Right, but that's exactly my point, it likely wouldn't just be one flat color. If you scale it by population density you get a map displaying the average distance between kids and parents compared to the average distance between any two people which I would expect to be 1. non-uniform and 2. more meaningful than raw kid-parent distance. The current map is useful and accurate, but I think the more interesting contributing factors are being drowned out by raw population density. Deciding what factors to control for (ie. pop. density, wealth level, etc.) results in a different meaningful outcome and is very important to consider when making conclusions based on the map. The image's scale is probably too granular to do this analysis but if the raw data is finer-grained I would love to see a density-controlled version.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right, but that’s exactly my point, it likely wouldn’t just be one flat color. If you scale it by population density you get a map displaying the average distance between kids and parents compared to the average distance between any two people which I would expect to be 1. non-uniform...

My point was that I expect exactly the opposite: that the average distance between kids and parents is pretty much exactly proportional to the average distance between any two people.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

This is why we need the map! I'm curious which prediction would be accurate.