No more than a parent cons a child into good behavior so Santa will bring the child gifts.
People con each other all the time, especially on dates and in business settings. We only seem to call it a con or look at it negatively in the political arena and in the case of an obvious con artist. This is what convincing a crowd is all about. The art of persuasion is just more obvious when we can clearly see (via television) how politicians portray themselves to and address different crowds.

An overlooked point is that politicians are responding to the people's actions. We elect the person who cons us best. At an extreme view, want to be conned, or at the very least, we do not want to think rationally about who we elect. If we didn't, we might consider researching the past political behavior of a candidate and voting record on issues that we find important.

Nope. It's part of an effort to prevent people from looking inward at their own problems. If we're concentrated on saving Africa, we won't look next door or help the homeless 19 year old on Moorpark Road.

Foreign aid the way we disperse it often has the effect of making "poor" countries dependent on us while artfully preventing them from developing their own economy.

I think if your argument is strong enough, you should not have to fool people into believing your opinion. I don't agree that prevalence of a thing equals morality. If I could not convince anyone of my "strongly held opinion" through logic and rationality, I would begin questioning the validity of that opinion. I think strongly held opinions are dangerous and prevent people from engaging in constructive and critical discourse. I know it's a utopian perspective, but I think transparency is important and that the presentation of information should be done as honestly as possible especially when it has far-reaching implications that can change an entire nation.

"the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about 'How much will you benefit?' "
I'm not sure that's just the market at work. I think ethics and how the market works both shape each other, but they do not exist in separate spheres. Maybe doctors should take more ethics courses and Med Schools should try to instill a sense of moral duty. Then again, maybe patients should be less trusting, though that in itself breeds a new kind of social problem.

I think for the market to function appropriately, the federal government needs to step out of it.

1.) How do you think this concept can be applied to public policy? What implications does the tendency to create meaning where there is none have on the way we discuss world events? Do the metaphors and causal stories we use to explain and understand political actors reflect this tendency?
2.) Where do you see yourself falling victim, so to speak, to patternicity in your own life? In other words, do you ever see or imagine patterns where there are none?

PDF file of lecture transcript