The subject I have chosen to discuss as something that has already "tipped" is the diagnosis of ADHD in children and the subsequent prescribing of drugs to "control" this. This is a controversial subject and I feel very strongly that like so many other "illnesses" or "disorders", this one is overly diagnosed and as a result, many children are floating through their childhoods like zombies.
ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) or ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) are diagnoses often handed out by physicians to children who are overactive or have limited attention span problems. Although I agree that some children may have real physiological and/or psychological issues that cause them to be overly active or not clearly focused, I think they are a small percentage of the children who are on medication today for ADHD.
So, how does this relate to Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"? Well, I think the situation began "tipping" in the late 1990's and has gotten out of control. ADHD gots its official name as a disorder by the NIH in 1980, although hyperactivity in children had been studied since the beginning of the 1900's. Beginning in the late 1990's, the FDA began to approve several drugs to administer to children for this "disorder". Previously, Ritalin had been the main drug used to treat hyperactivity, but from 1996 to 2002, such drugs as Adderal, Concerta, Metadate, Focalin and Strattera emerged.
Advertising was a major "stickiness factor" in helping tip the use of ADHD medication. Magazine and television ads showed how medication could make your hyperactive child docile and more manageable. Parents could now go on with their daily lives and not have to worry about their children being overly active. The children would now be focused on the parents and listen more intently so the parents would only have to tell a child what to do once. This drives me nuts!
I have seen two children very dear to my heart change into mellowed out shells of what they once were. There is a propensity in our society to think that a pill is the cure-all for anything that isn't "quite right" with us. One of the two children I am referring to is my niece, and it is now so much easier for my sister to watch her child grow from afar as she does all she needs to do with her busy life. In case you haven't noticed, I am vehemently against administering medications to children on a long term basis unless they have a life threatening illness. I do not believe my niece or my friend's daughter (who have now been taking medication daily for the last several years) need this medication. They used to be very active, intelligent children, full of energy. They needed attention and were full of life and full of affection. Now they are more subdued, tranquil and obedient. How nice for their mothers. What are they going to be like when they get older? Also, why weren't they allowed to just be children?
The following is an excerpt from a blog on the ADHD Help Center website (www.add-adhd-help-center.com). The situation has definitely tipped:
"Prescriptions for stimulant medications to treat ADHD and Attention Deficit Disorder skyrocketed over the past decade, as have reports of Ritalin abuse. New medications continue to appear to meet the demand. Never in history have there been so many “ADHD� people. Never in history have so many people taken stimulant medications for ADHD and Attention Deficit Disorder.
Yet despite the long history of ADHD and millions of children currently taking ADHD medications, there is still a lack of adequate data on the long-term effects that ADHD treatments have on children. I wonder what the doctors and parents of tomorrow will say about the indiscriminate drugging of our children."
I have been around many children of all ages, although I have none myself. Children need to run, play, exercise, breathe fresh air, and experience life. Parents should be there to help guide them and not domesticate them into trained animals. OK, I may be exaggerating slightly, but this problem tipped in the 1990's and still exists today. It all stems from overactive parents who lead busy lives and selfishly do not put their children first. Many of them are probably on precription drugs that are prescribed for "conditions" they believe they have. How did we survive so many centuries without all of these medications? How will our children ever learn what it feels like to not be medicated if they are doomed to be diagnosed with ADHD and forced to take medication every day of their childhood? Our country is full of hypochondriacs and now it has moved down the line to our children.
I say "stop the madness" and get a healthier family environment movement to tip. Let's change the "The Law of The Few" connectors to include role model parents and children of free expression, rather than the doctors and pharmaceutical companies who are currently helping tip the ADHD epidemic.
Once this epidemic tipped in the 1990's, "The Power of Context" prevailed and parents everywhere began jumping on the bandwagon. As Gladwell states, "human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they think." I'm not sure how we are going to reverse this trend, but I hope it happens soon. Otherwise, our future generations may become medicated robots and become dehumanized! Hopefully this situation will tip in the opposite direction and there will be hope for both today's children and the children of tomorrow!
