121
Visualise Our Social Environments (quokk.au)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/Antisexism@lemmy.today
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Saw this on women's stuff and didn't wanna engage cause that space isnt for me, but felt like this was a 10/10 post and wanted more people to see and think about it!

Feel free to cross post if you can think of broader communities where more people would be able to see it, this is just the comm that came to mind :)

Visualise Our Social Environments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I don't think you understand what I'm proposing. You're talking about trends, extrapolation, and rearranging data, but none of those is what I mean by adding a time dimension.

In the original one-dimensional model, each person occupies a position on a spectrum. Suppose we assign a hypothetical shittiness score from 0 to 100. George is a 35, Bill is a 43.

Now add time as a second, independent dimension.

Instead of representing George as a single point, we can represent his position as a function of time. For example:

  • (89, 16): George is an incel teenager.
  • (50, 20): He gets deradicalized in college.
  • (35, 25): He becomes more aware of the problem.
  • (15, 60): He grows into a thoughtful old man who actively intervenes.

Each pair represents (shittiness, age).

George is no longer just a static 35. He's a trajectory through a two-dimensional space.

Other people might move in the opposite direction, fluctuate, or remain unchanged.

That's all I mean by adding a time dimension: it allows the model to represent people's histories and changes in attitudes.

I'm not proposing any particular trend, let alone extrapolating one. And there's absolutely no need to invert either axis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 days ago* (3 children)

    I get exactly what you mean

    Code

    #!/usr/bin/env gnuplot

# Shittiness , Age
$DATA << EOD
89 16
50 20
35 25
15 60
EOD

f(x) = a * exp(-k * x) + c
a = 100
k = 0.05
c = 10

fit f(x) $DATA using 1:2 via a, k, c

set terminal pngcairo size 500,325 enhanced font 'Arial,12'
set output 'age_vs_shittiness_exponential.png'
set title 'Age vs Shittiness — Exponential Fit'
set xlabel 'Shittiness'
set ylabel 'Age'
unset key
unset grid
set xrange [0:100]
set yrange [0:70]
set grid
set key top right
fit_label = sprintf('Fit: %.2f e^{-%.4f x} + %.2f', a, k, c)
plot $DATA using 1:2 with points pt 7 ps 1.6 lc rgb '#cc2222' title 'Data', \
     f(x) with lines lw 2.5 lc rgb '#2266cc' title fit_label

    but it still doesn't describe the positive trend you're angling for unless you invert the x-axis, which is not how the original image is framed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

    I'm not "angling" for any trend positive or negative. I'm not making any argument about people inexorably getting better or worse. George was just an example, I could have made a different one, where George becomes worse over time. I'm not saying data fits any trend, I never talked about data or trends or extrapolations, that's your own assumptions.

    You seem unable or unwilling to distinguish three different propositions:

    1. A model permits individual improvement or deterioration.
    2. A particular hypothetical individual illustrates improvement.
    3. A population exhibits a systematic trend toward improvement.

    All I argued for is the first, using the second as an example. You're persistently treating me as though I'm arguing the third. Why?

    I'm only saying people can change. That's all, it's a really simple thing. I don't understand why you absolutely must pigeonhole me in some kind of angling for some unsaid implication and pushing some kind of agenda. I'm not. And I'm tired, boss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Fair enough, catch you in a different thread under nicer circumstances.

    Sorry I ran off with the worst interpretation of what you said, it just resonated really badly with me and in this world of careless assholes I wanted to pin it down to a concrete accusation.

    But it became more about me needing to be correct, rather than actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •