Lab 0 Deliverable A
Respond all following questions in your own words replying as a comment.
Due before the next class.
1. What was Hans Rosling’s main message regarding development during the last 200 years?
2. What would you critique of his presentation and why?
3. Was there something that wasn’t clear from his presentation or something you would like to clarify further or did you understand everything that was presented? If something was unclear, what would that be?
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
1. The main message is that, over the past 200 years, countries across the globe have trended towards ‘healthier’ (greater life expectancy) and ‘wealthier’ (monetary worth per capita.) While some countries in what we now call the ‘Global North’ have grown exponentially along these lines, others in the ‘Global South’ have shown a more modest growth. Rosling also dissects the data to show diversity and disparities within countries.
2. I’m not sure I’d classify this as a critique, but I think the implicit message is clear: there is a correlation between the rapid growth of the global north and the stagnation of the global south.
3. I felt that I understood the ideas and methods being conveyed. However, I found myself curious to see an analysis of data collected as of 2020, particularly since life expectancy and average wealth are now declining in the United States.
1. His main message regarding development is that over the last 200 years, the majority of countries have all seen a rise in life expectancy as well as income. There have been bumps along the way over time with wars occuring, economic depressions, and diseases. Later on however, every country bounced back for the most part, some quicker than others.
2. I think his presentation was very informative, however I think that his choice of graphic display could be confusing. The data range he used could also mislead people and make them think that certain countries are closer to each other when in reality they are not.
3. His presentation was explained thoroughly and was generally understandable. He talked about what each color represented, what the size of the circles meant, the directions in which the graphs pointed as well as what the x and y axis represented.
1. Rosling’s primary message was that—with the inclusion of variations in lifespan (in order to indicate health) and income to make his point—200 selected countries increased concurrently regarding lifespan and income over the passage of time. He demonstrates this with a simple statistical model that, as time progressed, people became healthier and wealthier. This includes countries previously under the behest of Western countries, who also previously experienced hardships.
2. What I would critique of his presentation is that his model is too simplistic; it could contain innumerable factors, such as race/ethnicity; smaller areas such as cities, not simply considering the entire country’s current state; more historically-oriented data that would explain the reasons behind the status of, especially, the less privileged countries. What about Haiti, the only nation to have earned its independence from its slaveowners who are now, albeit without slavery, still making them “pay” for their right to freedom (via an exorbitant debt). One must account for the actions of some countries over others in relation to Rosling’s model. Also, Rosling considers the United States to be at the very top of the chart, but he does not account for the stagnant wages citizens earn and have been earning since the 1980s (all while billionaires profit off of their workers’ labor).
3. I understood everything that was presented, but the presentation seemed too simplistic for my taste.
1. Han’s Roslings main message in the videos seems to be the main development society throughout the 200 years that have past. Even though the years have past and some countries may have caught up with some that seem to be leading the race with health and wealth others seem to stuck in that era where the health and income isn’t where most countries seemed to be.
2. The critique i would give on his presentation would be to give more information on the few counties that seems to left back and even those area’s in the in the wealthy part but still falling short.
3. The presentation was short though it would be better if he went into deeper details as to why certain countries or provinces were falling so behind especially those in countries in the rising.
1-Rosling explains that how certain factors such as colonialism, war and natural catastrophees affected the health and wealth of different countries and westerns countries were being able to move towards healthier and wealthier populations because of the industrial revolutions.
2-I do not like the way he referred to underdeveloped countries as the rest compare to the western countries. I think too many countries are struggling to make such a vague statement, additionally there are no gap that is closing when it comes to disparities between western countries and the countries in the global south. Even in a western country there can disparities among the population of that developped country.
3-His statement on how former colonized countries once they gain independence they start to do better; Usually these countries are still being oppressed and suffer from neocolonization, the progress they make will not make a difference really.
