Meeting are schedule from 11.15 to 12.05 in the room 105 @ NIMBioS
|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
|Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history||2019||Whitehouse et al.||nature|
|Corrected analyses show that moralizing gods precede complex societies but serious data concerns remain||2019||Beheim et al.||psyarxiv|
|Historians Respond to Whitehouse et al.(2019)||2019||Slingerland et al.||psyarxiv|
Answers from Withouse et al. to the two last papers:
Misc. info, blog posts and discussions:
|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|
|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”
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.
|Network science on belief system dynamics under logic constraints||2016||Friedkin et al.||science|
|Normative foundations of human cooperation||2018||Fehr and Schurtenberger||Nature Human Behavior|
|Cultural and Institutional Factors Predicting the Infection Rate and Mortality Likelihood of the COVID-19 Pandemic||2020||Gelfand et al||Psyarxiv|
|Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game||2020||Bechtel et al.||PNAS|
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.