Junk Charts

Turning in his grave 1

(Thanks to reader Josh R. for the tip.)  The "plucky statisticians" at Urbanspoon decided to tackle the political hot potato: is Barack Obama an elitist?  Scratch that -- what they actually did was to determine if Obama supporters were elitists (of course, Obama would then be, due to guilt by association.)  Scratch that -- what they actually analyzed was if there tended to be more Starbucks per capita in those states in which Obama won Democratic primaries.

Suffice it to say, even if it can be proven that most states with high densities of Starbucks are more likely to have more Democratic primary voters who prefer Obama to Clinton, it is a far cry from proving Obama an elitist.  However, we take the leap of faith and look at the evidence presented to us.

The star witness was this chart plotting the "vote spread" of Obama minus Clinton and the per-capita Starbucks density.  The black line was a linear fit to the Starbucks data as shown in green dots.  Since the black and blue lines both pointed northeast roughly speaking, we were told: "States with more latte-purveying Starbucks stores are more likely to have gone for Obama."  (So Obama is indeed an elitist.)

To cover all bases, the creator of this chart suggested that "my statistics professor might be rolling over in his grave to hear me say it, but there's a mild but real correlation here!".

Mr. Urbanspoon, the statistics professor is here and he disapproves.  As discussed before (and here), plotting two series of data on the same chart and applying two different scales is a recipe for disaster.  Not reaching immediately for the scatter plot when one has two data series is another serious misstep.  (Indeed, Josh sent the link in with a note wondering why "people dislike scatter plots so much".)  So here is the appropriate graphic:

A quick first glance at the left chart indicates that any correlation, if it exists, is very weak indeed.  A simple linear regression analysis shows that Starbucks density explains only 14% of the variability in vote spread.  Note especially the wide dispersion of dots around the line.  Further, for the vast majority of the states (say those with vote spread between -20% and 40%), there appears to be no correlation.  This is seen on the right chart.

To the extent that there is a linear correlation, the points (orange dots) would be most influential.  The top cluster included Alaska, Kansas, DC, Hawaii and Idaho in which Obama had a large winning margin while the Starbucks density was above average.  The bottom cluster included Arkansas and Olkahoma where Obama was wiped out and where Starbucks had the lowest density.  These two clusters alone explained the mild relationship; removing them wiped it out.

Following Nyhan, we should remove some obvious outliers, such as Arkansas, Illionois and New York (home states), Michigan and Florida (disputed) and New Hampshire and Iowa (Edwards territory).  The result is also mild correlation (R-sq = 0.075).

Till next post, when the professor rolls over again ...

 

Notice that I prefer the number of people per Starbucks metric, as opposed to the number of Starbucks per thousand people (See prior discussion on Gelman's blog.)  The reason is that every number on the former metric is reality-based while the latter metric produces imaginary numbers for small states, i.e. the imputed number of Starbucks is smaller than what actually exists!

Also note that I used a renormalized vote spread so that the Obama proportion and the Clinton proportion added up to 100%.  This made the assumption that Edwards and other voters would split among Obama and Clinton in the same proportions as those who explicitly voted for the two frontrunners.

Knit-picking

In celebrating the recent trend by "elite" colleges to lowering the cost of education, the Times printed this chart, the top part of which is shown here.

The three colors represent different levels of aid.  Blue means "grants replace loans"; red means "free tuition"; yellow means "parents pay nothing".  The colleges are grouped by the minimum qualifying income for the blue category.

The whole effect is of a knit.  We shall call this the "knit chart".

I believe a simple data table will do the job nicely.  If any reader has other ideas, please show us your work!

A few points to note about the original:

• Ordering by the minimum income to qualify for "grants replace loans" is arbitrary, as is alphabetizing colleges within each group
• Qualifying "at any income level" should be shown on the left of "$40,000 or below" rather than to the right of $100,000.  The current order is such that qualifying level increases with income from left to right, except from $100,000 to "any income", where it falls off a cliff.
• Qualifying at any income level is better shown as a separate column on the right disconnected from the income scale.  The current configuration devalues the effort spent in making a proper income scale.
  
• Too many lines of equal length, and too few yellow and red lines to make the knit chart effective
  
• Should the graph cater to parents interested in seeing what aid they qualify for given their income level?  Or should the graph highlight the breadth of aid available at individual colleges?

Reference: "The (Yes) Low Cost of Higher Ed", New York Times, April 20 2008.

PS. The original point about the "any income level" was incorrect as pointed out by Chris below.  I have replaced that with a different issue.

PPS. Matias' version (see comments) is a superb demonstration of the power of data tables, well-applied.   It is clean and simple, and addresses both the questions pointed out in the last bullet point.  The only thing sacrificed was the visual representation of the relative size of the income requirements, which I agree is the least valuable part of the original.  As usual, many thanks to our readers for coming up with great ideas!

