Stanford University

Security

FSI scholars produce research aimed at creating a safer world and examing the consequences of security policies on institutions and society. They look at longstanding issues including nuclear nonproliferation and the conflicts between countries like North and South Korea. But their research also examines new and emerging areas that transcend traditional borders – the drug war in Mexico and expanding terrorism networks. FSI researchers look at the changing methods of warfare with a focus on biosecurity and nuclear risk. They tackle cybersecurity with an eye toward privacy concerns and explore the implications of new actors like hackers.

Along with the changing face of conflict, terrorism and crime, FSI researchers study food security. They tackle the global problems of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation by generating knowledge and policy-relevant solutions. 

Stanford Researchers Uncover the Silent Cost of School Shootings

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The toll from gun violence at schools has only escalated in the 20 years since the jolting, horrific massacre at Columbine High.

By December 2019, at least 245 primary and secondary schools in the United States had experienced a shooting, killing 146 people and injuring 310, according to The Washington Post.

At least 245 primary and secondary schools in the United States have experienced a shooting — killing 146 people and injuring 310 — since the country's first mass school shooting at Columbine High School in April 1999.

Now, new Stanford-led research sounds an alarm to what was once a silent reckoning: the mental health impact to tens of thousands of surviving students who were attending schools where gunshots rang out.

A study has found that local exposure to fatal school shootings increased antidepressant use among youths.

Specifically, the average rate of antidepressant use among youths under age 20 rose by 21 percent in the local communities where fatal school shootings occurred, according to the study. And the rate increase – based on comparisons two years before the incident and two years after – persisted even in the third year out.

“There are articles that suggest school shootings are the new norm – they’re happening so frequently that we’re getting desensitized to them – and that maybe for the people who survive, they just go back to normal life because this is just life in America. But what our study shows is that does not appear to be the case,” said Maya Rossin-Slater, a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). “There are real consequences on an important marker of mental health.”

The study is detailed in a working paper published Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It was co-authored by Rossin-Slater, an assistant professor of health policy in the Stanford School of Medicine; Molly Schnell, a former postdoctoral fellow at SIEPR now an assistant professor at Northwestern University; Hannes Schwandt, an assistant professor at Northwestern and former visiting fellow at SIEPR; Sam Trejo, a Stanford doctoral candidate in economics and education; and Lindsey Uniat, a former predoctoral research fellow at SIEPR now a PhD student at Yale University.

Their collaborative research – accelerated by their simultaneous stints at SIEPR – is the largest study to date on the effects of school shootings on youth mental health.

The study comes as the issue of gun safety continues to stoke political wrangling and public debate. And the researchers say their findings suggest policymakers should take a wide lens to their decision-making process.

“When we think about the cost of school shootings, they’re often quantified in terms of the cost to the individuals who die or are injured, and their families,” Rossin-Slater noted. “Those costs are unfathomable and undeniable. But the reality is that there are many more students exposed to school shootings who survive. And the broad implication is to think about the cost not just to the direct victims but to those who are indirectly affected.”

A Driver for Antidepressant Use

More than 240,000 students have been exposed to school shootings in America since the mass shooting in Columbine in April 1999, according to The Washington Post  data used in the study. And the number of school shootings per year has been trending up since 2015.

Yet despite this “uniquely American phenomenon” – since 2009, over 50 times more school shootings have occurred in the U.S. than in Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom combined – little is known about the effects of such gun violence on the mental health of the nation’s youth, the study stated.

“We know that poor mental health in childhood can have negative consequences throughout life,” Schwandt said. “At the same time, children are known to show significant levels of resilience, so it really wasn’t clear what we would find as we started this project.”

The researchers examined 44 shootings at schools across the country between January 2008 and April 2013. They used a database that covered the near universe of prescriptions filled at U.S. retail pharmacies along with information on the address of the medical provider who prescribed each drug. They compared the antidepressant prescription rates of providers practicing in areas within a 5-mile radius of a school shooting to those practicing in areas 10-to-15 miles away, looking at two years prior and two to three years after the incident.

