Do you understand this graph??

Post Reply New Topic

Take a look at this graph. Do you understand it right away? Please scroll down the page for more.













































So, were you confused because of how the words "male" and "female" were placed in terms of their position? I got confused by that. Interesting how I took the postions of the words literally.

I don't understand your problem. Ok, colours are similar, but it's not impossible to see the difference.
It shows how changed the proportions between men and women. We can see it's harder to find man 65+ now than in 50s. There are almost 2x more women than men now!

I said in other thread that it's possibly because women care about their health more.

I thought Aspies are masters in reading graphs and charts. I never had problems with them. They're even kind of my love

The problem is that the legend is down where the x-axis label should be. It doesn't fit the established pattern for graphs.

I had to think a bit since it is not designed exactly logically wrt the male/female labels. However, there are many worse. Check out Canada/US imports from this list:

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-3 ... node9.html

I did look for the left-field interpretation first and found it before the one it was meant to be. It only took a second.

The color similarity is an issue, yes, so I didn't understand it "right away," but I did get it fairly quickly and without explanation. It is a very poor graph attempt, however, in several ways.

All around, it's a very poor graph. The colors are similar, the title can easily be misread, the left side goes up to 70%, which is misleading... clearly made by someone that failed their graphing class in college.

wait a minute. . .there is 63% females to 37% males over 65 years + in 2011 Canada? That is really startling to me. I wonder why that is ?

Merle

> I wonder why that is ?

I wasn't supposed to tell, but they're planning on killing off a bunch of the old men. Sorry to let the secret out.
(Seriously, I guess it's a prediction.)

I had to look at it for a while, but yes, I understand it. I've always been pretty good at reading graphs.

they have been dying off at a great clip! cholesterol from moose steaks and caribou chops, no doubt. The women are doing something right, though, however I'll bet they miss their men.

Merle

My guess is that medical technology has made more progress to solve aging-related illness that affects women more often than men.

Go Females!

Sorry, what was the nature of the original question? Why "female" is to the left of "male"? That threw me for a moment, because traditionally male is listed first.

The fact that "female" is under 1951 and 1971 and "male" is under 1991 and 2011 threw me off.

I don't believe that such a high percentage of the overall population will be 65 and above in 2011.
I didn't realize that the "male" and "female" below the graph was a legend, either, until I've read some of the comments in this thread.