1.)a) How do you think this concept can be applied to public policy?
I think as we are pattern seeking animals we tend to see patterns that are non-existent in politics. We make assumptions on these 'patterns' and we then base our decision making there of. With regard to story telling and political framing for example, we can see how this evolutionary concept applies directly to priming.


b) What implications does the tendency to create meaning where there is none have on the way we discuss world events?
For me it is hard to assert that world events could hold no meaning, but I would argue that we add non-existent meanings to certain events. That is to say, that we enhance the definition of events that are truly simple, in order to make them fit within our constructed view of the political landscape.

c)Do the metaphors and causal stories we use to explain and understand political actors reflect this tendency?
Once again, evidence is provided which debunks the notion of rational acting.

I think the key word here is "fool". I think it is debatable whether or not overly complex visuals are 'fooling' individuals, so much as overly simplified visuals would. However, if we got back to the question of rational actions, we can see that such visuals would not be consumed properly by the citizenry, and I therefore believe that in effect these visuals are a danger to the flow of free information. I do not see any objective reason why a politician should not be able to make convoluted arguments and visuals, or any other form of visual which is intentionally misleading, but I can see the dilemma it presents. In a democratic society, if we are to allow manipulation of information to such an extent that the lines of facts become blurred, than it is inherent that the democratic system will falter. A chart like the one Bohner made is grossly propagandist, and aims to further political objectives while disseminating false information. Less egregious examples could potentially be acceptable, and I think any of us would use certain methodologies in order to further a cause to which we are passionate (We've all changed the margins and increased the font size before, so changing the shape on a pie chart to appear more impressive would seem logical).

Not completely related to policy, but an interesting video about illusions of authority. This made me think about coerced freedom, and coerced decision making. "Terrorism is a very clever word used to control you" Probably my favorite line.

Discuss the different ways the advertising groups made use of framing to sell their products. In what ways do the methods of Frank Luntz differ?
How does Luntz use framing to alter public opinion on political issues?

It is clear that in order to sell someone something, you must convince them of value. Simon Lovell sells illusions of grandeur by convincing people of the supposed value of his offer. This gets otherwise rational individuals to make irrational 'purchases' into Lovell's cons.
Does Simon Lovell make use of framing techniques to con his victims, and if so, in what ways? Are these techniques similar to what we see used in the public sphere?