Graphs like this are among the worst form of propaganda. Any graph that doesn't start at zero is intended to incite emotion rather than reason. That doesn't mean there is nothing here (though I would like to see the original source).
The graph suggests a ~15% birth rate reduction, which is sufficiently alarming that it doesn't need to be presented in this format. As presented it does more harm than good for red-pilling purposes.
There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about cropping your graph to highlight the finding. 15% is still 15% in one year. It's huge no matter how you graph it. It's an aberration. It's probably all the red flag we're going to get also. People either heed it or play along with the genocide.
There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about cropping your graph to highlight the finding.
There is very much something intrinsically unscientific about cropping your graph. It presents information in a format that is designed specifically to promote an emotional response that is not in line with the whole evidence. Promoting information to entice emotion rather than reason is the very essence of "lying with data," which in turn is the very essence of not science. As presented this is a lie of context, because it leaves out essential context (the other 40,000 people) to tell a story, that isn't true as presented.
The whole evidence is 15%, which as both you and I stated, is huge. The graph suggests the story is 40%. There is no reason to present a graph that suggests 40% except to cause a larger response than the data suggests. That is called propaganda.
There will be two responses to this:
People will not take the time to look at the whole graph and will think it is 40%. This is a lie and easily disproven by looking at the real data.
People will see that it is really 15% and will recognize that the author of the graph is lying by context. This will be easy to prove to anyone who tries to promote this graph, causing them to suspect the graph creators.
While sometimes graphs are truncated in science papers, that truncation is always explicitly labeled. It's real impact is always stated clearly in the graph, in the pictures description, and in the paper proper. Even then it can often be misleading and is not good science. It often gets a lot of criticism and at the least shows bias in the presentation of information, but at least it is not (generally) out of context lies like this graph, as presented, is.
This is the same trick to make a stock market blip look like a surge or crash. It doesn't look good, but other factors ought to be considered. Like how many potential parents were sick or struggling economically--the latter is generally associated with a downturn in pregnancies.
The response, emotional or logical, depends on the viewer. Compared to a lot of graphs, this one is pretty good. Anyone who looks can see the real numbers. Expanding the context can be subjective, too. You could say it needs to be viewed in terms of the total population numbers, which would de-emphasize the problem. This graph says what it says, subjectively emphasizes the decline, with a text explanation that future data points will either prove or disprove the trend; while a little subjective, it isn't dishonest unless the underlying data is wrong. You're being a stickler, and this graph is not a big offender.
The response, emotional or logical, depends on the viewer.
Which is exactly my point. There are a couple different reactions that will occur with a graph that misrepresents the data like this, most of those reactions will be bad. I pointed out two in my post. Another is that a person will see the reality and think nothing of it. That is the best that can happen. All other possible reactions lead to division and/or distortion.
Anyone who looks can see the real numbers.
And anyone for the past 5000 years could have looked at the evidence of propaganda driving beliefs to control society, instead of being led around by the nose by it for millennia. But they didn't, or were labeled as "conspiracy theorists" or "heretics" if they did.
Because propaganda is incredibly effective.
There are many ways to present data. Some will be misleading, some will not. If I had presented the graph clearly with a 15% drop in birth rate AND I had shown at least some accounting for other possible variables, THAT would have at least been an honest attempt at communication, even if not a complete removal of bias (which is impossible).
You could say it needs to be viewed in terms of the total population numbers, which would de-emphasize the problem.
No one would show that graph unless they were either trying to purposefully downplay the data, or they were making a legitimate other point. In other words, that likely would ALSO be intentional propaganda, designed to create a false belief in a population.
You're being a stickler, and this graph is not a big offender.
I have spent decades writing such reports. There are classes in every science education on this very topic to reduce such poor science reporting. I have recently spent almost two years in an investigation into propaganda, how it guides belief, how it pulls a veil over the truth, how it is used to divide (the first part of divide and conquer), and how it has created the world of illusion that we live in. I am not being "a stickler," I am trying, desperately, to help people understand lies of context. This is such a lie.
It is essential that we learn what these lies are, and what real effect they have on the larger population. Regardless of what your reaction to it is, it is the general public reaction that is of concern, and is what I am addressing.
I have written many such science reports (and read many thousands). There are even classes on exactly this topic in both graduate and undergraduate science education. Just because you saw it one way and don't feel mislead by it, doesn't in any way mean what I said is false.
Sure, I did that. I shouldn't have. That wasn't the real point however, which you completely ignored in calling me out on that.
