Junk Charts

Don't believe what you see

Mankiw's blog linked to a press release by the Congressman Jim Saxton, using CBO data to show "middle income tax burden at lowest level in decades".  The attached graph, as Junk Charts readers will immediately recognize, is classic chartjunk.  Every time the vertical axis does not start at zero,  one suspects something is amiss.  And what with the gridlines and data labels?

"Don't believe it? Check out the data source yourself."  I followed Mankiw's suggestion and was indeed surprised... but not by the great fortune of the "middle class".  The surprise was how the chart painted a dishonest picture of the CBO data.

The original chart plotted only the tax rate experienced by the middle 20% of the population.  The CBO provided data for all five quintiles; why not plot them all?  In this new chart (right), the "surprise" windfall to the middle 20% proved not to be anything special at all!  All five quintiles, especially the middle three, followed pretty much the same trend over time.  The effect of singling out the middle 20% is to deprive the context by which the data should be interpreted.

Further, what might be the result of the declining middle income tax burden?  The CBO data painted an unexpected picture.  Paradoxically, as the middle 20% see their tax rate decrease, they also earn a smaller share of the nation's after-tax income (black line at right).  At the same time, the top 1% saw their share of after-tax income double from about 8% to almost 16% (blue line).  The top 20% line is also upward-sloping although less pronounced.  So, the implication that the middle class have had it good is plainly wrong.

What is going on?  Two factors were at play and the Congressman presented only one side of the story (the tax rate).  What he omitted was that during this period, the nation's wealthy took home larger and larger shares of the pre-tax income.  This shift in pre-tax income more than offset any relative reduction in tax rate for the middle 20%.

This distortion can be traced back to the use of quintiles (or more generally, ranks).  We use them to cope with data having extreme distributions but a by-product is losing information about how extreme are the extreme values.  As demonstrated here, the quintiles from old are really different from the quintiles from today because the underlying distribution has become much more extreme.

Finally, another bit of mystery (to me) is how the middle 20% came to be considered "middle class".  Is there a widely accepted definition?

Reference: "CBO Data Show Middle Income Debt Burden At Lowest Level in Decades", Feb 21 2008.

Color scale

This map from the Economist illustrates pretty well the movement of population from middle America outwards from 2000-6.  The message reaches us despite the large volume of data painted.  (The gray shadow though was more than a little distracting.)

The map piqued my curiosity in two areas:

How did they determine the color scale?  The average change over all counties (6.4%) was obviously used.  Standard deviation was not since the ranges of change were unequal in size.

Was within-county percent change the best criterion?  As is, an 80% drop in a 2,000-people county looks the same as an 80% drop in a 200,000-strong county.

Reference: "The Great Plains drain", Economist, Jan 17 2008.

PS. I am traveling and so posting will be limited.

The eyeball test

This set of graphs was used by the NYT to discuss changes in U.S.  spending patterns over time.  For this post, I am focusing on the bottom left and bottom right graphs.  One shows spending on energy as a percent of GDP; the other, on "nonresidential structures" (aka, commercial buildings).

At first glance, spending on energy and that on commercial buildings look very similar in shape (see above or below left).  Alas, this "eyeball test" doesn't work very well with time series data.  Lets investigate further.

"Standardizing" the data (above right) tells us whether the swings are unusual or not in the history of the data.  So in the 1980s, commerical building spend spiked to more than three times the standard deviation above the historical average.  Generally speaking, the standardized unit of 3 is taken to mean highly unusual. 

Notice that the peaks of the left graph had equal heights but on the right graph, energy spending peaked only above two while commerical building spend rose above three.  This is because energy spending has been more volatile historically so it takes larger jumps (or plunges) to count as "unusual" movements.  This information is hidden in the unstandardized version.

Further, since we are concerned with long-term trends, lets take a look at five-year moving averages (below right): in other words, each time point is the average of the preceding five years worth of data. 

The fluctuations have been smoothed out and the peaks are no longer as high.  Glancing at this chart, we may still conclude that the spending patterns are quite similar -- especially in the period prior to 1995.

But is that really the case?  Zooming in on the 1980s, we may mistakenly think the two lines are "close together" if our eyes read the horizontal distance and/or area between the curves, rather than focusing on the vertical distance.  The arrows on the bottom left chart depict this difference.  To make things clearer, the bottom right chart plots the vertical distances between the two lines.

