Submitted by dbabbitt t3_yhskig in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Completely_norm_user t1_iugeonm wrote
birth rate … if it’s about actual babies. Fertility is ability, and it should be clear that much more goes into making babies than an average woman’s ability to do so in a country.
SignalNNoise t1_iufv0by wrote
Agreed.
"Fertility" on its own seems to imply a malfunction like the inverse of sterility or Infertility.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhjqbl wrote
Good catch. I hadn't noticed it until you pointed it out.
EssexGuyUpNorth t1_iufi5hi wrote
Apparently school age girls would rather go to school than have babies.
SportySaturn t1_iuficge wrote
No no no. They wrote (explanatory variable) next to Female School Enrollment %. Clearly, once people females are enrolled over 100% it really starts impacting their fertility.
SkyrimWithdrawal t1_iufla9l wrote
How is the US more evil than Russia?
No-Swimmers1622 t1_iug7ijl wrote
They have invaded and killed way more people than any other nation in the world? They wage economic war against the Global South? Russia has done none of that.
SkyrimWithdrawal t1_iugfq0f wrote
>They have invaded and killed way more people than any other nation in the world?
Cite source. Pretty sure the UK, Spanish, Germans, and Japanese would have a word.
​
>They wage economic war against the Global South?
Whoa. They provide more humanitarian aid to the "Global South" than any other nation on the planet.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_iugpnfi wrote
>Cite source. Pretty sure the UK, Spanish, Germans, and Japanese would have a word.
Yeah pretty sure the Romans and the Egyptian Pharaohs would like a word too. We are talking about the last 70 years, no other nation has even come close to the level of destruction the US has brought to the world, you were also the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons against civilians.
>Whoa. They provide more humanitarian aid to the "Global South" than any other nation on the planet.
You take multiple times that more with your private companies and puppet regimes, you try to topple down any government that dares to cross you or you use your international influence to blockade them economically
SkyrimWithdrawal t1_iuhujm9 wrote
>We are talking about the last 70 years
Where was that stated before now? Why 70 years? Why not 2?
>You take multiple times that more with your private companies and puppet regimes, you try to topple down any government that dares to cross you or you use your international influence to blockade them economically
Ah. You don't know anything and any source you find contradicts you. Got it.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_iuizpf5 wrote
>Where was that stated before now? Why 70 years? Why not 2?
Because no one that's alive today was alive during WWI or the XIX century.
Because it doesn't make sense to bring up an old historical facts to pretend your nation isn't the most criminal of the last century.
>Ah. You don't know anything and any source you find contradicts you. Got it.
Yeah, you have zero arguments to counter what I said. Your people only know violence.
SkyrimWithdrawal t1_iuj610y wrote
>Because it doesn't make sense to bring up an old historical facts to pretend your nation isn't the most criminal of the last century.
That doesn't answer why are things from 30 years ago or 15 years ago or 5 years ago still relevant? Where's your cut-off? It seems very arbitrary.
>Yeah, you have zero arguments to counter what I said. Your people only know violence.
False.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_iujr9q7 wrote
>>Because it doesn't make sense to bring up an old historical facts to pretend your nation isn't the most criminal of the last century. > >That doesn't answer why are things from 30 years ago or 15 years ago or 5 years ago still relevant? Where's your cut-off? It seems very arbitrary.
Arbitrary is to bring up old historical empires that don't exist anymore from other centuries. We are talking about the nation that has military bases all over the world and is to blame for the poverty in the Global South, we are talking about the ones that have the biggest spy network to steal industry secrets to keep their edge over the rest of the world, you guys kill people without accountability just because it fits your agenda
Your companies are always bribing the puppet regimes you install to get better deals than the local ones, to keep the custom duties low so you can dump your crappy products and kill their industries. You enforce your draconian copyright rules (which patents have been created using drained brains from the rest of the world) to kill any possibility of independent development.
SkyrimWithdrawal t1_iuk62n8 wrote
>Arbitrary is to bring up old historical empires that don't exist anymore from other centuries.
This was where the whole argument of privilege, structural biases and wealth imbalance comes from: the colonialism and slave trade of past centuries explaining the continued disparities of today.
>We are talking about the nation that has military bases all over the world
At the invitation of those countries. Tiawan is scared shitless of China. Same with Japan. Look at Nato and their Russian adversary. We leave Afghanistan and get shit on for trying to help girls go to school and fight for equal rights. If you want to condemn us for sticking up for them, Fuck you. If you want to condemn us for hunting down terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda and ISIS, Fuck you. The world is a tough place and I'm certain that if it weren't for the US, you and I would be in a trench, right now.
>Your companies are always bribing the puppet regimes you install to get better deals than the local ones
Your companies suck and your governments suck. Get involved if you want something better than Fanta. If whining on Reddit works for you, your nation will go nowhere.
>You enforce your draconian copyright rules (which patents have been created using drained brains from the rest of the world) to kill any possibility of independent development.
This is about copyright? Your big beef is over copyright? Ahahaha! Who's music did you rip-off and try to pass as your own?
Liamlah t1_iugh5f2 wrote
Looks like it flattens out just below 2
It's been a long time since I've done any stats, does it make sense to do a linear regression when the effect appears to have a ceiling like this?
glmory t1_iuhz640 wrote
There is no reason to expect this phenomenon to be linear, and the data doesn’t look particularly linear so it doesn’t really make sense.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhhsca wrote
We could curve-fit to an exponential decay – what do you suggest? y0 - (yp - y0) * (1 - np.exp(-K * (x-X0)))?
