Both of these were potentially game ending rulings if done right. That is, what came after would not have mattered. There were no “what ifs” had the rulings been changed, like a mid-game ruling where there were lots to still play for and anything might still have happened.
So why can’t they be reversed and the correct results be placed in the record books?
Lululemon is a pretty popular shop these days, I don’t need to tell anybody that. Whether or not you like them, tons of people are shopping lots at Lululemon. Most of them are women, and many of them young, including their young staff. These people are supposed to be sympathetic, social conscious and Internet savvy. Yet, they shop there despite Lululemon having about as despicable a corporate history as any company out there, one that puts what Nike used to be on a level of heaven with saints. Are Lululemon’s shoppers as hypocritical as they are?
Lululemon shoppers are almost like a cult, much like Apple’s shoppers. Lululemon’s are built on yoga and all those ways of inner peace, beauty, wellness relaxation, appreciation and all. Yet, their ways are anything but that. Worse, they know it and flaunt it like it doesn’t matter. So far, it seems not to have, but can this go on?
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) issued a ruling today which censored Dire Straits’ mega-hit song from over 25 years ago, Money for Nothing. The CBSC said the song should either be banned, or suitably edited, for its use of the homophobic word “faggot”, three times. (CBC, Jan 13 2011; CSBC Decision)
(I’d have embedded the actual music video but those *^&*@$ at YouTube have all these copyrights rules now that don’t let them be seen in Canada and other countries).
I understand the principle to censor the song, but completely disagree with the psychology of the action. For the sake of an ideal, the fight against homophobia just took a step backward rather than a step forward.
I’ve got over 250 cartoon pictures made for Facebook profile pics at the bottom, arranged in alphabetical order with names, which include some modern and some old cartoons.
The media is also to blame. I’m not sure whether to call the editors who allowed it on their popular news sources “stupid” for running the story like it’s legitimate news, or “smart but immoral” for putting it out knowing stuff like that sells, even if there’s no substance to it.
An above average high school student could have done a better job on such a project! Soroya basically did a bad high school project, if you ask me.
Think of that as a challenge for you high schoolers out there looking for a good Science Fair or other project to do. It’s a project that should be fun and engaging if you’re a Facebook fan, and there should be at least a few of you out there who qualify. Then social network together to pool results and get a decent sample size… which Soroya never even came close. And fix some flaws critiqued here.
Here are a few tragic fatal flaws of that “study”.
Lack of sample size with just 100 subjects
For a site with 500 million users, all Soroya can show for it is 100 users? I know it was an undergraduate thesis, but people used to have to work for their thesis, you know? Also, in the electronic media for this day and age, you’d think she could get more than 100 people to do some tests! If you were going to target 100, call it a term project and leave it at that! Don’t go screaming you’ve got a study on your hands and seek attention.
Oh, wait. I think that’s narcissism!
Which professor let that be called research anyway??? Soroya did publicly admit the sample size was a weakness to the “study”, but that’s not a weakness. That doesn’t constitute a study in this case. If I did a study of 1, I could say the same thing. Of course, nobody would call it a study due to the sample size of just 1. So at how many do you call a study, and why? With that many users and statistically significant polls of merit needing around 1000 subjects, 100 subjects is still way too few to be enough data to call a study!
Soroya also had the audacity to talk about gender differences on a sample size of 50 or so people! Did she ever take statistics? And who vetted this to allow it???
All subjects were 18-25 years old
Since when did humans outside of 18-25 years old not qualify as “people”? You can’t draw a conclusion for “Facebook users” on this demographic alone. The media did that more than Soroya, but she implied it enough not to title the study “18-25 year old Facebook users” for a subject group. And were the 100 selected even representative of all 18-25 year olds? There must be literature to determine that “average” to compare to the test group narcissism and insecurity profile. Hey, maybe 18-25 year olds at York are just more narcissistic and insecure than the typical group and uses Facebook as a symptom of it!
You can make that call. 🙂
Causality… or lack thereof
So are more active Facebook users narcissistic and/or insecure? Or are narcissistic and/or insecure people use Facebook more actively? Does Soroya know the difference? In case she doesn’t, let me clarify. The first is what the media story and her so-called “study” suggests. So everyone who uses Facebook more actively are narcissistic and insecure. The second means only some of the people who use Facebook more actively are narcissistic and/or insecure, and that you can’t tell if they are by the level of their Facebook activity.
But that doesn’t sell or cause a stir or make anybody care as people could have told you that on their own instinct and be right. I’m not even sure if narcissistic and/or insecure people use Facebook a lot because you’d also have to look at the ones who don’t use Facebook and see what portion they make up, never mind those who don’t use it much.
Soroya’s pretentious “research” can’t prove any causality, but she comments on all kinds of causality.
If I had to bet on any connection between Facebook usage and narcissism and/or insecurity, though, I’d easily bet on the second reason. I’d bet narcissistic and/or insecure people use Facebook more actively, not that more active users are narcisstic.
Carefully constructed self-image???
Beyond the ridiculous conclusions drawn by Soroya on causality, she then dared to speculate on meanings of symptoms of narcissism and insecurity. For example, the more active users had carefully constructed images of themselves, to project their best features and hide their worst, or that their profile is nothing really like them. Um. Does Soroya even know anything about Facebook usage?
The active users are the ones who get caught for affairs, missing work, lying to their friends, or just plainly do other less than appropriate things. They’re the ones Facebook etiquette guides were written for, cause they’re so blind to what their actions says about them to know better!
Reasons for Facebook usage unaccounted for
Does Soroya have any idea if people in this subject use Facebook for the same reasons as other demographics by any division? I mean, seniors tend to flock to Facebook and social media to be better up to date and involved in the lives of their adolescent or older grandchildren. Is that narcissism or insecurity?
Or maybe it’s love and caring. But wait, that doesn’t sell.
Some musicians I know add friends like crazy not because they care, but because they can show potential promoters and labels a nice base of fan support. Is that narcissism or insecurity?
Or maybe it’s just good old fashioned business and public relations. But wait, that doesn’t sell, either.
Final thoughts
There are many more problems with Soroya’s “high school project”. I don’t need to bore you with more as I think I’ve discredited it enough to make it worthless. I’ll just throw in a few commentaries to conclude.
Who knew it was so easy to get 15 minutes of fame these days?
I wonder what Soroya thought of Canadians possibly being among narcissistic and insecure people in the world. We have 47.9% of the population connected, a higher percentage than any nation with over 10 million people. We also have the 4th most users in the world (CTV, June 2, 2010), without anywhere near the 4th largest population in the world! Would she have said most of us use Facebook passively like we are on a lot of things? Sure we didn’t all sign up only to be passive, did we?
High school students reading this, or Parents of them, try the challenge I had for high school students at the beginning. Seriously!
And where did Soroya get accepted into medical school? I won’t fault the school in case she didn’t tell them about this work to get in. For the love of God, Allah and the Buddha, I hope Soroya never be allowed to do research until she learns some more about what research is about! Just stick to areas in Med School one only has to memorize things or use one’s hands or something that doesn’t require research type of critical thinking!
But to end positively, congratulations for raising awareness on the Facebook usage issue, Soroya. I just wouldn’t have used sensationalism in the name of research to get credibility and attention.
By the way, Soroya, how did you fare on your own test?
Good luck in Med School. Just don’t tell the media which one accepted you for your school’s sake!
Digital Citizen 