I have a strong interest in medicine, not to actually work in the field, but to learn as much as I can about it. Neuroscience is particularly fascinating to me, so this article was a joy to read.

According to the article, Emory University is conducting studies on consumerism by observing brain activity. A volunteer is placed inside an MRI scanner, and he is shown images of various products. When the person views something he likes, activity increases in an area of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex. This area controls the "sense of self." The results of the study suggest that consumers purchase products according to personal preference. Companies are hoping to use this new information to better market their products to consumers.

The article introduces two opposing viewpoints: one argues that this new technology will help both companies and consumers while the other argues that it will create more consumer crises.

I believe these opposes forces can strike a balance. The research should continue, but it should be strongly regulated and used more for the advancement of science than for advertising. I don't completely agree with Gary Ruskin when he says, "It's wrong to use medical technology for marketing and not for healing." I believe it can be used for both, but healing clearly takes precedence. I do agree, however, with Ruskin's statement, "We have epidemics of obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, gambling and smoking - all tied to marketing." Although it really boils down to personal responsibility, I feel that companies should be held accountable for the effects their products have on society. I particularly oppose advertising in schools. Children are obviously more impressionable than adults, and advertisers should not take advantage of that.

Again, I think as long there are restrictions and regulations on the use of this new technology, it can be beneficial. I agree with Justine Meaux when she says, "It's not like consumers are going to run out like automatons and buy your product no matter what they think or feel." I sincerely doubt advertisers could "control" people in that way.

-rewind on class discussion, here

i.e, here, counterargument.

which means, go ahead cite those "Control society" frameworks, let that weight give you more to work with,

return to the claim: talk about what it is exactly that advertisers can't control. This will require a description, which is good, because description lets us provide details, by which we can find language for defining our connectivity under a different category than "control," perhaps.

ShareRiff