Cram it like Koby

You have to gradually build up your gut by eating larger and larger amounts of food, and then be sure to work it all off so body fat doesn't put a squeeze on the expansion of your stomach in competition  -- Takeru Kobayashi, six-time champion of the Coney Island hot dog eating contest

Kobayashi is a phenom.  He can stuff 60 hot dogs or 100 burgers in ten or twelve minutes and show no consequences.  Ordinary people can't hope to emulate these feats.

Junk Charts sees Kobayashi as a hero; an anti-hero really.  We are ordinary people; we can't hope to cram it like Koby.  A message we keep repeating here is: too much data sinks a chart.

Not long after this chart showed up in the Economist, several readers urged us to take a look.  It's a well-nourished chart indeed, one to challenge Kobayashi, but for all that it contains, the reader has to try very hard to find insights.  What with the multiple colors, iron-fisted gridlines, above-and-below boxes, dotted and solid lines, and a legend with nine pieces split in two spots?  Besides, the U.S. boxes grab all the attention by virtue of them being wider (country being more partisan).

The key to unraveling this chart is to identify the relevant comparisons:

• UK average vs US average
• UK left vs US left
• UK right vs US right
• UK independent vs US independent

And then for the gluttonous:

• UK right vs US left
• UK left vs independent vs right
• US left vs independent vs right

In the junkchart version, we address these comparisons sequentially.

(Apologies for the tiny font.)

We are again using a small multiples approach that places four comparisons next to each other: average, left, independent, right. Consistently, the British is to the left of Americans.  The only places where the two cultures meet are where liberals agree on "ideology" and "military action".

Also note that we use a symmetric horizontal scale centered at 0.  There are too many charts out there where the center is not at the center!

A similar presentation addresses the other three comparisons.  Democrats in the U.S. are miles to the right of Tories in terms of "religion".  In the UK, Labor and Tories are not much different except on "ideology".  In the US, Independents lean closer to Democrats.

Joining the lines (I hear the grumbles) helps bring out the gap between the groups being compared.  Without lines, the chart would look like this.

It is often hard to keep track of which dot is which as they trade order from issue to issue.

PS. Anyone knows what is being measured on the horizontal axis?  The original graph mysteriously stated "respondents' views".

References: 

Eric Talmadge: "Pigout champion Kobayashi limbers up for hot dog gold" June 25, 2004

"Anglo-Saxon Attitudes", Economist, Mar 27 2008.

An embarrassment

I find it embarrassing for the Economist to print an article like this one.  (Do they have a statistics editor?)

The subtitle asserting "causality" is offensive.  It is alleged that smoking bans in bars have "caused" more road accidents because people are forced to drive longer distances to find those bars that still allow smoking.

To assert causality so starkly for an undesigned observational study is unprofessional.  I doubt that the authors of the study they cited even went so far.  At best, they probably found a correlation.

Another problem is the practical significance of the finding.  There is a 13% increase in fatal accident rate in a "typical county containing 680,000 people".  There are two problems with this statement:

• When I check the Census data, there are only about 85 counties in the entire U.S. with at least 680,000 people.  What do they mean by "typical"?
• 13% is said to be an increment of 2.5 fatal accidents, presumably per year.  The crane accident in Manhattan a few weeks ago killed at least five people.  I just don't believe that one can prove definitively that such a tiny difference is not due to chance so even the correlation, let alone the causality, is suspect.

It appears that the paper is locked up in pre-publication.  If you have seen it, let us know if the authors actually asserted causality.

Reference: "Unlucky Strikes", The Economist, April 3 2008.

Pick-and-choose

Gelman pointed to this Brendan Nyhan post dissecting David Sirota's chart purportedly showing a "race chasm" in the Democratic primaries.  The left chart is David's original and the right is a Nyhan revision.

Please see Nyhan for the political interpretation.  Here, I want to note a number of improvements Brendan made to the chart:

• Sirota plotted the ranks of the percent of black population, which is misleading.  Nyhan plotted the actual percentages on his horizontal axis
• Sirota connected the dots which highlighted the noise (ups and downs) in the data.  Nyhan fitted a linear model (he also tried other non-linear versions).
• Sirota plotted Obama's overall margin of win/loss.  Nyhan plotted his margin among white voters only, which more directly addressed the issue.
• Nyhan exposed the excluded states in a footnote.  Sirota didn't.  For this chart, this piece of information is very important since so many states were excluded.

Nyhan walked us through multiple charts he used to explore the data.  Much of the time was spent picking and choosing states to include or exclude.  We learnt that Sirota excluded states with large Hispanic populations, which Nyhan disagreed with while Nyhan wanted to exclude Florida, which Sirota decided against, even though Sirota excluded Michigan, which Nyhan consented but Nyhan also wanted to exclude the causus states, and so on...

Judging from the charts, this picking and choosing appears not to have changed the outcome in this case.  In general, one should exercise great care in such decisions because one might end up seeing what one wants to see.

