MATHIEU YUILL VOTED DAD OF THE YEAR 17 YEARS IN A ROW
And I have the mugs to prove it.
After the 15th consecutive year I had this honour bestowed on me unanimously by the judging panel, I made the decision that I would wait until I hit the 20 years or maybe even when I eclipsed the quarter century mark that I would start to speak publicly about it. Perhaps add it to my LinkedIn, maybe hire a publicist to get some ink in the papers or ideally, deliver a TED talk.
Honestly, I am a bit surprised they haven’t erected a statue of me outside Baby Gaps to inspire other fathers as they shop for tiny khakis and classic white button up shirts for their kids. “Look, honey,” they would say to their partner as they point at the bronzed emulation of me coaching Little League. “That’s the guy’s MasterClass I took while you were in labour.”
In a world where even though we know social media is a manufactured fiction of our best lives, people still have feelings of inferiority[1] after browsing feeds, the above parody could just as easily be believed by someone about themselves.
I do have mugs … and cards and potentially a shirt and hat declaring me all sorts of “dad of …” honours including I believe “Greatest dad of all time.” But the panel of judges includes only my children and while it’s important to note the fact that I control their allowances and bedtimes may only be correlation to their decision to bestow upon me these titles, the argument could be made there is strong causation.
And here’s the rub: we’re a headline driven society now. We don’t read column inches, we barely give a story on a webpage one scroll if it doesn’t promise us the chance to participate in a quiz or poll. So my headline is true and I can confidently declare myself the greatest dad to ever walk the face of the earth or I can hope you are baited into clicking and only then do you get the whole story.
Okay, no I’d like permission to introduce an M. Night Shyamalan twist to this post.
These cherry picked and partial-story statistics aren’t always a bad thing.
I teach a class at a local college, Business Culture & Collaborative Practices. It’s all about understanding how to recognize workplace culture, how you can inform the culture and how to accomplish goals in group situations. The final assignment is to create a presentation for people who plan conferences, pitching a particular city as the next place they should host their conference. Throughout the assignment the students become quite familiar with the cities they are researching. They know the seasonal temperatures and climate, what other events are happening, what capacity hotels and conference facilities have, crime rates, access to public transportation and more.
Most often, the students don’t really feel they have done a great job. I think it’s because the students in my class don’t aspire to be helping conference planners and it feels a bit unfamiliar to them. But here’s how I encourage them:
I ask them if they are proud of their presentation and if they truly appreciate what they have accomplished. They usually give a Luke warm reaction. I then ask them “How many people in Canada do you think have this amount of knowledge on conference planning in your city? Do you think 3.5 million people do? Okay about about 350,000 people? No, 35,000 people? Maybe 3,500? Could it be as few as 350 people?”
They usually agree it’s somewhere around 350 and 3,500 people. I then explain that there are 35 million people in Canada. So if they are one of 3,500 people that makes them in the top .001% of people with expertise in this area. This makes them really happy and I believe helps them appreciate what great work they have done and can do into the future.
So sure, statistics in a headline doesn’t tell the whole story, but when it serves as a means to an end, is it so bad?
Questions to ask myself:
- Is it actually so bad? Am I perpetrating an ethically ambiguous path?
- Clarity cures frustration – should we standardize how statistics are reported?
[1] “How Fake Social Media Lives Can Leave You Feeling Inferior: Valiant Living Men’s Treatment Center in Colorado.” How Fake Social Media Lives Can Leave You Feeling Inferior | Valiant Living Men’s Treatment Center in Colorado, https://www.valiantliving.com/blog/how-fake-social-media-lives-can-leave-you-feeling-inferior.
About the Author
Mathieu Yuill
While raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens may be a few of Julia Andrews' favourite things, here are a few of mine: Talking to strangers, Learning about what you do for fun, Conversation over coffee. I own a marketing and communications company in Toronto, Canada called Leading With Nice. There are a lot of names I could have given the company but a trusted friend encouraged me to name it that because I really value the humanness in us all. Bah - this is starting to sound like a horrible LinkedIn post. So whatever, let's have coffee. I'd love to hear about what you do for fun!6 responses to “MATHIEU YUILL VOTED DAD OF THE YEAR 17 YEARS IN A ROW”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting questions you ask!
I’ve commented on other’s blogs about my frustration with churches falsely inflating membership numbers or viewership numbers if online to stroke their egos. You made me pause and think about this with your question, “Is it actually so bad? Am I perpetrating an ethically ambiguous path?” because, it *does* serve a means to an end. I want to believe those reporting the inflated numbers are doing so to build morale, to say, “Look! Even after the pandemic, we’re not shrinking into irrelevancy! We are still here!” In the case of online viewership I wonder if the inflated numbers are a way of saying, “We’re even doing a new thing and people are responding in positive ways!”
On the flip side, if a leader/pastor was to say, “Oh, man, we are really sucking wind right now. Our numbers are dismal. We’re half of what we were pre-pandemic. I’m not sure we’ll make it,” who would want to be part of that sinking ship? People want to be part of something that is growing and making a difference in the world.
Thanks for making me wonder about this.
Also, just FYI: my son gave my husband a plaque that says, “Father of the Year.” However he crossed added to it with a Sharpie to make it read, “Father of the Year Runner-Up.” I’m guessing he is FOTYRU because you won the first place award.
Mathieu, I appreciate how you accomplished two things at once — you highlighted the absurdity of how people put too much emphasis on statistically (in)significant data and headlines drawn from biased or small sample sizes….AND….you displayed the best practice of being truly transparent about your context. You showed that the research findings might NOT be representative of the entire population. Plus, you marvelously brought attention to the problem of the benefactor and the power dynamic involved in research: Sometimes, the research participants and their livelihood are dependent on the benefactor who controls the narrative! Loved your post. By the way, you asked the question: Should we standardize how research statistics are reported? In your world, are you aware of anyone trying to do this? And if they did, what might that yield?
If I’ve understood your example, it’s not problematic the way many of Chivers’ examples are. As I see it, the problem is when statistics are used to mislead. I see your usage as bringing clarity (i.e. truth), not at all an “ethically ambiguous path.”
What is more tricky to sort out is the parent of the year award. That depends on many factors, as you mentioned, who distributes the allowance money and who makes the kids’ favorite dinners. The jury is still out…
“Father of The Year”…hmmm! Can you share with me the sampling size used to support this claim? ; )
I really enjoyed reading your post. I think that the danger lies in the intention. There is potential to represent numbers/statistics to do harm. I think cherry-picking is a real slippery slope.
Hey Mathieu! After reading your post I did some fact checking via, U.S. News & World Report, ESPN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Jason Clark LLC, and GQ Magazine. It’s true, you have been Father of the year for 17 consecutive years!!! Congratulations Sir Mathieu.
On a lighter note, I love your question, “Am I perpetrating an ethically ambiguous path?” WOW! As I move forward in life, it will be important to ask myself this question. This question encourages a person to be open minded and transparent. Thank you so much, Father of the Year! 😊
Congrats! 17 years!!! I chuckled at this post. You and my husband could be besties in the realm of sarcasm.
However, you masterfully drew me in to see how sensationalism and the need for validation drive us to gullible acceptance of numbers on social media. Then you reversed the scenerio and stated the case for charting an ethically ambigous path. This has given me food for thought. We hear so much in leadership regarding the need for a high sense of urgency in order for change to occur. I believe this is where it can become a slippery slope to inflate numbers to create buy in for needed change. I would then ask, if the numbers need to be inflated, then is the change strategically necessary?