dysoc logo

Go to: | Schedule | Topics |

You can modify this page from github or gitlab

1 Schedule of DySoC Journal Club

Meeting are schedule from 11.15 to 12.05 in the room 105 @ NIMBioS

Date Presenter Papers/thematics slides
01/10 NA Organisational meeting NA
01/27 Simon Evolution of Moralizing Gods here
02/10 Damian Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact NA
02/24 Lou Human Risk Perception and Climate Change NA
03/09 Denis Network science on belief system dynamics under logic constraints NA
03/23 Hyun Non-linear transition pathways in social-ecological systems NA
04/06 Sergey Normative foundations of human cooperation here
04/20 Alex COVID19 - Cultural and Institutional factors NA
05/04 Garriy Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life NA
05/18 Athma Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game NA

If you want to add this list to your own calendar import or follow this link


2 List of Discussed Topics

2.1 Evolution of Moralizing Gods

Title Date Authors url pdf
Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history 2019 Whitehouse et al. nature pdf
Corrected analyses show that moralizing gods precede complex societies but serious data concerns remain 2019 Beheim et al. psyarxiv pdf
Historians Respond to Whitehouse et al.(2019) 2019 Slingerland et al. psyarxiv pdf

Answers from Withouse et al. to the two last papers:

Misc. info, blog posts and discussions:

2.2 Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact

Title Date Authors url pdf
Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017 2020 Bail et al. pnas pdf

2.3 Human Risk Perception and Climate Change

Title Date Authors url pdf
Linking models of human behavior and climate alters projected climate change 2018 Beckage et al. Nature Climate Change
Accounting for the Human Factor 2018 Gilligan Nature Climate change

Gilligan (2018) is a comment that will give you more context about Beckage et al. (2018) ; and for more information you can also read the NIMBioS’ press release about Beckage et al. (2018) paper here.

The group involved in Beckage et al. (2018) paper continues to work on similar topics with the support of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). You can visit their webpage (SESYNC.org) to find more publications and researches on similar topics and ask Lou about it.

You can also visit the webpage of the NIMBioS working group : http://www.nimbios.org/workinggroups/WG_risk

Title of Lou’s presentation: “A Rational Basis for Hope: Human Behavior Modeling and Climate Change”

Abstract:

It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for human social and political systems to respond effectively to the challenges from rising average global temperature and associated climate change. A working group of diverse researchers with backgrounds in mathematical modeling, climate science, psychology, sociology, geography and ecology has addressed the question as to whether there is any rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future mean global temperatures. Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses. We have built this rational basis by developing a model based on a set of standard assumptions from the psychology literature in the theory of planned behavior, linking these to extreme events obtained from a climate model, and then allowing feedback to global emissions in a climate model on a yearly basis as affected by human behavior. The key result from this is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope, whereby a meaningful reduction of future average temperature occurs under circumstances in which mitigation arises from infrastructure changes which allow for cumulative impacts.

2.4 Network science on belief system dynamics under logic constraints

Title Date Authors url pdf
Network science on belief system dynamics under logic constraints 2016 Friedkin et al. science pdf

2.5 Non-linear transition pathways in social-ecological systems

Title Date Authors url pdf
Exploring non-linear transition pathways in social-ecological systems 2020 Mathias et al. Scientific Report pdf

2.6 Normative foundations of human cooperation

Title Date Authors url pdf
Normative foundations of human cooperation 2018 Fehr and Schurtenberger Nature Human Behavior pdf

2.7 COVID19 - Cultural and Institutional factors

Title Date Authors url pdf
Cultural and Institutional Factors Predicting the Infection Rate and Mortality Likelihood of the COVID-19 Pandemic 2020 Gelfand et al Psyarxiv pdf

2.8 Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life

Title Date Authors url pdf
Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life 2019 De Freitas et al. PNAS pdf

Abstract:

People often coordinate for mutual gain, such as keeping to opposite sides of a stairway, dubbing an object or place with a name, or assembling en masse to protest a regime. Because successful coordination requires complementary choices, these opportunities raise the puzzle of how people attain the common knowledge that facilitates coordination, in which a person knows X, knows that the other knows X, knows that the other knows that he knows, ad infinitum. We show that people are highly sensitive to the distinction between common knowledge and mere private or shared knowledge, and that they deploy this distinction strategically in diverse social situations that have the structure of coordination games, including market cooperation, innuendo, bystander intervention, attributions of charitability, self-conscious emotions, and moral condemnation.


2.9 Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game

Title Date Authors url pdf
Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game 2020 Bechtel et al. PNAS pdf

Abstract:

Political polarization and extremism are widely thought to be driven by the surge in economic inequality in many countries around the world. Understanding why inequality persists depends on knowing the causal effect of inequality on individual behavior. We study how inequality affects redistribution behavior in a randomized “give-or-take” experiment that created equality, advantageous inequality, or disadvantageous inequality between two individuals before offering one of them the opportunity to either take from or give to the other. We estimate the causal effect of inequality in representative samples of German and American citizens (n = 4,966) and establish two main findings. First, individuals imperfectly equalize payoffs: On average, respondents transfer 12% of the available endowments to realize more equal wealth distributions. This means that respondents tolerate a considerable degree of inequality even in a setting in which there are no costs to redistribution. Second, redistribution behavior in response to disadvantageous and advantageous inequality is largely asymmetric: Individuals who take from those who are richer do not also tend to give to those who are poorer, and individuals who give to those who are poorer do not tend to take from those who are richer. These behavioral redistribution types correlate in meaningful ways with support for heavy taxes on the rich and the provision of welfare benefits for the poor. Consequently, it seems difficult to construct a majority coalition willing to back the type of government interventions needed to counter rising inequality.