Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Florence Nightingale, Statistical Graphics Pioneer

Posted by kdawson on Sun Nov 30, 2008 09:02 PM
from the graphical-display-of-quantitative-information dept.
Science News has a fascinating look at an under-appreciated corner of the career of Florence Nightingale — as an innovator in the use of statistical graphics to argue for social change. Nightingale returned from the Crimean War a heroine in the eyes of the British citizenry, for the soldiers' lives she had saved. But she came to appreciate that the way to save far more lives was to reform attitudes in the military about sanitation. Under the tutelage of William Farr, who had just invented the field of medical statistics, she compiled overwhelming evidence (in the form of an 830-page report) of the need for change. "As impressive as her statistics were, Nightingale worried that Queen Victoria's eyes would glaze over as she scanned the tables. So Nightingale devised clever ways of presenting the information in charts. Statistics had been presented using graphics only a few times previously, and perhaps never to persuade people of the need for social change."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • oh god (Score:5, Informative)

    by BigBadBus (653823) on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:04PM (#25938857) Homepage
    For Christ's sake, spell her name right.
    • Re:oh god (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shanen (462549) on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:09PM (#25938911) Homepage Journal

      This is /., remember? You're asking far too much to expect the so-called editors to use a spelling checker. Which came first, /. or the toilet?

      (I'm just extra annoyed since I've been a professional technical editor and rewriter for some years. Now after the nameless morons get through playing their moderation games I'll probably be seriously pissed--but that's the primary reaction I ever have to /. these days. I'm convinced that /. is just another interesting idea run into the ground.)

      • Re:oh god (Score:5, Funny)

        by xs650 (741277) on Sunday November 30 2008, @11:01PM (#25939709)
        "(I'm just extra annoyed since I've been a professional technical editor and rewriter for some years. "

        It's only fair that you be extra annoyed. As a technical editor and rewriter for many years you have undoubtedly pissed off many people yourself.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      No kidding.

      I don't know what's up with the fundament haberdashery lately, but this is inexcusable.

      Calling the slashdot editors "editors" is like calling the janitor "sanitary engineer"

      No, wait, I'm being unfair to the janitors. At least they do their jobs.

      --
      BMO

    • The Crime War has been just another boondoggle.
      They should concentrate on defeating the Czars, not appointing them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The sad thing is that it is spelled correctly twice in the quote from the article. An other sad thing is that the misspelling has been on slashdot for over 8hs, and you posted about it within 2 minutes. You would assume that the kdawson would at least check the chatter of the articles a bit and correct the typos since he posted 3 more stories in the hours after this one.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I always consider I'm onto a loser when I begin a sentence with:

        "You'd think that..."

        or

        "You would assume..." ...especially when people are involved.

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:05PM (#25938871)

    So Nightingale devised clever ways of presenting the information in charts.

    So, in other words, she invented PowerPoint.

      • I never understood the name PowerPoint. Why would you name a presentation program "Electrical Outlet"???

        For the same reason we named our planet "Dirt" - self-esteem issues ...

        • by hey! (33014) on Monday December 01 2008, @09:54AM (#25943985) Homepage Journal

          The fault isn't the tool, the fault is education.

          I can hardly count the number of managers I've met who've claimed to be "visual thinkers". Without denying such a thing might exist, I've seldom seen any evidence of outstanding "visual reasoning" from such people.

          For example, I often use diagrams as an adjunct to my reasoning, and find that "visual thinkers" often have strong opinions about the aesthetic aspects of these diagrams. Seldom is the opinion about things in the diagram that carry semantic information: spatial, thematic or topological relationships for example. Furthermore, their aesthetic contributions aren't very aesthetically sophisticated, demonstrating of bad typography choices, cluttered compositions, insensitivity to color complementarity and value.

          I call their claims into doubt because I have known unusual individuals who could be described as visual thinkers. One was an architect who was nearly incomprehensible without a pencil in his hand, but wonderfully eloquent with one. None of these people ever claimed to be "visual thinkers", as if that were a loftier kind of cognition. I suspect that's because it is not how a "visual thinker" would conceive of or express the distinction between themselves and "normal".

          It is my opinion that the popularity of claiming to be a "visual thinker" stems from "visual reasoning" not being part of most people's education. An opinion justified as "visual thinking" is therefore unlikely to meet an informed challenge. Put most "visual thinkers" in front of a panel of artists or architects, and they will be reluctant to claim that label for themselves.

