Politics and the Life Sciences最新文献_第8页

Partisan niche construction: Out-party affect, geographic sorting, and mate selection 党派生态位建构:党派外影响、地理分类与配偶选择

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2023.19

Chano Arreguin

引用次数: 0

PLS volume 42 issue 2 Back matter PLS第42卷第2期

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2023.24

引用次数: 0

Perceived vulnerability to infectious disease and perceived harmfulness are as predictive of citizen response to COVID-19 as partisanship 对传染病的易感性和危害性的感知与党派关系一样，可以预测公民对COVID-19的反应

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2023.14

Abigail Cassario

引用次数: 0

PLS volume 42 issue 1 Front matter PLS第42卷第1期

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2023.6

G. Murray, M. Grillo, A. Landrum, B. Boutwell

引用次数: 0

Status politics is the origin of morality policy 地位政治是道德政策的起源

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2023.11

Dane G. Wendell, Raymond Tatalovich

引用次数: 0

In Memoriam: Steven Ames Peterson 纪念:史蒂文·埃姆斯·彼得森

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2022-02-21 DOI: 10.1017/psj.2022.31

P. Stewart, A. Fletcher, R. Blank, E. Bucy

{"title":"In Memoriam: Steven Ames Peterson","authors":"P. Stewart, A. Fletcher, R. Blank, E. Bucy","doi":"10.1017/psj.2022.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psj.2022.31","url":null,"abstract":"I n academia, true pioneers are often unheralded, if not outright ignored; they take chances with their careers and livelihoods that most would not consider. These pioneers are rarely found in the elite institutions under the bright shining light of renown; more often, they are found far from the fame, systematically plying their craft. Steven A. Peterson was just such a pioneer. As one of the founders of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS) in the early 1980s, he was a key part of the original steering committee composed of Carol Barner-Barry, Lynton Caldwell, Peter Corning, Fred Kort, Roger Masters, Steven Peterson, Glendon Schubert, Albert Somit, and Thomas Weigele (Stewart & Bucy, 2011). Forty years ago, this group organized its first program for the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and published its first issue of this journal, Politics and the Life Sciences, that same year. In subsequent years, Steve was a constant presence, first in building APLS as an organization and biopolitics as a field, and then as a steadying hand transitioning the organization and this journal to the next generation. He was, perhaps most impressively, among the first generation of biopolitical specialists to organize their graduate education around combining biology and politics. Steve’s undergraduate education at Bradley University led to a senior honors paper on biology and politics. He subsequently attended SUNYBuffalo’s graduate program, creating his own special subfield within the political science program based upon mammalian ethology, primate behavior, genetics, and classic works in biology. His dissertation, which focused on the biological basis of student protest—then a constant and roiling part of American political life—reflected a pragmatic approach to dealing with pressing public policy problems (Peterson, 2011). It was there, at SUNY Buffalo, that Steve met and developed a fruitful research collaboration with his longtime friend, colleague, and fellow APLS founder Al Somit. Among many other notable achievements and initiatives, Steve and Al were the series editors of the long-running Research in Biopolitics edited collections, first for JAI and then for Emerald Press, and they were the stalwart leaders of the similarly focused International Political Science Association Research Committee #12. Together, they gave the field of biopolitics renewed visibility with the 560-page edited volume, the Handbook of Biology and Politics (Peterson & Somit, 2017). Beyond these accomplishments in building the field of biopolitics, Steve’s collaborations extended outward to multiple fields and across a diverse array of individuals, as he took on the mentoring role of a highly productive academic. As author or editor ofmore than 25 books and 125 articles, including the pathbreaking Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (Somit & Peterson, 1997), his influence can be seen in th","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"04 1","pages":"150 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88904162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

PLS volume 41 issue 1 Front matter PLS第41卷第1期

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2022.9

G. Murray, M. Grillo, A. Landrum, B. Boutwell

引用次数: 0

Jan-Willem van Prooijen ed., The Psychology of Political Polarization Jan-Willem van proijen等著，《政治两极分化的心理学》

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2021-11-18 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.32

B. Çakın

引用次数: 0

Mike Martin, Why We Fight 迈克·马丁，《我们为什么战斗》

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2021-11-05 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.26

Róbert Bognár

{"title":"Mike Martin, Why We Fight","authors":"Róbert Bognár","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.26","url":null,"abstract":"InWhyWe Fight, Mike Martin draws on his experience as amilitary veteran, biologist, andwar studies academic to explore the root causes of human conflict and war. In short, Martin’s central argument is that humans fight for status and belonging. These two motivations are not necessarily conscious but rather subconscious drives shaped over millions of years of human evolution. While WhyWe Fight provides a cogent and powerful biological theoretical framework for understanding human conflict, the real aim of the book, I believe, is sociological. Martin sets out to convince the reader that our current dominant sociocultural explanations of human conflict are causing more problems than they solve and that a biologically informed view is necessary to prevent and combat political violence in all its forms. The book is organized in 12 chapters that reflect a variety of interrelated topics, although there are two overarching themes: biology and culture. Martin first covers the biological side of his argument—the underlying psychological drives that subconsciously motivate us to use violence. Employing an evolutionary psychology framework, Martin explains how the process of evolution by natural selection has shaped the human mind over millions of years, endowing us with certain behaviors that, on average, increase our reproductive fitness. In particular, Martin argues that group living and high social status allowed ancient humans a plethora of evolutionary benefits. Thosewhoweremainlymotivated by a desire for belonging and status were more likely to survive and reproduce and leave genes for these instincts in the gene pool. Over time, then, humans evolved corresponding neurobiological mechanisms driving these two motivations. Belonging is regulated by oxytocin, which motivates us to seek and find comfort in the security of groups. Status seeking is regulated by testosterone, which encourages us to climb the hierarchy within those groups, especially in response to challenges to our status, and more so in males than females. But Martin stresses that the causal effects of these two motivations are probabilistic, not deterministic. They only give us a “push” toward using violence in response to specific environmental stimuli. After laying out the biological foundations of why we fight,Martinmoves on to the sociocultural explanations. There is, according to Martin, a fundamental dilemma with group living. Every individual wants to reap the benefits of group living while simultaneously maximizing their selfish interests. If individuals feel that the benefits of the group are not worth the costs, they will splinter off and form their own groups. Martin posits that to solve this dilemma and maintain a cohesive social group, humans need to address the five interrelated problems of identity, hierarchy, trade, disease, and punishment. Over time, our solution to these five problems has been to socially construct various moral codes, religions, and ideologies. But here","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"143 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73940136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Tie my hands loosely: Pre-analysis plans in political science. 松开我的手:政治学的预分析计划。

Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/pls.2021.23

Daniel Rubenson

{"title":"Tie my hands loosely: <i>Pre-analysis plans in political science</i>.","authors":"Daniel Rubenson","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.23","url":null,"abstract":"S everal years ago, I was at an American Political Science Association Annual Meeting at which there was a well-attended special session to discuss the newly proposed Data Access and Research Transparency (DART) initiative, which encouraged researchers to make their data available to facilitate evaluation of their findings. During a heated discussion, a very senior scholar who was skeptical of the application of DART in general and for qualitative research in particular, exclaimed in frustration, “It’s as if you think we’re trying to hide things!” A slightly more junior scholar who had been a proponent of greater transparency responded with a deadpan, “Yes, it’s as if you’re trying to hide things.” Much has happened in the 10 or so years since that meeting in terms of social and political science research practice and attitudes. One of the major developments has been the increasingly widespread adoption of the registration of pre-analysis plans (PAPs), in which researchers register their design and empirical specifications before accessing and analyzing (and often before collecting) their data. In many ways, this has been a natural extension of what economists Joshua Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke (2010) call the “credibility revolution” in empirical economics and political economy—broadly speaking, the use of identification-driven research designs, most prominently randomized experiments. Figure 1 shows the growth in the number of registered PAPs in two of the more prominent social science registries—the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) design registry1 and the American Economic Association’s RCT Registry.2 As can be seen, the number of registrations of PAPs has grown steadily each year since the introduction of these two registries in 2011 and 2013, respectively, with a slight dip (likely pandemic related) in the EGAP registry in 2020. As I alluded to earlier, this trend has been driven to a large extent by the explosion of experimental research designs in political science and economics over the past two decades and by related organizations such as the EGAP research network, which has done much for the adoption of more transparent research practices. There have been several arguments presented for the adoption of PAPs and proposals for how this might work in social science. Humphreys et al. (2013), Nosek et al. (2015), and Munafo et al. (2017) are some of the more prominent recent ones. In this short article, I want to provide some of my thoughts on these developments from the perspective of someone who writes PAPs and reads them as a reviewer, as well as from the perspective of a journal editor.","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"40 2","pages":"142-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39661465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3