The following chart is missing from the post, which I think points out something more telling than the negative correlation between Obama's margin with white voters and the proportion of black population.

Trying too hard

In the course of business and governing, a lot of charts are generated.  An anonymous tipster pointed us to a set created by the "Communities and Local Government" division in the UK government.  Judging from the content, this division has responsibility for economic development in local neighborhoods.

Below are a pair of exhibits.  Truly they are trying too hard!  What we see is a hybrid scatter-bubble chart.  Between the jargon, the acronyms (LAD, LSOA), the boxed text, the multi-color circles, the colored axis labels and lack of title, the reader is plunged into a state of confusion.

The chart can be unraveled.  Each district was evaluated based on two measures of "gaps in worklessness".  The vertical axis compares each district to the national average; positive numbers indicate an above-average district relative to the nation.  The horizontal axis compares the most deprived 10% neighborhood within each district to the local average; positive numbers indicate worst neighborhoods improving. 

Thus, the policy goal would be to move all districts into the upper right quadrant.  The multi-color bubbles were designed to show us the state of the nation.  On the left chart, 41% of the districts (or population?) reside in the improving districts while 19% live in deteriorating areas.

The following strategies can help improve readability:

• use English on the axis
• relegate technical definitions to the legend
• add succinct title to tell the story
• use color on the data rather than on axis or data labels
• use color to draw attention to the upper right quadrant
• remove bubbles
• define acronyms

 

Ordering and grouping

The Times reported that January retail sales generally disappointed, and consumers showed a preference for discount retailers over department stores.

Taking the bar chart on the right, re-ordering by change in same-store sales, and grouping companies by type of retailer, we can present the data to match the text more closely.  The divergent performance between discount retailers and department stores is readily visible.

Reference: "Weak January dashed retailers' gift-card hopes", Feb 8 2008.

 

Redundancy

Nick B., who occasionally writes about statistical graphics, found some classic chart junk from a Canadian report on the Afghan army.  Here's one example, together with the junkchart version.

Redundancy is an enemy of good graphics, and incongruous redundancy is worse.  Here, troop level is variously described as "total force size", "strength" and "army growth"; the chart on the right uses only the army concept.  The data labels ("47000 Strength"), the axis labels ("50000 Total Force Size"), and the gridlines all germinate from the five grand data points underlying the entire chart!

Another distorting feature is that use of different-sized time intervals, which we space out appropriately on the right chart.

Ultimately, the key message should be growth in the army size, not the absolute number of troops.  The slopes of the line segments encode this information.  Alternatively, a data table can be rather powerful for simple data like this:

By what is called the "end state", there would be 70% more troops than those as of December 2007.

 

Oscar diseconomy

Business Week dissected the beneficiaries of the Oscar show as shown on the right.  Although this doesn't work well as a data graphic, if thought as a variant on the data table, it is more engaging for readers.

Lets have some fun with the Oscar statue.  First, putting a bar chart next to the statue confirms that the height of the segments (rather than the area) is in proportion to the dollar values (below left).

Tufte, Chambers and others have shown that our eyes react to the areas, not heights.  So next, I estimated the areas but stretched them out into segments of equal width.  Squeezing the entire column back down to the height of the statue, the following chart (below right) puts perceived proportions next to the true proportions, displaying visually the extent of distortion. 

Reference: "News you need to know", Business Week, Jan 28 2008.

Hits and misses 2

In the previous post, we discussed how charts need to address the key question posed by the data.  In this case, the journalist was trying to show that police shots often go errant, and are largely unpredictable even when the distance of the target is given.

In the comments, there is interest in seeing the hit rate v. distance chart.  Because the data came to us in buckets, we do not have enough to continue the analysis.  If one were to guess, the real curve would start out with 100% accuracy at distance 0, fall sharply to a plateau in the 20-40% range at modest distances, and then drop again at large distances, decaying to zero.

Andrew Gelman has conducted this analysis for a similar problem, that of predicting accuracy of golf putts based on distance from the hole.  Here are two key charts from his paper (joint with Deborah Nolan):

The left chart is our hit rate chart above, except the golf data set is larger, allowing a curve fitting.  The right chart is the fitted curve which is a "model" for the true relationship between accuracy and distance from the hole.  The model fitted the data well.

Gelman and Nolan didn't just find any best fitting line through the data.  They started out with a trigonometric model (shown on the right), with the angle of the putt as a random variable.  With this setup, they wrote down the formula for computing the probability that the putt will fall in, that is, the proportion of success.  The angle is assumed to follow a normal distribution with the standard deviation being an unknown parameter.  The standard deviation is estimated from the available data.

Of course, the human body is a bit harder to model than the hole in the ground but this procedure could very well apply.

For more details, check out the paper (PDF).  This example is also found in their book on teaching statistics.

Source: Gelman and Nolan, "A Probability Model for Golf Putting".