SGER: New Methods for Studying Social Behavior in Political Science

生物、遗传、进化和神经模型正在席卷行为科学和社会科学。神经认知在大多数心理学系占据了上风。关于激素及其对个人情绪和情感的影响的讨论是司空见惯的。进化模型为人类学中的文化传播和许多学科中特定领域心理模块的概念提供了有用的启发。在认知神经科学中开发的新技术正在几个不同的学科中得到应用。PET， fMRI和EEG技术的使用在许多心理学系，甚至偶尔在经济学系也变得司空见惯。经济学现在有一个神经经济学学会。这些方法对理解复杂的政治行为有什么影响？这次SGER将汇集一组政治科学家、神经科学家和行为科学家，讨论将这些方法应用于政治科学问题的可能性。这样的聚会将为不同的政治科学家提供一个机会，让他们聚在一起讨论未来研究方向的可能性。参与者面临的问题包括：哪些政治问题可以用生物学、遗传学、进化论和神经学的方法来最好地解决？目前针对这些方法开发的工具（例如，功能磁共振成像研究）的限制是什么？哪些政治科学研究方向最适合神经科学发展的技术？采用这些方法会遇到哪些障碍？应该寻求和提供什么样的研究支持？在政治科学中出现了一些新兴的团体，他们对这些想法和概念很感兴趣。一个神经政治学列表（由宾夕法尼亚大学的Darren Schreiber运营）非常积极地促进对理论、建模、方法、测量、解释和未来方向等主题的讨论。今年在华盛顿举行的美国科学促进会会议上，组织了两个小组，详细阐述了政治科学家开展这类工作的可能性。这是政治学项目SGER的完美主题。尽管参与者和所涉及的工作远远超出了政治科学的主流，但让政治科学家解决复杂政治行为的生物和神经方法的可行性是很重要的。目前，生物和神经科学与其他领域的融合已经在各自的学科中取得了长足的进步。不幸的是，这导致了关于这对政治意味着什么的主张，尽管对政治学家重要的问题几乎没有认识到，并且被政治学家很好地描述了。由于这些不同领域的发展速度，将政治学家聚集在一起解决这些问题至关重要。

Biological, genetic, evolutionary and neural models are sweeping through the behavioral and social sciences. Neural cognition has gained an upper hand in most psychology departments. The discussion of hormones and their impact on individual mood and emotion is commonplace. Evolutionary models are providing useful heuristics for generating new hypotheses for the transmission of culture in anthropology and concepts of domain specific mental modules in numerous disciplines. New techniques developed in the cognitive neurosciences are being applied in several different disciplines. The use of PET, fMRI and EEG techniques is becoming commonplace in many psychology departments and even the occasional economics department. Economics now has a NeuroEconomics Society. What are the implications of these approaches forunderstanding complex political behavior? This SGER is to bring together a set of political scientists, neuroscientists and behavioral scientists to discuss the possibility of adapting these approaches to questions in political science. Such a gathering will provide an opportunity for a diverse set of political scientists to come together to discuss the possibilities for future research directions. Among the questions for the participants: What political questions can best be addressed with biological, genetic, evolutionary and neural approaches? What are the current constraints on tools developed for these approaches (e.g., fMRI studies)? What political science research directions are most amenable to techniques developed in the neurosciences? What hurdles will there be for adopting these approaches? What kinds of research support ought to be sought and provided? There are several nascent groups emerging in political science that have an interest in these ideas and concepts. A Neuropolitics listserve (run by Darren Schreiber at the University of Pennsylvania) is very active in promoting discussion on topics of theory, modeling, methodology, measurement, interpretation, and future directions. This year at the AAAS meetings in Washington, DC two panels were organized to elaborate the possibilities of this kind of work for political scientists. This is a perfect subject for a SGER from the Political Science Program. Although participants and the work that is being covered are well outside the mainstream of Political Science, it is important to have political scientists addressing the feasibility of biological and neural methods for complex political behavior. Currently the integration of the biological and neural sciences with other fields has resulted in considerable progress in their own disciplines. Unfortunately this has led to claims about what this means for politics, although with little recognition of issues that are important to and well described by political scientists. Because of the speed of developments in these different areas, it is critical to bring political scientists together to address these issues.