3 ms·
The reason I chose to mix the two was that comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be accurate since it would be distorted by overall population growth. That leaves
by davidbauer 11y ago
The reason I chose to mix the two was that comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be accurate since it would be distorted by overall population growth. That leaves you with comparing the percentages. In 2013, women accounted for 49.59% of all people, so that's .41 off a perfectly equal distribution. Yet .41 percentage points doesn't really give a good impression of what that actually means, while 60 million is a number readers can relate to more easily.
- refurb 11y agoWhenever I see an article swap units mid-sentence it automatically makes me think they are doing it to bolster their argument because if they kept the same units, it wouldn't actually show what they wanted it to.
- davidbauer 11y agoYep, that's often true. Still think it's fair in this case, for the reasons explained above. 60 million are A LOT of people.
- azakai 11y agoIt's an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise excellent article, imo. Could instead mention percentages before and after, then stress the absolute number to get across the 60M figure.
- davidbauer 11y agoOk, point taken.
- refurb 11y agoI'm not ripping on you at all, it's an interesting article. Just wanted to provide some feedback. I'm a scientist by training and was taught early on the tricks that many papers use to make something seem big when it really isn't.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]