do <\/em>have (1960 and 1968) and just connecting them with a line. \u00a0This gives the impression that any change between these two points was steady, when, in fact, the data may have bounced around a bit.<\/p>\nIt\u2019s a little sloppy and, in this example, it\u2019s entirely\u00a0unnecessary<\/em>. \u00a0Here\u2019s an easy fix: start the chart in 1968, the point when you start having year by year data. \u00a0I assume they wanted to tack on the 1960 data to give the impression of stability prior to the countercultural movements, but they could still make that case with a better graph. \u00a0Technically, moving up the date might make some readers a little suspicious about why they put the cut point there, but they could add a footnote that year by year data was only available starting in 1968.<\/p>\nAnd frankly, I\u2019m suspicious about the cut point now<\/em>. \u00a0Where did that\u00a0solitary\u00a01960 datapoint come from? If data used to be collected every ten years (my guess) why not throw on a few more decades with interpolated data?<\/p>\nThese are all presentational critiques, though some of the commenters at First Things have some good methodological questions like: how do you count joint custody? \u00a0Cohabiting couples fall under \u2018both parents\u2019 right?<\/p>\n
If you like this kind of thought, I\u00a0recommend you follow Flowing Data<\/a>, my favorite data visualization blog.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-u1TQXn8TnSI\/TXj9hPI-gTI\/AAAAAAAABTw\/spQ1nqm9_tE\/s400\/family+facts.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-2716105753597269064?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"