Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Questions on "Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise"
Xochitl Cruz

Questions on "Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise" - 17 views

started by Xochitl Cruz on 20 Oct 11
  • Xochitl Cruz
    #1 Xochitl Cruz on 20 Oct 11
     
    1. Do you think that politicians utilize patternicity to their advantage when addressing the public on policy issues? How do they utilize or do they not utilize patternicity?

    2. Are people more succeptible to commiting a type 1 or type 2 error if they are not fully informed on a public policy issue? What does it say about the decision making of the polis?
  • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
    #2 Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 21 Oct 11
     
    I do think that politicians use patternicity to their advantage when talking about policy issues...in a way I think they use this to "scare" people aware from choosing one side of an arguement over another. They use it, even if what they are saying is incorrect, they shape it to their own viewpoint and benefit. As for your other question, I think people are more succeptible to committing a type 1 error if they aren't completely informed on a certain public policy issue, because I think it is easier to make something seem like it is true, than to do the opposite. As a result, this just proves how flawed the system is in itself- everything is based of who can make what more believable, even if it's not true (as in the type 1 error).
  • Tavish Dunn
    #4 Tavish Dunn on 21 Oct 11
     
    I believe that politicians use patternicity when addressing policy issues. They often present a worst case scenario for if people do not accept their policy proposal, even if it is very unlikely or sometimes even impossible. This takes advantage of people's lack of information on the issue to make them fearful and stir up the public to take action in their favor. When told of the worst outcome possible, the public quickly takes it to mean what will definitely happen unless they support the policy proposed by the politician.
  • Amanda Power
    #5 Amanda Power on 21 Oct 11
     
    Politicians of course use patternicity to their advantage, who would not. They use this to appeal to our emotions, to what we know and how we feel about it. Like Gaby said, they use this to scare people aware of things they want us to be aware of. If things did not appeal to our emotions, if they did not relate to us one way or another, we would not care. Making the connection to us, making us see what we think we see, is important in us having an oppinion on it.
  • Lauren Frenkel
    #6 Lauren Frenkel on 21 Oct 11
     
    Since people do not know a lot of information on a certain issue, I think people are more susceptible to a type II policy. People are not aware of what is important, this says that people do not take it upon themselves to be completely informed. I would have to agree with Amanda in that politicians use patternicity to their advantage. It is a strategy to better reach us on a personal level. Emotion is the key to relation therefore politicians use this to their advantage.
  • Taylor Rofinot
    #7 Taylor Rofinot on 21 Oct 11
     
    I do believe that politicians use patternicity within their campaigns to scare voters into voting for them or only agreeing with their policies. By appealing to our emotions they are appealing to us in what we see as our most important point of view. Also I believe that uninformed people are more likely to commit type 1 which shows the issues are based on what we believe more.
  • John Buchanan
    #8 John Buchanan on 21 Oct 11
     
    People turn to patternicity when their schemas are not fully filled in (such is the case with the predator-in-the-grass example). Thus, politicians are more liable to utilize it to their advantage on topics that people are uneducated about. I agree with Lauren in that the Type II style is used more often, as politicians prefer to substitute the real reality (or pattern) for their own.
  • Andrew Rothans
    #9 Andrew Rothans on 21 Oct 11
     
    I feel that people will associate meaningful patterns with things they see everyday. Politicians can make an issue appear way worse than it truly is just be assigning a symbol to the issue. They take advantage of us if we do not know all of the aspects of the issue. Type II errors are more common but Type I errors are common as well which states how we feel about the issue.
  • Bethany Petersen
    #10 Bethany Petersen on 21 Oct 11
     
    I see how politicians would use patternicity in order to further their goals. One way they could do this is by planting schemas, such as the conspiracy theories like the ones in the articles. By doing this they ensure that their audience does not listen to the arguments of their opposition as well as just hearing their own. Overall, I think it would be a lot easier to commit a type 1 error (and therefore politicians would be more likely to take advantage of this), however type 2 errors can occur as well. I would say that each person's susceptibility is based on their level of intelligence and how many schemas they have already filled.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the contemporary issues in public policy group