this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
91 points (96.9% liked)

Data is Beautiful

1165 readers
47 users here now

Be respectful

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Source of data: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/T0HSJ1

Edit: removed OC as it's not (sorry)

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't really understand how to read this, so only 96% of 5' 4" boys are taller than their 5' 2" father? What?

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

96% of males with a 5'4" mother and a 5'2" father are taller than 5'2"

[–] SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Y=mothers height. X=Fathers height

%=considering the height of both parents what % of girl/boy are taller than their mother/father

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah, got it got it, sorry for my confusion lol.

[–] SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry. I was confused as well. This is a case of dataisnotsobeautiful

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago

I think I just needed breakfast before I could appreciate it.

[–] tombruzzo@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

Pepsi lookin' ass chart

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 10 points 4 months ago

How about daughters taller than father and sons taller than mother?

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I might miss the point, but the height is dependent on both parents genetically, so just comparing mothers with daughters is a bit like the usual "correlation does not equal causation" thingie, or not?

[–] tehevilone@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The X and Y are just labeled weird, both graphs reference father's height has the X and mother's height as the Y

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but there is no graph comparing son vs mother and daughter vs father.

And it seems like an odd thing to omit.

[–] tehevilone@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If I'm reading the referenced link right, the data is from 1886(?), so it's not terribly recent, either.

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Wow, thanks for checking on that

[–] grubberfly@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

yes, 928 children and 205 parents it seems.

wonder how the trend shown here has changed in almost 150 years...

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

Oh, completely missed that, thanks!

[–] Sas@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's exactly what this is showing. The x axis is the fathers height and the y-axis the mothers height so you see daughters change of being taller going up when their dads are bigger. For sons the chance of being bigger than their father goes up with tall mothers.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Wouldn't the most determining factor here be the height of the chosen partner?

[–] GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

.dta

~~Are they series?~~ Edit: are they serious?