One thing that struck me about this article is the anti-pattern : Describe the distribution in words, then don't show the chart / graph. I refer to "Twice as m

One thing that struck me about this article is the anti-pattern : Describe the distribution in words, then don't show the chart / graph. I refer to "Twice as many successful entrepreneurs are over 50 as under 25; and twice as many, over 60 as under 20. ... ". That takes a bit of parsing and visualizing to actually make sense of, and is pretty central to the topic of the article. That sentence describes some sort of log-normal bump distribution. But you'd want to compare it to the some-sort-of-lognormal distribution of population per age to draw a conclusion. The assumption may be "our readers are too math-dumb to read a chart". If true, why is that? Most people can read a map, so I wonder what percentage of people can read a population distribution and make some sense of it. How can it be improved? [ I created GridMaths.com [ early demo stage], so I'm actually interested in how to get Math concepts across to young people. ]