Talk:Ceorana Department of State Human Development Index

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page should probably just contain comments about the article, not about the actual formula, which should be discused in this thread. Thanks. → Ceo \ squawk 13:22, 6 February 2006 (GMT)

There is an error in the life expectancy index calculation - having a low life expectancy produces a lower (ie, better) score. Also, the article doesn't say whether the average of the three indices is taken to be the CHDI. In case my edits are controversial, I will put it here first. I suggest that the life expectancy index calculation look like this:

(85 - 25)/(life expectancy-25)

I'm playing around with the rest of the formulae... but I suspect that they might all need to be inverted too... --Pantocratoria 13:31, 30 January 2006 (GMT)

The next problem that I note with the life expectancy calculation is that it penalises a good GDP index and education index (both of which will be below 0). I suggest that the first multiplication be turned into a division. I'm not in any position to comment as to the accuracy of the number it produces, but I will say that it seems to make more sense than the previous way, because a good education or good GDP index now increase life expectancy, as opposed to decrease it.

The GDP index also seems to be a backwards division, as does the education index... so that makes all the indices. Note that I still don't really know about the numbers, I am just trying to get it so that it works in the proper way - doing it up in a spreadsheet and putting a few countries side by side exposes that numbers which individually seem reasonable don't work in a comparative system.

Sorry to bitch so much, it's a very helpful article, I'm just playing around with it now with the aim of making a calculator... --Pantocratoria 13:46, 30 January 2006 (GMT)

Sorry to be unclear, I'll adjust the article, but in this index, as in the real HDI, a higher score is better, not a lower one. So your suggestions are valid, except that they'll yield a number on a different scale. → Ceo \ squawk 13:53, 30 January 2006 (GMT)
Uhhh... :) I'm an idiot. For some reason I thought it worked the other way around... *adjusts his spreadsheet back to the original formulae* Hmm... yes, now that I have it the right way around, your formulae are much more satisfactory than my adjustments! Pardon my misunderstanding. I've uploaded an Excel spreadsheet with the formulae, and examples calculated using numbers from NSeconomy. I will however suggest that the GDP per capita should have a slightly higher impact on life expectancy, as well as some sort of impact on the education index calculation, which is at this moment entirely based on publicly funded education only. I suspect that such adjustments would mean that in the examples in my spreadsheet, Knootoss and Pacitalia in particular would perform a good deal better - right now their scores are fairly mediocre. Anyway, the spreadsheet is here. --Pantocratoria 14:13, 30 January 2006 (GMT)
Do have a look at that spreadsheet, if you have Excel or OpenOffice, because I'm curious what I've done wrong so as to produce a poorer CHDI for Ceorana than the one in your article - if I am going to do a calculator, I want to get it right! --Pantocratoria 14:27, 30 January 2006 (GMT)
You're right, my numbers have changed, although I'm not sure how...→ Ceo \ squawk 02:24, 31 January 2006 (GMT)

I'm going to adjust the formula so it is possible to use an RP'd literacy rate, or one from Sunset's calculator, [1]. That will make it more realistic, and account for vast differences in education spending that either cause some nations to have it way too high and others to have it way too low. I'm also going to throw in an IF statement to account for privatised education and healthcare. → Ceo \ squawk 02:24, 31 January 2006 (GMT)

Quite a bit better now, except now it actually overly advantages countries with healthy economies but no public education whatsoever, and doesn't model nations with a combination of public and private education. --Pantocratoria 07:51, 2 February 2006 (GMT)

Here is my latest spreadsheet. The formula is better now, although I still get a minor disparity between Knootoss' number on this page and the number in my spreadsheet, and a major disparity in the case of Pacitalia. Ceorana's rating has improved a couple of fractional points in my spreadsheet but I assume that's just the natural passing of time :). Have a look, play around, and tell me what you think we can do here... the problem seems to me to be that there is no real recognition of a combination of private and public education (Pacitalia's UNHDI would be much higher in my spreadsheet if it didn't have any education spending at all!), and that there is no recognition of private healthcare. I don't think substituting the GDP per capita index for these scores is an answer. I also think that in states where there is obviously private contribution towards healthcare and education, the GDP per capita index needs to be reduced slightly. Sorry I have nothing approach hard figures for any of these suggestions, but do have a look at the spreadsheet and have a play anyway. --Pantocratoria 06:16, 3 February 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, that's odd. Putting 0 for education and healthcare gives me an HDI of 0.987 (using my RPed stats). (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 18:44, 3 February 2006 (GMT)
And putting in my estimates for private-sector education and healthcare spending gives me an HDI of 1.03. So, yeah... I don't know. Then I actually used 61466.21 * population to get the GDP, entered the GDP in the spreadsheet and got an automatic figure of 0.989. It's really odd. But the spreadsheet works, so it's just funny that Pacitalia would be, in this respect, "perfect". (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 18:49, 3 February 2006 (GMT)
Yeah, the spreadsheet works, in that it accurately reflects the formulae, but I think the formulae are still a little off, for health and education anyway. --Pantocratoria 05:22, 4 February 2006 (GMT)
Adjusted. I've included a weighted average with the GDP index in order to reflect stuff.→ Ceo \ squawk 05:33, 4 February 2006 (GMT)

