|
enraged_camel posted:Obesity is a complex topic. Seeing correlations is important, but is also a very small part of the bigger picture. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html Watch the animated obesity map. Obesity spreads like a disease. It should require a similar public health response.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 02:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 17:51 |
|
|
Ah, yes. Of course ground zero for all the "waves" is Mississippi..
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 02:55 |
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:lovely graphs and climate change debates. Such a storied pairing.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 17:35 |
|
|
Chin Strap posted:lovely graphs and climate change debates. Such a storied pairing. 
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 17:46 |
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:Out of curiosity, is "Most informed opinion" defined somewhere?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 18:57 |
|
|
The Duke of Ben posted:Out of curiosity, is "Most informed opinion" defined somewhere? It's just saying "this bell contains the majority of informed opinions".
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 19:12 |
|
|
I'd really like to see that same chart but with some sort of data behind it.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 19:43 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'd really like to see that same chart but with some sort of data behind it. Does it really need data? Even a cursory understanding of the debate shows that the graph is clearly representative of the situation, to a rough approximation. The only room for challenge that I see is whether the IPCC report is below the median of informed opinion or not.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2011 20:44 |
|
|
Eripsa posted:Does it really need data? Even a cursory understanding of the debate shows that the graph is clearly representative of the situation, to a rough approximation. THE GAYEST POSTER posted:
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 04:51 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Some people consider data to be more persuasive than, well,
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 14:29 |
|
|
pangstrom posted:Bias and frames etc. are not easily quantified (you'll notice those conversations are never concluded), but I agree with Eripsa, it's a good crystallization. It's a good crystallization of your opinion, and maybe the opinion of most of us in D&D. It is not going to convince anyone, anywhere, to change their minds. "Oh, the most informed opinions are all over there, and I am over here! I should most certainly give up my position based on this insightful graph!" Is that likely? No. Reality: "Them liberals made a graph based on their opinion, and they are just making stuff up because they don't have an argument."
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 15:37 |
|
|
Basically, it's a good graph if the title is "HERE IS WHAT I THINK" It's a terrible graph if the title is "HERE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK."
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 15:49 |
|
|
That climate change graph looks messy, but is it basically saying that the scientists most convinced on anthropogenic climate change are the most informed, or am I reading it wrong? Because there was actually a study published recently saying that the expertise of researchers who doubt ACC is lower than the expertise of those who think it's real and a threat.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 15:55 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Did this have any associated sources? I'd love to forward it on, but I hesitate without sources.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 15:59 |
|
|
The Duke of Ben posted:It's a good crystallization of your opinion, and maybe the opinion of most of us in D&D. It is not going to convince anyone, anywhere, to change their minds. "Oh, the most informed opinions are all over there, and I am over here! I should most certainly give up my position based on this insightful graph!" Is that likely? No. Reality: "Them liberals made a graph based on their opinion, and they are just making stuff up because they don't have an argument." The point of the graph isn't to convince anyone of global climate change. There are plenty of empirical graphs that do that. This diagram represents the nature of the debate over climate change, with the vast majority of scientific opinion clustered in one area, and the clear minority of views coming out of conservative think tanks clustered in another. The lesson of the graph is that the media discussion of the debate is pulled towards the conservative minority despite the fact of majority consensus, and thus misrepresenting the "controversy" over global warming, and therefore artificially marginalizing the scientific opinion. The fact is that this is an accurate depiction of the state of affairs of the climate change debate. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic climate change, and dissenting opinion is overwhelmingly in the minority. Although the specific ratios depicted in the chart may be off (and it would still be nice to get a source on it), the basic layout of the graph is representative of the actual debate. But the point about the media's depiction of the debate is not about raw numbers, but instead is about the relative asymmetry of the sides of the debate compared to the media's portrayal; in other words, it is a conceptual point being made, not a quantitative point. There are lots of graphs and charts that are meant to depict conceptual relations, not quantitative relations, like Venn diagrams. Most Venn diagrams aren't justified by quantitative analysis, but simply by the conceptual relations between the categories. So I could make a Venn Diagram like this, which conveys the same information, and which doesn't need the kind of empirical support you are asking for:  This gets across the same basic idea (not quite, but roughly). Again, clearly this is representative of the state of the debate, and I'm not sure what empirical evidence would be required to assess its validity. Eripsa fucked around with this message at Sep 20, 2011 around 16:18 |
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 16:06 |
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:Did this have any associated sources? I'd love to forward it on, but I hesitate without sources. Sorry, source was New York Times and Robert Reich. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2...html?ref=sunday Bill Marsh/The New York Times Sources: Robert B. Reich, University of California, Berkeley; "The State of Working America" by the Economic Policy Institute; Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics, and Emmanuel Saez, University of California, Berkeley; Census Bureau; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Federal Reserve
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 16:09 |
|
|
j4on posted:Basically, it's a good graph if the title is "HERE IS WHAT I THINK" It's a terrible graph if the title is "HERE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK." Consider those old D&D posting flowcharts. ReindeerF's didn't prove that's how things in D&D went down with percentages-of-posts data etc., but people paying attention recognized it as a good summary of a lot of what was going on.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 16:12 |
|
|
Lemonus posted:http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html This is completely terrifying. I mean GOD drat--the change that happened literally in my lifetime.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 16:33 |
|
|
c0ldfuse posted:This is completely terrifying. It'll give you something to tell your Grandkids about : I lived through the Great American Fattening!
