6 ms·

"The results show the Bay Area's economic inequality and its relationship with transit and urban form." I'm not sure what they are supposed to show. It seems t

"The results show the Bay Area's economic inequality and its relationship with transit and urban form." I'm not sure what they are supposed to show. It seems to show me that there's very little relationship between income and mass transit service.

johndavidback 13y ago
Agree: I assumed the chart would show that low income areas are less-served by transit stops, but that doesn't appear to be the case. It just shows that income wildly varies by stop..? I'm confused as to what I'm meant to glean from this data.
patmcguire 13y ago
Yeah, the Bay Area has too many rich outer areas to make any sense of it. The one about New York from about a month ago is a lot more clear - rich center, poor periphery. http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html
- dangrover 13y ago
  I guess that was the point. Both places have inequality, but the Bay Area is wacky, and not so evenly covered with mass transit. And the mass transit that exists is fragmented between different agencies.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  In both NY and SF, if you keep going further out (beyond the base mass transit system) incomes start to rise again. There's basically the rich central city, the poorer surrounding "urban" neighborhoods, and then the rich suburbs. Chicago too.
  - ripter 13y ago
    Indianapolis too
throwaway1980 13y ago
Data aren't supposed to show anything. That's only if you're trying to push some kind of agenda, publish your work, or get funding.
- Lambdanaut 13y ago
  That doesn't really mean anything. Of course you can draw conclusions from data.
  - throwaway1980 13y ago
    Sure, but you're not "supposed" to. Or maybe you are, which is the problem. "Inconclusive" or "negative" results are just as meaningful (i.e. no conclusion is still a conclusion), but we're biased towards "positive" results showing identifiable correlations.
    - tks2103 13y ago
      i dont understand what you are trying to say. data certainly do not have preconceived notions, but i dont think that is your point. people are not supposed to draw conclusions from data? that sounds like exactly what people are supposed to do, if they are to survive. is your point that humans are biased towards certain results? that does not follow from your earlier two points ("Data aren't supposed to..." and "Sure, but you're not 'supposed' to..."). why do you think humans are biased towards "positive" results?
      - icambron 13y ago
        You're missing Throwaway's point entirely. The context from higher in the thread: > I'm not sure what they are supposed to show. In other words, "in the context of what argument are you presenting this data?" Throwaway is saying that the person presenting the data needn't have an intended conclusion; it doesn't need to be part of an argument at all. It's OK, in fact preferred, for it just to be data from which you can draw conclusions, or decide there are no interesting conclusions to draw.

johndavidback 13y ago

Agree: I assumed the chart would show that low income areas are less-served by transit stops, but that doesn't appear to be the case. It just shows that income wildly varies by stop..? I'm confused as to what I'm meant to glean from this data.

patmcguire 13y ago

Yeah, the Bay Area has too many rich outer areas to make any sense of it. The one about New York from about a month ago is a lot more clear - rich center, poor periphery. http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/subway.html

dangrover 13y ago
I guess that was the point. Both places have inequality, but the Bay Area is wacky, and not so evenly covered with mass transit. And the mass transit that exists is fragmented between different agencies.
tomkarlo 13y ago
In both NY and SF, if you keep going further out (beyond the base mass transit system) incomes start to rise again. There's basically the rich central city, the poorer surrounding "urban" neighborhoods, and then the rich suburbs. Chicago too.
- ripter 13y ago
  Indianapolis too

throwaway1980 13y ago

Data aren't supposed to show anything. That's only if you're trying to push some kind of agenda, publish your work, or get funding.

Lambdanaut 13y ago
That doesn't really mean anything. Of course you can draw conclusions from data.
- throwaway1980 13y ago
  Sure, but you're not "supposed" to. Or maybe you are, which is the problem. "Inconclusive" or "negative" results are just as meaningful (i.e. no conclusion is still a conclusion), but we're biased towards "positive" results showing identifiable correlations.
  - tks2103 13y ago
    i dont understand what you are trying to say. data certainly do not have preconceived notions, but i dont think that is your point. people are not supposed to draw conclusions from data? that sounds like exactly what people are supposed to do, if they are to survive. is your point that humans are biased towards certain results? that does not follow from your earlier two points ("Data aren't supposed to..." and "Sure, but you're not 'supposed' to..."). why do you think humans are biased towards "positive" results?
    - icambron 13y ago
      You're missing Throwaway's point entirely. The context from higher in the thread: > I'm not sure what they are supposed to show. In other words, "in the context of what argument are you presenting this data?" Throwaway is saying that the person presenting the data needn't have an intended conclusion; it doesn't need to be part of an argument at all. It's OK, in fact preferred, for it just to be data from which you can draw conclusions, or decide there are no interesting conclusions to draw.