Of those 44 school shootings, 15 of them involved at least one death. The 44 shootings occurred in 10 states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Researchers found a marked increase in the rate of antidepressant prescriptions for youths nearby, but only for the shootings that were fatal. They did not see a significant effect on prescriptions for youths exposed to non-fatal school shootings.

“The immediate impact on antidepressant use that we find, and its remarkable persistence over two, and even three years, certainly constitutes a stronger effect pattern than what we would have expected,” Schwandt said.

Meanwhile, adult antidepressant use did not appear to be significantly impacted by local exposure to school shootings.

Layers of Costs, More Unknowns

The researchers also analyzed whether the concentration of child mental health providers in areas affected by fatal school shootings made a difference in the antidepressant rates, and they drilled a further comparison between the prevalence of those who can prescribe drugs, such as psychiatrists and other medical doctors, and those who cannot prescribe drugs, such as psychologists and licensed social workers.

Increases in antidepressant rates were the same across areas with both high and low concentrations of prescribing doctors, the researchers found. But in areas with higher concentrations of non-prescribing mental health providers, the increases in antidepressant use were significantly smaller – indicating perhaps a greater reliance on non-pharmacological treatments or therapy for shooting-related trauma.

The researchers also found no evidence that the rise in antidepressant usage stemmed from mental health conditions that were previously undiagnosed prior to the shootings.

In totality, the researchers say the results in the study clearly pointed to an adverse impact from a fatal shooting on the mental health of youths in the local community. Furthermore, the results capture only a portion of the mental health consequences: Non-drug related treatments could have been undertaken as well.

“Increased incidence of poor mental health is at least part of the story,” Schnell said.

Though their analysis included only 44 schools and 15 fatal school shootings, Rossin-Slater noted how the trend of school shootings is growing. She believes the mental health impact found on the local communities they studied “can be generalizable to other communities’ experiences.”

That’s all the more reason why policymakers should consider the overall negative effects of school shootings, and how further research will be needed to gauge other societal consequences, the researchers said.

“Think of it as layers of costs,” Rossin-Slater said. And when it comes to evaluating gun violence at schools, “we think our numbers say, ‘Hey, these are costly things, and it’s costlier than we previously thought.’”

Hero Image
schoolshooting shutterstock Shutterstock
All News button
1

The Secret to Advancing the Science of Cyber Risk: A Q&A with Gregory Falco

Authors
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

The science of cyber risk looks at a broad spectrum of risks across a variety of digital platforms. Often though, the work done within the field is limited by a failure to explore the knowledge of other fields, such as behavioral science, economics, law, management science, and political science. In a new Science Magazine article, “Cyber Risk Research Impeded by Disciplinary Barriers,” cyber risk experts and researchers at Stanford University make a compelling case for the importance of a cross-disciplinary approach. Gregory Falco, security researcher at the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance, and lead author of the paper, talked recently with the Cyber Policy Center about the need for a holistic approach, both within the study of cyber risk, and at a company level when an attack occurs.

CPC: Your recent perspective paper in Science Magazine highlights the issue of terminology when it comes to how organizations and institutions define a cyber attack. Why is it so important to have consistent naming when we are talking about cyber risk?

Falco: With any scientific discipline or field, there is a language for engaging with other experts. If there’s no consistent language or at least dialect for communication around cyber risk, it’s difficult to engage with scholars from different disciplines. For example: The phrase “cyber event” is contested and the threshold for what an organization considers to be a cyber event varies substantially. Some organizations consider someone pinging their network as a cyber event, others only consider something a cyber event once an intrusion has been publicly disclosed. So there’s a disparity when comparing metrics of cyber events from organization to organization because of the different thresholds of what’s considered an event.

CPC: We’ve all been sent one of those emails letting us know our data may have been compromised and your paper points out it’s nearly impossible to put foolproof protections into place; attacks are inevitable. Given that, how should companies weigh the various ways they can protect themselves?

Falco: The first exercise each organization should go through when they decide to be serious about cyber risk is to prioritize their assets. What is business critical? What is safety critical? Then, like all other risks, a cost-benefit analysis must be done for each asset based on its priority. If the asset is safety-critical, then resources should be allocated to help protect that asset or at least ensure its resilience. Trade-offs are inevitable, no company has unlimited resources. But starting with an understanding of where the priorities are, is critical.

