Group 5 – Page 2 – Data Culture

Use Your Words

This week in class I chose to observe how often we use specific words. I chose the words “like”, “um”, “kinda”, “ok”, and “so”, because I wanted to see how often they actually occur in conversation. I’ve always been reprimanded for using “like” so often, so I wondered if it would be used as frequently in class as it is in normal conversation. Turns out, its used fairly commonly in class as well. Additionally, after the first hour of class I realized that almost every sentence either began with “so” or used “so” as a conjunction. Here are the results of my tally.

It turns out that “so” barely edged out “like” for most frequently used. “Um” was a decently close third place. “Ok” and “kinda” were not frequent at all, which I found surprising. In hindsight, other words that I would have been interesting to include are “you know”, “sorta”, “well”, “stuff”, and “whatever”.

Tracking the Fluidity of Conversations in Class

During Thursday’s class (3/12), I aimed to track the fluidity of conversations across different tables. Specifically, I wanted to see which tables participated most frequently and which tables most frequently interacted with each other. I listed the names of one person at each table to allow the viewer to orient the room. Additionally, I connected the lines at central nodes, when the conversation was shifting across tables. I define conversation as a continuous exchange between different tables. The single lines represent when only two tables talked, most often seen when Dr. Sample asked a question and a student responded. The longest conversation occurred when discussing the topic: What does connected mean to you?. There are some limitations to my observation: 1. I did not account for two people at the same table speaking consecutively 2. I did not track the time in which conversations took place. 3. There is a lot of “noise” because of the number of conversations shown and the size of the paper on which I tracked the conversations.

Regarding Maps and Other Visualizations

In How to Lie With Maps, Mark Monmolier shows us how something we often take for granted, maps, are often designed to purposely persuade us and not to just represent information. Reading through Monmollier’s summary reveals the different ways map data can be construed, and although this deception proves interesting, I personally thought more about data visualization as a whole–and its inherent limitations. Monmollier, for example, discusses how maps must represent either distances or shapes correctly because both cannot be achieved at the same time. The problem stems from trying to represent a 3-dimensional object on a 2-dimensional plane; in the vast majority of cases, loss of information is guaranteed. So, we have to make decisions when mapping data regarding what is important enough to include and what isn’t. This goes, of course, for every attempt to represent data visually, making processes like cartography very interesting. If the point were to be as absolutely accurate as possible, some people probably would not be able to understand what’s going on in the visualization, effectively being shut out. It’s like the oft-quoted difference between OSX and Windows. Make the data too accessible, and parts of it are lost in the simplicity. That’s the trade-off. Mapping data allows us to see the big picture of raw data quickly and clearly without trudging through lines of code, but it misses a lot. So, who decides what data is important and what isn’t? In the case of maps, that’s completely up to the cartographer, who will be hopefully be as truthful as possible; it’s too much of a chore for us to sort through data to make sure it’s all there.

The Issue of Authoritative Maps

In Cartographies of Time, Daniel Rosenberg and Anthony Grafton illustrate how easy visualization of data can facilitate a deeper understanding of its meaning. They take care to introduce and detail multiple different different data recording systems from the last several centuries, explaining the nuances and distinctions among each of them. The evolution of these charts helps illustrate the relative importance of chronology as a field of study. It seems, however, that while these charts are immensely detailed and intricate, today’s charts are considerably less so. A timeline is no longer a revolutionary new method of visualization but more likely a homework assignment for a second grader. These charts have grown simpler over time, resulting in the standard line graph, something that was previously innovative but is now mundane. This lack of detail and intricacy points to an argument that Mark Monmonier makes in his book How to Lie with Maps, that exclusion of data and distortion of reality in a chart is necessary to get the most important points across.

A message that both books present is that simplicity is an important aspect of data visualization. Clarity is key. Unfortunately, the act of simplifying allows for the possibility of manipulation, which Monmonier details in his accounts of political propaganda maps. Monmonier alludes to the point that simplification of maps is dangerous because people trust them. Maps are often awarded more authority than they deserve. Take, for example, the following map:

This map means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and is a frequent source of international tensions. The 9 dashed line (China’s claimed territory in the South China Sea, in red) was originally published in 1947 by the Koumintang, not the Chinese Communist Party. In 1949 when the Koumintang fled to Taiwan and the CCP founded the People’s Republic of China, the CCP conveniently adopted this map as their own despite it having been created by the Koumintang, who also maintain claims to the area. The CCP continues to insist upon their right to claim the entire South China Sea to this day, despite the fact that this violates mutually agreed upon international law. Some might find this map to be completely legitimate while others find it outrageous. It stands as an example of how lines drawn on a picture of the earth can represent something so incredibly significant as national sovereignty, and how oversimplification of maps can have potentially dangerous ramifications, especially when those maps carry authority.

