« Playful and exploratory | Main | Amazing baseballs »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e992c53ef00e5508f6a418833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't believe what you see:

Comments

Anonymous Prof

Hi Edward,

This is a great example of misrepresentation information. If you don't mind, I'd like to use your analysis in my "How To Lie With Statistics" series (looking at the ways statistics are used to misrepresent information) of posts.

Keep up the good work,
AP

anonymous voter

Excellent analysis.

Now only one question remains... was the misrepresentation of the data intentional or not? In other words, is our Congressman a liar or an idiot?

nathan

um, edward?

Kaiser

Some think Tufte blogs here when I'm just one who admires his work and use his chartjunk terminology in the tagline.

nathan

ahh, i see. that's kind of an odd assumption. although, i guess you could take it as a compliment.

Grace

Wow, totally fascinating and easy to understand, which makes it even more appalling how the data was manipulated. Thanks! I've been wondering about the definition of the "middle class" for awhile. Have you heard Mayor Bloomberg is working on a new definition of "poverty"? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/nyregion/30poverty.html?scp=1&sq=bloomberg+new+poverty
I'm curious to know who, if anyone, is doing similar work on "middle class."

Another Nathan

What exactly does the context change? I _still_ see sizable tax cuts (about 25%) in the middle class. Your discovery is that this is also true of the middle-class more broadly defined? Or that it is true for everyone but the top quintile? This seems totally consistent with Mankiw's post.

The claimed "paradox" of roughly constant income share for the middle quintile has nothing to do with tax rates. In fact, it is entirely consistent with a rise in income _levels_ at the middle quintile.

Finally, while I understand the question about scaling, it should be noted that the choice to fill the chart with the data follows the precedent of 200 years of graphics experts. (See Wainer's 2001 book Graphic Discovery pp 29-38.)

Kaiser

I don't know for sure what Mankiw's point is but I interpret his "Quick Quiz... don't believe it?" line to mean a tax cut boon for the middle class. In statistics, everything is relative to something else; while it is accurate to say that taxes went down for the middle 20%, it is more informative to know that this decrease is consistent with what happened to the rest of the population.

As for the paradox, I believe that when one hears that the middle class has received a tax cut boon, one is led to think that the middle class has received a bigger share of the income pie, and that hasn't been the case.

I don't have Wainer's Graphic Discovery but I do have Wainer's Visual Revelations. See pp.18 where he said "honesty requires that we start the scale at zero".

Another Nathan

I can't speak for your mis-impression as to the effects of a tax rate cut. Simply put, there is no reason in the world a tax rate cut would mean an increase in the income share. I don't see why I should hold Mankiw responsible for your mis-impression. Similarly, I think the reference point Mankiw had in mind was the middle-class tax burden in 1970. Indeed, he also posted the graph with all 5 quintiles so I don't think he's hiding anything.

Interesting Wainer quote. Here he is in 2005 (p. 39 of Graphic Discovery): "There is agreement among experts spanning two hundred years. The default option should be to choose a scale that fills the plot with data....It is important to remember that the sin of using too small a scale is venial; the viewer can correct it. The sin of using too large a scale cannot be corrected without access to the orignal data; it can be mortal."

Given 200 years of precedent, I think it civil to give Mankiw the benefit of the doubt rather than question his honesty or intelligence.

Kaiser

Another Nathan: There is serious "mis-impression" on your part as well. If you read my original post, I said I saw this chart via Mankiw's blog, and followed his suggestion to look at the data. I described what I found, and complained about how the Congressman presented the data. I never questioned Mankiw's "honesty or intelligence".

As for Wainer's quote, I'd include not starting the scale at zero as a "sin of using too large a scale".

Another Nathan

Kaiser: While you may use whatever language you like to describe the failure to include zero, it is clear that Wainer's definition puts it in "too small a scale" as in "the y axis has too little variation." The point Wainer is making is that when I include zero, it mutes the wiggles in my data to the point that they may no longer be visible. When I exclude zero, I can always infer where zero would have fallen. Thus Wainer's distinction between "venial" and "mortal" sins.

While you are correct that your blog technically ascribes the "dishonest picture of the CBO data" to the Congressman, my point remains. The Congressman has not mislead anyone (which presumably is why a highly esteemed economist felt comfortable posting a link). The conclusion that the middle class has seen substantial tax rate reductions--no matter how you define middle class--remains unchanged by any of the alternative evidence presented thus far.

I find it uncharitable to suggest, as you and others here do, that the presentation cited is dishonest. While I want my students to be critical readers of data, I prefer they not become cynics who suggest people are "liars" or "idiots" (see anonymous professor above) if they are interested in a different question (tax rates as opposed to income shares). The fact _is_ that tax rates have fallen in the last 30 years. Given the impending explosion in entitlement promises, that may be a very bad thing. But I see no reason to question that it is a very real phenomenon. I appreciate the additional information you provide in terms of tax shares. But it simply does not suggest that the Congressman (or, by extension, Mankiw) is dishonest.

Charlie (Colorado)

In fact, following up to Nathan's comments, it would appear that it's rather a classic use of junk reasoning, seeing that you present both a straw man and a red herring.

Shame.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Vimeo and NYU. See my full bio.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues