Close Reading

Psychology student here. In the interest of accurate information, I would like to point out some flaws I find with some of the studies in this documentary and question the conclusions reached. I understand that CBC Marketplace are not personality psychologists and therefore cannot be expected to produce the same quality of work as a scientist. However, I think it is worthwhile to think critically about the information in the media that we consume. I am also open to anyone who wants to engage in debating the contents of this documentary.\n\n\nThe following are some notes I took while watching the documentary outlining the individual hypotheses of the studies I think are flawed and descriptions of their respective accompanying errors. \n\n\nThere are three possible research questions, and thereby dependent variables, being answered by the apartment hunting studies.\n1. If there is no discrimination between the white man and the first-nations man, then they should get equal treatment, including quotes and availability, when apartment hunting. \na. Could the gender of the landlord be a confounding variable (perhaps men are more discriminatory than women)? \n \n2. If there is no discrimination between the white man and the first-nations man between Toronto, Montreal, Regina, and Victoria, then they should get equal treatment, including quotes and availability, when apartment hunting. \na. Could total apartments visited be a confounding variable? (4 in Toronto, 3 in Montreal, Regina, and Victoria) \nb. Could the gender of the landlord be a confounding variable (perhaps men are more discriminatory than women)? \nc. They only showed the black man apartment hunting in some of the trials. I am considering him out of the study for consistency purposes. The first-nations man is the only one who got unfair treatment in the footage of apartment hunting. \n \n3. Possible hypothesis: If male landlords/agents are more discriminatory than female landlords/agents, then the white man and the first-nations man will get different treatment at different Canadian apartments in equally diverse cities. \na. Don’t know all the information about the genders of the landlords/agents, not all the footage is shown, but the ones where they get ripped off are male. The others shown are female. The remaining interactions are not shown.\n\n\nThere are also some factors that may have influenced the racial bias survey and, in my estimation, rendered it scientifically unreliable.\n\n\n1. The bias survey and accompanying tests at the CBC attributed the differences between the studies to unconscious racism. What if it was just due to familiarity with certain racial groups over others? \na. The black participants had no bias between European-American and African Americans, supposedly indicating no racism, while the white and first-nations participants did, supposedly indicating racism. Is it possible that another interpretation of this result is that bias is a function of familiarity: that we are comfortable with the majority demographic in the geographical location we live in, as well as our own kind. Therefore, the black guys are less biased against black people due to being both black and living in a white majority demographic? \nb. The participants took the survey knowing the objectives of the researchers was to study racial discrimination. They might have influenced the answers they gave \nc. Whether the participants agreed with identity politics or not was a confounding factor that was not controlled . You can only be racially unbiased biased if you think that racial identity is a means of accurately viewing the world. People who do not believe in the existence of identity politics may answer the questions quite differently, which could be a different reason for the results.\nd. I took the study myself. The words that participants were required to match were a mix of adjectives and nouns. It is known within psychology that nouns have higher levels of imagery. This was not properly controlled and therefore is another confounding variable. \n \nAll the other studies looked fine to me. I welcome any discussion on my observations.

the nikhab is the symbol of oppression for women its the symbol of women slavery,they take advantage of the left by victimising themselves to further push their agenda, if you think its bad now, wait until their population reach's over 50% in your country.then you will see the true nature of islam. people will wish they had listened to the warnings.they are already forcing none muslims out in area's that are majority populated by muslims, these are called no go zones where sharia law is implamented in those area's. I wish you all good luck because we are going to need it if they continue to grow.

The issue is islam, not all muslims. Unfortunately those two often go hand in hand, making it hard to criticizes islam without people thinking you are criticizing all muslims, which isn’ the case. \n\nThe issue with the religion of islam is that it is inherently not peaceful (If you want to discuss why that is more so the case than other religions we can do that). In fact in many situations you will hear Islamic muslins part of a western country use the free speech given to them, under the laws and constitution of that society, in order to impose the suggestion of sharia law. This would mean no more free speech (and far more dire consequences) for others not of islamic belief under sharia law. Sharia law is a set of religious political laws used in the majority of middle eastern Islamic countries and cultures. It is truly a backward and barbaric set of laws, incompatible with democracy and I encourage you to investigate that claim. \n\nSo essentially decreasing islam in any scenario will also decrease the political climate it wants to live in. And not only live in, but given to text in the Koran, effectively dominate. Religious assimilation and toleration is not part of the religion. And in the small case that it is, those religious peoples are second class citizens. \n\nSo you can see how it may sound harsh to say “get rid of islam/muslims” if you are ignorant to the fact of both their possible separation and islam’s eventual political goals. \n\nNot all muslims want sharia law or are as fundamental/radical as others, but that distinction can be hard to make for many people, when a lot of them are silent. All you see are the riots and bombings across the globe by radical islamists, with little or no condemnation by the former. However once again I state, the issue is islam, not all muslims.\n\nIf you think I myself am ignorant of any of this information please attempt to convince me otherwise and I will thoroughly read your argument.

ok listen im not here to cause a fight its just that I think I speak for the majority when I say , if you want the things that you want then there are countries that will take you but we are happy ish with what we have . Go to a muslim country and have some fun.