An introduction to

NEUROSCIENCE FOR THE

PEACEBUILDER

Mari Fitzduff
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Section  1:     Introduction:  Why  Neuroscience?           Pg.    2    
 
Section2:     The  Elephant  and  the  Rider:  Who  is  in  charge?         Pg.    7  
 
Section3:     Vive  La  Difference:  How  Brains  differ.         Pg.    9    
 
Section  4:     Us  and  Them:  Who  is  my  neighbor  in  today’s  world?     Pg.    12  
 
Section  5:       How  we  fool  others  and  ourselves:  The  Believing  Brain.    Pg.  17  
 
Section  6:   Questions  for  the  Peacebuilder              Pg.  21  
     
Bibliography  and  Resources                  Pg.  22  
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  1  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Section  1:    Introduction:    Why  Neuroscience  ?  

 
‘For   the   mind   of   man   is   far   from   the   nature   of   a   clear   and   equal   glass,   wherein   the  
beams  of  things  should  reflect  according  to  their  true  incidence:  nay  it  is  rather  like  an  
enchanted  glass,  full  of  superstition  and  importure,  if  it  be  not  delivered  and  reduced.’  
Francis  bacon  Novum  Organum  (1620)  

 ‘We  all  want  peace  –  don’t  we?  ‘  

 (Prof.  Gareth  Fitzgerald,  Prime  Minister  of  Republic  of  Ireland,  1981-­‐1987  
 
This   paper   began   many   years   ago   in   the   midst   of   the   conflict   in   Northern  
Ireland.  I  was  interested  in  how  one  could  effect  change,  particularly  in  ending  the  
use   of   violence   to   achieve   social   and   political   ends.   I   knew   that   there   were   some  
people   who   had   once   used   bombs   or   bullets   to   try   to   effect   change,   but   who   were  
now  instead  engaged  in  dialogue  work,  rather  than  violence,  to  effect  their  desired  
changes.   I   wondered   what   had   brought   about   the   change   in   their   behavior,   and   if  
there  were  lessons  to  be  learned  from  them  for  those  of  us  who  were  interested  in  
peacebuilding.  I  therefore  I  chose  this  focus  for  my  doctoral  work.  Somewhat  to  my  
surprise,  I  discovered  that  there  were  very  few  people  who  had  been  reasoned  out  
of   their   support   for   violence   –   by   far   the   majority   were   those   whose   minds   and  
actions   had   been   changed   through   experiences   that   had   created   emotional  
dissonance   for   them   and   their   lives.   I   was   also   struck   by   the   fact   that   most   of   our  
existing   change   programs   were   focused   on   a   belief   in   the   use   of   argument   and  
reason,   both  through  public  debate,  and  through  a  belief  in  the   processes  of  contact  
to  undertake  such  discussions.    
Subsequently,   again   and   again,   through   my   work   as   an   active   policy   maker  
and  funder  of  conflict  resolution  work  in  the  1990’s,  I  came  to  understand  how  little  
part   reason   plays   in   social   conflicts.   I   met   Loyalist/Protestant   paramilitaries   who  
believed  that  the  Battle  of  the  Boyne,  an  icon  of  Protestant  victory  that  took  place  in  
1690,   was   enshrined   in   the   Christian   Bible.   Their   ignorance   of   actual   facts   was  
palpable   –   just   like   that   of   the   many   foreign   young   men   now   fighting   against   the  
government  in  Syria,  some  of  whom  do  not  even  appear  to  know  where  Syria  is,  or  
which   side   they   are   on,  let   alone   know   or   understand   the   issues   or   the   actors   in   the  
conflict.    
For  decades  I  have  continued  to  wonder  at  most  groups  capacity  to  believe  
that  their  violence  is  justified  –  and  the  other  sides  violence  is  not.    At  their  ability  to  
inevitably,   often   somewhat   tortuously,   find   ways   to   blame   others   for   what   had  
happened   –   even   when   it   was   their   bombs   that   had   killed   and   maimed   women,  
children  and  bystanders.    I  have  been  particularly  disconcerted  and  dismayed  at  the  
short   -­‐   term   approaches   adopted   for   political   gain   by   so   many   of   our   politicians   and  
governments  around  the  world,  despite  the  fact  that  many  of  their  strategies  almost  
directly   and   inevitably   lead   to   communal   violence.   I   have   also   wondered   at   the  
power   of   fundamentalist   ideologies   of   either   a   political   or   religious   nature   that  
possess  the  minds  and  hearts  of  people  and  their  groups,  often  beyond  their  own  life,  

  2  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

as  well  as  that  of  many  others.  And  I  have  frequently  caught  myself  cynical  about  the  
belief  that  ‘of  course  everyone  wants  peace,  don’t  they?”    as  was  once  said  to  me  by  a  
gentle  and  intelligent  professor  prime  minister  from  the  Republic  of  Ireland.    
Through  pondering  such  challenges,  I  have  come  to  believe  that  the  tenets  we  
hold  about  how  to  bring  an  end  to  conflict  often  do  not  add  up,  nor  explain  the  many  
seeming   irrationalities   and   inconsistencies   that   are   part   and   parcel   of   our   wars.    
Through  my  work  as  a  social  psychologist,  I  have  long  been  aware  of  e.g.  the  effect  of  
horizontal   inequalities   on   a   community’s   grievances,   and   the   importance   of   group  
belonging,   chosen   traumas   and   intolerance   in   shaping   our   conflict   histories.   But  
even   such   frameworks   left   many   puzzles   for   me   in   my   understandings   about   the  
ubiquity  of  so  many  societal  conflicts.    
It  has  been  through  a  relatively  new  science  -­‐  or  parts  of  other  sciences  -­‐  that  
I   came   to   see   more   and   more   of   the   confusions   I   had   faced   in   a   different   light,   and   a  
light  that  has  somewhat  helped  explain  for  me  so  much  that  had  been  a  puzzle  to  me  
in  my  previous  work.  These  were  the  processes  associated  with  emerging  ideas  that  
question   whether   or   the   not   the   way   in   which   our   minds   had   been   physically   and  
hormonally   shaped   by   the   exigencies   of   our   development   through   evolution   have  
left   us   with   some   legacies   of   which   many   of   us   are   unaware,   but   which   appear   to  
help   foment   violence.   Many   of   these   processes   are   currently   being   studied   by  
businesses,   governments   and   others   for   their   possible   use   in   shaping   human  
behavior.   These   relatively   new   fields   are   called   variously   e.g.   neuroscience,  
neuropolitics,   neurobiology,   neuropsychology,   genopolitics,   political   physiology,  
political   psychology,   behavioral   genetics,   and   cognitive   neuroscience.   The  
understandings   they   suggest   about   the   human   brain   have   been   in   use   for   over   a  
decade   now   by   economists,   and   by   businesses   such   as   Google   who   are   (rightly   or  
wrongly)   using   neuroeconomics   and   neuromarketing   as   part   of   their   business  
strategies.      

Such   utilization   is   spreading   through   other   fields.   There   is   now   e.g.  

neurotheology,   utilized   by   those   studying   the   power   of   theism,   and   neurolaw,   by  
those  wishing  to  understand  the   effective  possibilities  of  legal  processes.  These  new  
fields  are  about  understanding  what  there  may  be  in  the  hardware,  or  software,  in  
the   genes   or   the   biology   of   the   mind   and   the   body   that   affects   how   we   think   and  
behave,  and  how  to  use  such  understanding  to  e.g.  sell  goods  more  effectively,  or  to  
‘nudge’  people  into  better  public  behavior.    One  interesting  example  of  the  latter  is  
the   UK   cabinet   office’s   behavioral   insights   team,   usually   called   the   ‘Nudge’   unit,  
which   was   set   up   in   2010   to   find   better   ways   to   look   at   policy   tweaks   that   would  
help  the  quirks  of  our  neural  frameworks  work  better  for  us  -­‐  and  that  would  also  
save   public   money.     While,   understandably,   some   may   find   the   use   of   such  
techniques   somewhat   ethically   dubious,   they   have   been   used   very   effectively   to    
increase   body   organ   donations   by   an   extra   100,000   in   the   UK,   by   establishing   an  
opt-­‐out   scheme,   rather   than   an   opt-­‐in   scheme,   thus   demonstrating   how   such  
understandings  can  bring  useful  benefits  to  what  is  a  public  good.  

  3  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

As  yet,  in  the  field  of  peacebuilding,  we  have  not,  in  any  organized  way,  begun  
to  try  and  investigate  whether  or  not  some  of  these  new  understandings  may  help  
us   to   better   address   some   of   the   neural   forces   that   we   face   as   human   beings   in  
trying  to  better  manage  conflicts  and  wars.  These  would  involve  investigating  issues  
of   genes   and   biology,   and   the   study   of   bio-­‐physical   correlates   of   political   attitudes  
and  behavior,  that  may  have  effected  road  blocks  and  blind  spots  for  many  of  us,  and  
that  appear  to  make  it  more  difficult  for  us  to  end  our  wars.  Perhaps,  just  perhaps,  
there   may   be   useful   grist   for   our   learning   as   peacebuilders,   and   our   evaluation   of  
such   work,   in   such   investigations,   and   this   paper   is   an   attempt   to   begin   that  
conversation.  
I   am   aware   that   in   beginning   it,   I   am   facing   at   least   three   major   challenges.  
The   first   is   that   in   focusing   on   such   understandings   we   may   turn   the   spotlight   away  
from   structural   and   societal   issues   that   are   unfair,   that   exclude,   and   that   oppress  
certain  groups,  and  which  make  their  use  of  violence  understandable,  if  not  justified.  
Any  study  of  my  policy  work,  and  my  publications  throughout  the  years  in  which  I  
have   been   involved   in   this   work   will   show   that   my   very   first   concern   is   that  
organizations,   nations,   regions   etc.   who   oppress   or   exclude   certain   groups   should  
urgently   address   such   structural   issues,   as   they   are   often   the   abiding   backdrop   to  
the  causes  of  many,  if  not  most,  of  our  wars  today.    Issues  of  psycho/sociocultural  
understandings,   and   any   programs   that   are   based   upon   an   understanding   of   such,  
will   be   ineffective   in   the   long   term   if   structural   issues   are   not   addressed.   I   remain  
committed   to   that   belief,   and   the   research   that   follows   in   this   paper   will   in   fact  
underline  the  reality  that  structural  contexts,  for  better  or  worse,  often  define  how  
we  behave  to  each  other  as  groups  of  human  beings.    
The   second   is   the   fact   that   the   legacy   of   scientific   racism   i.e.   the   use   of  
scientific   techniques   and   hypotheses   to   support   or   justify   presumptions   of   racial  
inferiority,  or  racial  superiority,  is  still  with  us.  Many  within  our  various  fields  were,  
and  still  are,  rightly  horrified  about  the  abuse  of  genetic  and  social  data  that  was  the  
legacy   of   the   19th   and   20th   centuries,   and   to   a   certain   extent   is   still   with   us   today,  
although   rarely   openly   justified.   I   am   from   a   group   that   has   suffered   for   centuries  
from   being   portrayed   as   apes   in   the   popular   European   and   UK   press   of   the   19th   and  
20th  centuries.  A  cartoon  published  in  Life  Magazine  on  May  11th,  1893  depicts  the  
apes  in  the  zoo  who  are  sad  that  they  get  called  by  Irish  names  -­‐  which  they  feel  is  to  
their  detriment!    However,  none  of  the  research  that  follows  will  give  any  sway  or  
ballast   to   anyone   interested   in   eliciting   such   differences   for   reasons   of  
discrimination.  Alas,  the  contrary  is  true  –  we  are  all  of  us  indicted  for  the  instincts  
and  the  confusion  that  we  often  bring  to  bear  upon  the  situations  in  which  we  work,  
and  strive  to  build  peace.    
The   third   challenge   is   one   that   I   concede   is   very   valid   indeed,   and   it   is   one  
that   almost   prevented   me   from   writing   this   paper.   The   fact   is   that   much   of   the  
research   that   I   write   about   in   this   paper   is   very   tentative.   The   advantages   of  
neuroscience   have   been   much   touted   for   its   ability   to   look   under   the   hood   of   our  
brains,   and   perhaps   to   help   us   to   see   some   of   the   mechanisms   and   processes   that  
can  help  to  create  and  perpetuate  conflict.  However  the  reality  is  that  many  of  the  

  4  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

mechanisms   used   to   measure   such   thoughts   and   behavior,   such   as   fMRI  

neuroimaging,   are   still   in   their   infancy.   There   are   many   who   will   contest   the  
explanatory  power  of  processes  like  brain  scans,  and  hormonal  measuring,  and  who  
suggest   that   what   we   can   learn   from   current   research   in   neuroscience   has   been  
vastly   overestimated.   Some   researchers   are   concerned   that   the   general   public   has  
been   seduced   into   believing   that   any   study,   research   article,   or   news   report,  
accompanied  by  a  brain  image  or  two,  is  reliable  and  scientific,  not  withstanding  the  
tentative  nature  of  the  research.  In  fairness,  I  have  often  found  that  the  researchers  
themselves  often  acknowledge  the  tentative  nature  of  their  findings.    
Whole  articles,  and  even  books,  have  been  written  about  many  of  the  issues  
mentioned   in   the   paper.   I   have   included   many   of   these   sources   at   the   end   of   the  
paper  so  that  people  can  follow  up  and  make  their  own  judgments  about  what  I,  no  
doubt   coming   from   my   own   biases,   have   chosen   to   pinpoint   as   possibly   useful   for  
our  work.  And  so  new  is  the  field  that  much  of  what  is  contained  within  the  paper  
will   inevitably   change   as   the   research   continues   to   multiply.     As   Wikipedia   would  
say  ‘This  article  has  multiple  issues  -­‐please  help  improve  it  !’  
We  also  need  to  remember  that  most  of  the  research  outlined  in  this  paper  
has  been  conducted  by  and  on  what  are  called  WEIRD  people  i.e.  Western,  Educated,  
Industrialized,  Rich  and  Democratic,  although  some  researchers  have  ventured  into  
comparative   waters.   Such   limitation   in   terms   of   constituencies   studied   brings   its  
own  biases.    
Despite  such  reservations,  I  believe  that  while  there  may  be  little  consensus  
as   yet   on   many   of   the   details   of   the   research,   what   is   not   contentious   is   that   there   is  
an   increasing   recognition   of   an   interdependence   between   the   genetic   and   physical  
aspects   of   our   social   and   political   behavior   that   should   perhaps   be   taken   into  
account  alongside  the  social  and  environmental  factors  that  influence  us  throughout  
the  course  of  our  lives.    
A  few  caveats.  I  have  tried  to  bring  to  bear  a  non-­‐judgmental  approach  to  the  
differences   that   appear   to   be   evident   between   human   beings   and   e.g.   their   neural  
architectures.     As   the   research   shows,   people   and   groups   are   different   in   the   way  
they  think,  process  information,  the  kinds  of  emotions  they  bring  to  bear  upon    
decisions,  the  control  they  have  over  their  emotions,  the  needs  they  have  to  belong  
to  a  group,  what  they  prioritize  as  values,  the  importance  of  ideology  in  their  lives,  
the   way   they   identify   enemies,   the   way   they   see   facts,   what   they   remember   and  
forget,   their   fear   and   suspicions   of   out   groups,   their   need   for   leaders,   etc.   These  
differences   are   neither   good,   nor   bad.     They   just   are   –   and   they   exist   possibly  
because  somewhere  along  the  line  such  differences,  and  a  mix  of  such  differences,    
have  been  important  for  individual  and  group  survival.    What  is  important  I  believe  
is  that  we  understand  these  differences  and  take  them  into  account  in  our  work.    
As  noted  before,  in  attempting  to  understand  these  various  neurological  and  
biological  differences,   and  their  effects  on  individual  and  group  behavior,   I  am  not  
suggesting   that   our   task   should   be   to   end   wars   by   focusing   on   e.g.   drugs   that   can  
change   the   dispositions   of   groups   (although   I   confess   I   have   sometimes   been  

  5  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

tempted   to   suggest   such   –   valium   in   some   water   systems   has   come   into   my   mind  
occasionally!)   or   the   development   of   physical   processes   that   can   manipulate   our  
brains   in   some   fashion.   What   is   important   to   remember   is   that   wars   start   not  
because   of   such   differences,   but   because   such   differences   come   into   play   through  
manipulation   and   violence   within   a   situation   where   people   feel   unequal   and  
excluded.  Most  of  our  recent  and  current  wars  have  come  about  because  of  issues  of  
inequality  or  exclusion  e.g.  Syria,  Iraq,  Sri  Lanka,  Philippines,  Vietnam,  Ukraine,    
Kenya,  etc.    If  such  contexts  had  been  handled  differently,  the  individual  and  group  
differences  noted  in  the  research  might  just  be  part  of  the  normal  grist  of  a  society  
that   is   blessed   with   different   characters   and   approaches   to   the   social   issues   that   are  
the  rule  in  most  peaceful  societies.  
 
Finally,   and   most   importantly,   there   is   nothing   determinist   about   what   is  
revealed   by   the   research   in   this   paper.   Brains   can   be   relatively   plastic   in   their  
nature.   They   can   change   both   their   hardware   and   software,   even   though   this   can   be  
difficult   and   take   much   time,   depending   on   what   has   already   been   established  
biologically  and  environmentally  in  terms  of  what  are  often  unconscious  tendencies.  
The   memory   parts   of   the   brains   of   both   taxi   drivers,   and   of   waitresses   have   been  
shown  to  grow  bigger  because  of  the  increased  activity  necessitated  by  their  work  
focus.   Buddhist   monks  who   do  compassion   meditation  have   been   shown   to  
modulate  their  amygdala,  the  part  of  the  brain  that  is  involved  with  the  experiencing  
of  emotions,  during   their   practice.  It  has  also   been  suggested  that  increased  activity  
in   the   amygdala   following   compassion-­‐oriented   meditation   may   contribute   to   social  
connectedness.  And  evidence  of  increased  empathy  in  our  mirror  neurons  has  been  
shown  to  be  possible  to  achieve  by  dialogue  processes  between  opposing  sides  in  a  
conflict.      

 What   such   plasticity   suggests   is   that   while   we   are,   both   as   individuals   and  
groups,   often   predisposed   to   respond   to   conflicts   in   certain   ways   that   are   more  
sympathetic   to   our   genetic   and   biological   make-­‐up,   as   well   as   our   social   and  
environmental   history,   we   are   not   trapped   by   such   characteristics.   Predisposition  
does  not  mean  predetermination  –  there  is  no  individual  or  group  that  cannot  change    
its   behavior   towards   another   individual   or   group.   But   there   are   many   situations  
where  more  effective  strategies  for  peacebuilding  will  need  theories  of  change  
based  on  a  more  thorough  understanding  of  the  study  of  bio-­‐physical  correlates  of  
social  and  political  attitudes,  and  the  attendant  behavior  involved  in  such  correlates.  
How   can,   and   how   should   we   use   such   insights   in   helping   us   to   better   effect   our  
work  ?    Our  attention  to  such  may  help  us  achieve  more  thoughtful  approaches  than  
hitherto   to   our   work   as   peacebuilders,   given   the   understandings   that   are   being  
revealed  to  us  by  the  nascent  field  of  neuroscience.    
 
 
 
 
 
 

  6  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Section  2:  The  Rider  and  the  Elephant:  Who  is  in  charge  in  our  minds?  
 
In   our   heads   we   have   a   rational   charioteer   who   has   to   rein   in   an   unruly   horse   that  
"barely  yields  to  horsewhip  and  goad  combined."  Plato.  
 
Who  is  in  charge  of  our  minds?    ‘Us’  of  course  we  will  say  –  but  which  us?  Our  
brains   have   many   activity   centers   which   have   different   functions   and   are   connected  
by   chemical   impulses.   These   impulses   transfer   information   through   the   cells   in  
these   brain   regions,   sometimes   at   a   speed   of   250   miles   per   second.   There   appear   to  
be  two  regions  of  the  brain  that  are  important  for  peacebuilders  to  know  about,  and  
how   they   function.   These   are   the   parts   that   process   our   automatic/intuitive  
impulses  and  the  part  that  deals  with  our  conscious/reasoned  processes.
The   first   is   the   size   of   an   almond   and   called   the   amygdala   the   part   of   our  
brain  that  deals  with  our  senses,  with  our  memories,  and  with  our  emotions  such  as  
pleasure  or  fear.  Its  processes  are  automatic,  sometimes  called  intuitive  or  implicit  
processes,   and   are   impulsive   or   instinctive   in   nature     which   means   that   we   have  
little   choice   about   feeling   them.     This   part   of   our   brain   is   often   called   the   old,   or  
“lizard”  brain.  It  is  the  deepest  part  of  the  brain  and  is  reckoned  to  be  at  least  60-­‐200  
million  years  old.  It  records  memories  of  behaviors,  which  have  produced  feelings  of  
good   or   bad   experiences   in   our   lifetime,   and   in   those   of   our   ancestors,   and   is  
responsible  for  our  emotions.  It  exerts  a  very  strong  influence  on  our  choices,  often  
at   an   unconscious   level.   Those   of   us   who   have   bad   tempers,   or   difficulty   in  
restraining  our  eating,  or  other  appetites,  can  understand  its  power.  
Another   important   section   of   the   brain,   is   the   prefrontal   cortex   which    
concerns  itself  with  conscious/rational  processes,  and  is  the  part  that  contributes  to  
more  analytic,  logical  and  thoughtful  responses  to  a  situation.  It  is  considered  to  be  
the  ‘new’  brain  and  is  deemed  responsible  for  the  development  of  human  language,  
for  abstract  thought,  for  our  imaginations,  for  reasoning,  and  our  consciousness.  The  
amygdala   conveys   our   feelings   to   the   frontal   cortex,   the   brain   region   that   controls  
thinking  and  planning,  and  such  feelings  then  affect  our  rational  processes.  
 
These  ‘emotional’  and  ‘reasoning’  minds  coexist  uneasily.  This  challenge  has  
been  well  captured  by  Haidt  in  his  analogy  of  the  Elephant  and  the  Rider,  where  our  
emotional  side  is  the  Elephant  and  our  rational,  reasonable  side  is  the  Rider.    The  
Rider  is  perched  atop  the  Elephant,  and  seems  to  be  the  leader,  but  her/his  control  
is  precarious  because  the  Rider  is  so  small  and  so  new  relative  to  the  much  older    
and   deeper   Elephant.     Anytime   the   Elephant   and   the   Rider   disagree   about   which  
direction  to  go,  the  amygdala/Elephant  part  of  our  brain  is  likely  to  win,  unless  we  
are   able   to   bring   our   Prefrontal   Cortex/Reasoning   to   bear   strongly   upon   our  
decisions.    
 
The  amygdala  is  particularly  likely  to  come  to  the  fore  if  we  are  under  stress  
which   then   makes   it   more   likely   for   our   emotions   to   bypass   our   thinking   cortex   and  
to   return   to   thinking   and   acting   according   to   the   “older”   brain   drives.   The  

  7  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

predominance   of   intuitive/emotive   thinking   versus   cognitive   reasoning,   or   ‘fast  

versus   slow   thinking’   as   it   has   been   termed   recently,   is   particularly   evident   and  
automatic   in   situations   where   fear   is   a   factor,   which   is   an   emotion   that   is   very  
present   in   many   of   the   contexts   we   deal   with   as   peacebuilders.   Such   amygdala  
feelings   come   not   only   from   current   situations,   but   in   many   cases   have   been  
generated   and   fostered   by   many   decades   of   conflict,   and   are   often   the   product   of  
many  generations  histories  of  emotions.    
 
We  are  all  of  us,  no  matter  how  well  educated,  subject  to  the  strength  of  such  
emotions.  Those  of  us  who  have  ever  been  in  riot  situations  have  noted  how  quickly  
such   emotions   come   to   the   fore,  and  they  are  palpably  in  evidence  in  situations   of  
genocide.     Following   such   violence,   people   often   wonder   at   themselves   and   at   the  
atrocities  they  may  have  committed,  and  are  confused  because  they  did  not  believe  
that  such  behavior  was  part  of  their  character.  Following  the  Summer  2011  riots  in  
Britain,   it   was   evident   in   the   court   appearances   that   followed   that   many   young,  
middle  class  teenagers,  who  would  normally  eschew  such  riotous  behaviors,  found  
themselves   actively   caught   in   perpetrating   street   violence.   Many   of   them   looking  
back   say   they   saw   the   riots   as   ‘some   form   of   midsummer   madness,   a   kind   of   bad  
dream’,  and  completely  out  of  their  ‘real’  character.    
 
Unfortunately,   many   of   us   fail   to   understand   how   precarious   is   the  
conscious/rational   side   of   our   brains,   until   we   find   ourselves   in   a   context   that  
unleashes   the   forces   of   our   amygdala.     In   situations   of   conflict   and   violence,   and  
often   preceding   such,   where   our   families,   communities   and   our   people   feel   under  
stress,  fear  and  group  processes  often  overtake  our  emotions.  These  emotions  can  
be  extremely  hard  to  control,  particularly  at  group  level.    It  has  been  suggested  by  
Greene   that   the   human   brain   is   like   a   dual   mode   camera   with   both   automatic  
settings   and   a   manual   mode,   which   is   the   brains   trade   off   between   efficiency   and  
flexibility   i.e.   the   automatic   settings   for   emotions   are   efficient   but   inflexible,   and   the  
manual   mode   is   reasoning,   which   can   be   shaped   by   emotion,   but   not   necessarily  
dictated  to  by  it  unless  we  can  bring  sufficient  force  to  bear  upon  it  by  our  conscious  
rational  selves.    
 
The   upshot   of   such   precariousness   between   fear,   emotion,   and   reasoning   is  
that  for  change  to  happen,  we  need  to  be  both  emotionally  and  rationally  engaged.  It  
is  not  enough  for  people  to  intellectually  understand  that  they  should  take  actions  
that   can   end   a   conflict.   Many   of   us   have   filing   cases   full   of   possible   ‘rational’  
approaches  to  all  of  the  conflicts  in  which  we  are  working.    However,  for  people  to  
actually  approach  that  filing  cabinet,  and  its  possible  solutions,  they  also  need  to  be  
emotionally  motivated  to  do  so,  which  is  often  a  harder  process  to  manufacture  than  
any  reasoning  in  favor  of  particular  solutions.    
 
