Thrilled to see this article out in world! A summary thread... "Threat perception" gets thrown around a lot in IR - so much that it doesn't really have a clear meaning. But many of us think it's important for understanding war, coercion, crises, etc. So what do we do? I argue 🧠s can help 1/n - ThreadSky

Thrilled to see this article out in world!

A summary thread...

"Threat perception" gets thrown around a lot in IR - so much that it doesn't really have a clear meaning. But many of us think it's important for understanding war, coercion, crises, etc.

So what do we do? I argue 🧠s can help

1/n

Reposted from International Organization

What can neuroscience do for IR? Using data from 500+ fMRI studies, @mlandauwells.bsky.social shows how brain data improves our understanding of threat perception and offers new insights into its effects on conflict and coercion. #polisci #polisky #conflictsky

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Comments

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

In Part 1, I tackle the concept of "threat perception". I make the case that plain language definitions >> IR jargon. Since perception occurs in 🧠s, we start there.

Def. 1: the brain's apprehension of anything or anyone likely to be dangerous (☢️ 🐲 🤒) = threat-as-danger perception

2/n

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

But a "threat" can also be a form of communication, hence:

Def. 2: the brain's detection of a signal of the conditional intent to harm (🤬) = threat-as-signal perception

Note, threat-as-signal perception is a form of social cognition. Threat-as-danger perception need not involve other people.

3/n

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

Part 2 is devoted to showing how 🧠 data can be used to test assumptions in IR theories about how these 2 kinds of threat perception work.

I make the case for using meta-analyses (concordant findings from many studies) and use 15 metas leveraging 500+ fMRI studies to revisit 2 assumptions

4/n

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

A1: all harms are "costs"

A1 crops up in rationalist models where blood + treasure = c (the cost of conflict). But does the brain represent all harms as if they were cost-like?

No. Most harm representations are more complex than 💰 losses. Take-away: heuristic/non-value models are promising

5/n

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

A2: intentions are inscrutable

The coercion literature emphasizes the importance of inferring the intentions of those who issue threats-as-signals

Since mind-reading is out, many theories assume that people use work-arounds, like inferring rational interests, or emotions, or traits, etc.

6/n

mlandauwells.bsky.social•54 days ago

But actual intention inference doesn't look like these work-arounds from a 🧠 perspective

Instead, intentional harm inference is a specific form of social cognition that engages particular regions (amyg.), w/ consequences for how we perceive damage ☹️ and for our preferred responses 👿

7/n

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply