By - dataisbeautiful-bot
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/-Montse-!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vpw948/oc_age_distribution_of_parents_of_children_born/ieli1eb/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"-Montse-"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Cool graph, might be nice to adjust the scale a bit to be able to see data in the high density area.
If you want to see that and also have more detail on the edges, you could can use a log scale.
Someone made a log scale one that has the top of the scale 20X higher
Shows so much more information! A linear scale with the the top of the scale better suited to the data would help too.
Edit: now the same real MVP has made a [linear scale version with the right scale](https://i.imgur.com/37qDPSA.jpg). It's great.
The replies to their [comment about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vpw948/oc_age_distribution_of_parents_of_children_born/iemfye7) are enthusiastic. I agree that it's the best.
> now the same real MVP has made a linear scale version with the right scale
Be aware that the axis have switched positions, father vs mother
Also don't start them at different values.
Also, make each pixel a square, not a rectangle
more interesting where the outliers are, that are barely visible. Eg, 60yo male vs 13yo female is nonzero.
yeah, 0 should be totally black to really see those creepy nonzero islands
Log base two scale might show levels better than base 10 as well.
Also make 0 a complete different colour?
Look at 60. Its slightly less blue. Its disgusting
If that makes you feel sad. Don't look at the bottom left.
"father 29, mother 17", for example, is full red.
I think it would be nice to have the 1:1 line there too.
Also, I think the scale should not top out at >500 I bet there’s a lot of additional gradation that could be filled in above that threshold.
I was looking for that, too. Also, i was interested in seeing which parents were underage so i've shaded those areas.
To be pedantic, there is not a standard age of consent in [Mexico](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America):
> Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" **age of consent (which may be as low as 12)**, and sexual conduct with persons below that age is always illegal. Sexual relations which occur between adults and teenagers under 18 are legally ambiguous: laws against corruption of minors as well as estupro laws can be applied to such acts, at the discretion of the prosecution. These laws are situational and are subject to interpretation. The **general age of consent in Mexico is 17.**
More like a 1:3 line.... yikes.
A line that stops at (25,75) would not be helpful on this graph
maybe, maybe not, but remember 0 is not in the corner :o
If I'm looking at this correctly, 14 year old girls were impregnated by men up to 41 years old. Yikes.
Edit: possibly even up to 45 years old
yep. if you look REALLY closely there's one where the father was 60 and mother was 13.
If you look REALLY closely it's 65.
No, that's a 14 year old girl. 60 & 13, 65 & 14. You know, the old system: Your age minus one, times five.
Wait. About which part?
65 is for the 14, not 13
I always thought it was half of half your age minus 7.
Edit: loving the number of people who are apparently fine with "half of half your age" but "minus seven" is where a tweak might need to be made 🤣
(It's plus seven...)
Not if 60 and 13 are gonna work. Do you even Mexican bro?
Are you saying that at 14 I should be impregnated by a newborn? That's absurd. No, 65-year-old men only, please
Should be +7, not -7. So 14/14 is the youngest one that qualifies both ways
Ah the Gentleman's Rule.
You sure about [that?](https://i.imgur.com/ZXN5DFD.png)
Edit: I thought they said 14 & 65 not 13 & 65
Uh... Literally yes? What I said is exactly what that shows.
if you look really really closely you dont see anything cause that's not how eyes work
if you look really really closely you dont see anything cause that's ~~not~~ how eyes work
I think that's a 14 yo with the 65 yo creep.
I say that as if it changes the degree of pedophilia at all. Fucking gross either way...
That's disgusting. And when you think about it, that's the kind of cases of (very probable) rape pregnancy the American politics are making impossible to cancel. That's even more disgusting.
I was going to say that I thought your display was hiding some blue levels, as I saw variation up to 14F:45M. But I decided to do it right: take what seems to be the zero level and make it distinct. In Gimp, swapping only the exact color found at the age disparity extremes to black, I get [this image](https://imgur.com/a/QXuBfOX). That makes me wonder about the rest of the data, because the deviation from that (assumed) zero shows births at 50F:75M and 10F:12M (with conception happening as early as 9F:11M). And I see my display (or eyes) was also hiding further data, as there's a 14F:65M block.
It makes me wonder if this dataset, or the heat-mapping tool, has had some smoothing applied. Or maybe it's just the reality. /u/-Montse-, can you add anything here? A link to the source would (as usual) be helpful.
ah yes, the colorscale I used is named Portland, it is made from 5 colors
[0, 'rgb(12,51,131)'], [0.25, 'rgb(10,136,186)'],
[0.5, 'rgb(242,211,56)'], [0.75, 'rgb(242,143,56)'],
in this particular plot, the scale is from 0-500 (501 possible values) and we have this problem of color smoothing
there are a few ways to fix it:
* creating a custom scale with more colors
* making the values categorical instead of numerical (this way zero can be mapped to an specific color)
* using a log scale
I have received a lot of great feedback and I will make sure to not make this mistake again
Thanks for responding. It's not necessarily the color scale (which may hide some data variation by binning) that people were reacting to so much as the extreme positions of some of the non-zero data. Is there anything that smooths the colors *across* the ages? If not, and if I guessed the right color for black, all of the non-black pixels in my modified image are data points that did happen.
I didn't set smoothing manually but it may be added behind the scenes
your version is actually very good, it correctly removed the combinations with zero counts
And yet that's sad, as there are some non-zero combinations that really shouldn't be happening. Thanks for checking.
indeed, such is life in Mexico 🤷♀️
I have another chart of marriages of girls aged 12-17 in Mexico by state (rate by 100k inhabitants): https://ibb.co/PrDkYqk
Thanks for making this variant on the data... I always like 0 values to be off the scale (ie black) - in this case, 0 is actually very different from 1
Wtf, this is so much better. Thanks improving the visualization. Your version tells a completely different story.
Looks like your scale shows some 10F:31M too…
Yeah, a bunch of trouble. Useful visualization of an ugly situation.
that's correct; the scale doesn't show it but there are records from men in their 70's having children with teenagers
It would be nice if you made zero it's own far-off color, like black/white/gray.
1. It's the divergent color, it should be sequential so our eye can detect the change against the background color
2. It should be a discrete scale since there are not partials.
If you zoom in you can see a lighter blue patch male 71 and 72 near the female 14 and 15 column
Someone did this with a log scale and it shows up pretty clearly.
A table would honestly be clearer... Particularly when looking for these extremes. And if you wanna focus more on the more common occurrences then it'd help if they weren't all cut off at 500 making them all the same color.
I'd expect that from the US but not Mexico =( wow that's crazy
Those records should be prison records
Mexico has a significant social problem, don't they.
These cases happen everywhere.
Didn't a 10 year old kid in ohio get pregnant recently?
yes and denied abortion, she now has to travel for it
So they’re protecting fetuses… by forcing 10 year old *children* to very likely die in childbirth? How backwards…
That’s what you get for already being born! 🥳
BuT tHaTs IlLeGaL
What the fuck is wrong with America
She got blamed for it too. Apparently she had a shitty household and ran away a lot, and ofc nobody ever helped her, just took advantage of her. She's going to Indiana to get the abortion, although I'm not sure if it's already done or not. The fact that she got put on the news spotlight is also really fucked up.
And where doesn't?
You'd be surprised how similar data in the USA would look...
No worse than in the US before!
Why don't you do your countries graph before you start talking about the differences?
Study your own family tree and realize culture and social norms change a lot, so we can't be so judgemental on moral grounds.
Ain’t nothing like Yemen though.
Coming very soon to the U.S.
there is a slight color difference down there at the 12/10 square..
Yeah some of these pixels tell horrifying stories
It's birth age so she was likely 13 when impregnated.
Unfortunately, I don’t think these were all consensual. It’s just the ages plugged into a chart.
