What is wrong with this graph?
[This article was first published on Social data blog, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
This is a graph from our surveys with the University of Munich in B&H about ten years ago.(Click on it to see a large version.) In previous presentations (but not in peer-reviewed journals) I have talked about the peak on the subscale of Paranoid Ideation for the B&H samples.
But looking at it again I see that this is partly an illusion and it is due to the fact that I broke the rule of never implying a continuous scale (the x-axis) where there isn’t one. Paranoid ideation only looks so high because it *happens* to be squeezed in between two unrelated scales which happen to have lower scores.
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: Social data blog.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.