CPC: In companies, cyber security often falls entirely to the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Your paper argues that’s shortsighted. What is gained when a company takes a more holistic approach?

Falco: Distributing responsibility across the organization catalyzes a security culture. A security culture is one where there is a constant vigilance or at least broad awareness of cybersecurity concerns throughout the organization. Fostering a security culture is often suggested as a mechanism to help reduce cyber risk in organizations. The problem with not distributing responsibility is that when something happens, it’s too easy to resort to finger-pointing at the CISO, and that’s counterproductive. Efforts after an attack should be on responding and being resilient, not finding the scapegoat.

CPC: Cyber risk largely focuses on prevention, but your paper argues that it’s what happens after an attack in that needs greater attention. Why is that?

Falco: Every organization will be attacked. However organizations can differentiate themselves from a cyber risk standpoint by appropriately managing the situation after an attack. Some of the most significant damages to organizations can be reputational if communication after an attack is unclear or botched. Poor communication after an attack can result in major regulatory fines or valuation adjustments as seen in cases like Yahoo and that can have major business implications. Communications aren’t the only important element of post-attack response. A thorough post-mortem of the organization’s response to the attack can be an important learning experience and a way to plan for future attacks.

CPC: Protecting against cyber attacks and the losses that go with them can obviously be costly for companies. You make a case for collaboration among different fields, say among data scientists and economists. How can that be encouraged?

Falco: We argue that cross-disciplinary collaboration rarely happens organically. Therefore, we call on funding agencies like the NSF or DARPA to specify a preference for cross disciplinary research when funding cyber risk projects. Typically, this isn’t currently a feature of calls for proposals, but for cyber risk programs it should be. We encourage researchers to explore cyber risk questions at the margins of their discipline. Those questions may lend themselves to potential overlap with other disciplines and foster a starting point for cross-disciplinary collaboration.

For more on these topics, see a full list of recent publications from the Cyber Policy Center and the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance.

Hero Image
Gregory Falco Rod Searcey
All News button
1

ARD Conference Examines Authoritarian Upgrading, Popular Uprisings and Foreign Interventions in the Middle East

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

CDDRL’s Program on Arab Reform and Democracy held its annual conference at Stanford University on October 11 and 12, titled “The Struggle for Political Change in the Arab World.” The conference is an outgrowth of ARD’s efforts to support new research on the dynamics of political change in the countries of the Arab world. Scholars from across different disciplines sought to understand how social, economic, and political dynamics at the national level, as well as international and regional conflict and power rivalries, impact struggles for political and social change in the region.

Overview of Panels and Speakers

larry diamond banner
Following opening remarks by FSI Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, the first panel titled “The Boundaries of Authoritarianism post-Arab Uprisings” featured CDDRL Senior Research Scholar Amr Hamzawy. His paper examined how the regime of Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has employed discursive strategies to discredit calls for democratic change in the country. Sean Yom, Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University, outlined how the protest strategies of Jordanian youth have limited their effectiveness in advancing meaningful political change. University of California, Davis Scholar Samia Errazzouki discussed the failure of state-led political and economic reform in Morocco.

Chaired by Harvard University Fellow Hicham Alaoui, the second panel was titled “Popular Uprisings and Uncertain Transitions.” University of California, Santa Cruz Political Scientist Thomas Serres provided an overview of the economic disruptions that contributed to Algeria’s uprising. Lindsay Benstead, who is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Portland State University, analyzed the electoral successes of Tunisia’s Ennahda Party. Khalid Medani, Professor of Political Science at McGill University, explained how Sudanese protesters leveraged new strategies of contention to force Omar Al-Bashir out of power.