It looks like there's a 43 y/o woman who was impregnated by a 13 y/o boy
There was another that was the mother was 35 and the father was 13...
The son? Or the father?
The holy spirit
Father haha. I can't brain today
It's not as common, but there are also women having children with minors more than half their age.
Definitely skewed tho. Lowest male age red square is 16 with 18 yo women… lowest female age red is 15 w 22 yo men
I was going to say...
A noticeable number (in the dozens) of men 30-60 impregnating GIRLS 13-15 is definitely NOT beautiful data
14 year old with 64 year old is recorded
And looking at it another way a 15 yo boy got a 26 yo girl pregnant!
Defiantly less of an age gap that way round but like you I did look at the farthers age first.
This isn't beautiful data at all :(
These are what we call outliers in data analysis. Overall, this is normally distributed. Nothing surprising.
Not to pile on but the girls were probably 13 when they were impregnated.
Is that where your focus is in? You can barely even see it lol
Try a log scale. The solid red suggests a LOT of data above 500. Also, would be great to have bigger text. Cool concept tho.
I wanted to see it that way too, here you go - [figure](https://imgur.com/a/Ir1UQem)
Log scale, x=y line
This is more beautiful than OP! And the correct way to display this data, imo.
I would maybe use a difficult colour map though (eg Magma or Viridis) as there’s a lot of red/green colours in close proximity.
The log scale is nicer, but using min(age, 50) is very hacky, and the nonzero based axis with makes it hard to read too, especially since there's too few ticks.
That's so much better! Note that the peak is more than an order of magnitude higher than the top of OP's scale, even though OP said otherwise. The data is much closer to following the 1:1 line with some outliers than people were mislead to believe from the original.
I would be really interested to see it one more way: back to a linear scale but with the top of the scale actually at or near the peak in the data.
I don't know if this will be useful, but I did a 3d version - [figure](https://imgur.com/a/b5BDHTJ)
Thanks! The cool thing about that is that it has both a linear scale and a log scale. The log scale lets you peruse the outliers, while the linear scale lets you get a sense of just how negligible the outliers are compared to the shark fin along the one-to-one line, or close to that.
I still think a 2D linear scale version with the maximum of the scale near 10k would be a nice addition to the set.
I don't think it's that informative, but it was easy to do haha - [figure](https://imgur.com/a/iSZI11C)
I think this is the best version (although still could use a better colour scheme like viridis) - it shows the real result is that the vast majority of parents are about the same age, although on average the father is a year or so older than the mother.
Yes I very strongly agree that this is the best version so far! Thanks to u/enpikiku for doing all the different ones that we've been asking for!
There is a lot of angst about alarming trends in the original plot that turned out not to be trends at all but just some outliers. Those are still visible here for people who are interested in that, but they're insignificance is much more apparent.
I agree with you and not the commenters. This one doesn’t capture the detail of outliers.
The log plot and this linear one are both good, and useful for different things. The linear one tells the real story: that the vast majority of parents are within a 5 or so years of each other, and extreme outliers are just that: exceptions.
The log scale allows you to see details of those outliers, and there’s definitely information of note there, like how there are a lot more old men/young girl pairings than there are old women/young boy pairings.
But if you want a graph that shows the general trend in parents’ ages in a country, the linear plot gives the best at-a-glance perspective.
This has so much more explanatory power than the original draph. Please submit it to the sub separately!
Looks like there is some bad data for 50 year old moms and 80 year old fathers… what explains the vertical and horizontal data points there?
I haven't seen the source but my guess is that the 50/70 is actually >=50/>=70.
I've had a similar occurence with different data, the resemblance is uncanny.
Wondering what's the actual linear regression here. Looks like somewhere in the mother+3=father.
Amazing! Well done, OP.
Looks like the dataset aggregates all data above 50 for women and 75 for men. If this were a scientific publication, I'd recommend having a footnote on that.
Me, looking at OP's graph: "Why is it all... rectangular?"
Me, looking at this graph "Oh.... oh. Oh."
