I'm not sure that I would brag about running statistical methods on data before I looked at a plot of the data; especially not multiple ones.
Aside from the tree-murdering, your cow-orkers (nice reference) are doing the right thing, at least initially. You should always eyeball things before going to statistical tests.
Thirty or forty sheets of correlations sounds like too much work however you slice it. If they were grouped in some logical way I agree you could make them palatable with 'plot' or with the magnificent ggplot; the latter is one of the few things that I can happily play with all day...
Not sure of the poster's original context. Just thought I'd air my statistical opinion out of sheer orneriness.
Yeah... but for 8 variables, there are n choose 2 = n(n-1)/2 = 36 covariates. My spidey sense tells me there is one scatter plot per page.
ggplot vs base & lattice in your experience? I have used lattice before but not in a few years, and I use base all the time. Don't have time to muck around with
Plausible. Or it could be 30-40 arbitrary pairings with no variable used twice.
ggplot: came for the Tufte-type aethestic, stayed for the graph grammars. I have a lot more experience with ggplot than base&lattice since I switched so early but wiser heads tell me that they are similar in capability. I just find ggplot easier to work with and look at.
Aside from the tree-murdering, your cow-orkers (nice reference) are doing the right thing, at least initially. You should always eyeball things before going to statistical tests.