Ill Effects of College Scattergrams

When looking at a map, Mark Monmonier encourages users to be critical of the subjective influences that have shaped it, emphasizing the undue respect maps receive as compared to other data visualizations. Specifically, Monmonier states that “maps, like numbers, are often arcane images accorded undue respect and credibility,” reflecting his frustration with individuals’ lack of skepticism (Monmonier 3). Well, Monmonier may have been disappointed with my habit of obsessing over college scattergrams during my junior and senior years of high school.

For those who do not know, college scattergrams “are collected data points graphed to show the GPA and test scores of applicants to the college, indicating their accepted pool of students in a visual form” (McNamara). To be honest, I used to scour through these scattergrams for hours, switching from college to college on sites like Cappex , ultimately affecting my decision to apply to certain schools based on the probability that I would be accepted. I fell prey to those who designed these scattergrams, who stripped me of my identity beyond my GPA and test scores. Similarly, scattergrams do not capture the importance of other factors that determine college acceptance, such as extracurriculars, legacy status, college essay, teacher recommendations, etc.. Monmonier would also criticize how rejections are seen as red dots, while acceptances are seen as green, which “mislead the map viewer” into thinking they are an ‘other’ or not worthy enough to be a part of the green dots (Monmonier 3). Therefore, this “visual reduction” of a student negatively impacts their self worth by making it seem as though test scores and GPA are the most prized attributes colleges focus on (Manovich 38). In analyzing data visualizations, we should be mindful of how they only offer a limited and biased view of the bigger picture.

Additional Sources Used:

https://www.cappex.com/page/collegeCenter/scattergramStandAlone.jsp;jsessionid=EC6AE4ABF835738BEA2A1BC9B2F08D94.tomcat-main01?id=198385&collegeID=198385&collegeName=Davidson%20College&isForProfitCollege=false

http://threeforfreecollege.com/2013/09/20/the-truth-about-gpa-test-scores-and-scattergrams/

In Case You Ever Wondered Why Cartographers Don’t Go To Davidson

Mark Monmonier’s article “How to Lie with Maps” draws a lot of parallels with the Lev Manovich article that we read in class last week, highlighting the fact that data in and of itself is nowhere near as important as the human ability to analyze and interpret data. Maps are unable to perfectly represent the region that they are showing, because the cartographer is forced to superimpose a 3-d world onto a 2-d sheet of paper. This goes hand in hand with some of the problems that we have when we obtain data, because it may have been filtered in a certain way that we are not aware of, which could completely change the results of the analysis.

The example that Monmonier uses with maps is that map users usually trust the benevolence of the mapmakers , which may or not be misplaced. Because cartographers are not licensed, just about anyone can make a map, which means that they might not always be accurate. If someone is aware of this, they might look at the map with a more critical perspective, compare it to the world around them, and then note some of the mistakes that may be present in the map. However, if an individual is unaware of this, they may assume the map is correct, and any problems they experience while using the map must be due to their own personal mistakes. The individual who views the map with a more critical eye will eventually be the one who walks away with a better understanding of how the map he is holding relates to his surroundings. Likewise, in our data analysis, we should be sure to investigate all of the assumptions that the data set uses, as well as other relevant background information in order to make our analysis of the data set be thorough, which will eventually allow us to make the most accurate analysis possible.

Image URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Turkish_Van_Cat.jpg Continue reading In Case You Ever Wondered Why Cartographers Don’t Go To Davidson

Sports Visualization: Is it Useful?

A common method that coaches tell their players in basketball is to visualize their shot going into the hoop before the action takes place. This is a trick that can help a shooter’s confidence. But are their other ways that sports data can be “visualized” for human use?

This week’s reading by Lev Manovich analyzed the usefulness of data visualization. Manovich provides a rough definition of infovis “as a mapping between discrete data and a visual representation.” The question that arises out of this definition is how accurately does a visual embody the raw data? The answer varies. Manovich mentions data reduction as well as the use of special variables as two main characteristics of infovis. These methods effectively smooth the data in order to represent key aspects to the viewers.

Although useful, I think that these two characteristics of visual analysis can have a tendency to digress from a dataset’s overall meaning. They do offer the viewer an opportunity to make sense of the datapoints, but by omitting aspects, the individualized data could lead to different results. For example, a graph can show a player’s field goal percentage in several games, but the analysis will leave out variables such as whether the shot was contested, minutes played, and the location of the shot.

