I don’t think it was designed to imply that. None of the language appears to steer the viewer to a specific conclusion, letting the viewer interpret it for themselves.
That being said, I would agree that the data itself represents both access to mental health care and culture (specifically, if that culture has a stigma against it).
I think some of the larger countries are not really useful in the dataset though. I’m curious how say, California and say, Alabama, would look in the dataset.
Are you suggesting that “Antidepressant Consumption” just accomplishes the goal of implying people are more depressed accidentally, then? It’s very effective, even if it tries to hide behind language.
I don’t think it was designed to imply that. None of the language appears to steer the viewer to a specific conclusion, letting the viewer interpret it for themselves.
That being said, I would agree that the data itself represents both access to mental health care and culture (specifically, if that culture has a stigma against it).
I think some of the larger countries are not really useful in the dataset though. I’m curious how say, California and say, Alabama, would look in the dataset.
Considering that 100+ is red, most is orange, low is yellow, it looks like “look these are the bad countries with depressed people”.
Are you suggesting that “Antidepressant Consumption” just accomplishes the goal of implying people are more depressed accidentally, then? It’s very effective, even if it tries to hide behind language.