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 16:46 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sorry, source was New York Times and Robert Reich. Whoa. The link you gave is an even larger and better version of the graph. As graphs go, it's very badass.  While searching for the article, I found the NYTimes has a topic page for all their articles tagged with income inequality. There's an RSS feed. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...lity/index.html j4on fucked around with this message at Sep 20, 2011 around 17:40 |
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 17:31 |
|
|
So is the loss of wage gain as productivity increased due to the increased automation of many jobs? I mean sure 1 guy is super productive running a machine that does the job of 100 people. This doesn't mean that 1 guy shouldn't get paid a lot more, but is this a large part of the reason or is it just theft on the part of executives?
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 17:41 |
|
|
Sylink posted:So is the loss of wage gain as productivity increased due to the increased automation of many jobs? Yes, no, both? Ideally, you want to change 100 guys into the productivity of 100x100 guys. Not keep one guy and fire 99 others. In fact, the total amount of people working --including women--has greatly increased.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 17:44 |
|
|
Sylink posted:So is the loss of wage gain as productivity increased due to the increased automation of many jobs? Well, why not? Think about this. If I own a company, and by sheer dumb luck it's 10 times as productive as it was last year, I make 10 times as much money. Why is it suddenly weird if workers want the same? Amarkov fucked around with this message at Sep 20, 2011 around 20:07 |
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 18:49 |
|
|
                 All of these are from: http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-c...ican-Report.pdf
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2011 23:10 |
|
|
fermun posted:PunchConservatives.jpg x15
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 13:31 |
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 14:19 |
|
|
fermun posted:
Bruce Hussein Daddy fucked around with this message at Sep 21, 2011 around 15:36 |
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 15:20 |
|
|
 Part of a larger presentation apparently used in counter-terrorism training by the FBI. (source)
|
| # ? Sep 21, 2011 20:57 |
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 22, 2011 04:17 |
|
|
I'm loving that Great Prosperity to Great Regression chart. I think it underlines how so much economic debate is built around false dichotomies and hollow terms. I mean, over the entire timerange of the graph, America would be a notionally capitalist country. It's a meaningless term, though, unless qualified with lots of information about how tax is levied, how finance is regulated, how workers are protected, and how monopolies are avoided. The Great Prosperity section seems an example of capitalism that works for the common man, while the Great Regression shows the opposite.
|
| # ? Sep 22, 2011 12:17 |
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:I'm loving that Great Prosperity to Great Regression chart. I think it underlines how so much economic debate is built around false dichotomies and hollow terms. I mean, over the entire timerange of the graph, America would be a notionally capitalist country. It's a meaningless term, though, unless qualified with lots of information about how tax is levied, how finance is regulated, how workers are protected, and how monopolies are avoided. The Great Prosperity section seems an example of capitalism that works for the common man, while the Great Regression shows the opposite. The distinction you are looking for is state-capitalism versus private-capitalism. From it's founding until the crash in the late 1920s, the US was private-capitalist. Then from the New Deal until the crisis in the 1970s, the US was state-capitalist. Then from just before Reaganomics to the present day, the US is private-capitalist. The reason the New Deal and Reaganomics are well remembered economic policies is because a shift from one form of capitalism to another is a very dramatic shift, and thus has tremendous impact on society. There was a sort of expectation in 2008, given the big crisis that was just unleashed and Obama's campaign rhetoric, that he would once again shift back to a state-capitalist system, which could've already ended or at least severely ameliorated the current recession. As we all know now, he has not done so, and it appears unlikely that any candidate for the 2012 election is willing to do so either. It is important to keep two things in mind though. The first is that capitalism does eventually always recover, although things might have to get a heck of a lot worse until it does so this time and this would bring with it great costs in human lives and so on. If it were not a resilient system, it would not have survived for as long as it has. The second is that you might be under the impression now that state-capitalism is clearly preferable to private-capitalism, and we should all just have that and live in a more or less social-democratic wonderland. Unfortunately, major crisis are part of either type of capitalist system. The crisis in the 70s was also pretty serious and state-capitalism did not have an answer to it. So while in the short term another shift to state-capitalism would be preferable to the status-quo, the only sustainable solution is socialism.