Several points jump out at me after reading "The Tipping Point". I think Gladwell uses great examples to illustrate his points. The Kitty Genovese story in the first chapter is one I first heard many years ago (in junior high school). It was first relayed to me in a Civics class and the intent of telling the story was to make myself and my classmates more aware of what was going on around us, and to make us want to become more responsible citizens. It was interesting to hear the story again from a different perspective. Gladwell clearly shows the power of context in that people generally expect others to take charge if there are many others who can, while they usually don't think twice about responding if they are the only one who can respond. It was interesting that humans tend to divert responsibility from themselves when someone else can take it on their shoulders. This illustrates the "The Law of the Few" well as only about 20% of the people are responsible for 80% of what happens (according to Gladwell).
As far as the "Stickiness Factor", he used a great example in Sesame Street. We discussed this in class and also mentioned such products of television as "Grammar Rock" and "History Rock". When these shows have a universal appeal to children, knowledge is shared and the information sticks. Advertising slogans and logos are also effective examples of the stickiness factor. Immediately coming to mind are the slogans, "Where's the beef?" and "Just Do It", from Wendy's and Nike, respectively.
One part of the book that got me thinking was the Rule of 150 in Chapter 5. As this applies in my corporate job, it is a definite example of "too many chefs spoiling the broth". With the hierarchal structure of our mother company and our corporate owner, we far exceed the Rule of 150, and as a result, communication and efficiency at times are pretty poor. Within our smaller sales department, this is not the case, as we have much fewer than 150 people. Unfortunately, corporate policies roll down to us, and are often implemented with little to no communication with those whom the policies most directly affect (i.e. our sales department). So much for strength in numbers..I think Gladwell hit it on the head by advocating Dunbar's thoughts on the brain/neocortex ratio and the Rule of 150.
Our "Teach the Class" group consisted of members, who, for the most part, know each other well. This familiarity was both an asset and a liability in preparing for our class presentation. We were able to communicate with ease in discussions because of our familiarity, and felt comfortable as a group when we presented to the class. However, we got sidetracked and off course at times when we met in our Breeze sessions and in our group get-together prior to the presentation. This was a new experience for me, as most presentations I have been involved in have been solo presentations or group presentations with people I don't know very well. The dynamics for this presentation were very different than what I have become used to, but I think that our group worked well together, cohesively forming a successful team.
During this group process, I learned that I am definitely a solid outline type of person when it comes to presenting. This has been drilled into my head in presentation courses, and I have seen the positive effects of this type of preparation in both school, and at my office, where I have done several presentations to groups. A strong outline is required to keep everyone on the same page, and to help the individual or group stay on course. Each group member may have their own style, so, as long as each one is on the same page and pulls their weight, the project is likely to be a success. In our "Teach the Class" presentation, I feel that this was definitely the case. There was a trust between group members that each would do their part effectively, and that was something new to me. Doing presentations with people whose work habits you are unfamiliar with creates a situation where trust takes time to develop. Having been in situations where fellow students didn't carry their weight in a team effort, I have learned that clearly stated communication and accountability need to happen amongst all group members.
As far as strengths, I feel like I have the ability to shift the group's focus and flow of discussion back to the points at hand when necessary (when the group gets sidetracked). With a group I am very familiar with, this becomes a little more difficult. However, reminding others what is at stake has proved to be a good tool for me to use in previous group presentations. One weakness (or possible stength) is to just go ahead and do my part, and then present it to the group when communications stall. It seems that having something tangible to critique moves the process forward from an ideological state to a state of actuality, and the project becomes "real". This helps encourage others that "doing" is actually just as important as "planning" the project.
The group process definitely entails having faith and trust in your group members. Priscilla was the only group member that I had to develop new trust with (since I did not know her well), and the trust didn't take long to happen. Her introduction delivery in our presentation cemented my trust in her, as I thought she pulled it off flawlessly. Thanks, Priscilla!
One lack of attention to detail that occured in our presentation was our lack of preparing for possible technical difficulties. Dave did a great job of being the project coordinator, and Dan was great as a team lead. Both of these guys kept the communication lines open and flowing amongst our team members. However, we did have some technological glitches, and this may have been prevented had we gotten together and formally practiced the presentation prior to the actual presentation. This type of preparation helped make previous group efforts that I have been involved with more successful. Unfortunately, time and schedule conflicts prevented our group from being able to do a "trial run" and foresee any technological glitches that might occur. We discussed "ethos" a lot in our presentation, and this faux pas, unfortunately, did not help us establish ethos during our presentation.
Overall, I thought this to be a great experience. I enjoy everything I learn when dealing with people, and this experience was no different. I hope to reinforce positives from the experience and improve upon the shortcomings. After all, striving for improvement is something we all have to do as members of the human race!