Education formula

I’d use this formula, except that because of CH’s one percent education spending, the education index drops from .991 to .334, causing an overall change in the HDI from .962 (very high) to .597 (reasonable). I know government spending in areas like education is destructive, but it’s not that destructive. :P —Commerce Heights (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2006 (GMT)

The CDOS has changed the index to account for this anomaly. There is no longer an exception for no education spending, simply because we figure if you don't pay for education, you won't have that much of an emphasis on education, even in the private sector. We apologize to those nations who find that this will hurt their HDI, but urge them, if they have a better idea, to please telegram Ceorana with their suggestions. → Ceo \ squawk 02:37, 6 February 2006 (GMT)
Is there some reason why you make the assumption that government spending makes things better? —Commerce Heights (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2006 (GMT)
Yup. In NationStates, you control a government. That government makes decisions. Pro-education decisions generally raise education spending. Also, since I don't have much information to go off of, it's the best I can do. As I said, feel free to make suggestions via telegram. I'm thinking that a discussion of the formulae does not belong here, as NSwiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum. I'll start a forum thread if you like to discuss it. → Ceo \ squawk 04:24, 6 February 2006 (GMT)
Well, you could use the economy rating, and the…uh…economy rating, and…oh, I see your point. :P A formula based solely on the CR/economy/PF ratings might work, under the also-biased-but-a-bit-more-“fair” assumption that education and healthcare spending would be effectively the same regardless of the source of the money. Another approach would be to have some sort of base literacy/life expectancy based on the economy, which could be increased by government spending in those areas above a certain value. But, as you said, the forum is probably a better place to discuss this. —Commerce Heights (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2006 (GMT)

Are we there yet?

I think User:Ceorana has now refined the formula to a very credible looking one which produces very credible results, and I propose that unless anybody else has objections, we now stick with this. Check and play around with the spreadsheet here and let me know if anybody has any objections to me using this version of the formula to create a calculator. If in a week or so, nobody has objected, I'll do one up. --Pantocratoria 05:12, 6 February 2006 (GMT)

End of old comments. → Ceo \ squawk 13:22, 6 February 2006 (GMT)

Official list

In line with Ceo's request in the comment that nations not add themselves to the list with numbers they've calculated for themself but allow the official calculation to be up to him (since it is Ceorana's state department which does the official list), I have reverted Pacitalia's editing of Pacitalia's entry in the list. I would also note that my spreadsheet doesn't reflect the latest version of the formula, so any calculations which use it are not necessarily accurate. If anybody believes their nation's score has been calculated inaccurately, I believe they should TG Ceorana, and respect his request in the comment above the table to not simply go and edit themselves in. --Pantocratoria 07:03, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

I think I should resign or something, cos this is like the fifth thing in a row I have read incorrectly. Haha, sorry, guys. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 07:39, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Update for April 2006

I'm a little ADD sooo... can we update this thing soon? Just not today; assuming Ceo is using NSEconomy as his source for economics information, it looks like Commerce Heights went and made a little April Fool's prank of his very own. the Philosophes 01:42, 2 April 2006 (GMT)

Wanna put me on there?

Hey Ceorana, would you like to put me on one of the lists, so I can place that ranking on my page? I would seriously appreciate that. Thanks. Thanks a bunch, Ceorana. Asgarnieu 02:36, 1 December 2006 (GMT)

I also would like to be put on like Asgarnieu, I would greatly appreciate it. --Southeastasia 13:47, 1 December 2006 (GMT)

In the future, TG me. But I'm going to add you in a minute. Ceoranta 14:21, 1 December 2006 (GMT)