You left out the most recent famous example, the Lancet chart of heat deaths vs cold deaths with the x axis distorted by truncating most of the cold side but leaving the end labeled the same as the hot side with a broken squiggly line.
If the majority of us are watching short-form videos and looking at infographics or charts for 1.5 seconds per piece, I wonder about the nature of being fooled, getting it or being entertained in the process.
Apparent engagement online isn’t real engagement in that context. That’s one reason I like Substack where blogging isn’t dead and you can go deeper into a topic if you want to.
Ramaswamy states, "The number of climate-disaster-related deaths is down by 98% over the last century."
Apart from whatever number he is using and whatever his source, the population of the world is four times higher today than a century ago. If the incidence of "climate-disaster-related deaths" was 2% then and 2% now, by the raw numbers, that's a 75% decline.
There's a good book called Proofiness about manipulators' distortion of data gathering, analysis, display, and interpretation.
I learned the power of pretty graphs in my first job, as an engineering intern in a major aerospace company. I was running simulations on a mainframe, and graphing the results on this new computer called a Macintosh. The graphs were so pretty that the managers never questioned them. They could have been my biorhythms.
Really helpful tips. I certainly took away several questions I'll be asking myself when interpreting internet graphs.
It reminds me of a class offered by my alma mater where a couple of professors try to educate students on this very topic, aptly titled "Calling Bullshit." The syllabus and lectures are publicly available, and they even have a book out. https://callingbullshit.org/index.html
Also, he just produces an impressive amount of high-quality short-form econ video content, so could be worth checking out for any big econ bloggers thinking about trying out that medium *wink wink nudge nudge*
Good article... but you left off one of the most famous misleading (though aptly named) graphs - the "Laugher (sic) Curve". Totally ridiculous... Keep 'em coming, Noah!
I note that there seem to be more left-coded than right-coded graphs here. Is this because left-wing political messaging is more likely to go viral; because progressives are more inclined to use data to back up their arguments (albeit not always correctly); because progressives really are less statistically aware; or all or none of the above?
You left out the most recent famous example, the Lancet chart of heat deaths vs cold deaths with the x axis distorted by truncating most of the cold side but leaving the end labeled the same as the hot side with a broken squiggly line.
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/82137275-383a-4b3d-aad5-e4b8e9f132a9/gr3.jpg
If the majority of us are watching short-form videos and looking at infographics or charts for 1.5 seconds per piece, I wonder about the nature of being fooled, getting it or being entertained in the process.
Apparent engagement online isn’t real engagement in that context. That’s one reason I like Substack where blogging isn’t dead and you can go deeper into a topic if you want to.
How about this one, from Vivek Ramswamy interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC (not a chart, but still...):
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Andrea+Mitchell%27s+interview+of+Vivek+Ramaswamy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4a9723eb,vid:uEs0H1NG-DM,st:0
Ramaswamy states, "The number of climate-disaster-related deaths is down by 98% over the last century."
Apart from whatever number he is using and whatever his source, the population of the world is four times higher today than a century ago. If the incidence of "climate-disaster-related deaths" was 2% then and 2% now, by the raw numbers, that's a 75% decline.
Completely off topic, but this is the funniest bunny video I have ever seen. Obviously, none of us appreciates tomatoes enough.
https://twitter.com/RabbitEveryHour/status/1701098242572775536?utm_campaign=wp_todays_worldview&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_todayworld&s=20
When do we get the dump of other charts that have pissed you off?
There's a good book called Proofiness about manipulators' distortion of data gathering, analysis, display, and interpretation.
I learned the power of pretty graphs in my first job, as an engineering intern in a major aerospace company. I was running simulations on a mainframe, and graphing the results on this new computer called a Macintosh. The graphs were so pretty that the managers never questioned them. They could have been my biorhythms.
I used to have a whole tumblr of bad visualisations. Then they started getting so numerous that I stopped maintaining/ “collecting” them
https://www.tumblr.com/badvisualisations
Nice article. I was also inspired by Summers chart. But in this case to write a fully fledged defense of it https://open.substack.com/pub/shakoist/p/larry-summers-chart-is-fine?r=jhraj&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Absolutely fantastic 🔥
Really helpful tips. I certainly took away several questions I'll be asking myself when interpreting internet graphs.
It reminds me of a class offered by my alma mater where a couple of professors try to educate students on this very topic, aptly titled "Calling Bullshit." The syllabus and lectures are publicly available, and they even have a book out. https://callingbullshit.org/index.html
Thanks, this was a fun (and hopefully useful) read!
I'd recommend Christopher Clarke's video on the first graph as a sharable for anyone with family members who are addicted to short-form video content:
https://www.tiktok.com/@econchrisclarke/video/7277754625564871979
Also, he just produces an impressive amount of high-quality short-form econ video content, so could be worth checking out for any big econ bloggers thinking about trying out that medium *wink wink nudge nudge*
Good article... but you left off one of the most famous misleading (though aptly named) graphs - the "Laugher (sic) Curve". Totally ridiculous... Keep 'em coming, Noah!
Great text, thanks.
I note that there seem to be more left-coded than right-coded graphs here. Is this because left-wing political messaging is more likely to go viral; because progressives are more inclined to use data to back up their arguments (albeit not always correctly); because progressives really are less statistically aware; or all or none of the above?
Nice work..thanks
great article!