some deaf people on another forum I frequent. I'll ask.

[subego]

I'd like to add that question gets 10 out of 10 interesting points.

[subego]

No deaf people yet, but plenty of people for whom the illusion doesn't work.

I'm a little surprised. When I first found it, no one mentioned it not working.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Would a person who has always been deaf hear a thud in their head?

It might not be a thud like you or I hear, but then whats to say that the thud you hear sound to you like the thuds I hear sound to me?

Maybe your green is actually my idea of blue but you call it green because you were always told that things that colour were green. Or vice versa. Is this interesting?

Many cultures didn't develop separate words for blue and green until fairly recently.

The hues from green over turquoise and teal to blue were described as one color.

[shifuimam]

Shouldn't this be moved to the political lounge?

[subego]

Optical illusions have a liberal bias.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com..._infographics/
My thoughts exactly.

Your comments about Africa were ignored because they were stupid. It's an entirely different country, with different laws, different government, etc, so any comparison of differences is probably LARGELY due to the gov itself.

Wulcome brk "ca$h"

[Spheric Harlot]

Today's xkcd:



Link: http://xkcd.com/1138/

[subego]

Randall wants you to have a link too.

[Spheric Harlot]

Good call.

Post edited for courtesy.

[Shaddim]

But that doesn't help him get his hate on for whatever isn't meeting his own expectations in life. So f*** that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Who? Randall Munroe?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

But that doesn't help him get his hate on for whatever isn't meeting his own expectations in life. So f*** that.

If you don't mind me centering you out this way, could you define "hate"? The way this word is bandied about in society in general I never know exactly whether this is a word that has generally lost its literal meaning? What do you think?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Who? Randall Munroe?

I was talking about Rob. Randall Munroe doesn't seem to be prone to such tantrums.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you don't mind me centering you out this way, could you define "hate"? The way this word is bandied about in society in general I never know exactly whether this is a word that has generally lost its literal meaning? What do you think?

I'm comfortable using that word in this instance.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Many cultures didn't develop separate words for blue and green until fairly recently.
The hues from green over turquoise and teal to blue were described as one color.

Obviously my question works with any two colours.

[Spheric Harlot]

Naturally. Occasionally, I'll post related stuff just kind of assuming that SOMEBODY might find it interesting, as I did.

Sorry if it didn't tickle your fancies.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm comfortable using that word in this instance.

I think it is too strong. It seems like anymore ridicule or mild/moderate disapproval gets inflated to be outright hate. If this is hate, what is Westboro Baptist?

[Spheric Harlot]

Clinical insanity.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Clinical insanity.

I'm probably just being anal about the word hate, I guess it is used pretty casually, and when used it does not necessarily equate to Westboro Baptist-esque hate. I guess there are all sorts of levels of hate, and it is generally non-specific.

It might be best to use more moderate words though so when we call Westboro Baptist people haters that word really stings.

[subego]

"Anal Hate" would be a great name for a band.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Anal Hate" would be a great name for a band.

Better or worse than "Anal Love"?

[subego]

I guess it depends which end you're on.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

what is Westboro Baptist?

Greed

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it is too strong. It seems like anymore ridicule or mild/moderate disapproval gets inflated to be outright hate. If this is hate, what is Westboro Baptist?

While you're right that hate is yet another word that has been abused and overused, there's no reason that both instances can't be called hatred.

The person who put together that graphic clearly hates a lot of people- and his or her inability to understand how useless those pictures were suggests it's a case of the narcissism of small differences. Westboro Baptist is also hatred, it just takes a different form.

[Spheric Harlot]

I could swear there was a lengthy post here earlier with some explanation of how maps can lie, and in fact a whole sideline of interesting discussion between besson and raleur on the subject.

Am I imagining things, or did that stuff get deleted? If so: For ****'s sake, people.

Anyway, I wanted to thank raleur for posting a link to the uMichigan analysis of this year's election, which I'd been waiting for: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

And a case in point how maps can lie:

Election results, simple majority, by county:



It's obvious that "most of America" is Republican.

But when you weight it by POPULATION:



It suddenly becomes obvious that all places where people actually LIVE are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Except, if you change the scale from simple majority red vs. blue to evenly scaled shades of purple, the country doesn't look nearly as "overwhelmingly" ANYTHING, or as "divided" as the talking heads would have you believe.