farrah al nakib and michael herb Farah Al-Nakib (right) and Michael Herb (left)
The third panel, titled “Politics, Succession and Sectarianism in the GCC States,” included Oxford University Fellow Toby Matthiesen, who discussed how Saudi Arabia and the GCC states have increasingly sought to protect their regimes by actively molding the politics of their autocratic patrons in the region, and by using new technologies to upgrade the effectiveness of their surveillance states. Georgia State University Political Scientist Michael Herb explained how the aging of the Saudi line of succession contributed to the political ascendancy of Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman and the decay of family rule in the country. Cal Poly Historian Farah Al-Nakib described how Kuwait’s royal family has used its sponsorship of large-scale development projects to sidestep the country’s political polarization, undermine the power of the parliament, and weaken public access to spaces of political contestation.

hesham and toby matthiesen
The fourth panel focused on “Social Strife and Proxy Conflict in the Middle East.” Chatham House Scholar Lina Khatib described Syria’s transformation during the civil war from a highly centralized security state to a transactional state in which the regime depends heavily on local powerbrokers. Stacey Philbrick Yadav, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, discussed differences in how local communities in Yemen have been affected by the country’s conflict. David Patel, who serves as Associate Director for Research at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, argued that Iraq’s democratic institutions have been impressively robust to a series of existential challenges, but he also highlighted a widespread feeling among the Iraqi public that its parliamentary system is failing to deliver.

lisa blaydes
Finally, the fifth panel examined the topic of “International Forces in the Arab Political Arena.” Stanford University Political Scientist Lisa Blaydes suggested that China’s efforts to involve itself in the regional economy may improve its reputation among economically-frustrated Arab citizens, but that such efforts also spell trouble for democracy and human rights in the Middle East. Hamid & Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University Abbas Milani argued that Iran’s ideological commitment to exporting the Islamic Revolution has been remarkably consistent for several decades. Colin Kahl, Co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at FSI, reviewed the strategies of US administrations toward the Middle East, and posited that President Trump’s approach of pursuing maximalist objectives with minimal commitments is particularly likely to heighten instability in the region. FSI Scholar Ayca Alemdaroglu emphasized that Turkey’s neo-Ottoman foreign policy has failed to achieve its objectives in the face of mounting regional upheaval.

Common Themes of Political Change and Continuity

hamzawy khatib patel stacey
Several themes emerged from conference presentations. First, across the panels, scholars discussed the lessons learned by autocrats and activists alike in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, and the ways in which these lessons have transformed regional politics. Hamzawy emphasized that the Sisi regime in Egypt has increasingly relied on intensive repression over cooptation to maintain stability, while at the same time refusing to grant even limited political openings as existed under Hosni Mubarak’s presidency. In part, this change appears to be rooted in the regime’s belief that relaxing the state’s authoritarian posture had contributed to the revolutionary upheaval of 2011. Likewise, Matthiesen suggested that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council States have learned to become more aggressive in strengthening their surveillance apparatus and policing popular discourse transnationally. By contrast, Serres discussed how the Algerian military and bureaucracy have responded to mass protests not by intensifying repression, but instead by attempting to coopt anti-corruption initiatives and democratic reforms to limit political and economic change. Similarly, regarding Kuwait, Al-Nakib illustrated how the restructuring of urban spaces has proved itself a subtle but successful strategy for the royal family to rehabilitate its reputation while limiting geographic focal points for popular politics.

sean yom
Activists have also learned their own lessons from the aftermath of the Arab Spring. According to Yom, Jordanian activists continue to look to the leaderless revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt as a model to be emulated. As a result, they prioritize agility and horizontality in their protests, and they forgo the organization of formal political movements. This approach has succeeded in acquiring short-term concessions from the regime but has failed to generate broader structural changes. On the other hand, activists in Sudan appear to have been more successful at using lessons from the Arab Spring to push for systematic transformations of their political system. According to Medani, Sudanese protesters developed novel tactics to avoid the repression of the coercive apparatus, and they were effective at gradually forging a counterhegemonic discourse that clearly exposed the regime’s failures to the public. Following the overthrow of Omar Al-Bashir, activists in Sudan have also insisted on dismantling the political and economic might of the deep state to avoid following Egypt’s path.

