final draft of summary and analysis of chapter 5 in the book SWAY

Sarah High

Tasha Thomas

SEGL 101

October 12, 2012

Summary and Analysis of “The Bipolar Epidemic and the Chameleon Effect” Chapter 5 in “Sway”

            In Sway, The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, The Brafman brothers are breaking down many examples of ways people can and are being swayed.  People act irrationally without recognizing what is going on.  Ori and Rom Brafman are even trying to sway their readers into believing that everyone acts irrationally.

            In chapter five the brothers use many examples of the sway diagnosis bias and labeling.  The focus is on the epidemic of bipolar diagnosis in children from 1994 to 2003.  In each example they are saying that whether we label people negative or positive, they are going to take on whatever their label is, and are also saying that people are swayed into how they treat others based on their labels.  The Brafman brothers are calling this the Pygmalion effect, taking on positive traits that others assigned to them, and the Golem effect, which is how we take on negative traits.  In this chapter of Sway, many of the examples they use are clear illustrations of diagnosis bias, while others can be controversial or just don't fit in under this type of sway.

           .

            Using the bipolar example is very impressive.  The authors went into extensive detail with this, showing many examples of research on it.  When things like bipolar came out into the public through media and research, eyebrows were raised and people started to ask more questions about it.  But I’m wondering if these children and adults were already showing symptoms of bipolarism and didn’t want to ask the doctors about it because they felt they would be judged?  Or when the media focused on it, they thought it was ok to question their minds?  “Primed to be on the lookout for bipolar disorder, psychiatrists started seeing it everywhere they looked.”(94)  So, maybe it was that the psychiatrists doing the research that were trying to sway these patients into believing that they suffer from bipolar and other mental disorders because of a little bit of emotion in their lives.  If this is the case, the patients were labeled bipolar and this shows what the Brafman brothers are calling the chameleon effect.

            When the authors talked about the medication usage to treat bipolar, and it showed that research proved that the medication only worked a minimal amount of time, I think this was brilliantly put into this chapter.  “It turned out that when all the studies were aggregated and all the data meticulously analyzed, SSRIs were no more clinically effective than placebos in making patients-either kids or adults-feel better"(96-97)  This really showed me that patients were truly being swayed to believe they were bipolar.  The majority were not actually chemically and hormonally bipolar.  In the end, they were diagnosed and started acting the part.

            Another example they used was putting military members from Israel into “command potential” categories versus them taking their comprehensive tests and comparing their scores with the categories they were put into.   The commanders were trying to prove that once labeled something, you will start acting it.  Yes, this is true.  But when it came time for the soldiers to take this written test to acquire their new knowledge on what they learned while at training, the military members tested on what they were labeled. It is quoted, “Without realizing it, the trainees had taken on the characteristics of the diagnoses ascribed to them.”(99)  Is it because the training officers didn’t want to waste their time giving quality and equal training to those who they were told didn’t already show major potential, or is this just how the soldiers really were?  Had the soldiers not been diagnosed certain ways, maybe all of them would have gotten equal training and tested to their true potential.

            The most interesting example is when researchers had men call women with only given a bio and a fake picture of them.  The conversations went as well as what the men thought the women would be based on the picture.  I don’t understand why men think because a woman is beautiful she would be more outgoing and easy to talk to, or because a woman is just ordinary she would be somewhat dull.  But this shows me true labeling.  “Once the men formed this opinion, it affected every aspect of how they interacted with the women.”(103)  When people have certain opinions of others that’s how they start to be treated.  The way you treat others, is the way they will start to feel and begin to interact.  People feed off another’s feelings towards them.  So, of course if a man calls a woman and is short with her and not very engaged in the conversation, the woman won’t be either.  This section in the chapter is perfect for showing that when labels are put on people, because of the actions of others, those being labeled will become what others think they are.

            However, when senior citizens were given a test to see if the way they felt about old age would actually affect them later on in life, I am not seeing how this example is good for this type of sway.  “Negative and external feelings about old age, in other words, can actually make people physically age faster.”(105)  I understand that if you constantly are speaking negative about things, that’s the way life will turn out, but when you find something positive in every situation, there will be more positive outcomes.  The more stress you bring into your life, more stress is to follow.  But how is this being swayed by labeling or diagnosis bias?  Maybe these elderly people just aged well or aged a little more quickly.  I can see this being swayed by their emotions, in that their emotions have affected their overall internal being.  If you say it, it will be, but not labeling.  I feel like the authors should have gone into more detail with this example to help the audience understand where they were coming from.

            The “Love Bridge” is a section that I found very interesting.  It is showing a different side of the sway being portrayed.  Is it merely saying that the men crossing the shaky bridge are more adventurous than others?  And by saying this, they are being labeled as go getters and risk takers.  But by saying the only reason the men called the woman was because their adrenaline and heart rate were elevated, because of the rush, I don’t necessarily agree with. “Physiologically speaking, the adrenaline rush you experience in such a situation is the same feeling of excitement you experience when you develop a crush on someone.”(108)  These men have already been said to be risk takers, so I believe most risk takers would take a chance at a phone conversation with a woman, regardless of walking across this enormously high bridge or not.

            Although throughout this chapter, I would have liked to have seen more detail about the studies done, I believe that Ori and Rom Brafman have proven that the sway of labeling and diagnosis bias exists.  Ori understands the mind and how people think, while Rom is a deep thinker and can pick apart other’s thoughts.  They both have the background to do the research, and by the end of this chapter, they have given enough evidence to say that “we’re all psychological chameleons,” (109) who are always swaying and being swayed.