A new system of NBA tracking has been implemented that tracks the movement of players 25 times per second. This new form of data allows for far more advanced statistics concerning touches, rebound opportunities, drives, and catch and shoots. The system also allows viewers to see video as well as movement animations to form a more complete level of analysis. Manovich would characterize this type of data as “direct visualization.” In this fashion, the NBA tracking system uses actual images and video to make a new depiction of the data. Will this new way of visualization change the way players and coaches think about stats? No way to tell now, but I encourage you to check out the site.

Looking for a trade off

I’ve always understood our democratic system of governance as a trade off. For example, we pay taxes to the government but in exchange we expect protection from external threats. This perspective is how I attempt to validate the NSA’s snooping habits. Tuesday’s in-class questions/fishbowl exercise had me wondering what such a trade off would look like in this current situation. Maybe its because my emails, facebook posts and tweets are so mundane and boring that I really don’t care if the government sees them, but if I choose to accept that I’m possibly being surveilled then I absolutely expect something in return. I expect to feel completely safe wherever I go, be it through airports or Times Square, and anything less than a guarantee of my safety is unacceptable. I think this would possibly be the only thing worth an invasion of my privacy because its hard to object to the goal of national security.

Even following this logic, sometimes I’m still trying to convince myself that I could live with this deal. In class on Tuesday, Richard raised the point about third party contractors having access to people’s data and using that privilege to creep on their exes. This bothers me more than the NSA simply collecting a database of my phone calls or texts or tweets or whatever, and makes me reconsider my logic. I would like to assume that I could trust the government to prevent this, but I’m not sure that I can make that assumption. This abuse of privilege worries me more than the actual collection of my data.

As a final point, after reading The Guardian article and watching so many talking heads passionately discuss this issue, all I could think about was how lucky I am to be a citizen of a country where this discussion is possible. So many people have completely different opinions about the extent of the government’s reach, but others aren’t lucky enough to have even that option. I spent my semester abroad in Shanghai, and had a similar situation happened in China nobody would be talking about reining in the government’s snooping programs or establishing new oversight because they don’t have power to affect change in their government. Consent of the governed is not a reality in China. If the PLA was conducting the same kinds of data collection and analysis, which they likely are, the Chinese would have no way of protesting it. In my opinion, not being able to act on the knowledge of governmental spying would be a worse scenario than the one we find ourselves in today.

Why Does Privacy Matter?

In “Developing an Opinion on Edward Snowden’s Leaks”, the author describes some of the negative consequences of privacy violations. I think he hits three important points, but I want to highlight some of my thoughts on the posted Ted Talk by Glenn Greenwald.

Throughout the presentation, Greenwald attempts to legitimize the importance of privacy in our lives. He says that humans will inherently act differently when they know they are being watched and that people everywhere will refuse to give up private information even when they have nothing to hide. I completely agree with this statement, but I think a problem arises when humans are under undetected surveillance. Does their behavior actually change without them knowing? And does surveillance make human nature inherently bad or unnatural and which is worse?

Greenwald also makes reference to the social characteristics of humans. People interact with others everyday and peoples’ actions are often influenced by others around them. Does the fact that our behavior is molded by our environment in some way similar to the change in behavior brought about by a privacy breach?

Lastly, people do have the option to fight back against privacy breaches by limiting their internet use or using private search engines (see link below), but many people do not. Does this mean that they are not worried about their privacy or just too lazy to do something about it?

Overall, I think we are in an ever-changing battle with technology. In order to gain the benefits of today’s connected world, people must display their “private” information for others to see. Snowden’s file breach has made people realize the consequences of surveillance, but whether people will actually change their actions is a different question entirely.

Time Magazine Article “11 Simple Ways to Protect Your Privacy”

http://techland.time.com/2013/07/24/11-simple-ways-to-protect-your-privacy/

Data Collection Group 5

Tuesday:

People with beverages 7

People wearing t-shirts 5

People wearing blue to class 10

People wearing hat in class 4

Times written on the white board 5

People wearing glasses 3

People wearing stripes 2

Times we had group discussions with our table 1

Thursday:

People with beverages in class: 11

People wearing only t-shirts in the class 5

People wearing something blue to class 7

People wearing hat in class 2

Times written on the white board 2

People wearing glasses 5

People wearing stripes 0

Times we had group discussions with our table 2

Numbers of times students spoke up in class 26