|
| # ? Sep 22, 2011 12:41 |
|
|
sticking this here so it'll be easy to find:
|
| # ? Sep 22, 2011 13:10 |
|
|
Orange Devil, thanks for the response and insight on the different types of capitalism. You're final sentence bears out my point, though. You indicate that socialism is the solution. It's difficult to understand what you - or anyone else - means by that word. Cambodia in year zero, Finland today? Hoxha, Mao or Ho Chi Minh? The possibilities are endless! I'm not trying to make any political or ideological point here. It's a linguistic issue. Words that are used as self-descriptors quickly lose consensus definitions and thus become so vague as to be unhelpful. Consider a word like feminist, Christian, or vegetarian. People like to use those nice-sounding words as an identity, so in each person's mind they get redefined to match the user's existing beliefs. There is no such thing as a feminist perspective on pornography - those of the second and third waves will violently disagree on the matter, while both lay rightful claim to the word. The consensus on the word's meaning evaporates, and No True Scotsman arguments rear their head. Wikipedia offers articles on dozens of different economic systems. To discuss them requires a considered lexicon and precise use of language. A useful definition of intelligence is that it is the ability to discern subtlety. Tribalistic language that renders all questions into nebulous binaries is unsuited to complex questions. Note that I don't mean to be picky about your informative post, Orange Devil, I'm only using it as a starting point to draw out the point.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 16:18 |
|
|
fermun posted:
Holy gently caress what an excellent and yet depressing post.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 17:41 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Holy gently caress what an excellent and yet depressing post. Well Americans are reactionary and narrow minded. Instead of learning from the past and deciding we should be more accepting of the world, we yearn for the past that never existed. This is literally what the local tea party told me because they insist they dont need to know what the rest of the world is doing or is even like. Apparently we can all regress to our hobbit holes and things will be just fine.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 18:40 |
|
|
I either missed this post in the thread or it isn't in this one. But does anyone have the graph that shows how effective different forms of government spending is? I believe it had infrastructure and food stamps near the top. EDIT: NM I found it. 
Third World Reggin fucked around with this message at Sep 23, 2011 around 18:44 |
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 18:42 |
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:I either missed this post in the thread or it isn't in this one. But does anyone have the graph that shows how effective different forms of government spending is? I believe it had infrastructure and food stamps near the top. What does the dollar value mean? The 'economic worth' of the program per dollar spent?
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 19:13 |
|
|
Sylink posted:Well Americans are reactionary and narrow minded. I don't need to know nothing about Mosslems to know I hates 'em!
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 19:15 |
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:This is one reason I love Colorado, and it's really noticeable too. People really are thinner here, on average. It's seriously shocking to go to the South and see some of the huge (heh) differences.
|
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 19:20 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 17:51 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:What does the dollar value mean? The 'economic worth' of the program per dollar spent? For every $1 spent on a given program this year, results in $X So essentially every dollar spent on Food Stamps results in $1.78 worth of growth. Though obviously there are limitations. I don't think you could just dump $1T a year into Food Stamps and get the same benefit per dollar that you would from current Food Stamp spending. The actual numbers come from this report here (page 3), as far as I can tell: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/d...Impact-2008.pdf I'm currently reading up to see if they explain how exactly it works. I understand at a fundamental level why food stamps and unemployment benefits help more than tax cuts. But a 73% return just seems very high. EDIT: changed it to reflect the exact terminology in the report. But it doesn't actually explain why they say $1 in Food Stamps generates $1.73 in near term GDP growth. Sarion fucked around with this message at Sep 23, 2011 around 19:34 |
| # ? Sep 23, 2011 19:25 |
|
