Politicians often use persuasive tactics when relaying information to the polis. Televised debates affect people's perception of the candidates by their manner of speech and their physical appearance. Campaign messages can also be used to put a candidate in a positive light or attack the credibility of another candidate. I think an emphasis has been placed on the ability of politicians to use persuasive tactics to give their stance credibility. Emotional messages tend to be stronger than rational ones because humans always have emotions but are not always rational. The persuasive tactics also help people decide if they think the candidates will actually follow through on their stance. Even if their argument is convincing and gives their stance credibility, it is only beneficial if politicians can be trusted to do what they say they will do when running for office or designing a policy.

I think there is a form of the totalitarian model in the United States where information is hidden or presented positively to not cause a negative effect. Politicians often try to hide mistakes that become scandals when their efforts are unsuccessful and the public finds out. Things like the interrogation methods used on terrorists are not disclosed because they are seen as inhumane by the public, but the people authorizing those methods also do not want to lose public support for the war on terror. Sometimes scandals come into the public eye, but others are successfully hidden from people's notice and go unchallenged.

I believe that the rules in "The Guidebook for Taking a Life" should be more specific because of the importance of jihad in the extremist organizations, but because of their varying goals, more specific rules will not do much to deter those who believe that their decision to kill is moral and following their faith. Rules are made as to provide a rationale for guiding people's actions, but ultimately they will try to rationalize their choice after making it.

1. In Dan Pink, the use of money as a reward for desired results or behavior is presented as harmful to motivation, but it is shown as beneficial in promoting change in Payoff Out of Poverty. When are inducements beneficial for promoting behavioral changes? What do you think makes inducements effective in those situations?

2. In Jay Z vs The Game, Jay Z's career and influence continue stay strong while he ignores attacks from other rappers despite having the power to prevent them from being heard and force others to follow his views and leadership. Is it beneficial for Jay Z to not retaliate against less prominent rappers? How do you think people generally react when people in authority try to force their views onto others?

Thanks everyone. See you Friday.

I do not think everyone can be treated equally when officials use target populations to assure self interests. The idea of making target populations based on social construction and power creates groups that will not be treated equally because of their relative importance. If each group was seen as equally important in their interests, there would be no need to divide people into target populations.

I think that the chart is still accurate because favoritism according to the same ideas of who is more advantaged and how the public would react regarding to their treatment. Since 1993, some groups such as the 99 percenters have become more organized and are beginning to voice their objections more, but the justifications used when policies are decided upon largely remain the same, with constituent opinion and possible reactions from recipients as significant factors.

I believe changing one's environment leads to a bigger impact. No matter how firm of a rule someone has, it can only last as long as that person is in a position of power. But changing the environment can cause an impact that lasts beyond a person's term of office. Meachem mentioned a European diplomat's surprise at how quickly and easily things shifted from Bush to Obama, showing how quickly a party's rule can disappear. But many of Bush's decisions such as the war in Iraq were not repealed as soon as Obama took office. While a strong rule does have a great initial impact, changes to the environment have impacts that last for long periods of time after the end of the rule of those who cause those changes.

I believe the reduction of violence will continue. As technology advances, people's needs can be met more easily. People are also held more accountable by the speed at which information about people's past crimes against the law and people can be accessed through newer media outlets such as the internet and television. Our culture has also become more aware of violence in the world and tolerates its presence less. A more pessimistic argument would be that violence in the world is decreasing because our capacity for violence has increased. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed each other, but neither wanted to take action directly against the other because of the arms buildup. The main thing preventing a third world war was the knowledge that it would bring greater destruction as nuclear weapons became an option to more countries than just the United States. Although we could become savage again quickly if something dire happened, I believe that the trend will continue, even if it seems to be progressing slowly at times.

By generally choosing patternicity over doubting, the polis is quick to assign blame to the first target presented without giving it much thought or investigation. The public will quickly blame one of the first people or groups suspected of being the cause of a problem, even if there is little suspicion. If incorrect causal associations are adopted by the public, society will waste time and resources trying to prevent a false cause from causing the problem. As a result, not only will the problem continue, the thing believed to be the cause will be hurt by society's efforts and the society in general will be hurt by focusing its efforts in the wrong manner.

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.