FogletGilet t1_iufxv70 wrote
That regression line is a bit ridiculous.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhjnaw wrote
What would you suggest?
sofia-sartor t1_iug1m5c wrote
Belgium is the most schooled? My Dutch soul is screaming
notger t1_iuh1uok wrote
Repeat after me ... outside of linear systems, line fits are bad.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhhdfi wrote
"Outside of... lin-e-ar systems, line fits are bad."
notger t1_iuhig7e wrote
Haha, okay, caught me off guard.
On a more serious note: Fitting a hyperbole or exponential curve with negative exponent might work better here. Or f = exp(-a*x) + C even.
Though tbh, I wouldn't even put a curve in there, as the samples are so vastly different, that I would leave it to the reader's eye to make a conclusion. Which is something where any type of fit is hindering, as it is already (prematurely) suggesting a conclusion.
[deleted] t1_iuhm43o wrote
[deleted]
notger t1_iuipbo3 wrote
Yep, but by now I am quite settled on "no fit at all is the best fit here".
In the end, fits often are used to simplify things so that they can be used in simplified thinking or modeling. Which always breaks down in complex, non-linear cases like this is one.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhk1ik wrote
Yeah, but what about the confidence intervals? You don't get an R-squared like that very often in the social sciences. It was irresistible!
notger t1_iuhkmpp wrote
I get that, but is that the way of the Jedi, or did you give in to the dark side?
The fact that something gave you a good metric while very obviously being wrong tells us how useless that metric actually is.
At least you pointed out the most evil country, so overall, the graph is very useful.
CantRemember45 t1_iufz6ll wrote
- really think fertility is not the right word
- please present me with the scientific data that proves the united states is the most evil
- who would have thought that people in lower educated countries with lower access to contraceptives and safe abortions would have more kids
what a terrible graph
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhjlb5 wrote
- According to Wikipedia, the The total fertility rate (TFR) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if: a) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and b) she were to live from birth until the end of her reproductive life. It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.
- What's the scientific definition of "evil"? The label is a parody of the morally conceited social dynamics of Reddit. (For example, saying "what a terrible graph".)
- The data for "lower access to contraceptives and safe abortions" would make a different, less convenient graph.
market_theory t1_iug8f14 wrote
It would probably have been better to use the net enrollment data (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.NENR.FE?most_recent_value_desc=true&type=shaded&view=map), and to have not put puerile labels on the graphic.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhibvu wrote
Do you think it would change the R-squared? It doesn't look like it's worth the trouble.
cheknauss t1_iugo8zu wrote
What do you mean by "evil"? Is that some metric I haven't heard of, or do you mean it literally, as in, lacking in morals?
Is evil some acronym used for something...?
If you're taking a jab at the US on the basis of some moral ideal, I don't think your post belongs in this sub. Personally, such a thing disgusts me because you've taken something beautifully mathematical (seemingly part of what this sub is about) and dragged it through the mud of your own thoughts, which are subjective (unlike data).
The US has most certainly had its fair share of bad decisions, hypocrisy, racism, immorality (if you want to go there), but so has every single society of mankind. Besides that, the US has also done some things that have been beneficial and helpful to the world. You could also say that about many societies throughout history. If you've got a hate-stiffy for the US in particular, I don't quite follow your logic (if there is any).
The US is currently one of the top dogs (or wherever phrase), and due to that spotlight, it seems like some people can really get their undies in a bunch just simply for that added scrutiny, and would likely hate any nation in its place, regardless of any proper reason.
Bleh. Bleh. If you've got so much passive vitriol, why not go become a mod or something on stackoverflow?
das_masterful t1_iugopoo wrote
>If you're taking a jab at the US on the basis of some moral ideal, I don't think your post belongs in this sub.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This post is about data and the insights we can glean from beautifully presented data, or more accurately, properly presented data. The bias shown in this post has no place on this sub.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhhii4 wrote
It was just a bone I threw to the morally conceited. You can't stop the comments, so I'm making a parody of it.
[deleted] t1_iufia5v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iufijgr wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iufitbs wrote
[removed]
magnesiumb t1_iugalat wrote
The correlation really isn’t that strong. Worth attention, but something is going on. Is there a list of countries used in this?
Frankly, fertility rate is a product of several things. You’re going to need to include more variables into your model (rurality, level of education, access to family planning services, for starters).
dbabbitt OP t1_iuhi2gv wrote
In the social sciences, something that "explains" 67 percent of the variability is rare. What are you basing your claim on?
magnesiumb t1_iuikz0f wrote
I was taught 0.8 and above was strong. I work in laboratory science mainly.
ReasonableCost3 t1_iugbcjl wrote
It's high time human should replace ther term fertility rate with EXTINCTION RATE.
dbabbitt OP t1_iuficto wrote
The female school enrollment data is from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.ENRR.FE and the fertility data is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate. The jupyter notebook can be seen at https://github.com/dbabbitt/StatsByCountry/blob/master/ipynb/Weekly%20Worship%20vs%20Fertility%20Rate.ipynb.
A low R-square of at least 0.1 (or 10 percent)is acceptable in the social sciences on the condition that some or most of the predictors or explanatory variables are statistically significant. So female school enrollment "explains" 67 percent of the variance in the fertility rate.
I threw a bone to those who use the mention of the United States as a soapbox on which to stand to trumpet their virtues. (They get a little anxious when they know one of those tiny dots is their target and they can't find it.) And, yes, the data for Puerto Rico is separate from the US data in both datasets. Thank you for noticing.
[deleted] t1_iufl6tn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iufqz25 wrote
[removed]