yes, but my husband grabs hold of himself every single time the erectile dysfunction medications are advertised on tv and they go over the particular side effects of an erection lasting more than 24 hours ;) Doesn't have that effect on me...
Annette was I allowed to use all those words or did this go straight to everyone's spam filter? Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:33:51 -0400 >From: "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [tips] Grice and Teaser Ads >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > > Rick Froman wrote: > > Chris Green wrote: "I thought that advertising was, in general, an exercise > in violating Grice's maxims of implicature (e.g., Tell only the good, > emphasize it > and even exaggerate it. Tell none of the drawbacks.)" > > In general this is true with the obvious exception of prescription drug ads. > I sometimes wonder about the effect of reading all that small print aloud and > talking about the possibilities of all kinds of adverse reactions including > death. I realize these are mandated but I wonder if the bump such ads > probably get in perceived trustworthiness really overcomes the obvious > downside of linking your product with possible death. > > > The side-effect notices in pharmaceutical ads are > mandated by law, and are typically quite perfunctory > (tiny print, or very rapidly spoken, no indication > of frequency). In fact, pharmaceutical ads are about > seem to me to be as bad as any other in terms of > breaking implicature maxims. I've just been reading > a terrific book called _Know Your Chances: > Understanding Health Statistics_ by three doctors: > Steven Woloshin, Lisa M Schwartz, and H. Gilber > Welch. It is pitched at a very elementary level > (would be good for junior undergrads) and it goes > through a large number of the misleading tactics > used by pharmaceutical companies to flog their > products. (One of these is, as I have been hammering > away at here over the past few weeks, is using > percentages to described the increase of decrease of > low-probability events. If you lower something the > probability of which is 4 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000, > you can claim a 50% reduction, but it is only a 2 in > 10,000 benefit... minus all the hidden costs.) > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > > > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > > "Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; > sex is a weak second." > > - Phil Kerby, former editor of the Los Angeles > Times > > ========================== > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
