Food Deserts and Inequality in Access to Nutrition.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Here's what I'm seeing, flint. This is admittedly just a quick look, not a rigorous mathematical analysis, so you might not see the same trends I do - but to me the blue shades look to be a lot more desert-y.

I think it's best to consider #1 that most of the map is actually purple, and #2 that highly complex patterns like this are going to be very susceptible to confirmation bias. These maps look much too detailed to support a definitive conclusion, without overlaying them directly.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Flint

I think it's best to consider #1 that most of the map is actually purple, and

I disagree. At the county level, every county is either (possibly light) red or (possibly light) blue, it only looks purple from a distance because of the way your brain blends the shades. In relation to my point about the south, the bluer an area is - even if its still reddish-purple across multiple counties or precincts or whatever - the less white it is, on average. It also looks more likely, on average, to be in a food desert, especially controlling for how densely populated the small inner-city deserts are, on the map, to me. I already know it to be a fact that communities of color are more affected by food deserts, and therefore pointing out that I think the map visually shows that is valid, even if you disagree if you can actually see the pattern visually.

Originally Posted by Flint

#2 that highly complex patterns like this are going to be very susceptible to confirmation bias.

Which is why the vast amount of other data showing that things like this overwhelmingly affect communities of color, and that the effect of it is extremely broad but subtle, correlating well to the known correlation between southern vote distribution and race, works up to a fairly solid and statistically testable hypothesis. And, in fact, I'm absolutely certain that i could write a literal essay on it for a stats class if i took one. As it is, I'm simply too lazy to add up all the land area counted as food deserts that effect predominantly PoC vs area that effects PoC, controlling for population density, and keeping in mind the overall population of PoC in America... etc etc

Originally Posted by Flint

These maps look much too detailed to support a definitive conclusion, without overlaying them directly.

the maps alone, no. The overwhelming data from multiple fields and sources that say this is an issue among communities of color, however, can be visually reenforced by the fact that another pattern that highlights regions predominantly of color is the voting distribution in the south, and both can be mapped to show visual patterns, for the spacially-oriented.

[Flint]

Look, your position isn't convincingly supported by the evidence at hand. I'm not arguing the veracity of your position, or how many other factors weigh in to how you formed it. You made a statement specifically about a conclusion that can be reached from these maps, but it can't be reached from these maps. You were reaching, and you over-reached. I tried to inquire politely, but your answers became progressivley more vague. I'm not 'out to get you' on this, I'm just interested in a solid, well-founded defense of a claim which I wasn't personally able to confirm based on the evidence you presented. Now, you're saying it is supported by all this other stuff. That's fine, just don't say it's based on these maps unless you intend to back that claim. Either back it or retract it--these would be the two intellectually honest options you have.

The 'force' of an opinion, alone, is not a good indicator of accuracy. If it was indicated by the evidence, it wouldn't require you to force it.

Originally Posted by Ibby

the maps alone, no. The overwhelming data from multiple fields and sources ...

This is the definition of confirmation bias. You'e projected a conclusion upon the evidence. This is backwards to how science works.