TOW #13: The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

How far is too far with aggressive marketing?

http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2011/01/adhd-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

     How many children in the United States really have ADHD, not just mis-identified chronic laziness? It wouldn't actually matter (after all, it's their life) except that the drugs that treat ADHD are actually dangerous to those who don't have ADHD. In his essay, "The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder," Alan Schwarz asserts that normal impatience in children now leads many parents to justify giving potentially harmful drugs to their non-ADHD children following a suspiciously successful ADHD drug campaign. Alan Schwarz is a New York Times writer known for his focus on injuries (specifically concussions) in sports (particularly football) and his nomination for a Pulitzer prize. The advertisements in the campaigns Schwarz addresses claim that poor grades are a sign of an attention deficit disorder and therefore justify taking powerful stimulants such as Adderall or Focalin– which is, of course, false. And it's not like these pharmaceutical companies that market drugs such as Adderall or Focalin aim to hurt children; in fact, their goal is arguably more sinister: they're in it entirely for the money, meaning they could care less if a non-ADHD child uses an ADHD drug. 

     The primary reason that these companies can "get away" with over-marketing their product is because it's generally agreed upon that there is no definitive way to test for ADHD, meaning there's a lot left to interpretation, or misinterpretation in this case. Schwarz's purpose in writing this essay was to inform the audience, which includes all parents and ADHD/ADD people in the United States, that advertisements for drugs are just like advertisements for anything else; the advertiser just wants you to buy and use their product and they could generally care less whether or not it hurts you. Although Schwarz's message is cynical, it does hold some truth to it. Besides the obvious example, Schwartz means to show the reader how to be a consumer, and an educated one at that. 

     Schwarz uses statistics, anecdotes, and dramatic diction to inform his readers of the dark world of false marketing, particularly in such a serious context of potential drug harm and abuse. His use of statistics is apparent throughout his essay, as is his use of anecdotes. His dramatic diction is especially effective when he dissects, so to speak, how Adderall came to be called Adderall. He writes, "All. For A.D.D. A.D.D. for All. Adderall." I believe, without the slightest hint of a doubt, that Schwarz accomplished his purpose. The primary reason I believe this because, besides his use of rhetorical devices, he addresses the counterargument (that ADHD is an underrated and underdiagnosed disorder) in such a way that makes his argument seem even more legitimate, truly using the opposition's own forces as fuel for his argument. Overall, and interesting, well-written, effective essay. 

TOW #12: "Why love one but eat the other?"

Why Love One But Eat The Other?

An Advertisement by Mercy For Animals

This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners and animal enthusiasts.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/images/whyloveNYCBus.jpg

For many people, being a vegetarian simply isn't an option. For others, it's the only option. In an advertisement by Mercy For Animals, a non-profit organization, vegetarianism is projected as the logical, responsible, and emotionally "fair" option. Mercy For Animals is committed to spreading the idea of making animal-friendly (vegetarian) food choices through their various pro-vegetarian campaigns. In 2011, Mercy For Animals was named one of the most impactful organizations for animal welfare by Philanthropedia. One could argue that the ongoing debate between meat-seeking carnivores and animal-hugging herbivores has never been more intense. Every day, more and more information is surfacing about the controversial treatment of animals that are raised for food. This heart-wrenching advertisement attempts to sway meat-eaters towards the vegetarian path. Mercy For Animal's purpose of making and distributing this advertisement is to cast doubt into the minds of non-vegetarians. This advertisement appeals specifically to pet owners, who might look at this ad and realize that their beloved animals aren't that different from those they eat, likely on a daily basis. Also, the creators of this ad were very careful with which animals they used– dogs are one of the most widely owned pets, and bacon (the pig) is very popular across America– which serves to broaden the audience of their advertisement. Juxtaposition is the primary device that this advertisement employs. Putting a well-loved pet right next to meat makes for a dramatic and effective ad. The large text saying "Why love one but eat the other?" adds to the drama of the ad, but it also reinforces the previously mentioned juxtaposition. It didn't need to say which animal each part of the question referred to, which works excellently off the viewer's previous knowledge. I believe this ad had ever success it could have with respect to formatting and phrasing, but I believe this ad is ineffective because of its content. Upon further thought, I rationalized and reasoned and came to an answer to the question posed: one is domesticated, one is not. After removing the suspense and thinking through the message, the ad loses it's "shine".

TOW #11: "Why Go Out?"

The book Sheila Heti uses in her speech to compare smoking and socialization.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/static/cs/uk/0/minisites/52books/fresh_starts/allen_carrs_easy_way_to_stop_smoking.html

Pajamas. Comfort. Relaxation. All of these things are associated with solitude, not socialization. In her brilliant speech to the audience of Trampoline Hall in New York in 2006, Sheila Heti addresses each audience member's introverted side. Can you actually "quit people" like you can quit smoking? Heti compares these two ideas while addressing the obvious topic of her speech: why go out? Heti is a Canadian writer and editor. At the University of Toronto, she studied art history and philosophy. She currently works for The Believer where she is Interviews Editor. With her audience established as introverts, or at the very least people with an introverted side to them, Heti aims to achieve two different purposes, one explicit, one implicit. She explicitly wants to give the reader an opportunity to ponder why we, namely the audience, do or do not seek out social interaction. Implicitly, Heti wants to make a statement about the human condition. She discusses the idea of how each individual fits into society. In her speech, besides how she actually presented the speech, Heti uses parallel structure, anecdotes, and analogies to share her message on social interaction. Her parallel structure is formed by her methodical approach to, for example, her answers to various self-imposed questions. The anecdote Heti describes is about a friend who advertises a social-skills class as a charades game night. Heti points out flaws and similarities between quitting smoking and quitting people through her recalling of a book she read about how to quit smoking. Of the devices Heti used, I believe she used the analogy most effectively. It struck me as humorous that Heti would compare avoiding social situations as "quitting people" as though people were destructive and addictive and necessary to your health. As Heti makes her claim, the reader realizes that people can be destructive (mean), that people can be addictive (loosing someone?), and that, maybe, people can be unnecessary.  

http://www.sheilaheti.net/whygoout2.html