Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Emotions and world politics / Roland Bleiker and Emma Hutchison 490. - Theorizing emotions in world politics / Emma Hutchison and Roland Bleiker 491. - Feeling like a state: social emotion and identity / Jonathan Mercer 515. - Institutionalizing passion in world politics: fear and empathy / Neta C. Crawford 535. - The body doesn't lie: a somatic approach to the study of emotions in world politics / Rose McDermott 557. - Emotion and intentionality / K.M. Fierke 563. - Emotions and the social / Christian Reus-Smit 568. - Anger and world politics: how collective emotions shift over time / Andrew Linklater 574. - Decolonizing the international: towards multiple emotional worlds / L.H.M. Ling 579. - The promise and problems of the neuroscientific approach to emotions / Renée Jeffery 584. - On being convinced: an emotional epistemology of international relations / Janice Bially Mattern 589

Almost 40 years ago, evidence from large studies of adult twins and their relatives suggested that between 30 and 60 % of the variance in social and political attitudes could be explained by genetic influences. However, these findings have not been widely accepted or incorporated into the dominant paradigms that explain the etiology of political ideology. This has been attributed in part to measurement and sample limitations, as well the relative absence of molecular genetic studies. Here we present results from original analyses of a combined sample of over 12,000 twins pairs, ascertained from nine different studies conducted in five democracies, sampled over the course of four decades. We provide evidence that genetic factors play a role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the era, or the population sampled. The only exception is a question that explicitly uses the phrase "Left–Right". We then present results from one of the first genome-wide association studies on political ideology using data from three samples: a 1990 Australian sample involving 6,894 individuals from 3,516 families; a 2008 Australian sample of 1,160 related individuals from 635 families and a 2010 Swedish sample involving 3,334 individuals from 2,607 families. No polymorphisms reached genome-wide significance in the meta-analysis. The combined evidence suggests that political ideology constitutes a fundamental aspect of one's genetically informed psychological disposition, but as Fisher proposed long ago, genetic influences on complex traits will be composed of thousands of markers of very small effects and it will require extremely large samples to have enough power in order to identify specific polymorphisms related to complex social traits. ; Nature, nurture, and political orientations

Almost forty years ago, evidence from large studies of adult twins and their relatives suggested that between 30-60% of the variance in social and political attitudes could be explained by genetic influences. However, these findings have not been widely accepted or incorporated into the dominant paradigms that explain the etiology of political ideology. This has been attributed in part to measurement and sample limitations, as well the relative absence of molecular genetic studies. Here we present results from original analyses of a combined sample of over 12,000 twins pairs, ascertained from nine different studies conducted in five democracies, sampled over the course of four decades. We provide evidence that genetic factors play a role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the era, or the population sampled. The only exception is a question that explicitly uses the phrase "Left-Right". We then present results from one of the first genome-wide association studies on political ideology using data from three samples: a 1990 Australian sample involving 6,894 individuals from 3,516 families; a 2008 Australian sample of 1,160 related individuals from 635 families and a 2010 Swedish sample involving 3,334 individuals from 2,607 families. No polymorphisms reached genome-wide significance in the meta-analysis. The combined evidence suggests that political ideology constitutes a fundamental aspect of one's genetically informed psychological disposition, but as Fisher proposed long ago, genetic influences on complex traits will be composed of thousands of markers of very small effects and it will require extremely large samples to have enough power in order to identify specific polymorphisms related to complex social traits.

Retweets to midnight: assessing the effects of the information ecosystem on crisis decision making between nuclear weapons states -- Psychological underpinnings of post-truth in political beliefs -- The caveman and the bomb in the digital age -- Gaming communication on the global stage: social media disinformation in crisis situations -- Information operations and online activism within NATO discourse.

We live in an era of extreme claims versus weak consensus on issues critical to the public. Is climate change a hoax, or is it destroying our planet? Were the vaccines and social distancing measures of COVID-19 designed to protect us, or were they an invasion of our liberty? How do we determine the validity of these claims and others like them? Can we find a reliable middle ground leading to policies that help everyone? How Science Engages with Ethics and Why It Should makes an impassioned plea for a scientific analysis of ethics, discussing what such a method is, why we need it, and what it can offer that other methods cannot. With contributions from leading thinkers across a range of disciplines, Part 1 explores the challenges facing scientists and how to establish ground rules that will both protect human subjects and guide researchers in the future. Part 2 explores the importance of evidence-based science for topics such as climate change, social care, political polarization and rational decision-making, showing how even good science can go wrong, at times contributing to disastrous effects. At the cutting edge of its discipline, How Science Engages with Ethics and Why It Should provides a compelling case for demanding evidence-based analysis to form the foundation of the discussions and policies that affect our very lives. With contributions by: Jeffrey Barratt, Peter Ditto, Jessica Maria Gonzalez, James W. Hicks, Mahtab Jafari, Rose McDermott, B.W. Sarnecka, Roxane Cohen Silver, Brian Skyrms, Teresa Sabol Spezio, Lawrence Sporty, Kyle Stanford, Ashley J. Thomas, James Tran, and the assistance of Ali Ansari, Kendrick Choi, Hannah Dastgheib, David Han, Nate Kang, Alexis Kim, Connor Lee, Michelle Lee, Lauren O'Neill, Samuel Shih, and Anqi Wang