In  basing  our  work  on  rational/logical  thinking,  we  often  fail  to  understand  
how   little   actual   sway   such   thinking   has   on   the   actors   concerned,   and   on   their  
constituencies  in  the  field.  Time  and  again  we  see  groups  continue  fighting  beyond  
much  apparent  reasonable  gain  for  all  involved.  Peace  agreements  fall  apart  because,  

  8  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

although  the  cognitive  skills  of  those  involved  have  crafted  clever  political  and  social  
compromises,  the  necessary  attendant  emotions  often  destroy  the  agreements  when  
they   return   to   their   land   or   their   people.   And   when   crises   arise   in   the  
implementation  of  such  agreements,  the  emotions  attendant  upon  such  crises  often  
return   leaders   and   their   constituencies   back   to   the   emotions   that   have   helped   to  
kindle  the  violence  in  the  first  place.  Hence  the  number  of  peace  agreements  that  fall  
apart.    
 
An  attendant  problem  is  that  most  of  the  research  on  conflict  is  undertaken  
by   academics   many   of   whom   who   often   fail   to   appreciate   the   strength   of   the  
amygdala   factor.     Many   of   them   still   function   within   a   traditional   international  
‘realist’  politics  framework,  which  deals  with  so  called  ‘rational’  actors,  and  ‘rational’  
states,  and  they  fail  to  appreciate,  or  have  the  vocabulary,  to  deal  with  the  emotional  
factors,  which  is  probably  the  dominant  factor  in  what  is  happening  in  most  of  our  
conflicts  today.    
 
 
Section  :  3  Vive  La  Difference:  How  Brains  differ    
 “I   often   think   it's   comical   /   How   Nature   always   does   contrive   /That   every   boy   and  
every  gal  /  That's  born  into  the  world  alive  /  Is  either  a  little  Liberal  /  Or  else  a  little  
Conservative!”  (W.S.  Gilbert  ditty  1882)  

People   have   genetically   varying   brain   structures.    Some   people   show   an  

increased   gray   matter   volume   in   the   amygdala,  the   structure   in   the  temporal  
lobes  that   performs   a   primary   role   in   the   processing   and   memory  of  emotions.  
Others  show  an  increased  gray  matter  volume  in  the  anterior  cingulate  cortex,  the  
structure   of   the   brain   associated   with   rational/logical   thinking,   with   monitoring  
uncertainty   and   with   handling   conflicting   information.   Functional   magnetic  
resonance   imaging  or  functional   MRI(fMRI)   is   a       technology   that   measures   brain  
activity  by  detecting  associated  changes  in  blood  flow.  fMRI  scans  have  shown  that  
these   differences   in   biology,   and   in   genetics,   influence   differences   in   attitudes   and  
beliefs.     At   one   end   of   the   spectrum,   people,   usually   called   traditionalists   or  
conservatives  in  the  literature,  more  often  use  their  right  amygdala,  the  part  of  the  
brain  associated  with  the  body’s  fight-­‐or-­‐flight  system,  when  making  decisions.  They  
appear   to   have   genetically   greater   sensitivity   to   fear   and   uncertainty,   and   these  
differences  can  be  observed  from  birth.  They  respond  much  more  quickly  to  sudden  
noises  and  threatening  visual  images.      

The   degree   to   which   individuals   are   physiologically   responsive   to   such  

threats  appears  to  indicate  the  degree  to  which  they  advocate  policies  that  protect  
the   existing   social   structure   from   both   external   out   groups   and   internal,   norm-­‐
violator   threats.   Fearful   people   tend   to   be   more   conservative.   They   have   a   greater  
need  for  order,  structure,  and  certainty  in  their  lives,  resist  change  more  often,  and  
are   less   open   to   risk   taking.   Researchers   have   shown   that   they   are   usually   more  

  9  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

supportive   of   policies   that   provide   them   with   a   sense   of   security:     hence   their  
greater   backing   for   e.g.   military   spending,   capital   punishment,   patriotism,   and  
tougher  laws  on  immigration.    

Such   people   also   report   greater   physiological   levels   of  disgust   when   faced  
with   bugs,   or   blood,   and   in   relation   to   such   issues   as   gay   marriage   and   abortion.  
They   value   ‘purity’   and   order   and   are   known   to   devote   high   levels   of   attention   to  
norm  violations.  An  example  of  this  might  be  the  suggestion  by  some  historians  that  
the  development  of  the  Taliban  originally  emerged  out  of  the  disgust  felt  by  former  
pious   mujahedeen   living   in   Pakistan   at   the   lives   of   their   fellow   colleagues   whom  
they   saw   as   socially   and   morally   corrupt   and   impure.   Thus   was   born   the  
commitment   of   the   Taliban,   and   subsequently   the   ISIS/Islamic   State,   to   establishing  
a   ‘pure’   Islamic   state,   with   no   compromises,   through   the   use   of   Sharia   Law.   While  
the   predisposition   to   experience   greater   fear   has   a   genetic   component,   what   exactly  
people  will  fear,  or  towards  which  out  group  they  will  harbor  suspicions,  will  differ  
depending  on  their  environment,  their  culture,  and  their  social  contexts.    

On   the   other   end   of   a   continuum,   there   appear   to   be   people   who   are  

genetically   more   open   to   new   things,   and   to   new   experiences   -­‐   these   are   often  
termed   ‘liberals’.   fMRI   scans   have   shown   that   they   can   better   tolerate   uncertainty,  
and  cognitive  complexity,    take  risks  more  often,  and  have  wider  and  more  diverse  
friendships  They  tend  to  show  greater  activity  in  the  left  insula  of  their  brain,  which  
is  an  area  that  appears  to  be  associated  with  self  and  social  awareness.  They  often  
exhibit   stronger   preferences   for   social   change   and   equality   when   compared   with  
traditionalists.   When   faced   with   a   conflict,   liberals   are   more   likely   than  
conservatives   to   be   more   flexible   and   to   alter   their   habitual   response   when   cues  
indicate  it  is  necessary.  Researchers  have  also  identified  a  variant  called  DRD4-­‐7R,  
which  affects  the  neurotransmitter  called  dopamine,  and  individuals  carrying  it  are  
more  likely  to  turn  out  to  be  liberals.  

There   is   speculation   in   the   literature   that   evolutionary   wise   it   may   have  

proved   useful   to   have   such   varied   types   of   individuals   in   a   society   so   as   to   ensure  
the   best   survival   responses   to   different   sets   of   societal   and   group   challenges.  
Interestingly,   people   whose   amygdalae   have   been   completely   destroyed   appear   to  
feel  that  everyone  is    ‘my  kind’,  and  they  feel  no  threats  from  out-­‐groups.  Such  lack  
of   feelings   would   obviously,   throughout   history,   leave   them   open   to   possible  
manipulation,   abuse   and   extinction.   It   has   also   been   suggested   that   conservatism  
has   been   the   majority   norm   throughout   history,   and   that   the   growth   in   liberalism  
may   be   viewed   as   an   evolutionary   luxury   that   is   increasingly   afforded   only   by   the  
fact  that  many  societies  are  becoming  less  deadly  today.  
 
For   some   researchers,   this   division   of   differences   into   traditionalist/liberal  
dimensions   in   not   multi-­‐dimensional   enough,   and   in   their   fMRI   studies   they   have  
identified  three  different  patterns  of  brain  activation  that  they  believe  correlate  with  
individualism,   conservatism,   and   radicalism.   They   have   used   multidimensional  
scaling   and   parametric   functional   magnetic   resonance   imaging   to   identify   which  

  10  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

criteria/dimensions   people   use   to   structure   complex   political   beliefs   and   which  

brain   regions   are   concurrently   activated.   They   found   that   three   independent  
dimensions   explained   the   variability   of   a   set   of   statements   expressing  
political/social  beliefs  and  that  each  dimension  was  reflected  in  a  distinctive  pattern  
of   neural   activation:   individualism   in   the   medial   prefrontal   cortex   and   in   the  
temporoparietal   junction   of   the   brain,   conservatism   in   the   dorsolateral   prefrontal  
and  radicalism  in  the  ventral  striatum  and  posterior  cingulate  areas.    The  structures  
they  identified  are  also  known  to  be  important  in  ‘self-­‐other’  processing  and  social  
decision-­‐making  in  ambivalent  situations.  
Twin   studies   seem   to   bear   out   the   contention   that   social   and   political  
perspectives   are   genetically   shaped.   A   review   of   over   89   peer-­‐reviewed   papers   on  
the   effects   of   genes   and   environment   (both   family   upbringing   and   their   wider  
context   and   circumstances)   on   twins’   attitudes   to   racial,   sexual   and   religious  
questions,   their   views   on   defense   and   foreign   policy,   and   their   identification   with  
particular  political  parties  showed  a  direct  correlation  between  genetics  and  social  
views,  although  not  a  correlation  with  a  political  affiliation.  A  2005  U.S.  twin  study  
examined  the  attitudes  of  identical  twins  regarding  28  different  social  and  political  
issues   such   as   capitalism,   trade   unions,   X-­‐rated   movies,   abortion,   school   prayer,  
divorce,  property  taxes,  and  the  draft.  They  compared  them  to  non-­‐identical  twins,  
and  estimated  that  genetic  factors  accounted  for  53%  of  the  variance  of  an  overall  
score,  and  on  all  counts,  identical  twins  were  found  to  be  more  alike  in  their  views  
than  fraternal  twins.    
The   findings   of   differing   kinds   of   neural   architecture   would   appear   to   be  
comparative.   Systematic   differences   have   been   noted   across   populations.  
Tolerances   for   group   differences   vary:   those   in   Scandinavia   and   Northern   Europe  
demonstrated   the   most   tolerance   for   out-­‐groups,   and   this   may   help   explain   their  
(current)  more  liberal  social  policies  towards  immigration.    
 
However,   it   is   important   to   remember,   as   noted   before,   that   people   are  
predisposed  but  not  predestined   to   become   ‘conservatives’   or   ‘liberals.’   While   there  
are  no  actual  genes  for  prejudice  or  tolerance,  a  person’s  genes  can  predispose  them  
to   adopt   a   more   cautious,   or   a   more   liberal   response.     How   much   our   genetics  
influence   our   attitudes   and   behavior   is   still   a   major   research   question.   The  
suggestions  range  from  40%  to  53%.  While  it  is  suggested  that  predispositions  can  
be   changed,   and   altered,   effecting   such   change   has   been   likened   to   turning   a  
supertanker  –  such  change  takes  considerable  effort  and  time.  

Critical   also   to   note   is   the   fact   that   certain   environments   such   as   post   9/11  
may  be  so  powerful  that  they  elicit  a  common  response  in  humans  that  leaves  little  
room   for   genetic   differences   to   manifest.   A   study   of   survivors   who   were   highly  
impacted   by   9/11   attack   on   the   New   York   World   Trade   center   found   that   three  
times  as  many  survivors  reported  becoming  more  politically  conservative  in  the  18  
months   following   the   attack,   regardless   of   partisan   identification   and   prior   voting  
patterns.  

  11  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

 
Some   researchers     assert   that   determining   social/political     tendencies   from  
fMRI  data  is  overreaching  its  capacity.  There  are  also  others  who  suggest  that  such  
categorizations   have   a   long   history   that   extends   way   before   the   invention   of  
magnetic   resonance   imaging   and   hormonal   testing.   They   point   out   that   Thomas  
Jefferson  can  be  noted  as  one  of  the  first  ‘neuro-­‐politicians’,  and  indeed  one  who  was  
open  about  his  own  preferred  bias.    The  president  was  convinced  that  the   hardened  
Federalists   he   opposed   were   suffering   from   damaged   brains,   and   diseased   minds,  
which  rendered  them  incapable  of  supporting  healthy  social  growth.  He  suggested    
that   they   were   “nervous   persons,   whose   languid   [nerve]   fibres   have   more   analogy  
with  a  passive  than  active  state  of  things.’    
 
Jefferson   of   course   did   not   have   the   advantage   of   fMRI   scans   capable   of  
confirming  or  otherwise  his  viewpoint.  But  the  fact  that  there  are  now  fMRI    
scanners   that   can   test,   describe   and   predict   how   we   will   think   and   feel   about   an  
issue  or  an  out-­‐group  must  give  us  pause  for  our  peacebuilding  work,  and  how    we  
can    make  our  work  more  effective.      
 
Section  4:     Us    and  Them:  Who  is  my  Neighbor  in  today’s  world?  
 
‘Biologically   humans   have   evolved   for   cooperation   -­‐   but   only   with   some   people’  
(Greene,  2014)  
The   change   in   oxytocin   after   a   social   interaction   as   measured   in   a   person’s  
blood  reflects  changes  in  oxytocin  in  the  brain.    If  it  is  present  in  abundance,  it  can  
make  you  demonstrably  more  generous,  trusting  and  compassionate  towards  your  
neighbors,   or   otherwise.     Experiments   have   shown   that   bonding   within   groups   is  
assisted  by  a  hormone  called  oxytocin,  a  rise  in  the  level  of  which  appears  to  provide  
a   ‘glue’   between   people.   This   hormone   increases   a   sense   of   belonging,   and   of  
connectedness   to   a   group,   and   positively   rewards   cooperation   e.g.   spraying  
Oxytocin  into  people’s  noses  makes  people  more  likely  to  cooperate  in  a  version  of  
the  conflict  resolution  game  called  the  Prisoners  Dilemma,    
Oxytocin  reduces  the  fear  of  social  betrayal  in  humans  and  is  important  for  
the  inhibition  of  the  brain  regions  such  as  the  amygdala,  which  as  we  have  seen  are  
associated  with  stress,  fear,  and  anxiety.   The  genetic  basis  for  oxytocin  production  
and  receptivity  has  been  identified,  and  there  are  indications  that  their  levels  may  
be   inherited.   They   also   may   have   had   an   evolutionary   function.   High   levels   of  
oxytocin   may   have   enabled   some   groups   to   thrive   better   than   others   as   they   have  
been   found   to   correlate   with   different   levels   of   cooperation,   and   to   correlate   with  
different  social  decisions.      
However,  research  has  also  indicated  that  while  oxytocin  can  increase  levels  
of   cooperation   within   a   group,   it   can   also   promote   ethnocentric   behavior.   It   can  
increase   our   suspicion   and   rejection   of   ‘others’   outside   the   group   or   the   tribe,   and   it  

  12  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

makes  people  less  likely  to  cooperate  with  members  of  an  out-­‐group.  This  has  lead  
to   the   suggestion   that   biologically   humans   have   evolved   for   cooperation   but   only  
with   some   people,   and   not   with   others,   and   for   some   researchers   to   suggest   our  
brains  are  wired  for  tribalism.    There  are  also  findings  that  suggest  that  out  group  
biases   such   as   race   bias   may   be   a   fear   “prepared”   by   evolution   and   not   purely  
contextual,  as  elements  of  the  amygdala  appear  to  be  responsible  for,  and  associated  
with,  implicit,  as  opposed  to  explicit,  attitudes  towards  racial  out-­‐groups.    
Our   attitude   towards   out-­‐groups   is   also   affected   by   what   scientists   call  
‘mirror   neurons’.   Brain   imaging   experiments   using  functional   magnetic   resonance  
imaging  (fMRI)   have   shown   that   the   human   inferior   frontal   cortex  and  superior  
parietal   lobe   are   active   when   the   person   both   performs   an   action,   and   also   sees  
another   individual   performing   an   action.   It   has   been   suggested   that   these   brain  
regions  contain  mirror  neurons,  and  they  have  been  defined  as  the  human  ‘mirror  
neuron’   system.     These   particular   neurons   in   the   brain   appear   to   be   linked   to   our  
capacity   for   empathy,   the   emotion   which   enables   us   to   better   understand   other  
peoples   intentions,   feelings   and   emotions   and   allow   us   to   see   the   world   from  
another’s  point  of  view.    
Before   the   discovery   of   mirror   neurons,   scientists   generally   believed   that   it  
was   through   the   use   of   our   brains   and   cognitive   thought   processes   that   we  
interpreted  and  predicted  other  people’s  behavior.  Now,  however,  many  have  come  
to  believe  that  we  actually  understand  others  not  by  thinking,  but  by  feeling  through  
the  ‘mirror’  neurons  in  the  affective  brain  circuits.  These  circuits  are  automatically  
mobilized  when  we  feel  our  own  pain,  and  also  feel  the  pain  of  (some)  others,  and  
they   are  the  part  of  the  neural  circuitry  that  provides  our  emotional  response  to  the  
distress  of  other  people.     This  ability  to  empathetically  perceive  and  respond  to  the  
affective   states   of   another   emerges   as   early   as   two   years   of   age.   The   existence   of  
empathy   is   a   universally   hard-­‐wired   response,   although   its   expression   varies  
according   to   cultural   contexts.   Of   interest   to   note   is   that   the   part   of   the   brain   that  
controls  empathy  appears  to  be  bigger  in  women,  who  show  enhanced  empathetic  
ability  when  compared  to  males.  It  is  suggested  that  empathetic  responses  may  have  
served  an  adaptive  evolutionary  function.    
Researchers   have   however   noted   that   empathy   is   less   commonly   exhibited  
by  adult  individuals  toward  people  from  differing    out  groups.  When  the  context  is  
one   of   perceived   conflict,   the   brain   appears   to   switch   off   the   empathetic   neuron  
almost   completely   and   actively   resists   any   emotional   connection   with   the   perceived  
‘other’  group.  Sociological  studies  have  already  shown  that  high  levels  of  integration  
or   ‘bonding’   within   a   group   seems   to   reduce   a   group’s   capacity   to   develop   ‘bridging’  
and   cooperation,   between   differing   identity   groups,   and   this   is   confirmed   by   the  
research  on  mirror  neurons.  

The   power   of   contact   and   dialogue   in   increasing   empathy   and   connections  

has  been  examined  using  fMRI  imaging,  which  appears  to  be  successful  in  estimating  
such   changes.   Encouraging   perspective   shifting   i.e.   changing   the   way   people  
understand  and  think  about  other  groups  through  meeting  and  talking  can,  if  done  

  13  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

effectively,   actually   alter   the   neural   circuits   concerned   with   identity   differences.  
fMRI  can  also  provide  a  way  of  evaluating  such  changes.    
In  recent  years,  the  Project  on  Justice  in  Times  of  Transition  (now  renamed  
Beyond   Conflict)   has   been   working   with   the   MIT   Saxe   Lab   on   investigating   the  
power  of  dialogue  to  change  perspectives  about  out  groups.    While  dialogue  appears  
to  have  positive  effects,  such  effects  are  highly  influenced  by  the  social  and  political  
perspectives  of  groups  in  relation  to  each  other’s  perceived  status.  Positive  empathy  
towards   opposing   groups   improved   most   among   members   of   the   disempowered  
groups,   such   as   Palestinians   and   Mexicans,   who   told   their   own   stories,   and   were  
listened  to  by  the  group  that  they  perceived  to  be  more  powerful.  On  the  other  hand,  
groups  that  were  perceived  to  be  dominant  groups,  such  as  the  Israelis  and  the  US  
Americans,   increased   their   empathy   by   listening   to   the   stories   of   the   groups   who  
perceived   themselves   to   be   excluded   or   oppressed.   It   seems   that   the   form   of  
dialogue   most   effective   in   soliciting   empathy   differed   according   to   the   perceived  
power   asymmetries   between   the   groups.   These   findings   illustrate   the   need   to  
address,   or   promise   to   address,   structural   societal   differences   as   a   complement   to  
achieving  the  perceived  purpose  of  effective  dialogue  strategies.  If  these  changes  in  
empathy  can  be  sustained  beyond  just  temporary  contact  opportunities,  and  can  be  
carried  back  into  society  by  significant  actors  in  the  conflict,  they  may  provide  the  
field   with   very   useful   data   about   how   best   to   arrange   for   dialogues   aimed   at  
achieving  continuing  empathy  and  synergy  between  opposing  groups.    
Why  do  our  brains  exhibit  such  differing  hormonal  and  neural  responses  to  
our  own  and  to  other  groups?        There  is  a  very  lively  debate  between  researchers  as  
to   whether   the   evolution   of   behavior   happened   at   the   level   of   the   group   or   the  
individual,   and   whether   and   when   the   individual   gene   for   survival   will   predominate  
over  group  needs.  While  the  theory  for  the  success  of  individual  gene  –  the  so-­‐called  
Selfish  Gene  theory  -­‐  has  been  well  addressed,  the  suggestion  of  the  genetic  nature    
of   cooperation   and   altruism,   and   subsequent   success   at   group   level   is   a   relatively  
new  thesis.  The  last  decade  has  seen  a  contemporary  burgeoning  of  literature  and    
debate   about   the   topic.   A   robust   case   is   now   being   made   for   the   idea   that   group  
survival,   as   well   as   individual   survival,   is   an   equally   powerful   genetic   factor   in  
human   beings.   This   theory   suggests   that   such   group   drive,   which   goes   beyond  
kinship,   is   critical   for   humans   to   live   in   groups,   to   raise   families,   to   cooperate   to  
build   villages   and   cities,   and   to   defend   themselves   and   their   territories   against  
threats  to  their  group.    
 
Without  doubt,  the  apparently  selective  nature  of  group  survival  has  been  a  
keen   factor   in   societal   conflicts   and   wars.   The   categorization   of   out-­‐groups   into  
enemies   or   friends,   part   of   our   group   or   not   part   of   our   group,   is   a   universal   trait  
that   takes   place   in   all   societies   and   nations.   Such   framing   of   the   enemy   will  
obviously  differ  and  change  from  context  to  context,  but  has  ever  been  part  of  our  
history,  as  have  been  the  changes  in  such  categorizations.  People  from  Ireland  and  
Italy  were  not  considered    ‘white’  by  most  19th  century  Americans,  and  it  took  a  US  
court   to   decide   in   1909   that   Armenians   were   part   of   the   ‘white’   race.   The  

  14  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

categorization  of  African  American,  Latinos  and  Native  Americans  as  societal  ‘others’  
continues   in   many   contexts   in   the   United   States.     Even   the   apparently   smallest   of  
differences  such  as  those  between  Sunni  or  Shia,  or  Catholic  or  Protestant,  or  French  
or  English  speakers  can  provide  a  framework  for  violent  and  often  deadly  conflict.      
Such   racial,   religious,   ethnic   and   language   categorizations   at   community,  
regional,   national   and   international   level   are   the   grist   for   the   mill   of   most   of   our  
wars  around  the  world  today,  and  are  easily    utilised  by  leaders  for  their  own  gain.  
They  appear  to  be  assisted  in  this  by  our  network  of  interacting  neural  circuitry,  and  
the   hormones   that   are   responsible   for   the   emotions   with   which   we   address   out-­‐
group  categorization.  Such  categorizations  often  work  outside  of  our  awareness,  but  
often   have   deadly   consequences.   It   enables   our   group   to   mobilize   itself   to   kill  
another   group   when   the   context   appears   to   call   for   group   solidarity   in   the   face   of  
suspicion  and  fear.    
While   religion   and   ideologies   often   bind   a   group   together   they   are   not  
necessary   to   the   development   of   group   boundaries.   Almost   any   form   of   group  
relationships,  such  as  gangs,  cults  or  paramilitarism  can  suffice.  This  is  particularly  
true  for  young  men,  where  killing  of  others  can  provide  for  a  feeling  of  cooperation  
in   a   larger   cause   than   themselves,   and   a   way   to   gain   esteem   in   the   eyes   of   their  
peers.   Many   psychological   experiments   have   already   proven   how   contextually  
dependent   are   our   decisions   within   group   contexts   which   can   radically   alter   our  
‘normal’  pattern  of  behavior,  usually  in  favor  of  group  pressures.  Groups  can  and  do  
become   our   energizer   of   ideas   and   actions,   often   beyond   individual   reasoning.     In  
Section   5   we   will   see   how   we   also   appear   to   be   programmed   to   excuse   our   own  
group,  and  blame  others,  to  see  the  faults  of  others  clearly,  but  be  blind  to  our  own.    
In   addition,   our   devotion   to   leaders   may   have   developed   to   facilitate  
cooperation   in   large   groups.     Our   leaders   are   often   chosen   because   of   emotional  
choices.   A   lot   of   this   appears   to   be   part   of   our   evolutionary   history.   Being   social  
animals,   we   are   perhaps   ‘programmed’   to   try   to   lead,   and   to   be   led.   We   usually  
choose  our  leaders  because  of  our  gut  instincts,  not  after  a  thorough  analysis  of  their  
characters  or  strategies.  We  often  prefer  our  leaders  to  speak  with  certainty  about  
issues   we   are   concerned   about   –   often   irrespective   of   the   substance   of   their  
arguments.   Leaders   who   express   hesitation,   or   even   endorse   the   value   of  
consultation,   can   be   anathema   to   us.     Our   need   is   for   them   to   be   clear   and   strong,  
particularly   if   we   are   afraid.   This   may   have   been   the   result   of   our   evolutionary  
history.   We   appear   to   be   programmed   to   be   led   and   to   have   faith   in   hierarchies,  
because  of  our  desire  to  be  conform  and  be  protected.    This  followership  can  lead  us  
into  excluding  others,  and  carrying  out  violent  atrocities.  The  obedience  studies  of  
Stanley   Milgram   illustrate   this   tendency   to   "blindly"   carry   out   the   orders   of   an  
authority,   even   when   it   means   painfully   shocking   and   potentially   harming   an  
innocent   victim.   Once   people   have   adopted   a   leader,   even   new   negative   information  
about  that  leader  can  often  lead  them  to  intensify  rather  than  lessen  their  support  
for  him/her  (mostly  him).  Obedience  studies  show  how  easy  it  is  for  us  to  do  harm  
to  others  either  by  being  ordered  to,  or  by  taking  on  the  roles  of  e.g.  prison  guards,  

  15  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

and   then   adopting   practices   that   appear   to   be   contrary   to   what   we   understand   is  

our  normal  behavior.  

  Once  again,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  such  tendencies  can  be  
mitigated.  One  of  the  most  important  conclusions  from  neuroscience  research  is  that  
the   human   brain,   throughout   life,   is   predisposed   to   be     physically   molded,   in  
ongoing   ways,   by   human   interactions   in   contexts   that   provide   for   social   learning,  
and   the   rewiring   of   neural   pathways.   As   we   have   seen   throughout   history,   our  
definition   of   which   out-­‐groups   are   our   enemies   is   socially   learned,   and   also   that  
such   enemies   can   and   do   change.   People   living   in   more   market-­‐   integrated   societies  
tend  to  be  more  altruistic  and  tolerant  to  strangers,  and  more  adept  at  cooperating  
with  them.  This  suggests  that  although  our  brains  are  wired  for  tribalism  they  can  
be  (eventually?)  rewired  to  include  wider  groups  through  experience,  and  contexts  
and   institutions   that   facilitate   tolerance.   Whether   we   can   totally   eradicate   this  
tendency   appears   doubtful.   It   is   commonplace   for   peacebuilders   to   wish   for   an  
overarching  enemy,  perhaps  outside  of  our  earthly  context,  to  provide  a  ‘safe’  target  
against   which   humans   can   unite   and   forget   their   differences,   and   this   hope   is   a  
logical   one,   based   on   an   accurate   perception   of   human   nature.   It   accords   with   an  
understanding  of  the  nature  of  human  groups  and  the  wars  between  them,  and  the  
usefulness  of  a  common  enemy  around  which  to  rally  groups  emotions.    