          I happen to think that computer based presentations are very useful communications tools, but you really have to start by having something worth saying.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I was the one that modded it as a troll (and by posting here I am undoing it). It is now modded +5 Funny, and yeah in hindsight it is funny. But at the time I modded it Troll, it was +2 Insightful, which I thought was an abomination. Insightful?

        I was thinking in particular over all of the critisism powerpoint (and other packages) have received for making it so easy to produce manipulative and misleading graphics. Plenty of stuff on Edward Tufte's site, eg on Nasa abusing powerpoint [edwardtufte.com] to mislead managem

  • Better graph (Score:5, Informative)

    by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:10PM (#25938913)
    I searched around for a more readable graph and found one here [uh.edu], at the bottom of the page.
      • Re:Better graph (Score:4, Informative)

        by xaxa (988988) <slashdot.symbiote@eu> on Monday December 01 2008, @05:22AM (#25941605) Homepage

        You could have read the page the post you're replying to links to:
        You and I are shown graphs every day. Some are honest; many are misleading. Nightingale could, for example, have scaled deaths according to the radius, instead of the area, of the segments. That would've strengthened her case. But it would've misled people, since area is what the eye sees.

  • Pie charts or the headsman.
  • by Forrest Kyle (955623) on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:34PM (#25939093) Homepage
    So if it wasn't for Ms. Nightingale, I would never have understood the deleterious effect my cat was having on my homework performance, as it might never have been properly explained. [xkcd.com]
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday November 30 2008, @09:44PM (#25939173)

    If she'd been a man presenting this, she'd have made the equivalent of surgeon general in her career. -_- No joke--Despite the blessing of Queen Victoria herself, she was denied a chairman position that oversaw general health affairs in the military. I doubt there's an academic statistics book currently in circulation that gives her any credit for this. Even this--a zine read by only a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who go to school every year and rely on her innovation. Hell, the entire field of field medicine was in disrepute at that time in history -- who needs medicine? Most nurses spent at least part of their time in the kitchen, which was viewed as more important. She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote. Today, graphical statistics are used in every trained discipline from engineering to medicine to management, but nobody knows this woman's name. They should -- they owe her a lot.

    • by asifyoucare (302582) on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:00PM (#25939277)

      GirlInTraining wrote If she'd been a man presenting this, she'd have made the equivalent of surgeon general in her career.

      Maybe; from the little I know she seemed very capable. But conversely, if she was a man nobody would feel the need to write an article about it.

      • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:08PM (#25939339)

        But conversely, if she was a man nobody would feel the need to write an article about it.

        Of course they would: great people are great people, and their accomplishments stand by themselves. The difference is, if she were a man, her (uh, his) sex wouldn't be worthy of note.

      • Looking up this entry [slashdot.org] in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and her entry [wikipedia.org], it looks like you're right!
      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:21PM (#25939445)

        Maybe; from the little I know she seemed very capable. But conversely, if she was a man nobody would feel the need to write an article about it.

        You're absolutely right, nobody would feel they had to. When a woman is acknowledged it's out of pity or some emotive source. When a man is acknowledged it's because of his (objective) accomplishments. Two hundred years and you've just underscored how very little things have changed. When people no longer have to go out of their way to find and honor the contributions of women, when their names simply added to the book without a second thought -- then we'll have progress.

        Thank you for showing us just how deeply sexism pervades our society, even amongst the most technical and literate of the population (like here, on slashdot).

        • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:26PM (#25939485)

          ... even amongst the most technical and literate of the population (like here, on slashdot).

          Ah ha ... now there's where you went wrong.

            • Except calling Obama "black" is inherently racist.

              His mother is white.

              His father is black.

              Shouldn't that make him "half-black" or "half-white"? How about being "Kenyan-European"? Or does the European parts of his mother's heritage need to be broken out, making him "Kenyan-English-Irish-German"?

              How about him just being "American", and only mention his heritage when it is relevant, like when asked where his parents were born.

    • No offence, but graphical representation and statistics was used from Archimedes days by your so-hated by feminists "men". This is how our brains work.
      And no, Ada Byron wasn't the first programmer.
      Sorry to burst your shiny little bubbles, girl.

      • No offence, but graphical representation and statistics was used from Archimedes days by your so-hated by feminists "men". This is how our brains work.

        Sure, but that's irrelevant. It was her application of those techniques, her recognition of the need, and her perseverance in the face of considerable resistance that are admirable. She was a remarkable individual, whether you agree with girlintraining's estimation or not.