The real point was that YOU do not speak for everyone. YOUR reaction didn't in any way refute a single thing I said. The REALITY is that there are classes on this exact topic as a way to reduce lies in science reporting. Because even though YOU didn't have that problem, it is such a common problem, there are classes to try to reduce it's occurrence.
It's nine months behind conception, which means all the people born in Q1 2022 were conceived between ~Mar. and ~July of 2021. The graph compares the Q1 birth totals of the different years so it's apples to apples.
Any graph that doesn't start at zero is intended to incite emotion rather than reason.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Graphs are generally bad at presenting anything. This graph is zoomed on the Y axis to show the meaningful difference in the data, which would otherwise be imperceptible to the human eye.
That being said... it's also a 3D column chart, which is always wrong to use to present anything for a lot of reasons not worth going into, but related to the human eye's inability to project lines into 3D space accurately.
Intentional or not, such a graph will always create emotion outside of the scope of the data being presented (see exception below). That isn't really controversial. What is potentially controversial is the intention. I assert the usage of such axis shifting is intentional more often than not.
Graphs are generally bad at presenting anything.
That is completely untrue. Graphs are excellent at presenting numerical data of two variables. All numerical datasets can be broken down into two variables, though multivariate datasets can lose some context when they are broken down in that manner.
This graph is zoomed on the Y axis to show the meaningful difference in the data, which would otherwise be imperceptible to the human eye.
Here you have shown evidence to support my first assertion. This is intention to increase a reaction. If there is no meaningful difference in the data, then intentionally showing a difference in the data shows a purpose to increase the reaction of the audience to be what you want it to be. If the raw data would not, under any honest exposition create such a reaction, then showing the data in this manner creates a dishonest reaction.
Now, there are exceptions to that; such as in the case where you are looking for a molehill in a mountain (noise). For example, looking for the Higgs Boson. It requires digging through massive amounts of data to get a signal, thus showing the signal requires reducing the noise. Though in that case you can reasonable set the baseline to zero wherever you want, since the energy signatures are relative to begin with. This arbitrary baseline is not the important part of this exception though, it really extends to anything that has noise.
However, I assert in any case where there is no need to reduce noise (reduce the impact of external, not relevant data), the creation of a graph with an axis shift is fuckery, most often intentional (even if someone doesn't realize it is fuckery because they have been trained to do so).
Graphs like this are among the worst form of propaganda. Any graph that doesn't start at zero is intended to incite emotion rather than reason. That doesn't mean there is nothing here (though I would like to see the original source).
The graph suggests a ~15% birth rate reduction, which is sufficiently alarming that it doesn't need to be presented in this format. As presented it does more harm than good for red-pilling purposes.
This is a really good point
There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about cropping your graph to highlight the finding. 15% is still 15% in one year. It's huge no matter how you graph it. It's an aberration. It's probably all the red flag we're going to get also. People either heed it or play along with the genocide.
There is very much something intrinsically unscientific about cropping your graph. It presents information in a format that is designed specifically to promote an emotional response that is not in line with the whole evidence. Promoting information to entice emotion rather than reason is the very essence of "lying with data," which in turn is the very essence of not science. As presented this is a lie of context, because it leaves out essential context (the other 40,000 people) to tell a story, that isn't true as presented.
The whole evidence is 15%, which as both you and I stated, is huge. The graph suggests the story is 40%. There is no reason to present a graph that suggests 40% except to cause a larger response than the data suggests. That is called propaganda.
There will be two responses to this:
While sometimes graphs are truncated in science papers, that truncation is always explicitly labeled. It's real impact is always stated clearly in the graph, in the pictures description, and in the paper proper. Even then it can often be misleading and is not good science. It often gets a lot of criticism and at the least shows bias in the presentation of information, but at least it is not (generally) out of context lies like this graph, as presented, is.
Well said. The quality control in this community constantly amazes me.
Many of us learned the hard way.
Yes. In one sentence “it looks like 40% the way it’s presented op so stop being retarded.”
(For those not wanting to read slyvers well done text wall)
Thanks for the helpful info!
This is the same trick to make a stock market blip look like a surge or crash. It doesn't look good, but other factors ought to be considered. Like how many potential parents were sick or struggling economically--the latter is generally associated with a downturn in pregnancies.
The response, emotional or logical, depends on the viewer. Compared to a lot of graphs, this one is pretty good. Anyone who looks can see the real numbers. Expanding the context can be subjective, too. You could say it needs to be viewed in terms of the total population numbers, which would de-emphasize the problem. This graph says what it says, subjectively emphasizes the decline, with a text explanation that future data points will either prove or disprove the trend; while a little subjective, it isn't dishonest unless the underlying data is wrong. You're being a stickler, and this graph is not a big offender.