There   have   been   many   experiments   in   testing   whether   and   how   one   can  
increase   a   surge   in   oxytocin   in   our   brains,   as   an   ability   to   ensure   such   may   have  
some  utility  for  the  field  in  enhancing  trust  between  group.  Such  an  increase  might    
help   in   managing   difficult   encounters   and   conversations   between   erstwhile   and  
current  enemies.  Indeed  many  of  the  stories  of  peacebuilders  about  how  peace    
agreements   were   eventually   reached   often   point   to   informal,   and   often  
unrecognized,  personal  and  group  processes  that  appear  to  have  been  successful  in  
increasing  oxytocin  and  trust  levels.   These  included  factors  such  as  gift  giving,  meal  
sharing,  alcohol,  where  such  was  culturally  permitted  (just  a  modicum  –  too  much  
can   make   us   more   belligerent!)   empathetic   responses   to   ‘others’   family   crises,  
positive  physical  gestures,  expressions  of  understanding  and  appreciation,  physical  
manifestations   of   listening,   sharing   of   family   stories,   group   singing,   etc.   Note   that  
none,  or  almost  none  of  these  are  mentioned  in  the  mediator’s  guidebooks,  but  fMRI  
and  hormonal  testing  indicate  that  perhaps  they  should  be.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  16  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Section  5:  The  Believing  Brain:  How  we  fool  ourselves  and  others.  
 
‘The  first  principle  is  that  you  must  not  fool  yourself  -­‐  and  you  are  the  easiest  person  to  
fool’  Feynman  (1974)  
‘Our   moral   thinking   is   much   more   like   a   politician   seeking   votes   that   a   scientist  
searching  for  truth’  Haidt    (2012)  
Why  do  we  believe  what  we  believe?    Because  it  is  true?    Rarely,  it  appears.  
Our   beliefs   in   many   cases   appear   to   be   determined   not   by   ‘truth’   but   by   our   own  
physical  tendencies,  our  needs  for  beliefs,  or  moral  values  and  the  cultural  context  
in   which   we   live.   In   other   words,   beliefs   often   come   first   from   our   physical  
characteristics,   and   then   our   social   environment   i.e.   we   mainly   rationalize   what   our  
guts  (and  fears)  tell  us.    

Experiments   have   shown   the   interdependence   of   genetic,   social   and  

environmental  factors  in  the  development  of  our  beliefs  and  moralities.  Researchers  
have   used   genome-­‐wide   linkage   analysis   i.e.   an   examination   of   the   many  
common  genetic  variants  in  different  individuals,  in  order  to  identify  chromosomal  
regions   associated   with   social   and   political   attitudes   along   the  
‘liberalism/conservatism’   scale.   In   2010   a   study   implicated   a   gene   known  
as  DRD4  in  the  development  of  general  social/political  orientation.  The  DRD4  gene  
encodes  a  receptor  molecule  for  a  neuro-­‐transmitter  called  dopamine.  Those  with  a  
variant  of  DRD4  called  7R,  and  also  a  large  network  of  acquired  friends,  tended  to  be  
more  liberal.    

The  research  suggests  that  the  development  of  a  liberal  disposition  requires  
both   a   genetic   input   (the   7R   variant)   and   an   environmental   one   (the   network   of  
friends)   to   take   effect.   DRD4-­‐7R   had   previously   been   associated   with   novelty-­‐
seeking   behavior,   and   the   researchers   speculated   that   the   interaction   of   that  
tendency,   with   its   attendant   exposure   to   lots   of   different   ideas   held   by   lots   of  
different  people  might  push  an  individual  in  a  liberal  direction.  Later  research  has  
found   a   further   11   genes,   different   varieties   of   which   might   be   responsible   for  
inclining   people   towards   liberal   or   conservative   beliefs.   These   included   genes  
involved   in   the   regulation   of   three   neurotransmitters—dopamine,   glutamate   and  
serotonin—and   also   G-­‐protein-­‐coupled   receptors,   which   react   to   a   wide   variety   of  
stimulants.   Many   other   studies   have   shown   that   biology   and   psychology   are  
inextricably   linked.   This   means   that   when   our   physical   biology   is   altered,   this   can  
lead  to  changes  in  personality  tastes,  preferences,  perceptions,  attention,  emotions,  
attitudes  and  behaviors.      
While  we  appear  to  have   automatic   settings   for   our   beliefs   that   are   based   on  
a  combination  of  our  neurological  architecture  and  our  social  context,  the  substance  
of   what   we   believe   as   individuals   is   right   or   is   wrong   is   not  usually   something   we  
learn   for   ourselves.     We   inherit   the   majority   of   our   beliefs,   perhaps   as   a   legacy   of  
what   helped   our   ancestors  survive.     As   we   have   seen   in   Section   4,   our   views   as   part  

  17  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

of  a  group  are  rarely  based  on  cognitive  processing  –  they  are  often  a  case  of  group  
think,  i.e.  views  that  are  based  on  group  needs,  rather  than  based  on  fact  checking.  
They  are  what  Haidt  calls  ‘groupish’  which  means  that  we  usually  approve  of  what  
we   think,   or   are   told   is   good   for   our   group.   While   our   group   beliefs   often  
successfully  serve  what  is  seen  as  an  evolutionary  need  to  bind  us  more  closely  to  
each   other,   and   thus   ensure   our   group   survival,   they   often   unfortunately   blind   us   to  
the  points  of  view  of  other  groups.  In  Haidt's  term,  morality  "binds  and  blinds"  i.e.  it  
binds  us  to  the  group  and  blinds  us  to  the  point  of  view  of  outsiders.  

Once   group   beliefs   are   sacrosanct,   the   members   of   a   group   often   lose   their  
ability   (and   their   freedom)   to   think   rationally   about   them.   This   is   helped   by   the   fact  
that,  once  our  views  have  been  formed,  we  have  a  tendency  to  see  and  find  evidence  
in   support   of   already   existing   beliefs,   and   ignore   evidence   that   challenges   them.  
fMRI  studies  have  shown  that,  when  faced  with  logical  contradictions  to  their  deeply  
held   beliefs,   people   often   feel   negative   emotions,   but   there   is   no   increase   in   the  
dorsolateral   cortex,   the   part   of   their   brain   which   is   used   for   reasoning.   Most   of   us    
do   all   that   we   can  to  protect   our  group  beliefs  by  watching  media   sources   such   as  
Fox  News,  or  certain  programs  on  MSNBC,  or  by  reading  the  New  York  Times  or  the  
Washington  Times,  or  the  London  Times  or  Guardian,  Haaretz  or  Jerusalem  Post,  etc.  
often   to   solidify   what   we   believe.     Of   course,   most   of   us   may   be   unaware   of   such  
biased   choices,   and   refuse   to   acknowledge   this.   Conflicting   groups   watching   the  
same   media   coverage   of   their   differences   all   think   it   biased   against   them.   And   when  
asked   to   choose   between   accepting   the   views   of   an   expert   (such   as   one   on   global  
warming)  and  being  a  good  member  of  a  tribe,  the  latter  is  often  more  important.      

Research   seems   to   suggest   that   while   more   highly   educated   people   are   more  
supportive   of   out   groups,   people   with   high   IQs   are   not   necessarily   better   at  
understanding  the  other  side  in  a  moral  dispute.  They  are  however  better  at  making  
the  case  for  what  they  believe.    

It   appears   that   collective   ideological   beliefs,   whether   religious,   cultural   or  

social,   serve   to   strengthen   group   bonds,   which   possibly   helped   groups   to   win   the  
societal   competition   for   group   level   survival.   The   function   of   such   beliefs   often  
appears   to   be   more   important   than   their   content,   and   the   substance   of   our   beliefs  
are   often   less   important   than   with   whom   we   share   those   beliefs.   Those   of   us   who  
have   tried   to   have   theological,   moral   or   social   discussions   with   religious   or   social  
fundamentalists  have  usually  found  how  unsuccessful  such  an  exchange  process  can  
be.     It   seems   that   the   religious   or   political   beliefs   are   more   often   about   a   sense   of  
solidarity   and   collectiveness,   than   about   truth.     Such   group   beliefs   are   seen   by   some  
researchers  as  more  akin  to  ‘team  sports’  than  to  a  form  of  ‘truth’.    This  can  help  us  
understand  young  loyalist  militants  in  Northern  Ireland  who  believe  that  the  1690  
battle,  which  their  tribe  won,  can  be  found  recorded  in  the  bible.  Or  the  many  young  
men   fighting   with   the   opposition   in   Syria,   or   currently   with   the   Islamic   State   who  
often   have   little   idea   of   the   main   players   in   the   war,   but   have   blind   adherence   to  
their  team  peers,  and  their  team  cause.    

  18  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Once  adopted,  our  opinions  become  intertwined  with  our  self  or  group  image,  
and   we   avoid   situations   that   may   challenge   our   deeply-­‐   held   beliefs.     Reasoning   is  
therefore  often  carried  out  to  serve  the  purpose  of  persuasion,  not  of  discussion.  For  
many   people   moral   reasoning   is   usually   generated   only   after   a   belief   has   been  
assumed   instinctively.   We   often   lie   even   to   ourselves   because   it   appears   that   self-­‐
deception   is   an   assistive   process   that   enables   us   to   more   convincingly   deceive  
others.  We  usually  suffer  from  attribution  bias  i.e.  the  tendency  to  attribute  different  
causes  and  justifications  for  our  own  beliefs  and  actions  than  that  of  others.  When  
bad   things   happen,   it   is   always   their   fault,   not   ours,   their   violence   is   terrorism,   ours  
is  justified  by  security  needs.    
Our   memories   too   are   also   notoriously   faulty   –   they   often   reframe   and   edit  
events  so  as  to  create  a  story  that  will  fit  our  current  situation,  conflating  the  past  
and  present  to  suggest  a  story  to  us  that  suits  our  what  we  need  to  believe  today.    
Confirmation  bias,  i.e.  the  adjustment  of  our  thinking  to  fit  what  we  want  to  
believe,   appears   to   be   an   essential   part   of   an   evolutionary   adaptation   as   a   built   in  
feature,  and  may  not  easily  be  removed.  
Religion  remains  the  world’s  most  dominant  group  belief    (84%  of  the  worlds  
population   belongs   to   some   form   of   organized   religion)   and   it   can   be   a   very  
powerful  motivator  for  individual  and  collective  violent  action.  Almost  all  forms  of  
religion  –  Christianity,  Buddhism,  Islam,  Hinduism,  Judaism,  have  served  throughout  
history,   and   many   still   do   today,   to   provide   frameworks   of   belief   that   justify  
exclusion   and   violence.   It   appears   that   almost   any   ideological   framework   can   be  
used  to  serve  as  a  binding  group  factor.      
Political   neuroscience   researchers,   who   specifically   investigate   the  
relationship   between   the   brain   and   politics,   have   suggested   that   trying   to  
understand   the   persistence   and   passion   of   religion   by   studying   or   arguing   about  
beliefs   about   God   is   the   equivalent   of   trying   to   understand   the   persistence   and  
passion  of  football  supporters  by  studying  the  movement  of  the  football.    From  this  
perspective,  ideologies  are  not  systems  of  truth,  but  essentially  a  group  adaptation.  
They  are  usually  born  out  of  a  particular  social  context,  allied  to  physiological  needs  
such   as   a   differing   neural   sensitivity   to   threats,   a   greater   need   for   the   security   of  
identity,   and   the   greater   certainty   of   belief   that   a   group   can   provide.     It   is   also  
important   to   note   it   is   not   just   religion   that   can   engender   collective   support   for  
violence.  The  single  most  prolific  group  of  suicide  attackers  in  the  world  has  actually  
been   the   Tamil   Tigers   of   Sri   Lanka,   which   is   a   secular   movement   of   national  
liberation,  with  only  nominal  religious  affiliation.  Communism,  an  ultra  secular  form  
of   social   ideology,   has   been   responsible   for   many   more   millions   of   deaths   than  
religion  during  the  early  part  of  the  20th  century.    

