Hvor mange har de seneste dage stillet sig selv spørgsmålet: Ville jeg gribe til våben?
I 2016 stillede vi faktisk 1012 danskere det spørgsmål bl.a. i lyset af, at "Rusland opfører sig mere og mere aggressivt".
Her er hvad de svarede. 👇
🧵 (1/6)
Efter introen, der beskrev en mere ustabil verden med bl.a. et mere aggressivt Rusland, blev det repræsentative udsnit af danskere præsenteret for en række scenarier, herunder dette 👇 (2/6)
Derefter spurgte vi, om deltagerne forestillede sig, at de ville protestere mod regimet, hjælpe modstandsfolk, deltage i modstandskampen og bruge vold.
31 % forestiller sig, at de "ville bruge fysisk vold for at fremme modstandsbevægelsens mål". (3/6)
Mænd er - ikke overraskende - særligt tilbøjelige til at forestille sig, at de vil bruge vold mod et fremmed autoritært regime. Blandt mændene er det 46 %. Blandt kvinderne er det blot 16 %. (4/6)
Det er måske mere overraskende, at det særligt er de midalderende, som forestiller sig, at de vil bruge vold. De unge mænd, som ellers generelt er mere risiko-villige, er mere tilbageholdende. (5/6)
Undersøgelsen er foretaget under andre omstændigheder. Men når folk i dag spørger sig selv - hvad ville jeg gøre? - så tyder dataene på, at der er systematiske forskelle i hvem, der forestiller sig hvad.
A study did a meta-analysis of 40 studies on campaign effects on candidate preferences in the US and conclude that "the best estimate of the effects...is zero": doi.org/10.1017/S00030…
(3/16)
I advised the Danish government on behavioral science during the pandemic.
In APS Observer, I wrote my advice on how to give advice when your discipline is (A) obviously important but (B) face discussions about replication: psychologicalscience.org/observer/scien…
I outline 3 lessons.
🧵(1/4)
1. Focus on decision-makers’ mental models.
Don't push single studies. Focus on broader models of behavior & help decision-makers *think* in the right way (e.g., "prioritize trust-building"). This facilitates better decisions even when you aren't there.
(2/4)
2. Focus on blind spots.
In a pandemic, there are many health advisors but few behavioral advisors.
You are your field's representative & should raise the problems & trade-offs that outsiders don't see (e.g., the perils of polarization & perceived control loss)
The rage & fear you feel after the Russian invasion are ancient parts of your mind preparing - like clockwork - for a world of conflict.
After 10 years of research in the lab & field, it is surreal to feel it unfold in my own mind
A 🧵 on what happens & with what effects (1/16)
I lived during the Cold War but never felt its threat. Many Westerns have never experienced anything remotely like war.
But you are more than your experiences. Your mind was designed by natural selection and the genes you carry are adapted to a different world. (2/16)
That world included violent, group-based conflict. Scholars disagree on the details of the prehistory of war. But group conflict is universal, ancient & significant enough that it may have shaped our basic psychology (doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a…) (3/16)
Individuals who fight in armed conflict tend to be anti-democratic.
With one exception: Violent resistance in defence of democracy.
🧵 on our research on the psychology of violence & why the ultimate defense of democracy requires understanding anti-democratic impulses. (1/14)
Democracy is the principled recognition of equality in power. Autocracy is the opposite.
Psychologically, an orientation to autocracy draws its strength from so-called dominance motivations (doi.org/10.1177/095679…). (2/14)
All humans seek status. But paths differ (doi.org/10.1037/a00303…). *Prestige* is status in exchange for problem-solving. *Dominance* is the desire to acquire status from fear via intimidation & aggression.
In the game of status, dominance is the strategy of the predator. (3/14)
Et markant nybrud er, at den demokratiske samtale flytter fra forsamlingshuset til sociale medier.
Vi mangler viden & data. Derfor præges debatten ofte af myter fx om ekkokamre.
Men vi skal ud af ekkokamret om, ja, ekkokamre.
🧵 om de store spørgmål & forskningens svar. (1/15)
Når man skal forstå et fænomen på sociale medier, fx ekkokamre, misinformation eller had, bør man altid stille 3 spørgsmål:
1) Hvor udbredt er X? 2) Hvad er årsagerne til X? 3) Hvad er effekterne af X?
Hvad siger forskningen om de 3 spørgsmål ift. ekkokamre? (2/15)
Et første skridt er at erkende, at forskningen om sociale medier er i sin vorden. Mange antagelser har vist sig forkerte. Og et enkelt studie giver sjældent sandheden.
Man må basere sig på opdaterede reviews fra internationalt førende forskere. (3/15)
Political cleavages have previously been found to elicit prejudice (doi.org/10.1111/ajps.1…), e.g., exclusion from family relationships. Here we ask if there is prejudice between groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status? (2/16)