Welp!
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023118801096
Hi, Larry -
The charts show weighting with a range from 1 to 2. I'll confess to not understanding how that translates into anything I already know. I can see the steel rise in "gotten more than they deserve, for example, but as I don't know what a 1 means, I certainly don't know what a 2 means.
Do you have an understanding of this?
If not, I can do more digging, but if so it would make our lives easier and give other readers who are even less proficient at math and stats than I am a fighting chance of pretending to disagree with its findings!
Thanks!
I'd also note that the graphs shift from an every 2 year measure from 1986 - 1994 to a 4 year measure from 2000 - 2016, with nothingfor 1996 or 1998 at all. That makes the rises to the right of these charts look steeper than they would be if they were elongated by the same intermediate periods that the left side is at.
I don't expect you to know what's with that, but it looks as if I am going to have to write to these people to understand what they are doing! I had misleading graphs with a passion, even (especially!) when they support information I already suspected! It makes it easier to dismiss what they have to say and undermine the entire discussion!
Grrrr!
Hell, they’re going to disagree with the findings anyway.
I'll take that as, "No, I neither understand the terminology nor think it is worth worrying about the poor scholarship in the graphic representations," unless you offer me some other way to take your response.
Not everybody is Red or Kiid, refusing to consider (let alone accept) evidence staring them in the face.
I've written to the author to seek an explanation. My reading of Odds Ratios makes his scale look really peculiar, given that they are not restricted to 1 to 2.