I understand the graphic is only illustrative, but it conveys an overconfidence in the relative magnitude of harm, health risk, and effort among the different dietary options. I think the graphic detracts from the piece.
Thanks for the feedback! I agree that any such graphic inevitably risks conveying more confidence than is warranted. At the same time, I felt it was important to visualise the framework, as I think it becomes much less intuitive if left purely abstract. That was a trade-off I consciously made. As I mention in the footnote:
Although the curves could be aggregated into a single curve once relative weights have been assigned to the different objectives, this is deliberately omitted because doing so could inadvertently endorse one particular weighting and imply a level of quantitative precision the model is not intended to convey. Accordingly, each curve should be interpreted on its own scale in the vertical dimension, so their relative heights do not imply any particular weighting between the objectives.
I’m not sure there’s a perfect solution here, but this felt like the best compromise to me.
I understand the graphic is only illustrative, but it conveys an overconfidence in the relative magnitude of harm, health risk, and effort among the different dietary options. I think the graphic detracts from the piece.
Thanks for the feedback! I agree that any such graphic inevitably risks conveying more confidence than is warranted. At the same time, I felt it was important to visualise the framework, as I think it becomes much less intuitive if left purely abstract. That was a trade-off I consciously made. As I mention in the footnote:
I’m not sure there’s a perfect solution here, but this felt like the best compromise to me.