Interactive "Racial Dot Map"

[socal78]

You gotta give it a minute to load. Remember to click the blue button that says "Add Map Labels" to make it easier to read:

Map =>:http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html

You and I are dots on this map. Zoom in & out to put yourself in context.

"With 308,745,538 coloured dots, this is the incredible interactive map that plots the racial profile of every single person living in the United States of America.
The remarkable resource was created by University of Virginia professor Dustin Cable, using data collected from the 2010 Census.
Cable allocated colours for each race; blue for people who identify themselves as white, green for black people, red for Asian, orange for Hispanic and brown for those those who identify themselves as from another race, Native American, or multiracial."


Article:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...remarkable-divides-reveals.html#ixzz2cjffTlbG

... Pretty interesting especially where you can see clear divides.

 

[Coleman]

Wow! That's very interesting!

 

[changm55]

yeah man... it would be cool if they could superimpose this map over redfin lol

 

[nosuchreality]

It's very interesting but has the scale problem which is similar to the lying with maps statistically fallacy.

When you look at the diagram, you really miss that the tiny little orangey dot where LA county is is the same number of people that cover that entire state of Michigan.  Much the same with NYC.

Still, very interesting how deeply you can drill in and see very clear demarcations on racial boundaries but then continue to drill in and the boundaries blur dramatically.

 

[changm55]

can u explain to me what the lying with maps fallacy is in more detail?  i dont understand... like in this case for the race demographic map ur saying population density being under represented which i understand, but what other types of over/under representation do we have to look out for?

 

[nosuchreality]

can u explain to me what the lying with maps fallacy is in more detail?  i dont understand... like in this case for the race demographic map ur saying population density being under represented which i understand, but what other types of over/under representation do we have to look out for?

It's a population density issue.  Maps are actually intended selectively convey information.  All three of the following are from the same election.  Again, keep in mind the blue LA county in map 2 has more population that the relatively 50/50 split covering the entire state of Michigan.

Maps are from a write up on problems with geographic data sets and a subset of lying with maps book. http://lyzidiamond.com/posts/geographic-data-assumptions/

 

[matchbox]

Very Cool Informational Map.

Some boundaries are very distinct.

In North Irvine- 2 blue squares demarcate the mobile home retirement parks amongst all red.

From this, I can decipher that mobile homes are bad Feng Shui.

 

[changm55]

nosuchreality brings up some pretty good points...

i think another map fallacy is the colors each race is represented... they do not always have similar 'shade/hue' if that makes any sense... the red that represents asians has a brighter hue so it pop a lot more then any of the other colors... so i feel asians are over represented by this map...

i scrolled to a few neighborhoods ive live in where the asian ratio is closer to like 25-30% near westwood, west LA, brentwood, etc... but they show up pretty red in the map which is misleading cause if u just looked at the map, ud think those neighborhoods have a asian majority population, which they are not...

 

[socal78]

But unlike the election map, the interactive map combines colors / races to create a new shade which reflects integration. For ex: Asians (red) + whites (blue) = purple when  you zoom out, rather than it skewing towards red or blue.

 

[nosuchreality]

There is no purple.  That a color inhibition effect of displaying colors against a background near each other.    Very similar to a interference pattern created by shining light through slits.

 

[socal78]

There is no purple.  That a color inhibition effect of displaying colors against a background near each other.    Very similar to a interference pattern created by shining light through slits.

Click on the link called: "What Am I Looking At...?" under the map key. The creator of the map, Dustin Cable, explains the purple and other "Weird Colors" here.:

"Shades of Purple, Teal, and Other Colors

Since dots are smaller than one pixel at most zoom levels, colors are assigned to a pixel depending on the number of colored dots within that pixel. For example, if a pixel contains a number of White (blue dots) and Asian (red dots) residents, the pixel will be colored a particular shade of purple according to the proportion of each within that pixel.

Different shades of purple, teal, and other colors can therefore be a measure of racial integration in a particular area. However, a place that may seem racially integrated at wider zoom levels may obscure racial segregation at the city or neighborhood level."

Dustin explains everything on that webpage (methodology, data sources, dots in weird places, etc). Here is the link for easy reference: http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/Racial-Dot-Map

 

[nosuchreality]

LOL, go play with RGB settings.  Combining counts to get a desired hue isn't straight forward.  Especially since one of his colors isn't a primary.

You also have the Purkinje and Kruithof effects.

The red looks pretty close to a 255-0-0, where as the white (blue) looks like a skyblue: 135, 200, 255.

they will not combine will.  Go herehttp://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_colorhex

A 70/30 asian/white mix by combining RGB values creates a brick red.
A 30/70 asian/white mix creates a vibrant purple

<p style="background-color:rgb(171,140,178)">
Color set by using rgb value 30% asian red 70% white blue
</p>

<p style="background-color:rgb(219,85,77)">
Color set by using rgb value 70% asian red 30% white blue
</p>

 

[changm55]

well i think thats if on the same pixel (or lets say home), there consists of 2 or more races... so theres purple cause they only have one pixel to represent 2 races, so i see the logic in that...

but what i was more refering to was how the brain perceives brighter hues as "more important" (kinda of like why lots of our fortune 500 companies like to use red or dark blue in their logos cause its more eye catching)... so lets say u put one blue pixel next to one red one, ur probably going to see the red one only and not see the blue one... particularly because the blue used in this map has a different hue then the red (its much lighter almost like baby blue)... i think u can overcome this effect if u used a darker blue (sorta like this blue)...

heres an example... 

..    vs  ..

the first one is red vs blue, the second one is red vs orange... u see how in both u cant really tell what the blue/orange is, but for sure u see red (and this is using a much darker blue then the blue in the map already)... so automatically it is unfair for the blue and the orange... u cant just choose pastel colors for some races and use neon for others... if u want to use pastel then all the other races should also be pastel...

but with that said, this map is still pretty darn cool lol

 

[changm55]

yeah nosuchreality... thats exactly what i was trying to say... haha had a hard time explaining >_<

GRAWR table flipped me!!  ???? ? /(.?. \?

argh

 

[test]

Now we know why Northwood is the armpit of Irvine, it's all blue dots!

 

[socal78]

Now we know why Northwood is the armpit of Irvine, it's all blue dots!

Most blue dots would delete this comment from their thread. Not me. God gave me a huge gift - the ability to endlessly suffer The Derps.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0stb5sgCk78[/youtube]