Has a claim in a post ever held you up as false, so you take a closer look and realize the starting and ending spot on the x-axis of the graph is a carefully curated time segment? Take crime reduction, for instance. Most people would say crime is still up. Then the claim comes around that no-no-no, it is, in fact, down thirty (or some dramatic number) percent. A closer peek at the graph shows tracking starting at a peak level of crime following the 2020 riots. This seems like one of many mis-speaks floating around these days. It’s up to the public to be wary of their sources of information and look a bit closer at the graphics.
Other than being misleading, different time increments can convey a message with an undenial punch. A ‘then and now’ approach provides a magnitude which could get lost in averages. Then segmenting the population between two groups in the ‘now’ leverages hope of a future in the making.
Sarah Paine, a war historian and strategy professor at the Naval War College, infers another use of time. (For those interested, I suggest you watch all of her videos.) This one is interesting as she names this time element of a strategy “half-court tennis.”
By imposing tariffs on foreign goods coming into the country, there is a lack of consideration of the ensuing response from other nations. The analysis happens in time segment 1, and by time segment 2, a very different outcome results.
So what are the proper uses of time segments in presenting and evaluating outcomes? Is there a natural cycle that needs to be observed? Or a disclosure of some type? Do all defence strategies need full courts? What about evaluating social indicators like health and education?
Home Economics 