hicham alaoui at conference
Second, the conference discussion indicated widespread dissatisfaction with formal political institutions across the region. For instance, Hamzawy suggested that Sisi’s regime has been relatively successful at discrediting civilian political institutions, including the legislature and civilian-led ministries. Errazzouki highlighted widespread dissatisfaction in Morocco with existing political institutions. Likewise, Yom’s discussion of activists in Jordan emphasized their lack of interest in entering formal politics. In Kuwait, the royal court has found an opening to pursue urban development projects outside of normal institutions in part because of the public’s frustration with gridlock in the legislature. Patel speculated that frustration with the parliament and muhasasa system in Iraq may finally prompt major changes to the country’s political process.

thomas serres and khalid medani
Third, despite this disillusionment with formal politics, these political institutions have proved remarkably durable in countries across the region. For example, though current frustrations may finally prompt change in Iraq, Patel also highlighted the resilience of the parliamentary system in the face of a sectarian civil war, US troop withdrawal, the rise of ISIS, and a number of other major challenges. For both Algeria and Sudan, Serres and Medani stressed that militaries continue to exercise significant influence despite the popular uprisings. Meanwhile, for Egypt, Hamzawy noted the firm grip of the current military regime on power, and for Morocco, Errazzouki described the lack of systematic changes to the country’s ruling monarchy, even after years of popular pressure.

stacey yadav
Fourth, this durability has not precluded a number of important shifts within existing political institutions. Regarding Syria, for instance, Khatib explained how the survival of Bashar al-Asad’s presidency has depended on moving state institutions away from a centralized security state to a transactional state reliant on local actors with a degree of independence from the regime. Herb described how the consensus-based family rule of the Saudi monarchy fell victim to deaths among the aging senior princes, which opened up opportunities for the king to appoint more officials in a manner that heightened his direct influence. Herb suggested that Mohammad Bin Salman recognized this change and knew that he would likely lose relevance upon his father’s death; as a result, he was motivated to gamble on consolidating his control while his father still held the power to issue royal decrees. In Algeria, the influence of the military and bureaucracy may remain paramount for now, but Serres also pointed out that protesters have succeeded in stripping away the civilian intermediaries who used to protect these institutions. Regarding the durability of local institutions, Yadav noted how pre-conflict and even pre-unification institutions in Yemen have continued to operate effectively in a number of local communities around the country.

colin kahl with abbas and ayca
Fifth, foreign interventions will continue to destabilize the region and impede prospects for democratization or post-conflict reconstructions in the coming years. Khatib noted that Russia has positioned itself as the agenda setter who can bring the Syrian state back to its feet, but also that Russia and Iran are competing to profit off the country’s reconstruction. For Yemen, Yadav argued that fragmentation at the local level has important implications for best practices in the international community’s reconstruction efforts, but that current actors are not well positioned to understand these trends. Kahl predicted that the Middle East strategy of the Trump administration would likely contribute to further destabilization of the region because of its emphasis on empowering allies to do what they want and go after Iran while the United States maintains its distance. Meanwhile, Blaydes’ presentation on China’s regional involvement, Milani’s discussion of Iran’s efforts to export the Islamic Revolution, and Matthiesen’s observations about the GCC States’ authoritarian coordination all illustrated how intervening states are reducing prospects for democratic political change.

milani with audience
Sixth, even as interventionist countries have contributed to the destabilization of the region, they have also confronted major obstacles themselves – and in some cases have failed outright to achieve their primary objectives. Khatib noted that Iran has faced backlash in Syria, while Abbas Milani and David Patel pointed to backlash against Iran in Iraq. Kahl emphasized that the Trump administration’s Middle East policy was unlikely to achieve its goals. Blaydes observed that China has not acquired greater salience in the Middle East despite its more active economic involvement, and individuals in many of the region’s countries – particularly those that are more developed – do not see China’s growth as a positive force. She also stressed the reputational risks China is taking in pursuing potentially unpopular investments through the Belt and Road Initiative. The GCC States are attempting to prop up strongmen in both Libya and Sudan, but this strategy has struggled in the face of local political dynamics; furthermore, the intervention in Yemen has been a disaster for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Finally, Alemdaroglu stressed that Turkey’s ambitious “neo-Ottoman” foreign policy, which reflects a desire to revive Turkish influence in areas ruled by the Ottoman Empire, has largely failed. In particular, the architect of the policy, former foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, lost his job; the country miscalculated badly in how it handled the aftermath of the Arab Spring; and Turkey’s relations with many of its neighbors have soured.

