devil in the details: dunkin over starbucks?

now, if there's only one thing i learned in college about math--and i do believe there is only one thing i learned in college about math, actually--it's that numbers can be skewed to say preeeeetty much whatever you want. it was a class called Numeracy but instead of something out of Harry Potter, and though we did play with card decks, it was useful. analyzing statistics changed my world view.

something said in the commercial got me thinking: "hard working Americans." [disclosure: i fucking hate coffee. i can't drink it. i hate starbucks coffee and dunkin' donuts coffee. keep them both. so this is a completely impartial standpoint on the Coffee Wars. please hand me an Earl Grey.] in my head i'm already saying: this qualifier is interesting and where can i get the stats on the actual study?

surprisingly, NOT on the related web site, where the hoo-ha is the usual BS about south american beats and slow roasted whateverthefuck. after 5 mins of Googling, i came up with this link, which cites it was an independent double-blind involving "476 adults, each of whom had consumed regular, hot brewed coffee within the past week" in "10 cities."

honestly, if i cared a whole lot, the next questions i'd be asking are: what cities? what demographics? what are their jobs/income levels? what does 'city' mean? it's no secret that starfucks is more expensive and a status symbol. if you're polling New York City CEOs, i think your numbers will be skewed elsewhere. i'm not saying the study is fuxxor--i'm just saying having a study at all may be misleading unless this information is further qualified. i want to know there's an even split between people more likely to drink starbucks as those likely to drink DD.

thin women effect: hating self, loving brands.

according to a study reported on by AdAge, thin women in advertising make women feel poorly about themselves, but good about the brand. viewers will eat less or choose low-calorie options after seeing a thin model, feeling inadequate, but will like whatever product better; yet, when faced with a "normal" sized woman, women are less inclined to purchase the advertised product, but won't monitor their eating. the study was comprised of "a sample of 194 college students aged 18-24."

i feel the need to address this, especially because it's getting attention as a reason for marketers to return to skinny models: they sell product better.

i don't think this is the case. i think for a long time now, women have been living in 'the valley.' no, not like valley girls. i mean this trench from which we try to crawl out of. on one side, expectations and traditions (and don't you dare get me started in a debate by saying 'but they aren't there any more'--bullshit); on the other side, a long way up and out, paved with dogmas and philosophies difficult to navigate, aiming to feel alright in this world and in our bodies.

this shift is still changing.
the valley is getting smaller, but it will take time. this movement is helping more than hurting, if marketers/brands can suck it up a while longer. only in the past decade (being generous) have girls been able to see 'real women' in the media around them. wait for these girls to grow up. then tell me about their confidence, their eating habits, their response to thin models. if the same results hold in 20 years, then i'd consent to maybe there being something in it.

because right now, the valley effect is such that women see skinny women in skinny jeans (for example). that's a goal and aspiration that they were brought up (in many cases) to fulfill, understanding that this is what our Western society views as desirable. they want to be the skinny woman so they can buy the skinny jeans. thus, they get down on themselves, eat less, and do like the brand more--it's a status symbol, a version of self-growth and attainment/contentment.

that is removed for current 18-24 year olds, many of whom grew up on Britney Spears and Spice Girls, when they are shown images like themselves. there is no push to better oneself, no goal to reach, no status attached to something they can readily buy. to put it in perspective: the iPhone. if it was cheap and easy to get, tech geeks wouldn't be all over that shit. the iPhone are the skinny jeans of today's market gurus.

but that desire for the skinny jean will dissipate when it is no longer a status symbol. if the regular jeans are as desirable as the size 00s. to extend the metaphor, when it becomes more about the cut and style of the jeans, rather than the size. this is the shift. don't cut it off from happening. the study also found that seeing regular women was self-affirming, though brand-denying. but i should know better than to ask the industry to consider the end user over the almighty dollar.

[side note.
i'm not even getting into the fact that 194 students is a shitty sample size to be parading this data around on.]

even your cellphone is being stalked.

stalkerrrr!! ...or perhaps, stalkee.

apparently a Northeastern study is tracking cellphones and their locations without letting the users know. 100,000 cellphone users were selected at random from a population of six million for six months. there is no opt-in or opt-out, however they do say all identifying information has been "scrambled." they only want to study human habitual patterns to help with traffic, urban planning, et al.

i believe them...

i just don't believe the folks who're going to capitalize on that concept.

Marc Rotenberg, a founder of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in washington, said the study "raises questions about the protection of privacy in physical spaces, when devices make possible the capture of locational data."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said "your cellphone is not something I would consider a public entity."

...this is why i Just Say No to BrightKite.

full circle, 1 of 2: 2.0 literacy "IRL"

study 1: students say "e-text" isn't writing (CNetNews)

study 2: students use "text speak" in school work (TimesOnline)

funny thing? they're talking about the same study: Pew Internet and American Life Project. so how can, in the same study, it be found that 1) students differentiate between txting and writing, and that differentiation makes them understand the time and place for each, and, 2) that in fact that differentiation means nothing and txting is used within scholarly writing.

"What's at stake here is just the ability to express oneself in more than one register," she said. "As long as children are taught to use the standard spelling and to appreciate the difference between registers, this could even be positive."
(excerpt from Times)

yes yes, i agree. there is no trouble with being "multiliterate"--able to txt-speak and write essays also. the problem here is, why, oh why, would you ever need 'LOL' in your essay? or a smiley face? why would there be a need for this expression in academic writing which a teacher must assess and decipher??

i enjoyed this comment response: "I hope those students who do use abbreviations in their essays receive an unhappy face sticker for their incorrect use of the English language." (Farore, Melbourne, Australia)

hahaha, could you imagine? i'd have been livid to get back a frowny face sticker. what does it MEAN? B-? F? it's almost as ambiguous as "A-/B+" (i hated those with a passion). pick one! oh, the teachers' revenge.

in essence, i think the CNet article about the study got it better; it seems that students believe correct spelling/grammar is vital in the academic sphere as well as central to future success in their careers. however, that doesn't stop the error, every so often, of slipping into "native tongue" (txt speak).
[though i'd still love to know when its usage is called for... "and then atticus finch defended tom robinson at trial, showing the ewells for the liars that they are--LOL!" ?]