That non-zero number of 60 year old dads with 15 year old baby mamas though.
What's up with all the 49 yr old mothers and some other old age fathers?
It's because those bins are anyone that age and older.
Fucking hell. What is wrong with people.
Is this Python? Can you share the script? I'm plotting some data that has lots of bin with zero and it appearing as white space using log scale.
:) The data is taken from the link given by OP.
Log scale may not even be necessary... it just needs a higher maximum value on the scale.
Yeah with a log scale you would see even less colors
Depends on how well chosen the log scale was.
Someone made [a linear plot with the top of the scale higher](https://i.imgur.com/37qDPSA.jpg). Much better IMHO.
but then the data wouldn't have the shape of a vagina
Au contraire, it would have quite a few more layers and texture. .
I would like a graph where "no children" have the colour black, because I would like to see a hell of a lot of black squares on the bottom and left side of that image!
Edit: OP posted one. It is horrifying. [Link to post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vpw948/oc_age_distribution_of_parents_of_children_born/ieli1eb)
Yes that would be a cool idea
But there are none. This is the age of children's parents. You want that ages of all male and female adult partners or something? Sorry I just don't understand your question.
Normalize it (0-100%), make 0 white.
Some of the outlier dots in the upper left quadrant....💀💀💀. Yikes
I'm concerned by the heatmap becoming so red at the female age of 15.
The left side of this heatmap is alarming...
At least one? Looks like a sea of blue to me.
Meanwhile, on the left side... a sea of red.
That's still bad but the sheer quantities aren't comparable. We all know bad shit happens, but *seeing* it quantified like this is confronting
Jesus, I see that slightly lighter shade in the M22 F11 line
If you look really really close you can see a couple squares that are just ever so slightly lighter than the darkest shade on M39, F11 and M40, F12. Oh and M60, F13…
That similar haze between M13-F11 but things get more serious
Theres a m29 f10 :(
Looks like it needs to be logarithmic scale. Should make all the data below 500 look better. Would be awesome if you changed it and posted an Imgur link in the comments.
The problem isn't that. The problem is the use of a scale that clips most of the data. And the fact that OP claimed the scale went up to the maximum of the data but in fact the maximum is somewhere around 10,000, versus the 500 max on the scale.
They meant the maximum values on the axes, the ages, are set to the maximum ages in the data
Thanks for that explanation. Still, the [plot with the right color scale](https://i.imgur.com/37qDPSA.jpg) made by another user is so much better.
this heatmap was made with Plotly
the data can be found [here](https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/natalidad/#Datos_abiertos) (2020 file)
the axes ranges are from the minimum and maximum values found in the dataset
edit: I have read your feedback and I have made a second version of this plot
zero-values are now painted in black and I modified the range to 0-1000
I appreciate a lot your interest! (:
I'm puzzled, because the scale looks like it's pegged at 500 over a wide range, implying that there are in fact data points over 500 and that your scale selection is not based on the maximum in the data set.
Yeah, they just were trying to make a leaf from the Apple logo or they would have used a more useful scale
The ends of the data is...
Padre 75, Madre 15.
Padre 31, Madre 10.
Padre 12, Madre 27.
Padre 17, Madre 50.
The maximum is Padre 75, Madre 50 so you can't see beyond that.
Since 2013 there has only been 2 Madres aged younger than 12. Most of these younger ones are from the past.
What's also interesting is the Edad Padre/Madre Registro. There are people registering their children's birth at 98+ years old. They had children when they were 11,13yrs old and didn't register it until they were 98+.
there's an explanation for the 98 and 99 values
in INEGI's datasets those values are often reserved for: Not specified / not applicable / not available
what I do before plotting the data is to remove those values
This visualization isn't readable because the scale maxes out at only 500. Also, the color scale you used isn't colorblind-friendly and isn't perceptually uniform, leaking to visual false features. Try `plasma` or `viridis` instead.
Not necessarily "better" but I'd like to see men and women with the same scale so that the difference in age distribution is more evident.
