UD mod 9 - fundamental att. bias
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Temple University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
0861
Subject
Communications
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MagistrateScorpionPerson592
View Point A – Oregon and Decriminalization
Question 1:
Define Fundamental Attribution Error. In the section #1 (Drug Prohibition has Failed) the authors talk about the war on drugs. Is this policy guilty of a fundamental attribution era? How so?
-
Fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. It means attributing people’s actions more to their internal characteristics than external situational factors. Like instead of considering the environment someone was raised in, you assume they themselves are just a bad person. This policy is guilty of fundamental attribution because they blame the drug use solely on the nature of addiction and don’t consider the other factors like the environment they were raised in, or the people that they are around/hanging out with that could’ve lead to the addiction Question 2:
Do you think this article is objective? Does it create competing view points equally? Why or why not? Cite evidence from the article
-
I don’t think that this article is objective because while it does talk about the other view point of the risks of decriminalizing drugs, it uses this topic more as a counter
argument and the author goes to rebut this counter argument with other facts favoring the decriminalization of drugs. An example can be seen when the author says, “One common concern among Oregonians who voted against decriminalization was that lessening criminal penalties would endanger children.” The author then counters this claim with, “But U.S. states that legalized marijuana haven’t seen adolescent use rise significantly. In fact, marijuana consumption among teens…actually declined in some states with legal marijuana.” While the author does consider both view points, it’s clearly seen that they favor one view point, decriminalizing drugs, over the other. Question 3:
Does this article make a serious attempt at discussing the negative sides of legalization? Cite evidence from the article. Do you think it's even important to include both perspectives?
-
I think that this article makes a semi-serious attempt at discussing the negative sides of legalization because they do go into details about how drug decriminalization could attract people looking to use drugs. The author says, “Another worry about decriminalization is that it will attract people looking to use drugs.” However, the author spins this negative into a more positive light, offering a solution to deter this problem by saying, “These places should benefit from the expansion of methadone programs and other medication-assisted treatment, which is endorsed by the American Medical Association.” I think it’s important to include both perspectives because it shows that extensive research was done to the point where you can acknowledge the other side but support your side by including evidence to rebut the other claims. It makes your argument more credible.
View Point B – How Philly Plans to Deal With the Opiate Crisis Question 4:
I think we can agree that there are very few/ no Internet articles that 'blame the victim' advocating a more humane way of dealing with drug addicts. Do the solutions provided by Philly for Opiate Crisis still suffer from fundamental attribution error?
-
I could not find an example of the solutions provided by Philly that suffer from fundamental attribution error. These solutions seem to all focus on the external factors that lead to drug use or continued drug use. The solution of bending the rules to keep people in treatment when they miss multiple appointments does not suffer from fundamental attribution error because if they did suffer from fundamental attribution error they would not implement this rule. They would think
that because they’re a drug user they’re not punctual with time or more inclined to
miss appointments. However, this policy thinks about the external factors that could affect why they did not show up to the appointment and are more forgiving because of these factors. Another example of how these policies don’t suffer from fundamental attribution error is the work to earn program. If this did suffer from fundamental attribution error it wouldn’t be put into place and people would assume that because they are drug users, they’re automatically “bad people” and just resort to stealing or not working. However, this accounts for external factors that may affect people’s inability to get a “regular” job and resolves this issue by offering people these jobs which benefits the individual while also benefitting the community. Question 5:
What potential barriers may there be in implementing the policies outlined in this article?
-
Some potential barriers there may be in implementing the policies outlined in this article is that for the bending the rule policy it could cause issues with the guidelines and regulations within that program. It could also conflictions where if they bend this rule, it could prompt an individual to just keep missing appointments and not get treatment since they know that missing these appointments is okay. Eventually people could stop coming to these appointments once they miss one, then another, and then another. When considering the keeping a closer eye on pill sales policy it could have issues concerning privacy. There are more security risks and more risks of individual’s privacies being leaked. There is also potential barriers with the work to earn policies because since it’s a lottery of who gets to work, only 10 people are selected. With that, what will happen to the other hundreds of individuals who don’t get selected? These are just
some barriers that could come from implementing these certain policies. Question 6:
What do you think the solution for the Opioid crisis in Philadelphia
is?
-
I think the solution for the opioid crisis in Philadelphia is to first expand access to treatments and more programs like the article said. Having more access to treatments and more programs to help addicts or prevent opioid use I think could benefit individuals in Philadelphia greatly. I also think that a solution for the opioid crisis is implementing more policies. There should be legal policies in place to help
decrease opioid access and use in Philadelphia. Not policies where they send people who use opioids to jail, but policies where they can be sent to rehabilitation centers and support groups where they can help to alleviate their addiction. There should also be more educational programs about using opioids to prevent the use of them. I think that these programs should be really emphasized in school and not
sugar coated because I found that usually the lessons about opioid use is just the same “don’t do it because it’s bad” However if they actually showed the side affects like the lesions it would deter teens and young adults from using it.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help