Our  biology  also  appears  to  affect  our  prioritization  of  our  social  and  moral  
beliefs,   and   such   differences   can   evoke   both   group   solidarity   and   significant   out  
group   misunderstanding   or   hatred.     For   some   people,   such   as   those   on   the   more  
‘liberal’   side,   care   for   others,   and   fairness   to   others,   are   priority   values,   and   they  

  19  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

often  see  the  need  to  have  them  incorporated  into  a  governments  social  structures.    
For   others,   whose   brains   tend   more   strongly   towards   values   such   as   loyalty,  
sanctity,  authority  and  liberty,  these  values  matter  more  the  ‘fairness’  and    ‘caring’  
exemplified   by     ‘big   government’,   and   they   prefer   to   undertake   their   caring   through  
personal   and   group   charity   to   which   they   donate   more   often   than   liberals.   Such  
findings   have   been   used   to   explain   why   working   class   and   rural   voters   often   appear  
to   vote   for   their   values,   rather   than   their   economic   interests.   They   have   also   been  
the  source  of  many  political  and  social  differences  in  the  USA  and  the  UK  about  the  
role  of  governments.    Such  differences  in  the  prioritization  of  social  values  can  also  
be  seen  cross  culturally,  and  across  nations.    
While   systems   of   belief,   and   the   shared   nature   of   values,   can   foster   great  
courage   and   group   altruism,   it   seems   that   such   altruism   is   often   of   a   parochial  
nature,  and  associated  with  a  particular  ideological  or  territorial  group,  rather  than  
a  global  one.  How  such  group  altruism  can  fare  in  the  increasing  diversity  of  all  our  
societies,   and   within   an   increasingly   globalized   world   is   a   major   question   for   the  
peacebuilders  of  today.        
Conclusion:      

My   hope   is   that   a   greater   appreciation   about   how   our   genetic   and   physical  
predispositions,   allied   to   environmental   factors,   can   affect   our   human   behavior,  can  
strengthen   our   consideration   of   what   we   can   learn   from   the   emerging   field   of  
neuroscience.    Such  learning,  if  used  wisely,  may  help  us  to  develop  more  effective  
strategies   for   peacebuilding   that   can   build   on   our   greater   understanding   of   the  
realities  of  human  nature,  and  its  neural  legacies,  rather  than  ignoring  them.  It  may  
help   us,   and   the   groups   we   work   with   to   understand   better,   and   relate   more  
empathetically,   more   realistically,   and   more   compassionately   to   conflicted   groups  
who  behave  as  they  do  at  such  significant  cost  to  themselves  and  others.    Hopefully  
this   will   help   us   to   craft   more   effective   peacebuilding   strategies   for   the   many  
challenges  ahead  of  us  in  the  decades  to  come.    
(And  -­‐  If  we  find  such  reflections  as  are  noted  in  this  paper  distasteful  in  any  way,  
can  we  say  why,  and  have  a  discussion  about  it?)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  20  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Section  6:    Questions  for  the  Peacebuilder:  

 
1. How  comfortable  are  we  at  accepting  the  limitations  of  a  ‘rational’  approach  
to   peacebuilding?     What   are   the   consequences   for   our   work   of  
acknowledging  the  primary  importance  of  feelings  in  conflict  contexts?  
2. If  people  have  brains  that  are  predisposed  differently  towards  outgroups  and  
new   ideas,   how   do   we   develop   strategies   that   take   account   of   this   in   our  
work?    
3. How  do  we  work  with  groups  who  are  passionately  committed  to  only  their  
own   group   vision   of   faith   or   social   ideology?   How   can   we   increase   more  
constructive  group  memberships  that  increase  individual  and  group  feelings  
of  positive  meaning,  safety,  and  inclusion  towards    ‘other’  communities?  
4. How  do  we  avoid  getting  caught  up  in  arguments  about  the  ‘truth’  or  ‘facts’  as  
believed  by  particular  groups  ?  How  can  we  better  understand  and  respond  
to  what  is  often  behind  such  arguments?  
5. How   can   we   ‘nudge’   our   societies   into   their   best   inclusive   behaviors?   What  
kinds   of   local   and   international   societal   policies   and   institutions   can   we  
implement  that  can  decrease  our  tendencies  towards  fear  of  the  ‘other’  
6. What   kind   of   peace   agreements   can   best   deliver   on   feelings   of   equity   and  
inclusion,  as  well  as  ensuring  the  quantifiable  reality  of  such  agreements  on  
issues  of  land,  rights  participation,  etc?  
7. How   do   we   change   our   peacebuilding   work   so   that   our   strategies   can   take  
account  of  the  frailty  of  our  inherited  human  nature  that  tends  towards  fear  
and   exclusion   of   others   -­‐   as   well   as   our   human   capacities   for   cooperation,  
altruism  and  courage?  
8. How   can   help   to   create/choose/assist   leaders   who   foster   community   and  
structural  inclusion  rather  than  divisions?  How  can  we  increase  the  power  of  
such  leaders  with  their  constituents?  
9. How   would   we   describe   our   own   predispositions   along   a  
conservative/liberal   continuum?   Do   we   have   moral   feelings   of   superiority  
about  our  particular  end  (or  middle)  of  the  continuum?  Do  we  appreciate  the  
need  for  society  to  have  people  who  are  both  ‘traditional/conservative’  and  
‘liberal’-­‐  despite  our  own  particular  predisposition?    
10. How  can  we  pitch/target  our  messages  and  campaigns  to  different  audiences  
in   full   awareness   of   their   differing   neural   dispositions?   How   do   we   frame  
messages  about  our  work  so  that  they  appeal  to  the  whole  brain,  and  not  just  
the  rational  part  of  it?      
 
 
 

  21  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Bibliography  and  Resources:    

 
Section  1:  Introduction  
 
Benedictus,   Leo   (2013)   The   Nudge   Unit   –   has   it   worked   so   far?   Guardian.  
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/02/nudge-­‐unit-­‐has-­‐it-­‐
workedGuardian  2  May  2013  06.00  BST  
Bruneau   E,   and   Saxe   R.   (2012).   The   power   of   being   heard:   the   benefits   of  
'perspective-­‐giving'   in   the   context   of   intergroup   conflict.  Journal   of   Experimental  
Social  Psychology  48(4)  855-­‐866.    
 
Chance,  Paul  (2001)  The  Barmaid's  Brain.  Freeman      

Dooley,   Roger:   (2011)   Brainfluence:  100  Ways  to  Persuade  and  Convince  Consumers  
with  Neuromarketing.  John  Wiley    

Fitzduff,  Mari:  (1989)  From  Ritual  to  Consciousness  -­‐  a  study  of  change  and  progress  
in  Northern  Ireland.  Unpublished  PhD.  New  University  of  Ulster.    
Fitzduff,   Mari,   and   Stout,   Chris   (eds)   (2005)   The   Psychology   of   Resolving   Global  
Conflicts:  From  War  to  Peace  Palgrave  Press.    
 
Fitzduff,   Mari   (2013)   Public   Policies   in   Shared   Societies:   A   Comparative   Approach.  
Palgrave  MacMillan    

Glimcher,  Paul,  Fehr,  Ernst:  (2013)  Neuroeconomics:  Decision  Making  and  the  Brain  
Academic  press  

Henrich,   Joseph   ,   Heine   Steven  J.  ,   Norenzayan,   Ara   (2009)   The   Weirdest   People   in  
The  World:  How  representative  are  experimental  findings  from  American  university  
studnets   ?   What  do  we  really  know  about  human  psychology?     University   of  
Columbia   Website.  
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_final02.pdf  

Hutcherson,  Cendri  A.;  Seppala,  Emma  M.;  Gross,  James  J.  (2008).  "Loving-­‐kindness  
meditation  increases  social  connectedness”.  Emotion  8  (5):  720–4.  

Korolak,   Rhondalynn:   (2013)   Google   Uses   Neuromarketing   To   Revolutionize   SEO.  

PR   Newswire,   March   14   2013   http://imagineeringnow.com/media/press-­‐
releases/google-­‐neuromarketing-­‐seo/  

Neuberg,  Andrew:      (2012)  Principles  of  Neurotheology.  Ashgate  Science  and  Religion  
Series.    

  22  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Noll,  Douglas,E:  (2006)  Neuropsychology  of  Conflict:  Implications  for  Peacemaking  

in  The  Psychology  of  Global  Conflicts:  From  War  to  Peace  Vol  1.  Eds.  Fitzduff,  Mari  and  
Stout,  Chris.  Palgrave  Press,  Westport.  

Organ   Donation   Taskforce:     The   potential   impact   of   an   opt   out   system   for   organ  
donation   in   the   UK:   An   independent   report   from   the   Organ   Donation   Taskforce.  
http://www.odt.nhs.uk/pdf/the-­‐potential-­‐impact-­‐of-­‐an-­‐opt-­‐out-­‐system-­‐for-­‐organ-­‐
donation-­‐in-­‐the-­‐UK.pdf  

Sachs,  Oliver:  (2011)  The  Man  Who  Mistook  His  Wife  for  a  Hat.  Picador  
 
Singer,   Natasha:   (2010)     "Making   Ads   that   Whisper   to   the   Brain".   The   New   York  
Times.  (3  November  2010  

Sharp,  Gwen:  (2008)  Negative  Stereotypes  Of  The  Irish  

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-­‐stereotypes-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
irish/  Sociological  Images  Oct  6,  2008,  
Spranger,   Tade   Matthias:   (2012)   International   Neurolaw:   A   Comparative   Analysis  
Springer  Science  &  Business  Media,  

Sunstein,  Cass  and  Thaler,  Richard:  (2009)  Nudge:  Improving  Decisions  About  Health,  
Wealth  and  Happiness.  Penguin.  

Wade,   Nicholas   (2014)   A  Troublesome  Inheritance:  Genes,  Race  and  Human  History,  
by  Nicholas  Wade.  Penguin  Press.  

WIRED   UK   (2011)   How   Driving   a   Taxi   Changes   London   Cabbies’   Brains.   WIRED  
http://www.wired.com/2011/12/london-­‐taxi-­‐driver-­‐memory/  
 
Sources,  Section  2:  The  Rider  and  the  Elephant    
 
Frith,   Chris:     (2007)   Making  Up  the  Mind:  How  the  Brain  Creates  Our  Mental  World.  
Wiley  Blackwell.  
 
Greene,   Joshua:     Beyond   Point-­‐and-­‐Shoot   Morality:   Why   Cognitive   (Neuro)Science  
Matters   for   Ethics.   www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-­‐Ethics-­‐
PrePub-­‐1-­‐14-­‐14.pdf  
 
Greene,   Joshua:   (2012)   Moral  Tribes:  Emotion,  Reason  and  the  Gap  Between  Us  and  
Them.  Atlantic  Books.    
   
Haidt,   Jonathan   (2001)   The   Emotional   dog   and   its   rationalist   Tail:   A   Social  
intuitionist  Approach  to  Moral  Judgement.    Psychological  Re\it"A2001.  Vol.  108.  No.  
4,  814-­‐834.http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf  
Haidt,   Jonathan:   (2007)   The  Happiness  Hypothesis:  Finding  Modern  Truth  in  Ancient  
Wisdom.  Arrow.    

  23  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Heath,   Chip   and   Heath,   Dan   (2010)   Switch.   How   to   Change   Things   When   Change   is  
Hard.  Crown  Business.  
Kahneman,  Daniel:  (2012)  Thinking  Fast  and  Slow.  Penguin  
 
Mooney,  Chris:  (2012)  The  Republican  Brain:  The  Science  of  Why  They  Deny  Science-­‐-­‐
and  Reality  Wiley  Press.  
 
Shapiro,   Dan,   and   Fisher,   Roger:   (2007)   Beyond   Reason:   Using   Emotions   as   You  
Negotiate.  Penguin  USA    

Tversky,   Amos   and   Kahneman,   Daniel:   (1974)   Judgment   under   Uncertainty:  

Heuristics  and  Biases.  Science,  New  Series,    Vol.  185,  No.    4157.  (Sep.  27,  1974),  pp.  
1124-­‐1131  
 
Sources:  Section  3.  Vive  La  Difference:  How  Brains  differ.    
 