        • I agree, but calling her "First human to use graphical representation of data" (Pioneer) is completely bullshit. The same bullshit as calling Ada Lovelace (Byron) to be the first programmer.
          I'm just sick of feminists claiming positions they do not deserve. Just use your brains to get the titles you need. No corner-cutting, no vagina using, no feminist propaganda, no tricks, just raw thinking power.

          • No corner-cutting, no vagina using, no feminist propaganda, no tricks

            Well. Some would say that's just working from your strengths.

      • So, when you say "our brains" in relation to graphical representation and statistics are you talking about humanity, or are you one of those sexists who mean "mens" brains? I think theres some distinction needed.

        Also saying "no offense" is kind of negated by saying "Sorry to burst your shiny little bubbles, girl". No offense, but "No offense" isn't a Get to Act Like an Ass Free Card.
    • Actually, all statistics books I've read that have a section on history mention her graphs, and Charles Joseph Minard's graph of Napoleons losses in Russia. Most people I've meet and discussed statistics with have heard this before, and I was taught it like the first week of class, so save me the bleeding heart rant about social injustice.

      So she didn't get to a high station because she was a woman in a society thats over 100 years dead, that really sucks for her, but only marginally relevant today.
      • o she didn't get to a high station because she was a woman in a society thats over 100 years dead, that really sucks for her, but only marginally relevant today.

        Today a black President, tomorrow ...

      • by ErkDemon (1202789) on Monday December 01 2008, @08:44AM (#25943079) Homepage
        Yeah, there's a classic little book by Darrell Huff called "How To Lie With Statistics", and it credits FN with being a pioneer in the art of the misleading graph. :)

        FN wanted the Crimean statistics to look as horrifying as possible.

        The little Huff book is excellent, and very well known (and inexpensive!), so I think that most people who've read a bit about statistics probably already know the Florence Nightingale story.

        • If the problems facing this country were government actions killing whole races then it would be relevant today, as it stands the Holocaust is marginally relevant today.

          If slavery existed in this country than abolitionism would be relevant today. It is not.

          The constitution is still relevant today because the issue of the rights and power of the government is still ongoing, the rights of slaves and Jews aren't. Battles fought, won, buried. womans lib is still hanging on.

          I understand history very well, and I stand by my statement. Womans lib has destroyed itself through success. It has become marginalized in todays society because there really isn't any systematic discrimination left for them to strike down. I'm sure you'll disagree with that statement, but I have stopped listening to fringe groups spout about their relevance years ago, be them Marxists, La Rouch, Gold-bugs, neo-cons or feminists. If your so big on womans lib go to Afghanistan where there are still battles to be fought. In the US all thats left is marginalized gripes about textbooks, maternity leave, sexual advertising, and pushing statistically dubious arguments about wage gaps.
            • You are talking about successors, not the parent issues now, Hard Labor for a crime is a far cry ethically from forced labor. Lessons are learned from past events, society moves on, the arguments from those past events are then marginally applicable, and are changed into something new, Thesis vs. anti-thesis creates a new synthesis, leading to new arguments about new issues. The arguments of VHS v. Beta are not applicable today even if the debate of blue ray and HDDVD were similar and drew a lot of lessons from it. Womans Lib has died down because there are not a lot of arguments to be won about equality of the sexes. There is still progress to be made but nothing like what has been made. Nightengale's patriarchal repression IS only marginally relevant seeing as she would be surgeon general in todays society.

              Consider this as my challenge to your statement: Go to work for the next week in female attire appropriate to your work environment and tell me how well that works for you.

              Why would I? I know what will happen and so do you, but it doesn't mean jack about systematic discrimination. The social mores that exist have more to do with Sexual Dimorphism and gender differences that even baboons exhibit. I will guarantee you they are supported just as strongly by women It is not patriarchal repression that makes dumb girls slaves to fashion, but the same force that also makes dumb men slaves to power tools and guns. You can rail against gender differences if you want, I've yet to hear a good argument though.

              Besides I look terrible in Heels :-p

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  It strikes me that we aren't really arguing about the same things. My position is that history has value in lessons learned but the arguments used at the time are not applicable.

                  The Suffragettes argued for the right to vote. Arguing for the right to vote today would be an anachronism at best. Your parent post seemed to be arguing against Gender Discrimination using it's loss to society as an example of why Gender Discrimination was bad, a position that's accepted unquestionably in the US.

                  My position i
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              It was about attacking and marginalizing a minority.

              Uh ... what? I'm not even Jewish and I have to say, that's pretty far off base. I suppose you could call attempted genocide "marginalizing a minority". I suppose. Most of us would call the Holocaust by its proper name: mass murder, murder on a Biblical scale. The black population of the United States has been marginalized for a long time (less so in recent decades, perhaps) but we're not packing them into freight cars and shipping them off to be killed en masse.

              And just by way of comparison, Guantanemo B

    • by Blue Stone (582566) on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:58PM (#25939685) Homepage Journal

      >She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote.

      I don't know about that. She was possibly one of only three important people in the history of medicine that I learned about when I was a child here in the UK. And my impression was that she was somewhat sainted (despite any lack of formal 'establishment' status); regarded as a genuine heroine to be lauded by all.

      (The others were Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur).

    • by Xiroth (917768) on Sunday November 30 2008, @11:36PM (#25939895)

      While I completely agree that she was not given the prestiege due her while she was alive, I think you underestimate her fame in the time since. There have been [wikipedia.org] monuments erected in her honour, museums named after her, and books, television shows, and no fewer than 4 films about her, and I think she could reasonably accurate be described as a household name today (who hasn't at least heard the name?). Most of them concentrate on her contribution to our understanding of sanitation (in which she was truly revolutionary) and nursing, but I do not think that she could reasonably be described as lacking in recognition in the modern era.

  • The Lady Tasting Tea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...by David Salsburg mentioned Florence Nightingale (jeez, who proofreads Slashdot contributions?):

    ...the real Florence Nightingale was a woman with missions. She was also a self-educated statistician.

    One of Nightingale's missions was to force the British army to maintain field hospitals and supply nursing and medical care to soldiers in the field. To support her position, she plowed through piles of data from the army files. In them, she showed how most of the deaths in the Bri

  • Credit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jeheto (1414993) on Sunday November 30 2008, @10:13PM (#25939371)
    Nightingale didn't get the credit she deserved, but I don't think that credit is really what matters here. Yes, she did it, but shouldn't we look at the results rather than the person who caused them? I do not know much about Nightingale, but most people who choose to work in the medical field back then did it out of selflessness. You didn't become a doctor because you wanted glory, you became a doctor because you wanted to help people.
  • Inventor?!?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Secret Rabbit (914973) on Monday December 01 2008, @01:50AM (#25940519) Journal

    From even the summery:

    """
    Statistics had been presented using graphics only a few times previously
    """

    So, she didn't invent them then, now did she. One of the first, fine. One of the ones to popularise its use, fine. But, invent, hardly.

  • by influenza (138942) on Monday December 01 2008, @02:25AM (#25940629)

    History is full of women who's contributions have been forgotten. Another one is Lucy [iww.org] Parsons [wikipedia.org]. Her and her husband were anarchist labour leaders in Chicago where they helped organize the events known as the Haymarket Riots which gave the rest of the world May Day.

    The Chicago police called her "more dangerous than a thousand rioters" and she was a major influence on labor politics until she died in a house fire in 1942 that also consumed most of her many writings.

    In 1905 she wrote this piece for The Liberator, published October 22:

    FAMOUS WOMEN OF HISTORY: Florence Nightingale

    Amid the general consternation, the minister of war wrote a letter to Miss Nightingale, stating that he considered her the only person in Great Britain capable of bringing order out of confusion, and imploring her to organize and direct the reform of the military hospitals; and this letter was crossed by one from Miss Nightingale, volunteering to place her strength and ability at the service of her nation. Good trained nurses were almost unknown quantities in those days; yet, nothing daunted, Florence Nightingale sailed from England with thirty of the best nurses that she could muster within the week from her letter. In required a good deal of tact to overcome the prejudices and jealousies among the physicians and surgeons at the "womanly prominence" and the conciliate the general disapproval of medical and military officials. For these were the days when it was considered that "the proper place for the woman is at home."

    Overcoming professional jealousy, she set herself to the task of cleansing the Augean hospitals containing over 4,000 patients. These barrack hospitals at Scutari, which had been loaned to the British government by the Sultan of Turkey, were 100 feet above the Bosporus. The day before the arrival of the staff of nurses the wounded from Balaclava had been landed; packed in the overcrowded transports, their wounds had not been dressed for five days, and cholera and fever were reaping their fearful harvest. The poor men outside with cold and starvation were faring far better than the sufferers in the tainted wards of the disordered hospitals.

    -------------

    I got this out of "Lucy Parsons: Freedom, Equality and Solidarity" [iww.org].

