But the general public will just get the wrong idea and make baseless generalisations - as evidenced by comments under this post. All in all, this is bad science communication.
Perhaps, but to be clear, that’s on The Economist, not the researchers or scholarship. Your criticisms are valid to point out, but they aren’t likely to be significant enough to change anything meaningful in the final analysis. As far as the broad conclusions of the paper, I think the visualization works fine.
What you’re asking for in terms of methods that will capture some of the granularity you reference would need to be a separate study. And that study would probably not be a corrective to this paper. Rather, it would serve to “color between the lines” that this study establishes.
Perhaps, but to be clear, that’s on The Economist, not the researchers or scholarship. Your criticisms are valid to point out, but they aren’t likely to be significant enough to change anything meaningful in the final analysis. As far as the broad conclusions of the paper, I think the visualization works fine.
What you’re asking for in terms of methods that will capture some of the granularity you reference would need to be a separate study. And that study would probably not be a corrective to this paper. Rather, it would serve to “color between the lines” that this study establishes.