3 ms·
I would like a study that presents all this graphs (separately) to people and have them choose the inflection point. They would not all be on 1971. Some are v
by ks2048 2y ago
I would like a study that presents all this graphs (separately) to people and have them choose the inflection point. They would not all be on 1971. Some are very clearly a different year or just a gradual change.
The adding of arrows biases people to say everything happened in 1971 exactly.
I think there was a shift in national priorities and attitudes - roughly late 60s to early 80s. But, this bias is tricking people into thinking that one particular event was the cause of this shift.
- uoaei 2y agoThese graphs depict indicators with varying lead and lag, so of course you'd get a spread. Doesn't mean they don't share a root cause or set of causes.
- mannykannot 2y agoIn the last paragraph, the author of the post you are replying to is saying something entirely consistent with what you are saying here. The title of the article, on the other hand, is suggesting something less nuanced, and ks2048's main point seems to be that putting arrows on the charts at 1971 does nothing to support the view that a singular tipping point occurred in that year.
- uoaei 2y agoAh, but it does, if you just understand a single thing about economic indicators. Context matters. We could rehash every minor news story into a longform essay or we could use what we already know to interpret what's being presented here.
- ks2048 2y agoI agree, but the goal of the site (the title and the arrows) is to bias you AGAINST a "set of causes" and towards one particular event in a particular year.