Hero Image
group photo from annual conference
ARD 2019 Annual Conference participants. Front row (from left): Sean Yom, Stacey Philbrick Yadav, Lindsay Benstead, David Patel, Michael Herb. Middle row (from left): Colin Kahl, Lina Khatib, Hicham Alaoui, Larry Diamond, Samia Errazzouki, Lisa Blaydes, Hesham Sallam. Back row (from left): Toby Matthiesen, Ayca Alemdaroglu, Abbas Milani, Amr Hamzawy, Michael McFaul, Scott Williamson
All News button
1

The 6th meeting in the series of Nuclear Risk Reduction Project workshops

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On October 20-22, the Stanford Center at Peking University hosted the 6th meeting in the series of Nuclear Risk Reduction Project workshops organized by Stanford University and China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the Center for Strategic Studies of the China Academy of Engineering Physics (CAEP).  The Stanford team included CISAC’s Dr. Siegfried Hecker, Elliot Serbin, Dr. Larry Brandt and Nick Hansen as well as young nuclear scientists from the UC Berkeley and Sandia National Laboratories.

 

scpku3

The workshop was focused on the North Korean nuclear situation and provided an excellent opportunity to compare both technical and political assessments of the current state of North Korea’s nuclear program and potential paths forward. The US participants presented their research with the latest analyses of open-source imagery of the North Korea’s nuclear and missile program. The Chinese specialists provided their own analysis of the current state of the North’s nuclear facilities and their operations.

scpku4

Young technical professionals on both sides exchanged their views on the challenges and potential methods for verification, an area critical for moving ahead with denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Both sides agreed that this was an excellent area of future cooperation. It is viewed as one of the most important priorities for future meetings, along with continuing cooperation in the broader field of nuclear security.

scpku2

Hero Image
scpku2
All News button
1

Movement Resilience in Sudan’s Popular Uprising

-

 

Abstract:

 

What explains sustained mobilization — social movement resilience — in the face of severe autocratic repression? This question is especially relevant given the recent uptick in protest movements across the world. We examine this question through the case of Sudan’s popular uprising, which lasted from December 2018 until the country began a formal transition to democracy in July 2019. Drawing on in-depth field research during and after the uprising, we look at the role of organizational legitimacy, elite unity, and the evolution of repression evasion tactics. We find that the movement’s organizational form and mobilization tactics coevolved with the actions of the security apparatus. 

 

Speaker Bio:

 

mai hassan
Mai Hassan is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan and a current visiting fellow at CASBS. Her work has been published in various outlets, including the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Democracy, and the Journal of Politics. She received her PhD in Government from Harvard University in 2014.

 

 

 

 

Mai Hassan Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan
Seminars

Andrew Shaver

Not in residence

0
rsd19_072_0369a.jpg

Andrew Shaver is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced. Prior to that, he completed postdoctoral research fellowships at Stanford University's Political Science Department and, separately, at Dartmouth College, where he was also a lecturer. Professor Shaver earned his PhD in Public Affairs (security studies) from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs and completed his final year of the doctoral program as a predoctoral fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also the founding director of the Political Violence Lab. His research focuses broadly on contemporary sub-state conflict and appears in the American Political Science Review, American Economic Review, Annual Review of Sociology, and Journal of Politics, amongst other outlets. Professor Shaver previously served in different foreign affairs/national security positions within the U.S. Government, including spending nearly one and a half years in Iraq during the U.S.-led war with the Pentagon.

Affiliate

Truthiness and Tribalism as Political Weapons: Fear, Cognitive Hacking and the Strategic Use and Abuse of Extra-factual Information

-

Livestream: This event will not be live-streamed or recorded.