1. Rosling’s main message about development during the last 200 years wasn’t really clear to me because it felt like he was just showing his data visually for the audience, rather than try to get a point across. I think his closing statement about all countries being able to make it the healthiest, wealthiest point despite all the disparities was the idea he was trying to point out.
2. His presentation felt rushed so he didn’t get a chance to explain further why some countries were slower than others to catch up to the Western countries or why the Western countries were more successful, etc.
3. His axis for wealth was confusing, the numbers felt too random and spread out. I’d also like to add something about his closing statement. He said it’s very possible for all countries to reach the healthiest and wealthiest point that he created. However, I felt like this was a bit too optimistic and unrealistic because obviously it’d take a lot of effort and accountability from Western countries to take a step back to help these countries out, however we all know that may never happen. I feel like he should’ve address the issues behind the success of the West, before making such a bold statement like that.
1.Rosling’s main message through the depiction of development over the past 200 years was to give us a visual of the data. Statistics in this case help us to understand the past and in a way predict the future. Rosling, at the end of the video, said that he sees an increase in the improvement toward a healthier life of all countries. Data, numerically, help us understand the effects of, for example, technology as stated in the video.
2.He makes his presentation seem very optimistic by discussing about the betterment of life expectancy and health. Although he points out that China as a country is doing better, when looked at individual cities, we see a huge difference in living conditions. In addition, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that life expectancy and health of countries is going to improve from now on while disregarding the fact some countries that were at the bottom of the chart 200 years ago have barely improved even after 200 years.
3. I would’ve liked if he clarified how he came up with the amount of incomes that he put on the chart. Every country uses different currency and $1 can equal to a lot of money or almost nothing depending on the country.
In regards to the development of the last 200 years Han Rosling shows the year of 1810 when all countries were struggling and poor and how over the years the western countries capitalized on other countries like Africa and Asia. Rosling was being optimistic when the colonized countries got their independence and colonized countries were catching up to the western countries. He brought awareness that each country has its poverty and riches.
2. I do not like his conclusion because we are not at peace and I felt like Rosling should have paid attention to the poor country as much as the western country. I get his optimism but he should have shared the message differently.
3. I understood everything about the years and income but I felt like Rosling should have been clear about the population. Do the red big circles represent the biggest population?
1. Roslings main message regarding development of the world during the last 200 years is that its development is highly impacted by major social phenomena, such as colonialism, war, economic depression and health crisis, but also that despites these events in human history globally we are still all progressing toward healthier, longer and better quality lives.
2. I don’t have many critiques about the video but one thing that could have been mentioned is why he didn’t include northern Africa into his data.
3. The presentation was relatively clear, one thing that may have peeked my curiosity is why he broke down the bubbles by locations instead of racially or by gender.
1. Rosling’s main message was that “he showed bubbles of data which represented different countries of different sizes, and different colours were different continents.” Alternatively, he presented bubbles of data that typify various countries of various size, and other continent were shown in their colors. As he deflate the bubbles, he also deflate the audience which predetermined notions about the world. Rosling also included other colors and other shapes and contended that showing data in ways that are significant.
Work Cited:
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-data-five-important-lessons-we-can-learn-from-hans-rosling-72810.
2. I would critique how he uses his bubbles in other colors to present different countries such as Japan, Mexico, Argentina, and more. Also, because each color of the bubbles represent each country and where it should go on the graph.
3. I did understand his presentation. I want to know why he chooses specific colors for specific countries and continents and what was his purpose behind that.
1. Rosling’s main message regarding development during the last 200 years is that countries are moving toward being healthier and wealthier. Although some countries/ provinces may be moving at a higher pace than others, overall most countries are moving up the spectrum.
2. I would critique the spacing. in other words, his presentation made it look like these countries weren’t far behind one another which isn’t the case. I think he should’ve had a more accurate display and description of how wide the gap truly is. There is the misconception that the United States is one of the healthiest countries when its actually not.
3. What was unclear to me was when he pointed out that the bubbles represented averages. I thought that as already implied.