Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjk2 | Hacker News Reader

The author doesn't use the correct terminology and does not understand box plots themselves so they are in no position to explain them to anyone. They explain in terms of absolutes with no rational or scientific explanation and entirely miss the point of the methodology and tools. That is a not a good position to start or a good person to take advice from.

Not only that, the cases presented are likely better dealt with via inference tests. But the author's knowledge doesn't extend that far. And even going as far left, the posed question isn't even defined in the article. So how was a suitable methodology chosen? Well it wasn't - lets just throw this pretty picture up and whine about it.

The author is way out of their depth and should retract the article and take a formal, accredited statistics course.

View on HN

> The author is way out of their depth and should retract the article and take a formal, accredited statistics course.

Maybe you should learn about the author before you make such assumptions. I find it hilarious you think he should take statistics courses when he teaches data visualization workshops to places like NASA, IRS, and the UN.

I'm done with this thread. Such a joke.

Oh I know the author.

Just because you’re high profile in the data viz industry doesn’t mean you should be commenting on statistics especially with such a clear misunderstanding going on.

Some of us are definitely more qualified to speak on these matters and we still don’t think we’re qualified to teach it.

If box plots require an formal and accredited statistics course to understand, but as you mention they are taught to 15 year olds (presumably incorrectly) in school and used by people with power making decisions that affect everyone in organisations such as the UN and NASA, then even if the author is unqualified it seems their point is 'accidentally' correct. No one should be using these plots except extremely smart and trained people who do know how to read them, as it could have serious negative consequences.

I do stats and data viz for a living and the article seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

He isn’t dogmatic.

He makes reasonable arguments.

I’m confused by these hopelessly uncharitable readings of the article.

I naively assumed that ten years of teaching data visualization at NASA, Yale, Visa, the U.N., UofT, etc. would qualify me to write about something like this, but I guess not. Thanks for setting me straight :-) BTW, what terminology was I using incorrectly?

Is this sarcasm?

I'm not one to appeal to authority but "author should take a course" is akin to ad hominem when a quick look at their profile (https://www.practicalreporting.com/about-nick-desbarats - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickdesbarats/) tells you that he's been doing dataviz and statistics for a long time.

Nope.

I'm not one to appeal to authority either which is why I am making objective arguments about what is presented.

And yes he should go on a stats course. I dread to think the chaos he’s spread to people who don’t know better.

I fully agree that appeals to authority should be ignored. My profile has nothing to do with how right or wrong I might be.

Ad hominem arguments, however, should also be ignored. Saying that I'm unqualified doesn't prove anything and adds nothing to the discussion.

If you have specific criticisms of my reasoning, I'm more than happy to listen. If all you have are personal insults, however, well, enjoy the rest of your day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com