A “Purpose Driven Life” Children driven for the wrong purpose?

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidhelp.html

Rick Warren’s 2002 spiritual guidance book title “The purpose driven life” speaks to the somatic contagion of what it means to ‘purposely’ direct behavior and your life toward meaningful goals. In this case spiritually; but not semantically off from the 1975 ad campaign for Cylert directed at medicating children with “minimal brain dysfunction” a.k.a hyperactive in the aims of directing these children to maintaining more purposeful behavior. Realizing now, that Mr. Warren, born in 1954 would have been subjected to the social contagion of what it meant to have purposeful behavior in his youth when add like this were being propagated around the social expectations of children. Maybe the success of his book was partially attached to the somatic contagion of what living purposefully semantically means to our society.

By categorizing purposeful behavior in code for normalcy, this add not only advertises the medication but also a definition of normal to society. It is hard to reject in the era the American Dream was realizing itself how any person would react to the suggestion that they or their children are not living purposefully and that intellect aside it is how you are acting that is making the social difference that will determine success. That is what this add claims. By creating the boundary of normalcy in behavior that need to be medicated in order to succeed to the likes of undirected, hyperactive, and disruptive along with countering it to definitions of the normal behavior of the attentive, well behaved, and organized child; adds like these allowed society to further claim the need for purpose. Just like warren’s book would suggest if you are not able to live your life purposefully then you are in the need of moral adjustment and spiritual overhaul.

The social acceptance of the importance of being normal and successful is now rooted in the American way by adds like these. Schools and the teachers that aid in teaching the social facts of life along with the ABC’s are key pedagogical institutions to normalizing, rewarding normal behavior that not only eases the teaching process but also adheres to socially constructed ways of acting. By being able to medicate these children to merely allow them to socially fit in in order to succeed in school and life we have added to the power of what the word purpose means and how we are supposed to integrate it into our behavior and our understanding of what normal is.

Shakespeare and anti-depression ads

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/jackass.html

I can just hear my high school English teacher groaning at this ad for Cipramil, an anti-depressant that incorporates Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Dream into its ad. The man in the photo has the “head of an ass,” referencing the character of Tom Bottom from the play. “He got lost and fell asleep in the woods. Now he has the head of an ass and the queen of the fairies wants to marry him. The last thing he needs is more complications,” the ad states. Honestly, it took reading this a few times to understand what this was trying to say; probably because I’m too familiar with the Shakespeare play and was trying to figure out why, out of all the characters to pick from, they chose Bottom, who is possibly one of the least depressed and depressing characters from Shakespeare.

My offense at their lack of understanding towards English literature aside, the ad continues on: “Do you dream of an uncomplicated antidepressant? Chances are you're dreaming of Cipramil. It's effective, well tolerated and associated with a low risk of drug interactions. In other words, Cipramil helps to make treating depression or panic disorder less of a performance.” Oy, theater puns. Like Cipramil’s slogan, “Anti-depression not anti-patient,” this drug appeals to the simplicity of this treatment and the belief that it will not cause troubling side effects like other medications can (though reading about it on Wikipedia, it didn’t sound that much safer). The creators of this ad seem to present that curing depression is just s simple as taking a pill, and that all the drama the depressed victim is suffering now will be as gone as instantly as Bottom’s troubles at the end of Midsummer Night’s Dream. Troubling, considering that overcoming depression generally takes more than only medication. It’s interesting to me that the entire ad focuses on depression treatment, until the little blurb where panic disorder is added into the treatment options for Cipramil, as if panic disorder and depression were one and the same. In fact, using the man with the donkey head seems to reference anxiety more than depression, so it’s a bit weird that it’s not more prominently mentioned.

Of course, this ad makes a very basic assumption – that you will, in fact, know that the man with the donkey head refers to a play. This ad seems to be designed for a certain audience – one of a specific educational background, culture, and class. Yet I feel like the idea depression or anxiety has something to do with an ass-headed man could lead to some terrible miscommunications even among its target audience – or increase the stigma mental disorders have by associating a character in the midst of a freakish magical mishap with a depressed patient. Even understanding the reference doesn’t really help make much sense of this ad in my mind. It’s a rather strange strategy for trying to sell medication and makes me wonder how affective it was.