    Off the top of my head, some other woman who have been mostly forgotten include Elizabeth Gurley Flynn [wikipedia.org] (a co-founder of the ACLU), Ada Lovelace [wikipedia.org] (perhaps earliest programmer), Hedy Lamarr [wikipedia.org] (co-invented spread spectrum wireless communications years before it was technologically practical to implement, but better known for being a babe). How many people here know the name Rosalind Franklin [wikipedia.org]? All of these women and many more excelled in male dominated fields.

  • Dr. John Snow (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcubed (556032) on Monday December 01 2008, @03:34AM (#25941019) Homepage
    Not to take away from Nightingale's achievements, but the most groundbreaking and impactful innovation in graphical representation of disease vectors came from Dr. John Snow, who created a map of SoHo's (London) devastating 1854 cholera outbreak that convincingly made the case that cholera was water born and not the result of miasma. The medical establishment at the time largely dismissed Snow's findings, but the power of the graphical representation convinced the people it needed to in the end and Snow's theories were ultimately vindictated. Unfortunately, Snow didn't live long enough to see his ultimate triumph. Some speculate that his habit of experiementing on himself with ether and chlorophorm may have contributed to his early demise. (Snow was also a pioneering anathesiologist, and even assisted in the birth of Queen Victoria's eight and rather difficult childbirth.) All this is recounted in Steven Johnson's excellent book The Ghost Map (2006). He talks about Nightingale as well, though not about her charts and graphs. Nightingale was, at least through the 1850s a proponent of the eventually discreted miasma theory.
  • well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (arg!)Styopa (232550) on Monday December 01 2008, @08:46AM (#25943103) Journal

    "...an innovator in the use of statistical graphics..."
    Really? I'd have said that she was an innovator in the use of statistical graphics to MISLEAD and 'spin' her data to enhance what she wanted to show (so in that sense, I guess she was in fact ahead of her time, the foremother of all crappy powerpoint presentations).

    Why do I malign such a wonderful woman? Because her presentation is misleading and not so terribly well-presented in terms of either accuracy or simplicity.

    1) while the method of graphing the data is perhaps novel in it's way of advancing over time, it's NOT USEFUL. It's finite - once you've determined the proportion each pie piece is of the circumference, that's it. If your pie pieces are going to each be 30 degrees, you get 12 data points, and that's IT...have a 13th point? Sorry, need to start another roundel (or whatever it's called) subsecting the data in ways that are at least hard to interpret and possibly misleading.
    2) circular (area) presentations of linear data should always make the viewer suspicious, and this is no exception. Circular data emphasizes change in disproportional ways, as recognized and explained perfectly by Tufte. For example if you're showing your information as 'circles of relative size' but your data is implemented as the diameter of those circles, a simple doubling of the diameter actually increases the AREA of the circles (what your eye instinctively recognizes) by FOUR. So if you want to mislead people that a small increase really 'feels' quite a bit larger, circular graphs are the ticket. This is precisely what FN did here. Her goal was to show the HUGE number of 'preventable' deaths, and she did this in two ways: first, she chose the circular-presentation which exaggerates increases by ballooning the area disproportionally to the actual numeric increase. Secondly, she even further stacked the graphs, pushing preventables out to the circumference of the circle, further exaggerating the numbers because they were then stacked ATOP the death data, sneakily increasing the radius (and thus the displayed 'area') even if preventables did NOT increase.

    She obviously had the best of intentions, but let's recognize this 'graph' for what it is: a very clever presentation of highly massaged data to induce an administrator to come to the conclusion desired. It's propaganda, nothing more. Well intentioned, but still propaganda.

    So clearly, she's not simply the mother of the Red Cross, but the ancestor of all modern hatable powerpoint quackery to the present day.

    • She used graphs to make a point about the importance of cleanliness. Why is this on /.? And why was it in Science News? Slow week...

      It's just history, which is often fascinating in its own right, and a rather important part of it at that. You (like most of us) take a lot for granted.

      Florence Nightingale's accomplishments are particularly relevant in the context of modern medical science, when you consider how much of that advancement is a direct result of efforts made to improve field medicine. By presenting her case and the facts in such a way as to persuade the powers-that-were in her time to increase that investment, she did all o

      • Because she was the first nerd who ever used interesting graphs to impress a PHB. Bonus points that the graphs were scientifically valid and useful.

        She matters for the same reason that people still care about 1-2-3 or the 4004.

        She also matters because a lot of people lived who otherwise wouldn't have.

    • ... this, coming from a woman who wholesalely was the greatest single cause of spreading V.D. amongst the troops. True. Look it up.

      Saavik: iic veni... komi. (He's so... human.)

      Spock: liingeth flamii bufith*, Saavik. (Nobody's perfect, Saavik.)