[knifecarrier2]

yes, but if you look at things other than election results, it is clearly divided in terms of education, poverty, STDs, teen pregnancy, hate groups, religion, nascar, etc.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

yes, but if you look at things other than election results, it is clearly divided in terms of education, poverty, STDs, teen pregnancy, hate groups, religion, nascar, etc.

Depending upon how you skew the scales and which numbers you choose, you can create maps that let you demonstrate almost anything, yes.

That was the point of my post, and the part about how maps can lie.

The maps whatever asshole collected that you posted in the original post used cherry-picked and warped data to "prove" points that confirmed your own prejudices.

There is a strong correlation between poverty, lack of education, and ethnicity. It should be very easy to find "proof" that half of what the original post insinuates about "the South" actually applies to "Black people". Would you feel comfortable with the conclusion that you are a racist? Why not if the data supports it?

[knifecarrier2]

Nope. Melting pot. Race is irrelevant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Nope. Melting pot. Race is irrelevant.

Sure, anything is irrelevant if Rob decrees it such. Oh great oracle, please bestow on us the precious knowledge of what other things in life are irrelevant, so that we may begin living righteously. For woe be onto us that our pitiful facts, statistics and data are unable to reveal to us that which is relevant and which is ir-.

[Shaddim]

He keeps bringing up STDs.

Looks like Wash DC is worst for that, by far, and it's not in the South and it isn't exactly a Republican stronghold.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I could swear there was a lengthy post here earlier with some explanation of how maps can lie, and in fact a whole sideline of interesting discussion between besson and raleur on the subject.

Thanks for the shout out! The post where I point out some of the flaws in those maps is here.

My discussion with Besson is actually a different thread, but starts about here.

For those who aren't interested in reading through it all, the summary: The maps are garbage, useless for any rational discussion, and the person who made them is either a) an idiot, or b) deliberately deceiving the viewer. Same goes for the person who put them together and wrote the descriptions.

Anyway, if I have some time, I'll try to remake one or two of them- but no promises.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Nope. Melting pot. Race is irrelevant.

Here.

Poverty in the United States:



Ethnic minorities in the United States:



So I've just "PROVEN" that Blacks and Hispanics and Native Americans are more prone to poverty than whites.

Except I've done nothing of the sort, because just juxtaposing those maps doesn't actually tell you anything about WHICH ethnicity is actually more likely to be poor. It just makes it look like there's a correlation, and your unthinking brain immediately makes the connection that it must be the Hispanics and the Blacks that are disproportionately poor. *

That's a logical fallacy.

It could easily be the case that in the areas where Native Americans have the highest percentage of the population, THEY'RE all working in tourism, and not leaving any jobs for the whites ("Theytookrjerbs!") causing high poverty among the Caucasian population. That's unlikely, but there's no way to tell from those maps, regardless of what your prejudices cause you to think they tell you.

That's one way much of that bullshit you posted above works.


The other is by deliberately skewing the numbers to make it look like individual maps are showing something they actually aren't (like my example of "most of America" being Republican above. Sure seems obvious. By geography. Most PEOPLE aren't.).



*) In fact, this *is* the case: http://www.usaonrace.com/eyes-enterprise/shades-poverty-america
I'm rather surprised that there are people out there who deny a link between ethnicity and poverty.

Regardless, I can probably find similar maps to "prove" that WalMart causes obesity, or whatever else.

[subego]

What's with all the Germans in that second map?

[knifecarrier2]

They like invading.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's with all the Germans in that second map?

Little know fact, hawaii and PR are SURROUNDED by Germans. Scary.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's with all the Germans in that second map?

"all the Germans"? All, like, six of them?

Subtle way to make my point about maps being deceiving.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Nope. Melting pot. Race is irrelevant.

So I've just "PROVEN" that Blacks and Hispanics and Native Americans are more prone to poverty than whites.

Sorry, you don't understand how "proving" works. Let me clear it up. "Proving" only works on things that Ca$h already knows to be true. It doesn't work for things that Ca$h already knows to be false. If you don't know what things Ca$h already knows to be true and false, well all you have to do is keep reading MacNN that's what it's there for.

[Shaddim]

By looking at the maps you can also see that the South never fully recovered from Reconstruction. Hey, it's just as valid as other claims.