Zeldox = Tolstoy --- uhhhhhh, what?

I took up particular interest with this advertisement. The issue that I have with this advertisement is that the correlation given between the product and Tolstoy was so poorly done that it hurt. They are using the Tolstoy book as a signified to try and create a sort of relationship between his beliefs and the beliefs of their product. Even more interestingly, and immoral in my books, is the use of a quote at the bottom. The actual quote from the book is quite small and used out of context with the ad. Nevertheless, it is used as part of a small paragraph and is given the sense that the whole paragraph was taken directly from his book by putting his name at the bottom versus right after the small quotation. Not only that, but the quote wasn't taken from the book depicted in the image. Advertisers will often play around with signifiers/signifieds (amongst other techniques) in order to give meaning to their product but it was done so obviously and poorly in this example that I can't help but feel it has the opposite effect. The book in the ad is titled Peace in order to represent a desire that most people with Bipolar Disorder may have. Zeldox is hoping people will see this and go, "oh well Tolstoy said this and he was a pretty good guy. If he and this company share similar beliefs I bet their product is pretty darn good." I guess I'm the most upset by the manipulation of the quote in the paragraph under the image because it is really misleading.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

So I would imagine that almost all of us have told a little white lie once in our lives? In some circumstances this is okay, and it usually do not harm anyone. There is a saying; what you don’t know, you are better of not knowing at all. But there are some people that tell more then just little white lies to get their way in life. We can call those people for compulsive liars.

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit - an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship.
Read more at:
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/confronting-a-partner/compulsive-lying/types-of-liars.html

The people that are compulsive liars are not only hard to figure out, but they are hard to be around. What is the truth and when are they actually lying, or is their whole life a lie. What do we do with people like this?
So my question is what makes people lie all the time? Can we blame this on that it is a disease? Should we use science to make a drug we can give to the compulsive liars so they stop lying? That would be easier than putting them in therapy and what not. There wouldn’t be any more liars out there if we had a drug that could solve this problem. Doctors have tested the brain of people who are compulsive liars and of people that are not.
“Pathological liar (compulsive liar) may have a slightly different brain than those people disposed to tell the truth. In the prefrontal cortex of the brain, pathological liars were shown to have 26% more white matter than do people with other psychological disorders who don’t lie. Previously, white matter has been linked to ability to lie. Lower amounts of white matter is typical in the brains of people with autism, who generally cannot lie, suggesting that more white matter disposes one to the increased ability to lie.” Read more at; http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-pathological-lying-treated.htm
Since it has been tested and we almost can say it is a disease, I think we should come up with a drug for it, instead of a naturally treatment. It would be so much easier for the people that are compulsive liars and for the people around them. On my first link there are suggestions on how you could help people that are compulsive liars.

Eat me

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/9poison.html

Paranoia!

What’s the best way to treat a patient who thinks you are lying, tricking, or drugging him? Lie and trick your way into drugging him!

This Stelazine ad suggests doctors “disguise the concentrate in liquids or solid foods.” This is suggested even if one just suspects a drug evader.
Where is the trust here? If part of the treatment is talk therapy, there is an expectation that, of all the suspicious people in the world, this doctor is one who is there for you. He needs to prove that your fears are exaggerated.

But trust goes both ways. Whether the treatment is voluntary or ordered, these doctors must live by a code of ethics. If a patient doesn’t understand his treatment, he can’t appreciate his own role in it. And what about the side effects? The patient has the right to know what side effects may result. The doctors can't expect they will see any that may present. And, I'm no schizophrenic, but if I started experiencing rash, blurred vision, dizziness and extrapyramidal symptoms, I might suspect I am being poisoned too.

Furthermore, what happens when the treatment works? Does the patient think he accomplished this on his own? How do you convince him to continue treatment without telling him he has been on it the whole time?

Finally, what message does this send for the public, especially those close to the patient? If the respected professional can’t grant your loved one the courtesy and respect of the truth, well, it’s okay for you to lie and patronize him as well. And if he is to continue treatment on an outpatient basis, don’t tell him you are giving him drugs! Distract him with a toy while the dog slips his pill into a treat. Good boy.

