
The Wealth Effect Fallacy - Four_Star
http://thesoundingline.com/taps-coogan-the-wealth-effect-fallacy/
======
dandare
Oh no, the very first diagram with the Y axes from 50% to 70% is like from the
How to Lie with Statistics book.

Sorry, I will not continue reading this article.

~~~
existencebox
I have not read that book. I am, however, a data analyst with very strong
opinions about dark patterns. My perception is that you're seeing an attempt
to misdirect where there is only, at worst, lax handling of data, and writing
off a worth-discussing core concept as a result. (there IS one aspect of the
chart I'd complain about but it's not the 50-70 bounds) Here's why.

1\. If I wanted to lie with statistics, a single 50-70 chart doesn't really
"do the trick." You want to have a 50-70 chart alongside a 40-50 chart,
ideally without clearly labeled Y axes, or something like that. Really
distorting the trend comparison is where the money is at.

2\. The aspect I would have called out is the fact that they're citing a trend
inversion with less than a year's of data. this could be a season effect,
natural volatility, any number of other things, and this single trendline is
not a hugely confidence-building piece of evidence on its own.

That being said, the facts of the article stood up to my understanding, and is
something I've long taken issue with in our recovery from 08 (Highly uneven
distribution of gains and recovery); so I'd hope that discussion at least not
be lost in the noise.

~~~
sharkmerry
>> The aspect I would have called out is the fact that they're citing a trend
inversion with less than a year's of data. this could be a season effect,
natural volatility, any number of other things, and this single trendline is
not a hugely confidence-building piece of evidence on its own.

I must be lost, what trend inversion are they citing with less than a years
data?

~~~
existencebox
No, you're correct, and I misparsed the chart _entirely_, thanks for calling
out; for some insane reason I thought it was a monthly cadence (since I think
I glanced and saw "april" and elided the fact that it was year incremented.)

I'd stand by the crux of my statement that I don't think the chart was
intentionally misleading, however, with one fewer complaints about the nature
of the data :)