 

Abstract: When U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously told President Harry Truman that he’d have to “scare the hell out of the American people” to secure support for the coming Cold War, Vandenburg was tapping into a tried and true tradition of strategically cultivating fear to influence attitudes and change behavior. While this tactic has a long history of use, strikingly little has been written on precisely how, why, and when it actually works. In this talk, Professor Kelly M. Greenhill offers just such an explanation. Drawing upon findings from her next book, Fear and Present Danger: Extra-factual Sources of Threat Conception and Proliferation, Greenhill describes how and why cognitive and psychological biases can be triggered and strategically manipulated as means to political and military ends.

 

Greenhill further explains why actors engaged in this particular kind of cognitive hacking frequently eschew fact-based arguments in favor of “truthier” alternatives, such as rumors, conspiracy theories, propaganda, fiction and so-called fake news, sources she collectively refer to as “extra-factual information” (EFI). She identifies the conditions under which policymakers and the public tend to find EFI-infused threat narratives persuasive, and, drawing upon a wide array of historical examples, show that while information content and delivery platforms have changed, the underlying mechanisms that make this tool such an effective instrument of political influence, and EFI, such a useful handmaiden to it, have not. Greenhill highlights the implications of historical cases for our contemporary, EFI-saturated political environment and what current trends may portend for the future.

 

Speaker’s Biography: Kelly M. Greenhill (PhD, MIT) is a professor and Director of International Relations at Tufts University and Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. Greenhill has published four books, including Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (winner of ISA’s Best Book of the Year Award); Sex, Drugs, and Body Counts: The Politics of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict; The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics; and Coercion: The Power to Hurt in International Politics. Outside of academia, Greenhill has consulted for the US government, UN, UNHCR, World Bank and Ford Foundation and worked as an analyst for the U.S. Defense Department. 

 

Kelly Greenhill Professor and Director of International Relations Tufts University
Seminars
Research Seminar Series

Binary Choices: U.S.-China Strategic Competition and the Korean Peninsula

-

U.S.-China relations have evolved from past templates of  "responsible stakeholder" and "G2" to new ones emphasizing strategic competition.  What is the impact of this competition for broader stability in East Asia?  How does the ongoing U.S.-China trade war impact U.S. allies in Asia?   In particular, how does strategic competition between these two power affect the choices of key allied states like Korea?  Professor Cha will present some research-in-progress on these topics that seeks a broader conceptualization of the costs and benefits behind the latest turn in U.S.-China relations.

victor cha small 1 3x2
Victor Cha is a 2019-20 Koret Fellow at Stanford's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center during the winter quarter.  He is Vice Dean and holds the D.S. Song-KF Chair in Government and International Relations at Georgetown University, and is also Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C. He formerly served on the National Security Council staff and as the US Deputy head of delegation for the Six Party talks. Professor Cha received a PhD in political science and a master's in international affairs from Columbia University; an MA in philosophy, politics, and economics from the University of Oxford; and an AB in economics from Columbia University.

Victor Cha <i>Professor of Government, Georgetown University</i>
Seminars
Korean Studies Colloquium Series

Nominations Open for 2020 Shorenstein Journalism Award

Authors
Noa Ronkin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The annual award, which carries a US $10,000 cash prize, is sponsored by Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. It recognizes outstanding journalists and journalism organizations for excellence in coverage of the Asia-Pacific region. News editors, publishers, scholars, journalism associations, and organizations focused on Asia research and analysis are invited to submit nominations for the 2020 award through Friday, February 14.

STANFORD, CA, December 3, 2019 — The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), Stanford University’s hub for interdisciplinary research, education, and engagement on contemporary Asia, invites nominations for the 2020 Shorenstein Journalism Award. The award recognizes outstanding journalists who have spent their careers helping audiences around the world understand the complexities of   the Asia-Pacific region. The 2020 award will honor a journalist whose work has mostly been conveyed through American news media. The deadline for nomination submissions is Friday, February 14, 2020.

An annual tradition since 2002, the Shorenstein Journalism Award is sponsored by APARC and carries a cash prize of US $10,000. It honors the legacy of APARC benefactor, Mr. Walter H. Shorenstein, and his twin passions for promoting excellence in journalism and understanding of Asia. “In the face of a shifting geopolitical landscape and amid global declines of democracy, political rights, and civil liberties, it is more crucial than ever before to support independent journalism that seeks accuracy, deep reporting, and nuanced U.S.-Asia dialogue,” said APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin.