Aue,   T;   Lavelle,   LA;   Cacioppo,   JT:   (2008)   Great   Expectations:   What   Can   FMRI  
Research   Tell   Us   About   Psychological   Phenomena?     International   Journal   of  
Psychophysiology.  Volume  73,  Issue  1,  July  2009,  Pages  10–16  
Alford,   John   R;   Funk,   Carolyn;   Hibbing,   John   R.   :   Are   Political   Orientations  
Genetically  Transmitted?  American  Political  Science  Review  Vol.  99,  No.  2  May  2005  
Amodio,   David;     Jost,   John;   Master,   Sarah;   Yee,   Cindy   (2007)   "Neurocognitive  
Correlates  of  Liberalism  and  Conservatism,"  Nature  Neuroscience,  Sep.  9,  2007  
Block,   J   &   Block,   J.   H.   (2006).   Nursery   school   personality   and   political   orientation  
two  decades  later.  Journal  of  Research  in  Personality,  40,  734–749  
 
Bonanno,  G.  A    &  Jost,  J.  T.  (2006).  Conservative  shift  among  high-­‐exposure  survivors  
of   the   September   11th   terrorist   attacks.   Basic  a nd  Applied  Social  Psychology,  28,  
311–323  

Caroll,   Joseph   (2004)   Who   Supports   The   Death   Penalty?   The   Gallup   Organisation   :  
November   16,   2004   http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-­‐poll-­‐who-­‐supports-­‐
death-­‐penalty    

Employee   Of   The   New   York   Times,  and     Hubbard,   Ben   (2014)   Life   In   A   Jihadist  
Capital:   Order   With   A   Darker   Side.   New   York   Times.  
Http://Www.Nytimes.Com/2014/07/24/World/Middleeast/Islamic-­‐State-­‐
Controls-­‐raqqa-­‐syria.html?_r=0  

Hatemi,  Peter   K;   McDermott,   Rose;   Eaves,  Lindon   J;   Kendler,   Kenneth   S;   and   Neale,  
Michael   C.   (2013)     Fear   as   a   Disposition   and   an   Emotional   State:   A   Genetic   and  

  24  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Environmental   Approach   to   Out-­‐Group   Political   Preferences.   American   Journal   of  

Political  Science  Volume  57,  Issue  2,  pages  279–293,  April  2013  
 
Hatemi,   P.   &   McDermott,   R.(Eds.)(2011).   Man   is   by   nature   a   political   animal:  
Evolution,  Biology  and  Politics.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press  
 
Hatemi,  Peter  K,  McDermott  R,  (2012)  The  genetics  of  politics:  discovery,  challenges,  
and  progress  Trends  in  Genetics  Volume  28,  Issue  10,  p525–533,  October  2012  

Inbar,   Yoel,   Pizarro,   David,   Ravi,   Haidt,   Ravi,   (2012)   Disgust   Sensitivity,   Political  
Conservatism,   and   Voting.   Social   Psychological   and   Personality   Science.  September  
2012  vol.  3  no.  5537-­‐544  http://spp.sagepub.com/content/3/5/537.short  

Inbar,   Yoel;   Pizarro,   David;   Bloom,   Paul.     (2009)   Conservatives   are   more   easily  
disgusted  than  liberals  Cognition  &  Emotion  Vol.  23,  Iss.  4,    

 
 Jeffrey,   Terence   (2010)   Conservatives   Are   More   Than   Twice   as   Likely   as   Liberals   to  
Be   Strongly   Patriotic,   Says   Gallup   Poll   CNS   July   4,   2010  http://c  
nsnews.com/news/article/conservatives-­‐are-­‐more-­‐twice-­‐likely-­‐liberals-­‐be-­‐strongly-­‐
patriotic-­‐says-­‐gallup-­‐poll  
Jost,   John;   Frederico,   Christoper;   Napier,   Jaime.   (2009)   Political   Ideology:   Its  
Structure,   Functions,   and   Elective   Affinities.   Annual.   Psychological   Review   2009.  
60:307–37  

Jost,   John;   Glaser,   Jack;   Kruglanski,   Arie;   Sulloway,   Frank:     (2003)   Political  
Conservatism   as   Motivated   Social   Cognition.   Psychological   Bulletin,   American  
Psychological  Association,  Inc.    2003,  Vol.  129,  No.  3,  339–375.  
Jost,  John;  Kay,  A.C;  &  Thorisdottir,  H.  (eds.)  (2009)    Social  and  Psychological  Bases  of  
Ideology  and  System  Justification.  (pp.  210-­‐240).  New  York:  Oxford  University  Press.    
 
Jost,   J.   T;   &   Napier,   J.   L.   (2012).   The   uncertainty-­‐threat   model   of   political  
conservatism.  In  M.  A.  Hogg  &  D.  L.  Blaylock  (Eds.)  Extremism   and   the   psychology   of  
uncertainty  (pp.  90-­‐111).  New  York:  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.  
 
Jost   J.T;   Banaji,   MR;   Nosek,   B.A.   (2004)   A   decade   of   system   justification   theory:  
accumulated   evidence   of   Conscious   and   Unconscious   Bolstering   of   the   Status   Quo  
Political  Psychology,  Vol.  25,  No.  6,  2004  

Jost,   J.   T.   &   Amodio,   D.   M.   (2012).  Political   ideology   as   motivated   social  

cognition:  Behavioral   and   neuroscientific   evidence.  Motivation  and  Emotion,  36,  55-­‐
64.  

  25  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Jost,  J.   T;  Blount,  S;  Pfeffer,  J;   &  Hunyady;  G.   (2003).  Fair   market   ideology:  Its  
cognitive-­‐motivational   underpinnings.   Research    in  Organizational  Behavior   25,   53-­‐
91.      

Knudson,  Kristine,  et  al.  (March  2006).  Politics  on  the  Brain:  An  fMRI  Investigation  
Social  Neuroscience  1  (1):  25–40.  

Kanai,   Ryota;   Feilden,   Tom;   [Firth,   Colin],   and   Rees,   Geraint:   (2011)   Political  
Orientations   Are   Correlated   with   Brain   Structure   in   Young   Adults.   Current  Biology  
Volume  21,  Issue  8,  p677–680,  26  April  2011  

Mooney,  Chris:  (2012)  The  Republican  Brain:  The  Science  of  Why  They  Deny  Science-­‐-­‐
and  Reality.  John  Wiley  &  Sons.  

Nosek,  B.A;  Banaji,  M.R;  Jost,  J.T.  2009.  The  politics    of  intergroup  attitudes  in  Jost,  
John.  T;  Kay,  Aaron  and  Thorisdottir,  Hulda.  (Eds)  Social  and  Psychological  Bases  of  
Ideology  and  System    Justification.    Oxford  University  Press.  
Oxley,   Douglas;   Smith,   Kevin;   B,   Alford,   John;   Hibbing,   Matthew,   Miller   (2008)    
Political  Attitudes  Vary  with  Physiological  Traits,  Science,  Sep.  19,  2008  
Rasanayagam,   Angelo.  Afghanistan:   a   modern   history.  I   B   Tauris   &   Co   Ltd   (24   Aug  
2005).  P.  143    
 
Schreiber,  D;  Fonzo,  G;  Simmons,  A.N;  Dawes,  C.T;  Flagan  T,  et  al.  (2013)  Red  Brain,  
Blue   Brain:   Evaluative   Processes   Differ   in   Democrats   and   Republicans.   PLoS   ONE  
8(2):  e52970  
 
Settle,   Jaime;   Dawes,   Christopher;   Fowler,   James.   (2010)   Friendships   Moderate   an  
Association   Between   a   Dopamine   Gene   Variant   and   Political   Ideology.   The  Journal  of  
Politics  01/2010;  72(4):1189-­‐1198.    
Shook,   Natalie   J   and   Fazio,   Russell   (2009)   "Political   Ideology,   Exploration   of   Novel  
Stimuli,   and   Attitude   Formation,"   Journal   of   Experimental   Social   Psychology.   Vol  
45(4),   Jul   2009,   995-­‐998.   http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/political-­‐
ideology-­‐exploration-­‐of-­‐novel-­‐stimuli-­‐and-­‐attitude-­‐formation-­‐2009.pdf  

Zamboni,   G;  Gozzi,   M;  Krueger,   F;  Duhamel,   JR;  Sirigu,   A;  Grafman,   J.   (2009)  

Individualism,   conservatism,   and   radicalism   as   criteria   for   processing   political  
beliefs:   a   parametric   fMRI   study.   Social     Neuroscience.  2009;4(5):367-­‐83.  
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562629  
 
 
 
 

  26  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Sources:   Section   4:   Us     and   Them.   Who   is   my   neighbor   in   today’s  

world?    
     
Alasko,   Carl:   (2011)   Beyond   Blame:   Freeing   Yourself   from   the   Most   Toxic   Form   of  
Emotional  Bullsh*t.  Tarcher,    
 
Baumgartner,   T;   Heinrichs,   M;   Vonlanthen,   A;   Fischbacher,   U;   Fehr   E   (May   2008).  
Oxytocin   shapes   the   neural   circuitry   of   trust   and   trust   adaptation   in  
humans.  Neuron  58  (4):  639–50.  
Berreby,   David:   (2008)   Us   and   Them:   The   Science   of   Identity   University   of   Chicago  
Press.  

Brosch,   T,   Bar-­‐David,   E.,   &   Phelps,   E.A.   (2013).  

Implicit   race   bias   decreases   the   similarity   of   neural   representations   of   black   and  
white  faces.  Psychological  Science,  24,  160-­‐6.      

Brosch,   T;   Schiller,   D;   Mojdehbakhsh,   R;   Uleman,   J;   &   Phelps,   E.A.   (2013).  

Neural   mechanisms   underlying   the   integration   of   situational   information   into  
attribution  outcomes.  Social  Cognitive  and  Affective  Neuroscience,  8,  640-­‐6.      

Bruneau.   E;   Dufour,   N;   Saxe,   R.   (2012)   Social   cognition   in   members   of   conflict  

groups:  behavioral  and  neural  responses  in  Arabs,  Israelis  and  South  Americans  to  
each   other's   misfortunes.   Philosophical  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  London:  B  
Biological  Sciences  367(1589)  717-­‐730.  
 
Bruneau   E,   and   Saxe   R.   (2012).   The   power   of   being   heard:   the   benefits   of  
'perspective-­‐giving'   in   the   context   of   intergroup   conflict.  Journal   of   Experimental  
Social  Psychology  48(4)  855-­‐866.    
 
Bruneau,   Emile   and   Saxe,   Rebecca:   (2010)   Attitudes   towards   the   out  
group   are   predicted   by   activity   in   the   precuneus   in   Arabs   and   Israelis:  
Neuroimage  (2010)  1704-­‐1711  
 
Bruneau,   E;   Darfour,   N   and   Saxe,   Rebecca   How   we   know   it   hurts:   item   analysis   of  
written   narratives   reveals   distinct   neural   responses   to   others'   physical   pain   and  
emotional  suffering..  (2013)  PLoS  One.  2013  Apr  26;8(4):  e63085.    
 

Bruneau,  Emile;  Pluta,  Agnieszka;  Saxe,  Rebecca:  (2012)  Distinct  roles  of  the  ‘Shared  
Pain’   and   ‘Theory   of  Mind’   networks   in   processing   others’   emotional   suffering.  
Neuropsychologia.  Volume  50,  Issue  2,  January  2012,  Pages  219–231  
Cikara,   Mina;   Bruneau,   Emile   and   Saxe,   Rebecca   (2010)   Us   and   Them:  
Intergroup   Failures   of  Empathy   (2010)   Current   Directions   in   Psychological  
Science  20(3)  149-­‐153  

  27  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Damasio,   Antoniou   (2006)   Descartes'  Error:  Emotion,  Reason  and  the  Human  Brain.  
Vintage  Press.    

Dawkins,  Richard  (1989)  The  Selfish  Gene  Oxford  Paperbacks.  

De   Dreu,   C.K;   Greer,   L;   Van   Kleef,   GA;   Shalvi,   S;   Handgraaf,   M.J   (January  
2011).     Oxytocin   promotes   human   ethnocentrism.   Proceedings   of   the   National  
Academy  of  Sciences.  U.S.A.  108  (4):  1262–6.  
Decety,   J   &   Michalska,   K.J.   (2010).   Neurodevelopmental   changes   in   the   circuits  
underlying   empathy   and   sympathy   from   childhood   to   adulthood.   Developmental  
Science.  13,  886-­‐899.  

Eres,   Robert   and   Molenberghs,   Pascal,   (2013)   The   influence   of   group   membership  
on   the   neural   correlates   involved   in   empathy.   Frontiers   in   Human   Neuroscience.  
2013;  7:  176.    

Frith,   Chris   (2007)   Making   Up   the   Mind:   How   the   Brain   Creates   Our   Mental   World  
Wiley  Blackwell  

Gallese,  V;  Eagle,  M.N  and  Migone,  P.  (2007)  Intentional  attunement:  mirror  neurons  
and   the   neural   underpinnings   of   interpersonal   relations.   Journal   of   the   American  
Psychoanalytic  Association.  2007  Winter;  55(1):  131-­‐76.  

Goldstein,   Joshua:   (2001)   War  and  Gender:  How  Gender  Shapes  the  War  System  and  
Vice  Versa.  Cambridge  University  press.    

Greene,  J.D.  (2009)  The  Cognitive  Neuroscience  of  Moral  Judgment.  In:  Gazzaniga  MS  
The  Cognitive  Neurosciences  4th  Ed.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press;  2009.  
 
Greene,   Joshua:   (2014)   Moral  Tribes:  Emotion,  Reason  and  the  Gap  Between  Us  and  
Them.    Atlantic  Books.      

Haidt,  Jonathan:  (2003)  The  Righteous  Mind:  Why  Good  People  are  Divided  by  Politics  
and  Religion.  Penguin    
Hammerstein,   Peter   (2003)   Genetic  and  Cultural  Evolution  of  Cooperation   (Dahlem  
Workshop  Reports)  MIT  Press  
Heinrichs,   Markus;   Baumgartner,   Thomas;   Kirschbaum,   Clemens;   Ehlert,   Ulrike  
(2003).   Social   support   and   oxytocin   interact   to   suppress   cortisol   and   subjective  
responses  to  psychosocial  stress.  Biological  Psychiatry  54  (12):  1389–1398.      
Hibbing   John;   Smith,   Kevin;   Alford,   John:     Predisposed:   Liberals,   Conservatives,   and  
the  Biology  of  Political  Differences  (2103)  Routledge  Press.  

  28  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Iacaboni,  Marco:  (2008)  Mirroring  People:  The  New  Science  of  How  We  Connect  with  
Others.  Farrar,  Straus  and  Giroux.    

Keysers,   Christian   and   Gazzola,   Valeria   (2010).  "Social   Neuroscience:   Mirror  

Neurons  recorded  in  Humans".  Current  Biology  20  (8):  R353–354.    
Kirsch,  P;  Esslinger,  C;  Chen,  Q;  Mier,  D;  Lis,  S;  Siddhanti,  S;  Gruppe,  H;  Mattay,  VS;  
Gallhofer,   B;   Meyer-­‐Lindenberg,   A;   "Oxytocin   modulates   neural   circuitry   for   social  
cognition  and  fear  in  humans".  J.  Neurosciences.  25  (49):  11489–93.  .  

