Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
Surely, from a purely scientific point of view, if the late Doctor King is being presented purely as a reference point, it would have made more sense to normalise the data against a nominal scale of respect in MKL equivalents.
Also, your chart would be easier to understand if you provided some comparators. For example, assuming that you have used the proposed MLK respect scale, clearly Doctor King scores 1, by definition, so Rachel (who you have scored 9% vs Dr King's 90%) would have a score of 9/90 = 0.1 MLKs.
Assuming these minuscule levels of respect, and the need to account for the total population of human possibility, one assumes that there is room for DISRESPECT in your scale - such that Joseph Fritzel might have a respectability of -0.5 MLKs, and that Harold Shipman -1.5 MLKs.
In morality terms, I would accord you a score of -0.1 MLKs, but in humour I would score you 0.2 MLKs (positive).
|
I'm sorry for lack of clarity but I was trying to put it into perspective from a businessman, i.e., just to get the point across. And we know that business folk can't understand negative numbers, aside from accountants and even then.
It was more based on my own scale of respect for people, not the mass in general. I give respect sparingly and MLK was the first to come to mind at the higher end of the scale.
I will be sure to adjust my visual aids next time, as I have a better idea of my audience.
