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.
The numbers are labeled already, and OP has a text disclaimer (future data will prove it out, or not) included. Slyver, a very respectable anon, is saying it should be labeled differently.
All presentation of data is subjective, and any way to present it will show some kind of bias. I'm just saying he's going overboard and being a grammar-nazi, but with graphs.
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.
The numbers are labeled already, and OP has a text disclaimer (future data will prove it out, or not) included. Slyver, a very respectable anon, is saying it should be labeled differently.
All presentation of data is subjective, and any way to present it will show some kind of bias. I'm just saying he's going overboard and being a grammar-nazi, but with graphs.