Kosfeld,   M;   Heinrichs,   M;   Zak,   P.   J;   Fischbacher,   U.;   Fehr,   E.   (2005).   Oxytocin  

increases  trust  in  humans.  Nature  435  (7042):  673–676.      

Kubota,   J.T;   Banaji,   M.R;   Phelps,   E.A.   (2012).   The   neuroscience   of   race.   Nature  
Neuroscience,  15,  940-­‐8.    

Lieberman,   Matthew:   (2013)   Social:  Why  Our  Brains  Are  Wired  To  Connect.   Oxford    
UniversityPress.  

Mesquita,  B;  &  Leu,  J.  (2007)  The  cultural  psychology  of  emotions.  In  Kitayama,  S  &  
Cohen,D.     (Eds.),   Handbook  for  cultural  psychology   (pp.734-­‐759).   New   York:   Guilford  
Press.  
 
McKell,  R;  Bowling,  Daniel;  Reeck,  Crystal;  Huettel,  Scott.  (2012)  A  Distinct  Role  of  
the   Temporal-­‐Parietal   Junction   in   Predicting   Socially   Guided   Decisions.   Science  6  
July  2012:  Vol.  337  no.  6090  pp.  109-­‐111    

Milgram,   S.   (1963).   Behavioral   study   of   obedience.  Journal   of   Abnormal   and   Social  

Psychology,  67,  371-­‐378.  
Milgram,  S.  (1974).  Obedience  To  Authority:  An  Experimental  View.  Harper  Collins.  

Mukamel,   Roy;   Ekstrom,   Arne;   Kaplan,   Jonas;   Lacoboni,   Marco;   Fried,   Itzhak.   (2010)  
Single   neuron   responses   in   humans   during   execution   and   observation   of   actions.  
Current  Biology.  Apr  27,  2010;  20(8):  750–756.  
 
Murray,  Greg  and  Schmitz,  David    (2011)  Caveman  Politics:  Evolutionary  Leadership  
Preferences  and  Physical  Stature.  Social  Science  Quarterly  Volume  92,  Issue  5,  pages  
1215–1235,  December  2011  
 Norenzayan,   Ara   (2013)   Big   Gods:   How   Religion   Transformed   Cooperation   and  
Conflict.  Princeton  University  press.    
Olson,   Gary   In   (2007)   We   Empathize,   Therefore   We   Are:   Toward   a   Moral  
Neuropolitics.  Neuropolitics    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultnov08.asp  
 

  29  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Phelps,   Elizabeth:   (2012)     Neuroscience   and   Social   Conflict:   Identifying   New  

Approaches  for  the  21st  Century.   Project   of   Justice   in   Times   of   Transition   (Now   re-­‐
named  Beyond  Conflict)  and  MIT  conference  Cambridge,  MAFebruary  9-­‐11,  2012  
 
Preston,   S.   D,   and   de   Waal,   F.   B.   (2002).   Empathy:   its   ultimate   and   proximate  
bases.  Behavioural  and  Brain.  Sciences.  25,  1–20;  discussion  20–71.    
 
Putnam,   Robert;   Feldstein,   Lewis   and   Cohen,   Donald.   (2005)   Better   Together:  
Restoring  the  American  Community.  Simon  and  Schuster.  
Ramanchandran,   V.  (2000)  Mirror   Neurons   and   Imitation   Learning   as   the   Driving  
Force   Behind   ‘the   Great   Leap   Forward   in   Human   Evolution,”   Edge,   69,   June   29,  
2000.    www.edge.org/3rdculture/ramachandran/ramachandranindex.html.  

Schulte-­‐Rüther,   M;   Markowitsch,   HJ;   Shah,   NJ;   Fink,   GR;   Piefke,   M   (2008).   Gender  
differences  in  brain  networks  supporting  empathy.  NeuroIimage  42  (1):  393–403.  

Shurick,   A;   Hamilton,   J.R;   Harris,   L.T;   Roy,   A.K;   Gross,   J.J;   Phelps,   E.A.   (2012).  
Durable   effects   of   cognitive   restructuring   on   constructed   fear.  
Emotion,  12,  1393-­‐7.    

Singer,   Tania,   and   Lamm,   Clauss,   (2009)   The   Social   Neuroscience   of   Empathy.  
Annals   of   the   New   York   Academy   of   Sciences.   Volume   1156,   The   Year   in   Cognitive  
Neuroscience  2009pages  81–96,  March  2009  

Steinfurth,  E.C;  Kanen,  J.W;  Raio,  C.M;  Clem,  R.L;  Huganir,  R.L  &  Phelps,  E.A.  (2014).  
Young   and   old   Pavolovian   fear   memories   can   be   modified   with   extinction   training  
during  reconsolidation  in  humans.  Learning  &  Memory,  21,  338-­‐341.  

Tabak,   BA;   McCullough,   ME;   Carver,   CS;   Pedersen,   EJ;   Cuccaro   M.L.   (May   2013).  
Variation   in   oxytocin   receptor   gene   (OXTR)   polymorphisms   is   associated   with  
emotional  and  behavioral  reactions  to  betrayal.  Social  Cognitive  Affect  Neuroscience.    

Price   Tangney,   June;   Stuewig,   Jeff;   and   Mashek,   Debra   J   (2007):  Moral   Emotions   and  
Moral  Behavior.  Annual  Review  Psychology  2007:58:345-­‐372  

Tayama    &   D.    Cohen   Eds.   (2009)   Handbook    for   cultural       psychology.   The  Year  In  
Cognitive   Neuroscience   2009  
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Singer_2009.pdf  
 
Tomasello,  M.  (2009).  Why  We  Cooperate.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.  

Young,   L.   J.,   J.   T.   Winslow,   Z.   Wang,   B.   Gingrich,   Q.   Guo,   M.   M.   Matzuk,   and   T.   R.   Insel.  

1997.   Gene   targeting   approaches   to   neuroendocrinology:   oxytocin,   maternal  
behavior,  and  affiliation.  Hormones  and  Behaviour  31  (3):  221-­‐31.  

  30  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Zak,  P.  J;  Kurzban,  R;  Matzner,  W.  T.  (2004).  "The  Neurobiology  of  Trust".  Annals   of  
the  New  York  Academy  of  Sciences  1032:  224–227.      
Zak,   Paul.   (2012)   The   Moral   Molecule:   The   New   Science   Of   What   Makes   Us   Good   Or  
Evil.  Bantam    
 
Sources:  Section  5.  How  we  fool  our  selves  and  others:  The  Believing  Brain  
 
Amodio,  David;  John  T  Jost,  Sarah  L  Master  &  Cindy  M  Yee  (2007).  Neurocognitive  
correlates  of  liberalism  and  conservatism  Nature  Neuroscience  10  (11):  1246–1247.  
doi:10.1038/nn1979.  

Ariely,   Dan   (2012)   The   (Honest)   Truth   about   Dishonesty:   How   We   Lie   to   Everyone-­‐
Especially  Ourselves.  Harper    
 
Bridge,   Donna,   Paller,   Ken   :(2012)   Neural   Correlates   of   Reactivation   and  
Retrieval-­‐Induced   Distortion.   The   Journal   of   Neuroscience,  29   August  
2012,  32(35):  12144-­‐12151  .  
 
Briggs   Rachel,   Frennet,   Ross   (2014)Foreign   Fighters,   The   Challenge   of   Counter  
Narratives   .   Institute   for   Strategic   Dialogue.  
http://www.strategicdialogue.org/Foreign_Fighters_paper_for_website_v0.6.pdf  
Brown,   Scott   (2012)   Elections   Coming?   ‘Got   to   leave   that   brain  outside’   Global  
Perspectives  https://scottbrownscerebralcaffeine.wordpress.com/2012/10/  
Feynman,   Richard   (1974)     Caltech   speech  
https://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm  

Fine,  Cordelia  (2007)  A  Mind  of  Its  Own:  How  Your  Brain  Distorts  and  Deceives    
Fowler,   James;   Darren   Schreiber   (2008).   "Biology,   Politics,   and   the   Emerging  
Science  of  Human  Nature"  (PDF).  Science  322  (5903):  912–914..    

Frank,   Thomas   (2004)   What's  the  Matter  with  Kansas?  How  Conservatives  Won  the  
Heart  of  America.  Holt  Mc  Dougal  

Haidt,   Jonathan   (2012)   The   Righteous   Mind:   Why   Good   People   Are   Divided   By  
Politics  And  Religion.  Allen  Lane,  London.  
 
Hanson,   Jon   and   McGroger,   Nail   (2006)   Ideology,   Psychology,   and   Law.   Oxford  
University  Press.  
 
Hatemi   et   al.   2014.   “Genetic   Influences   on   Political   Ideologies:   Genome-­‐Wide  
Findings   on   Three   Populations,   and   a   Mega-­‐Twin   Analysis   of   19   Measures   of  
Political  Ideologies  from  Five  Western  Democracies.”  Behavior  Genetics    
 

  31  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Hatemi,  Peter,  Funk,  Carolyn,  Medland,  Sarah,  Maes,  Hermine,  Silberg,  Jody,  Martin,  
Nicholas,   Lindon,J:   (2009)   Genetic   and   Environmental   Transmission   of   Political  
Attitudes  Over  a  Life  Time,  The  Journal  of  Politics,  July  21,  2009  
 
Hatemi,   P   Byrne   E,   McDermott   R   Introduction:   (2014)   What   Is   a   ‘Gene’   and   Why  
Does  It  Matter  for  Political  Science?  Journal  of  Theoretical  Politics  24(3):  305  
 
Hatemi,   Peter,   McDermott,   R:   (2011)   Man   Is   By  Nature  A  Political  Animal:  
Evolution,  Biology,  And  Politics  .  University  of  Chicago.  
 
Hatemi,  Peter:  (2012)  The  Intersection  of  Behavioral  Genetics  and  Political  Science:    
ICON  Books    
Jost,   John;   Amodio,   David   (2011)   Political   ideology   as   motivated   social  
cognition:Behavioral   and   Neuroscientific   evidence.   Motivation  and  Emotion,  36,  55-­‐
64.   http://amodiolab.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/01/Jost-­‐Amodio-­‐in-­‐press-­‐
Political-­‐Neuroscience-­‐Review.pdf  

Kanai,   Ryota,   Feilden,   Tom,   [Firth,   Colin],   and   Rees,   Geraint:   (2011)   Political  
Orientations   Are   Correlated   with   Brain   Structure   in   Young   Adults.   Current  Biology    
Volume  21,  Issue  8,  p677–680,  26  April  2011  

McRaney,   David   (2013)   You   Are   Now   Less   Dumb:   How   to   Conquer   Mob   Mentality,  
How   to   Buy   Happiness,   and   All   the   Other   Ways   to   Outsmart   Yourself.   Gildan   Media  
Corporation  

Milgram,   S.   (1963).   Behavioral   Study   Of   Obedience.  Journal  of  Abnormal  and  Social  
Psychology,  67,  371-­‐378.  

Runciman,   David   :   (2008)   Political   Hypocrisy:   The   Mask   of   Power,   from   Hobbes   to  
Orwell  and  Beyond,  Princeton  Press.    
 
Sacks,  Oliver:  (2011)  The  Man  Who  Mistook  His  Wife  for  a  Hat.    Picador.  
Schreiber,   Darren   (2005).   Evaluating   politics:   A   search   for   the   neural   substrates   of  
political  thought  (Ph.D.).  University  of  California,  Los  Angeles.    

Stern,   Jessica   (2004)   Terror  in  the  Name  of  God:  Why  Religious  Militants  Kill.  .   Harper  
Perrenial.    

Trivers,  Robert  (2011)  Deceit  and  Self-­‐Deception:  Fooling  Yourself  the  Better  to  Fool  
Others.  Allen  Lane  .  
 
Westen,   Drew;   Blagov,   Pavel   S;   Harenski,   Keith;   Clint,   Kilts   and     Stephan,   Hamann  
(2006).   Neural   Bases   of   Motivated   Reasoning:   An   fMRI   Study   of   Emotional  
Constraints   on   Partisan   Political   Judgment   in   the   2004   U.S.   Presidential   Election  
Journal  of  Cognitive  Neuroscience  18  (11):  1947–1958.    

  32  
An  Introduction  to  Neuroscience  for  the  Peacebuilder.    Mari  Fitzduff  

Westen,   Drew   (2008).  The  Political  Brain:  The  Role  of  Emotion  in  Deciding  the  Fate  of  
the  Nation.  
Woollett,   Katherine,   and     Maguire,   Eleanor,     (2011)   Acquiring   “the   Knowledge”   of  
London's   Layout   Drives   Structural   Brain   Changes   Current   Biology   Dec   20,   2011;  
21(24-­‐2):  2109–2114.  

Zak,  Paul:  (2012)   The   Moral   Molecule:   The   New   Science   Of   What   Makes   Us   Good   Or  
Evil.  Bantam  press    

Zoltan,   Fazekas   and   Hatemi,   Peter:     (2014)   The   Integration   of   Genetic   and  
Environmental   Approaches   to   Political   Science:   Methodological   Advances   and  
Future   Applications   in   Scott,   A.   and     Kosslyn,   S.M   (2014)   Emerging   Trends   in   the  
Social  and  Behavioral  Sciences,  Oxford:  Wiley  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  33