Atarax, 1970

 

“A problem child or a child with a problem?” That’s the hook that first grabs you in this ad for Atarax from 1970. The quotation is surrounded by snapshots of children, all of whom appear to be under the age of 10. There’s the troublemaker, the bed-wetter, the picky-eater, and the kid with the nervous stomach.

If these are all symptoms of being a child with a problem, I most definitely would have been on Atarax, had I grown up in 1970. My brother, as well. And my best friend. And my brother’s best friend. And the neighborhood kids we played with.  Actually, I believe that every kid under the age of 10 would have been on Atarax!

The problem children who appear in this ad have no real problems, nor are they suffering from any serious disorder, other than the disorder I like to call “being a child”. If kids are making trouble, it’s probably because they’re bored, have an active imagination, or (if you’re me) because an older sibling told them it was a good idea. If a child’s a picky eater, it’s because all kids are picky eaters and their parents most likely gave them a green food. A Bed-wetter? Well, if they’re anything like the child shown in the ad and under the age of 5, then they’re simply still getting the hang of not wetting the bed. Nervous stomach? Perhaps they’re actually sick.

Ads like these convince parents that their healthy, normal children have disorders, simply because they are participating in actions that kids are naturally prone to do. It demonstrates that any nuisance can be seen as a symptom to be fixed. In place of good parenting, one can give a child a pill. With that one swift action, all pestering attributes children naturally grow out of will instead disappear over night. Yet as the ad illustrates, there is no real disorder here. It is instead a pharmaceutical company attempting to fashion a disorder out of everyday child behavior. The only way to “cure” a 6 year old of a 6 year-old’s behavior is to have them turn 7. But the ad desires parents to think otherwise. 

The Mind, The Body, and The Twilight Zone.

Disclaimer: This post technically falls under Blog #4's prompt, with a response to #5 soon to follow...

If you have some time to spare, I suggest investing 20 mins or so of it into this episode of The Twilight Zone, "Number 12 Looks Just Like You".

Here's Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4PVVVe_Qk
(you can find parts 2 and 3 on the channel of the user that posted it if they aren't in the sidebar)

It was initially aired in 1964 and as usual, it is almost spooky how far ahead of it's time it was. We watched this episode in my Dress Society and Culture class, and discussed it in the context of the globalization of beauty and cultural ideals. However, what it made me think about the most was our discussions in 3331 and the Cartesian split. Even as we progressed into our study of tranquilizers the episode and the “glass of instant smile" came to mind.

The issues of beauty discussed here make sense for the time period because, as Carl Elliot wrote in his piece, this was just after things like hair color and cosmetics emerged in the 50's. It was around the time that products had overcome the "authenticity" obstacle and successfully branded themselves as "improvements" rather than disguises.

The main character in the episode is nearing her 18th birthday, a time when people in this society begin to prepare for their "transformation" into a beautiful person. She questions the procedure saying "Is that good? Being like everybody? Isn’t that the same as being nobody?” Throughout the entire episode her concept of individuality of appearance is inseparable from that of identity, self worth and humanity. I think it's interesting that the writers present it in this way, especially when we think about the Cartesian slit. It pokes at the question, how does how we look, change the way we think and feel about "the self".

I side with Descartes on this one. I don’t think simply looking like everyone else would make life not worth living as she so dramatically implies. This example makes the distinction very clear to me. Not having individuality of appearance does not mean you can’t have an identity, or individuality. But the episode does make me wonder, what would it be like to live in a world where there are no physical representations of our differences? I think it is interesting to think of how the body we inhabit can impact our mind directly in ways such as dehydration, but also indirectly through the way we experience it. Our body and physical appearance inevitably impacts the way we are treated by others; how does that shape our thoughts, behavior and ultimately our mind? How would we be different as people if we had grown up in a different shell? If the Twilight Zone is really on target for 2030 here, what would it be like to be surrounded by clones of Tom Cruz, Megan Fox and the Victoria's Secret Angles? I can only guess, maybe something like living in L.A...