The benefits of a nutritionally complete youth?
how to manipulate graphs 101
I mean everything is very clearly labeled and only 1 axis is cut, because without the cut you wouldn’t see many differences in the top part.
wouldn’t see many differences in the top part.
you would see them, they just wouldn’t look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about.
Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don’t start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well?
Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang.
So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?!
Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero.
Stop making sense!
Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades.
this graph doesn’t compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself.
It’s not speed, it’s the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
It’s not speed, it’s the height over time
yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it… speed.
The derivative of this is the speed
and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis.
it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
“where the speed is negative”? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because… at some point the height of the person was negative?
well thank you for your input 😂
because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is.
My guess - the biggest factors in height are genetics and childhood nutrition.
Children born in China and India in the 70s would have a decent chance of experiencing malnutrition, stunting their growth. This created the space to explain the increase in heights seen in these countries over time, as they benefitted from technological advancements, more liberal governments, and the increased wealth from integrating into global supply chains.
Germany, the UK, and the US had already mostly solved their food insecurity problems by 1970, and so saw little increase in height in that period. The differences in height between these nations is probably due to greater genetic diversity in the latter two populations. Northern Europeans tend to be taller than global average, but the US has a significant Latino minority, and the UK has populations from its former colonies. I’m guessing the dip/flattening in the US’s line around 2000 was mostly due to the surge in Mexican migrants around that time.
I don’t know what tf happened in the Netherlands.
Dairy and meat consumption.