Observe that the difference expanded to above 1 unit in the late 1980s.  A difference of one unit is very large in the standardized scale (of "unusualness") since 0 is business as usual and 3 is "highly unusual".

Eyeballing the two time series would lead us to believe that the two series are similar but we run the risk of underestimating the differences as illustrated here.

Source: "Auto Sector's role Dwindles, and Spending Suffers", New York Times, Nov 3 2007.

The Tufte count

One of the things I picked up from Tufte is the horrible habit of counting the amount of data on a chart.  This is part of the info gathering to estimate the data-ink ratio (amount of data divided by the amount of ink used to depict them).

Leon B, a reader, left this in my inbox, months ago it turned out.  This is the British government's way of informing people how energy-efficient their homes are.  As Leon said:

these charts might be a great example of governments going overboard with colours, bars, letters and numbers and lines for something that really only has four data points.

In addition, I find the use of two different scales to be confusing and unnecessary.  If it is decided that scores in a particular range can be grouped as A, B, ..., G, then the original scale should be discarded.  52 is E and 70 is C.  (This is especially so since the score ranges are not intuitive, like 69-80 = C ?!)

Even worse, what's the point of citing the 0-100 scale without explaining what is the metric?

A table presentation does a far better job in a fraction of the space:

Source: Home Information Pack, UK Government.  Graph from Wikipedia.

 

PS. This post set off a torrent of emotions (see the comments).  Another version that I discarded was the simplest table possible.  In my view, there is still way too much distracting "junk" in the original design.  No one has yet explained why the 0-100 scale should be emphasized, or what it means!

Non-elites

From Mikhail Simkin comes some intriguing analysis of "experts"; in this line of research, experts are compared to the "general public" and often "proved" to be shenanigans. Stock pickers don't do better than apes; economists don't do better than Big Macs; you get the idea.  In a new twist, Simkin puts twelve images of modern art on his website, and asks visitors to distinguish between those by grand masters and those "ridiculous fakes" produced by him apparently on a computer.

Since conventional wisdom says elite universities provide better education, Simkin attempted to find out if there is a difference between "elites" and "the crowd" in their ability to recognize modern art. (Elites, to him, meant the Ivy League and Oxbridge.)  The following pair of histograms clinched his point:

we see that there is not much difference between the elite and the crowd.

Since the shapes of the histograms are similar, one might be inclined to agree with the statement.  This is until one notes the wildly different scales used because only 143 of the 56,020 quiz-takers could be identified as "elites".

The shapes are clarified if we use a relative scale (percentages) rather than absolute scale.  Further, the difference is more easily seen when cumulative percentages are plotted.  In other words, we are interested in comparing the proportion of respondents who score at least X points out of 12.

Two features are worth noting:

• A gap opens up between 4 to 7: specifically, 40% of "non-elites" scored 7 points or below while only 25% of "elites" scored 7 points or below.
• The curves criss-cross around 11 to 12: this shows that "non-elites" were more likely to have perfect scores (although this difference is small).  Perhaps museum directors don't have .edu addresses.

Notice that I plotted Elite vs Non-Elite rather than Elite vs All Respondents.  While it seems innocuous to use "All Respondents", and in this case, there is no noticeable difference since Elites were a tiny proportion, when the test group accounts for a significant proportion of the total, the value for "All Respondents" will be influenced by that for the test group.  As a general rule, compare A to not A.

Simkin's exercise raises many statistical issues of design, which we won't discuss here.

Source: "Properly Prescribed" (via, RSS Significance)

Transgender trends

One of the many gratifications of blogging is to connect with others who have similar interests; so it has been fantastic to receive user submissions (though admittedly I don't check my inbox frequently enough).  The thoughtfulness of these nominations continues to impress me.

Evan sent in 254 charts he created after looking at the post on baby names.  An example is shown on the right. 

He is particularly interested in the question of names that are given to both males and females. 

For example, the bottom chart shows that Jordan is primarily a male name, and saw a period of growth followed by decline, although the decline has been more severe on the male side than the female side. 

It's a nice touch to label the most recent year.  I'd also label the values for the most recent year on the axes.

Evan also offers the following solution to the scaling problem we identified in the original WSJ chart:

My solution was just to put two charts on each chart. One at a fixed scale for every chart to give a sense of size and one at a variable scale to better show the shape of the plot.

In other words, for less popular names, the top chart would look much more compressed.

There are many more charts to sift through on his site.  Evan welcomes suggestions.

Cutting through the noise

A terrific application of tag clouds can be seen over at pollster.com, following the first debate of Democratic Presidential hopefuls the other night.  Here is Senator Biden's "tag cloud", depicting the top 50 words that came out of his mouth that night.  The size of each word is proportional to how often he uttered it.

Having not seen the debate, I can use this summary device to get a quick read on what his main points were.  It's clear that he talked about the war ("Iraq", "troops"), education ("teachers", "students"), abortion ("roe", "wade" but interesting not the word "abortion").  Of course, if he had a distinct message, that would have been even better. For what the tag cloud exposed (assuming it was done right) was that he was pretty much all over the place, touching on many different things about equally often. 

It is disconcerting that a word like "so-called" made it into the top 50.  Better is "better" is his #1 word.

It is typical to process text-based data by removing all the most common words that do not carry real meaning (um, ur, the, so-called, etc.) but in this case, keeping them is helpful so the candidates can catch problems like the excessive use of "so-called".

However, the tag cloud would have been improved if "stemming" were used to collapse "talk" and "talking", "teacher" and "teachers", etc.

Pollster did tag clouds for every candidate.  Comparing them provides even more insights!  Here's one for Senator Clinton. Her message is much more focused, quite a lot of time spent proclaiming her "readiness" for "President", quite a bit on "healthcare" and quite a bit on the "war".

As Pollster correctly pointed out, it is unclear if the size of words could be compared across tag clouds.  If so, the setup would be even more powerful.

The entire set of tag clouds can be seen here.   Long-time readers of this blog will remember that we have advocated such use back in Jan 2006, when discussing the "concordance" feature at Amazon.  This successful application validates our enthusiasm.

Peripherals 2

In terms of interactive charting, Google Finance did much more than hide the legend.  In their main stock price chart, they used a number of neat features.

This chart effectively conveys a huge amount of information in a small space.  The bottom strip which shows relative prices for the past two years provides context to interpret the five-day movement shown in the main chart area.  I prefer to see a scale on the bottom strip as well. 

The sliding scrollbar can be dragged to show historical data.  Besides, the width of the window shown in the main area can be controlled.  For instance:

Without any effort, we are now looking at a 3-month chart for Q2 2006.  Notice the summary statistic on the top right corner also morphed.  The axis scale changed, and it never did start from zero to begin with.  (This shortcoming is alleviated by the profile chart in the bottom strip.)

Further, by placing the cursor in the chart area, we can highlight a particular day: a dot appeared on the price curve, the volume on that day was highlighted, and the text on the top right switched.  That text is what we typically place inside the chart area as a "data label".  The effect of moving it to the corner is similar to hiding the legend: it makes the graph more legible and provides space for longer descriptions.  As we move the cursor from left to right, the graph dynamically adapts.  Marvellous!

It may not be obvious the amount of data processing that has to take place to implement these sorts of features. I don't have space to address the data issue but maybe some of our readers can comment on it. 

Disparity and distortion

I am of two minds about "cartograms", which are world maps in which the area of each country is made proportional to some measurement such as population, wealth, consumption and so on.  I have liked them since young and they typically make spectacular effects but then it's distortion wilfully introduced.

Perhaps the saving grace is that there exists such extreme disparity in our world.  Because of these vast differences, the distortion does not distract us from perceiving the meaning of these maps.

Thanks to Eric C. for alerting me to this set of cartograms, including this one on military spending.  I'm surprised by the size of Europe as compared to the former Soviet Union.

Bubbles of death

Thanks to Dustin J for bringing this stupendous chart to our attention.  I have to admit I have trouble understanding it.  The red curve appears to be part of a gigantic circle confirming that all life do end on this earth.  How it is connected to the rest of the chart I am unable to discern.  In addition, the trajectory of the bubbles, the overlaps between bubbles, the separation between bubbles all may or may not carry meaning.

Reference: "What are the odds of dying?", National Safety Council.