« Horrid stuff | Main | The sum and the parts »


Jon Peltier

-0.03? So R-squared is much less than 1%. Pretty tenuous. Also, you have three points in favor of a downward slope and two in favor of upwards, but one of those downward points would be touching the quadrant divider if the marker were a little larger. You could almost draw a circle connecting all the points.

We really need more cities, and more paired measurements, to say anything meaningful about the relationship.

Jon Peltier

I took the analysis sideways, and replotted my chart based on the assumption that there was some correlation (essentially plotting the diagonals of my boxes, rather than the centroids Kaiser plotted):


Why not? It's snowing and sleeting here (central Massachusetts), school is canceled and nobody's going anywhere, and it takes only two seconds to copy a sheet and delete a few rows.

Food for thought.


My monkey brain insists on seeing a pattern to the rise and fall, either two straight lines or a parabola. But with only five points of dubious accuracy, there's probably nothing really there.


I think we can all agree on the conclusion that five samples are not enough to make reliable inference.

My graph was intended to illustrate a neat way to visualize the concept of correlation. Nothing more than that!


I'm not having a go at anybody. I'm sorry if you feel like you're being piled on.


Derek, don't worry. I wrote that comment just to make sure that the point of the posting was not lost.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter