Oh sport, and I thought I was the one beating on a dead horse here. I understand why people claim to take issue with the Y-axis range. I am just saying chart makers can zoom in to make a point, and it is not automatically misleading. That is all. Anyway, thanks for writing this. Looks like a lot of effort, and some of it will make sense in my stats coursework, thanks!
This is indeed misleading. It has no numerical figures, and it wastes loads of ink and screen space. The other one is better structured as a chart. I a sorry you spent your time to demonstrate something we all know, but may be Excel has good reasons that cuts off the axis at 6.
Although there is a common tip in critical thinking classes that manipulating the Y-axis range can lead to misleading presentation of a difference, I believe in this particular graph, which clearly provides numbers to compare, you can’t say it is misleading.
People can read and compare the values and draw their own conclusions. And I am saying that without any consideration of the distros discussed, since I am impartial to distros, I like all distros I have tried.
This “study” almost certainly must have way deeper assumptions- and metrics- related problems to start with, so even finding myself having this argument is preposterous. But I am just pointing out the misapplication of critical thinking guideline, and this is a valid point which I insist everyone who relies on to consider, if you care about critical thinking at all.
No one said you are doing layman statistics, the pasted comment is from another discussion, provided here for context, and for very good reasons. It aligns with obvious misconceptions about statistics that should be pointed out. Probability and statistics are thorny subjects that nonetheless are inevitable in order to understand the world surrounding us, material, social, and economic, so yes I will nitpick here and call out the misapplication of canned critical thinking thought-terminating cliches.
This sounds valid. I wonder how many Scandinavians switched to Linux because of Windows 11.
Fair. You know these figures right out from the graph don’t you?
Ah the statistical significance, which as everybody knows is assessed …visually? Mic drop
BTW I have another comment here, totally irrelevant to this discussion, that I bring up statistical siGnifiCAnsE as an example of confident falsehood. Thanks for proving me right lol
Edit: here it is for context ( from https://lemmy.ml/post/17638298/12096466 )
Layman statistics is not the hill I would die on. Otherwise (being guilty of the fallacy myself) I now think that making a subject mandatory school lesson will only make people more confidently incorrect about it, so this is another hill I won’t die on for probability and statistics. See for instance the widespread erroneous layman use of “statistical significance” (like “your sample of partners is not statistical significant”) you see it is a lost cause. They misinterpret it because they were taught it. Also professionals have been taught it and mess it up more than regularly to the point we can’t trust studies or sth any more. So the solution you suggest is teach more of it? Sounds a bit like the war on drugs.
The difference (in self-reported subjective happiness rating 1–10 too) is not as significant as the graphic implies visually
Ah here is another one. So what? It makes the difference more distinguishable, which also the graph denotes numerically. Otherwise all Linux distros users would appear too flat to make any difference interpretable.
The fact that there are at least two such comments around here shows why teaching anything in schools is doomed to fail.
Even critical thinking skills are applied in a canned, thought-terminating fashion, similar to how XX/XY chromosomes are considered the only reality, in overconfident falsehood.
because the happiness view doesn’t start at 0
How is that so?
Hmm, point taken.
Um, is it the one though that transphobes focus on because of their obvious fear of emasculation?
Wait what, you mean all of my memes are incomprehensible? There was one unfortunate meme I thoroughly explained, but people heavily downvote me still lol
Oh snap he was banned. I had the perfect comeback, I will save it for another instance.
Go suck your mo and find out sister
His fragile masculinity might be a social and personal pathology though.
There is no need for vaginoplasty. Women with dicks are also valid. Now the longer you take this up with me the worst for your health, so gtfo sicko.
Yeah sure, flat earther
This would explain the downvotes lol
Some transphobes say that gender identity goes against not only biology but also physics. I don’t think that the biology part is valid, and it has long been debunked. But people who think that physics dictates cisgenderism are on a whole other level of stupid. Alonso and Finn is a well established Physics textbook, which makes no reference to sex or gender in it. Because simply physics has nothing to say about gender, and in this context they using the term is just confused oonga-boonga to mean “science”. In reality, transphobes are the science-deniers here and they are structural equivalents of conspiracy theorists. I hope that clears things up.
Material in the sense of the basic physical quantities like length and charge? No. You need to add a splash of ethnography in your materialism.
I really did not mean to be insulting. I am just saying chart makers can choose to make a zoom in, and it is not automatically propaganda or something. All this has led people astray of the real issues, like WTF is measuring ‘happiness’ on a 1-10 scale, and what are the metric properties of this 1-10 scale. Then there are all the sampling issues and what have you. I just expected more people discussing this stuff rather than the Y-axis.