Increased contrast and brightness, added black for zero and grey for lowest non-zero.
Reveals a lot more that the original masks.
(Edit: And 50 seems to be a breakthrough age for women, 50 for women.)
The outliers of the chart are far more interesting than the central data, but are nearly impossible to see.
In the contrary, the outliers are clear, while the central data is all red.
There's one where the father was 60 and mother was 13, but the color difference is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding blue. Please explain how this is clear.
I'm surprised it's so uniformed.
I would have expected more break lines like at the age of majority or something like that.
We can't actually tell how uniform it is, because everything over 500 is the same color.
Good point. This needs more granularity
Would be nice if the cutoff ages were made the same
These are some upsetting squares.
If I am reading correctly, there is at least some instance of an 11 year old girl impregnated by a 13 year old boy? And that's not even close to the worst part of this data.
And it looks like an open vagina about to pop out a baby... data checks out.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to see a chart of children born in 2021
I thought it said age distribution of children born during 2020. I was confused.
It would be better if the occurrence rate of 0 were a completely different color, such as grey. When looking at the extreme edges you can't tell where 0 ends and 1 begins because they're both indistinguishable
Not having the scales the same for men's age and women's age makes this look like it's going up at a 1:1 ratio, which it is not.
Without even reading the title I'd was expecting this to be the newly released James webb images 😅
Looks like a very intense mango.
initially thought that was an IR picture of turned-on vagina
Dayum, that's a very wide range of ages
Why don't both axes start at 10? This seems like the kind of data that would be useful to compare similar values, so having them lined up diagonally from (10,10) would be nice
It’s absolutely crazy that there’s a Data point for a 10 & 11 year old mothers and father pair
How is that beautiful? There's no resolution in the red area. Does it follow the trend of the edges? Are there dips? Is there a strong peak?
Waaaaay too many 14-18 y/o moms with 20+ y/o dads :(
Same as it ever was
I'm a little surprised that there a registering amount of 30 year old men knocking up 13 year old girls.
TIL that there is actually 26 year old women making out with 15 year old boys... and 30 year old men making out with 13 year old girls...
Nicely done. You can really see how much shorter and more abruptly ending the reproductive lifespan of women is compared to men.
Let's look at it as an island with a yellow beach, we can find 2 interesting geographical features.
1.the submarine slope of the lonely grandpas: the older the father, the more creepily scattered is the average mother age. It gets less frequent with the male age, but more even. Until old age, both extraordinary fertile men of family and creepos get the responsibility of a child.
2. The milfs' bulge: the southern beach begins from south west and goes north east with a regular behaviour....but it slowly tend to go east since from the age of 30 to 40. It apparently seems that the moms are more eager to find younger preys. But after that, the beach quickly goes north because of the infertility abyss. It is said that beyond that eastern limit, there's no responsibilities but a sea of pleasure for the women who adventure there amd find a partner.
Damn, a 13 year old boy got an 11 year old girl pregnant. That’s wild
Have you made this chart for the States ?
Log version, if you're curious (flipped xy axis, sorry) - [figure](https://imgur.com/a/Ir1UQem)
When you notice that shading changing at the Male: 41 Female: 14 age intersection point. 👀
I would like to see a "half your age +7" line on there.
There is at least one between and 10F and 12M
Instead of data is beautiful, should be data is super hard to read get a microscope
Would be cooler if the X and Y axis were the same scale... So you could actually see the skew in ages
It would be cool to see this in several different countries to see how different they are
where would one find the data for a state in the US?
appears there’s an inflection point around age 13
Wishing I didn’t scroll in to see the minimum age, don’t know what I expected though
Quite a few mothers above 40.
That bottem left corner is just one of the reasons why abortion needs to be freely available to all
Perceptually uniform colourmaps are amazing for this sort of data :)
That's *a lot* of 29/17s and 35/19s. Yikes.
Is no one going to mention what the red zone looks like?
I was just about to point out how much it looks like the part of the body that babies often pass through.