Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rajimoto t1_izfncwq wrote

Who benefits from the analysis and the persuasion presented?

What data are omitted?

Those are the most important questions to answer first. With those ideas in mind, the obvious flaws in the presentation are glaring.

130

wonder_bear t1_izfqzv2 wrote

A lot of times I see people manipulating results to align with what leaders want in an effort to look good.

30

rajimoto t1_izfz1ji wrote

You don't even need to manipulate the results.

The visualization is a selective presentation of a dataset.

It's trivial to spin a narrative with a slice of a dataset, and once you see how easy it is, you can't unsee it.

25

_AlreadyTaken_ t1_izka1vj wrote

Or activist groups trying to put a spin on dara to boost their cause

1

Smythe28 t1_izg7l7q wrote

You can use all the correct scales, the correct timeframes, the right type of graph. But you should always attempt to understand the context behind why the data is being presented to you at all.

12

frollard t1_izfyy5v wrote

In conjunction with what are omitted // all steps in generating the data; particularly if formulaic. Several functions crush or expand domain and range in misleading (sometimes useful) ways.

2

jagedlion t1_izk9km9 wrote

Adding extra data is also a great way to be deceptive.

Really none of these three categories are always deceptive. Often each of these is maybe even required for clear data presentation. But they can be used for deception.

1

_AlreadyTaken_ t1_izk9ue0 wrote

Big problem with journalists and medical studies. The paper will have all sorts of conditions on the data but the press will report one finding without these conditions. "Drug X had negative effects on 40% of people with condition Y who take drug Z" becomes "Drug X has negative effects!"

1