Which is exactly my point. There are a couple different reactions that will occur with a graph that misrepresents the data like this, most of those reactions will be bad. I pointed out two in my post. Another is that a person will see the reality and think nothing of it. That is the best that can happen. All other possible reactions lead to division and/or distortion.
And anyone for the past 5000 years could have looked at the evidence of propaganda driving beliefs to control society, instead of being led around by the nose by it for millennia. But they didn't, or were labeled as "conspiracy theorists" or "heretics" if they did.
Because propaganda is incredibly effective.
There are many ways to present data. Some will be misleading, some will not. If I had presented the graph clearly with a 15% drop in birth rate AND I had shown at least some accounting for other possible variables, THAT would have at least been an honest attempt at communication, even if not a complete removal of bias (which is impossible).
No one would show that graph unless they were either trying to purposefully downplay the data, or they were making a legitimate other point. In other words, that likely would ALSO be intentional propaganda, designed to create a false belief in a population.
I have spent decades writing such reports. There are classes in every science education on this very topic to reduce such poor science reporting. I have recently spent almost two years in an investigation into propaganda, how it guides belief, how it pulls a veil over the truth, how it is used to divide (the first part of divide and conquer), and how it has created the world of illusion that we live in. I am not being "a stickler," I am trying, desperately, to help people understand lies of context. This is such a lie.
It is essential that we learn what these lies are, and what real effect they have on the larger population. Regardless of what your reaction to it is, it is the general public reaction that is of concern, and is what I am addressing.
Sorry but I agree it should be labeled . Why should data of all things be subjective? Numbers are the one area that should be obvious to all.
I have written many such science reports (and read many thousands). There are even classes on exactly this topic in both graduate and undergraduate science education. Just because you saw it one way and don't feel mislead by it, doesn't in any way mean what I said is false.
slyver is 💯 on this. Your anecdotal exception proves the rule.
Im no slyver shill either lol
Sure, I did that. I shouldn't have. That wasn't the real point however, which you completely ignored in calling me out on that.
The real point was that YOU do not speak for everyone. YOUR reaction didn't in any way refute a single thing I said. The REALITY is that there are classes on this exact topic as a way to reduce lies in science reporting. Because even though YOU didn't have that problem, it is such a common problem, there are classes to try to reduce it's occurrence.
My first question... is the data shown even contextualized for the fact that we are only partly through 2022?
It's nine months behind conception, which means all the people born in Q1 2022 were conceived between ~Mar. and ~July of 2021. The graph compares the Q1 birth totals of the different years so it's apples to apples.
Ooooh. I feel rather dumb right now! Thank you fren.... this is what I get for multitasking.
Don't feel dumb, like I've been saying, it's a bad graph.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Graphs are generally bad at presenting anything. This graph is zoomed on the Y axis to show the meaningful difference in the data, which would otherwise be imperceptible to the human eye.
That being said... it's also a 3D column chart, which is always wrong to use to present anything for a lot of reasons not worth going into, but related to the human eye's inability to project lines into 3D space accurately.
Intentional or not, such a graph will always create emotion outside of the scope of the data being presented (see exception below). That isn't really controversial. What is potentially controversial is the intention. I assert the usage of such axis shifting is intentional more often than not.
That is completely untrue. Graphs are excellent at presenting numerical data of two variables. All numerical datasets can be broken down into two variables, though multivariate datasets can lose some context when they are broken down in that manner.
Here you have shown evidence to support my first assertion. This is intention to increase a reaction. If there is no meaningful difference in the data, then intentionally showing a difference in the data shows a purpose to increase the reaction of the audience to be what you want it to be. If the raw data would not, under any honest exposition create such a reaction, then showing the data in this manner creates a dishonest reaction.
Now, there are exceptions to that; such as in the case where you are looking for a molehill in a mountain (noise). For example, looking for the Higgs Boson. It requires digging through massive amounts of data to get a signal, thus showing the signal requires reducing the noise. Though in that case you can reasonable set the baseline to zero wherever you want, since the energy signatures are relative to begin with. This arbitrary baseline is not the important part of this exception though, it really extends to anything that has noise.
However, I assert in any case where there is no need to reduce noise (reduce the impact of external, not relevant data), the creation of a graph with an axis shift is fuckery, most often intentional (even if someone doesn't realize it is fuckery because they have been trained to do so).
I agree with you about showing 2D data in 3D.