They’ve been stuck there for the past few years, right?

The Devil went down to Georgia… saw Marjorie Taylor Greene and realized he already had a representative there and went back home.

This is such a hard question to answer honestly... I don't really know how I'm doing. Physically I feel okay. Mentally/emotionally, I'm scarred, but not unable to live my life. But there is always a chance that my cancer cells went roaming in my body and are taking root again, so I'll never really know if I'm ok.

By fail, you mean what exactly?

Like the bank just closed?

Or like an entire company failed and no longer exists?

I'm trying to figure out what "failure" means here as it's defined on the graph.

As a Maine resident, all we need is to be in the Atlantic time zone

There’s an answer above from Ryokurin!

[removed]

This chart sucks because it implies the pistons are bad

I generally agree, but I think it is a difficult topiy for reddit. I was originally motivated by seeing an article about this study on nottheonion. So I wanted to present an overview of the data as a whole that is hard to construct as "picking data for my agenda" or something along those lines. Reading the (popular) comments in the linked thread (and many similar threads around well-being and poverty) always leave me with the impression that many seem to think that they'd be happy if they just made more money, implying the "reverse" I mentioned before. Unfortunately the paper didn't have a nice overview of the data, just the graph discussing the point they were making - which makes sense for a paper! (Note: For individuals it might be true, not implying that those redditors are wrong per se.)

It also seems that I kinda lost the interpretability because I had some time to play around with the visualization and getting used to what I was looking at... :/ It's hard to notice this when you already know what you are looking at.

Watching the wizards define the middle…

So I think those takeaways are a bit difficult to see in this plot. I can see a very modest increase in wellbeing but it’s hard to know if that increase is even statistically significant. The wide distribution across all incomes is interesting but unsurprising of course in every income bracket there are happy and unhappy people. It’s also hard to accurately compare the income brackets because it looks as though the scale for the violin is the same. Ie we would expect the highest income to be “thin” because it’s the smallest population. Standardizing this would let us better see the distributions in a comparable way. I’m not sure if you even have that information available just a comment generally on the plot because the story is hard to pull out from even a moderate viewing.

It’s really painful to see you have to going through this, hope you get well before you know it

[deleted]

[deleted]

The data lists respondents reported well-being and their income category as well as log of their income and if their income is above $100k, e.g.: 83.59,10.46,35000,0 71.113,12.43,250000,1 69.365,12.07,175000,1

The plot shows the distribution of those responses for well-being in each income category. The width of the violin represents number of responses around that well-being value. The three lines within the violin represent the summary statistics of the Quartiles of the distribution: Q1 (25% of the population), Median(50%) and Q3(75%). While it gives an overview over the whole distribution, it is hard to see much details. That's why I looked into the log regression with summary statistics for myself separately. (Log-regression because the paper noted that the relationship is well known to be log-linear.)

The plot does not directly represent the discussion from the paper and rather summarises the data used in the study. The point mentioned in the paper, flattening of well-being after $100k for the unhappiest high-earners, is a little reflected in the Q1 line, the lowest of the three lines within the violins (although the cutoff is too high, as the paper uses 15% or 20%, but Q1 would be 25%).

I personally think it is interesting to see that for every income category, there is a broad spectrum of well-being. While higher income -> higher well-being seems fairly obvious from the data. The inverse, however, low income => low well-being and high income => high well-being, also seems NOT covered by the data. The spread is too high.

Fellow breast cancer survivor here (five years out from treatment, 3.5 since second reconstruction). The whole, “but wait…there’s more!” really resonated with me. It’s such an unpredictable disease, and like you wrote, it differs incredibly not just by cancer type, but by individual. Over time, the twists do seem to get a little easier. I hope your journey eases soon, and the new normal is a good one.

Edit to add: also super smart to have this to explain to loved ones. I found explaining my diagnosis and treatment to be very emotionally difficult and draining. And then you end up comforting your friends and family because they feel so bad for you. My husband began sharing my news when he realized, which made it a lot easier for me (though tougher of course for him). Fuck cancer

Neither did I! This was really enlightening

Lol, pistons about to bottom out. I’d love to see this graph for just Detroit sports

I love graphs where the time axis really is time.

[removed]

How are you doing now?

The visualization is incredible, I had no idea how much went into treating breast cancer. I always thought it was a mastectomy and a round of chemo.

The feels are so intense with this one. Thank you. TNBC stage 3.

I think they mean that the violinplot plots too far in one direction if there are large outliers. :/

Yes, my mistake. I'm so used to seeing age income. The lines below zero, what do they mean?

This is interesting! Thanks for sharing.