Over the course of its history, the award has recognized world-class journalists who push the boundaries of coverage of the Asia-Pacific region and help advance mutual understanding between audiences in the United States and their Asian counterparts. Recent honorees include Maria Ressa, Anna Fifield, Siddharth Varadarajan, Ian Johnson, and Caixin Media. The award alternates between recipients whose work has mostly been published through Asian news media and those whose work has mostly been conveyed through American news media. The 2020 award will recognize a recipient from the latter category.

For the award, the Asia-Pacific region is defined broadly to include Northeast, Southeast, South, and Central Asia and Australasia. Both individual journalists with considerable body of work and journalism organizations are eligible for the award. Nominees’ work may be in traditional forms of print or broadcast journalism and/or in new forms of multimedia journalism. The Award Selection Committee, whose members are experts in journalism and Asia research and policy, presides over the judging of nominees and is responsible for the selection of honorees.

APARC is seeking 2020 award nomination submissions from news editors, publishers, scholars, journalism associations, and entities focused on researching and interpreting the Asia-Pacific region. The Center will announce the winner by April 2020 and present the award at a public ceremony at Stanford in autumn quarter of 2020.

Nominations are accepted electronically through Friday, February 14, 2020 at 11:59 PM PST. For information about the nomination procedures and to submit nominations please visit the award nomination entry page.

Please direct all inquiries to aparc-communications@stanford.edu.

About the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) addresses critical issues affecting the countries of Asia, their regional and global affairs, and U.S.-Asia relations. As Stanford University’s hub for the interdisciplinary study of contemporary Asia, APARC produces policy-relevant research, provides education and training to students, scholars, and practitioners, and strengthens dialogue and cooperation between counterparts in the Asia-Pacific and the United States. Founded in 1983, APARC today is home to a scholar community of distinguished academics and practitioners in government, business, and civil society, who specialize in trends that cut across the entire Asia-Pacific region. Learn more about APARC and about the Shorenstein Journalism Award.

Hero Image
Announcement of open nominations for the 2020 Shorenstein Journalism Award with a background image of Stanford main quad.
All News button
1

CPC Lunch Seminar Series | From Polarization to Consensus: Towards a Modern Theory of Social Choice

-

Ashish Goel
Abstract:

While the Internet has revolutionized many aspects of our lives, there are still no online alternatives for making democratic decisions at large scale as a society. In this talk, we will describe algorithmic and market-inspired approaches towards large scale decision making that our research group is exploring. We will start with a model of opinion dynamics that can potentially lead to polarization, and relate that to commonly used recommendation algorithms. We will then describe the algorithms behind Stanford's participatory budgeting platform, and the lessons that we learnt from deploying this platform in over 70 civic elections. We will use this to motivate the need for a modern theory of social choice that goes beyond voting on candidates. We will then describe ongoing practical work on an automated moderator bot for civic deliberation (in collaboration with Jim Fishkin's group), and ongoing theoretical work on deliberative approaches to decision making. We will conclude with a summary of open directions, focusing in particular on fair advertising. 

Ashish Goel Bio

Lunch Seminar Series Flyer
  • E207, Encina Hall
  • 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305
 

Ashish Goel

0
ashish_goel.jpg
Ashish Goel is a Professor of Management Science and Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science at Stanford University, and a member of Stanford's Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering. He received his PhD in Computer Science from Stanford in 1999, and was an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of Southern California from 1999 to 2002. His research interests lie in the design, analysis, and applications of algorithms; current application areas of interest include social networks, participatory democracy, Internet commerce, and large scale data processing. Professor Goel is a recipient of an Alfred P. Sloan faculty fellowship (2004-06), a Terman faculty fellowship from Stanford, an NSF Career Award (2002-07), and a Rajeev Motwani mentorship award (2010). He was a co-author on the paper that won the best paper award at WWW 2009, and an Edelman Laureate in 2014. Professor Goel was a research fellow and technical advisor at Twitter, Inc. from July 2009 to Aug 2014.
Ashish Goel Professor of Management Science and Engineering
Seminars
Subscribe to Security