Editorial 1 : Where does ‘us versus them’ bias in the brain come from?
Context
In a study published in May last year, psychologists explored how people subconsciously evaluate different racial groups.
The psychological test
- Using a psychological test called an implicit association test (IAT), scientists found stark differences between participants’ explicit statements and their implicit beliefs.
- While everyone said they believed in the equality of all races, they also harboured implicit biases in favour of socially advantaged groups.
- This bias was also universal, irrespective of the racial identity of the participants.
- The IAT is built on the premise that if two things — words, concepts, events, etc. — have co-occurred in our experience over and over again, we put those two things together very quickly.
- The test includes a series of quick-fire rounds to sort words related to concepts (e.g. “thin”, “fat”, “white”, “black”, etc.) and assessments (“good” or “bad”) into categories.
- A participant’s score is based on the time taken to sort words when concepts and assessments are combined.
The brain’s shifting criteria
- That all humans are equal is a scientific fact established by modern genetics.
- However, the history of humankind is replete with people from one cultural or social group treating those from others as if they are less than human — a phenomenon called pseudo-speciation.
- The basis of this deep-seated tendency in people continues to be the focus of intense research efforts in psychology and neuroscience.
- Many recent studies have found that our brains process information about in-groups (i.e. “us”) and out-groups (“them”) differently.
- Assessing the participant responses with IAT, the researchers found that directing participants’ attention to different facets of their in-group identity was sufficient to change their intergroup bias. That is, the participants’ preferences changed depending on whether their brains used age or race to classify others.
Bias is learned
- Neuroimaging studies have corroborated such findings from psychology research, and have clarified that information-processing in the brain is different depending on whether it pertains to “us” or to “them”.
- Brain regions that activate in response to the direct experience of pain as well as empathy for the pain of others include parts of the anterior cingulate cortex and insula.
- Bias doesn’t exist at birth. It is a learned response built on cultural associations together with the brain’s biology.
- Yet preferential bias towards in-group members doesn’t mean an individual will be hostile towards out-group members.
- Factors that lead to hostility include the notion of associating an out-group with a threat.
- Uncertain circumstances — such as those we witnessed during the pandemic — can also heighten mistrust towards the outgroup.
The biology behind ‘facts of life’
- Neuroimaging studies that have explored the basis of intergroup threats have highlighted the role of a specific brain region called the amygdala.
- An almond-shaped region situated deep in the brain, the amygdala is central to detecting threats and fear-based learning.
- Imaging studies have shown the amygdala activates to a greater degree when the source of threat is from an out-group member.
- The amygdala being activated by something perceived as a threat is an automatic part of information processing in the brain. But cortical activation implies more of a cognitive effort.
Conclusion
Whenever you hear social and/or cultural narratives presented as a “fact of life” — that, say, “they are bad people” — and find yourself getting sucked into it, remember that somewhere behind this statement is a misappropriated bit of brain biology. Being aware of our own biology can make us more informed, especially when faced with narratives that arouse rather than inform.
Editorial 2 : It is time to operationalise the Indian Defence University
Context
While the nature of war remains constant, its changing character imposes a premium on military education and the academic preparation required to cope with security challenges
Absence of Indian Defence University (IDU)
- The Greek thinker Thucydides is said to have remarked that a nation which makes a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
- It is no surprise that several nations have established ‘defence universities’ to promote academic rigour and enhance strategic thinking in their armed forces.
- In India’s own neighbourhood, it is reported that Pakistan has created two universities for its armed forces, while China has three, although a report of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute lists more than 60 Chinese universities with military and security links.
- In this context, the absence of the long overdue Indian Defence University (IDU) is concerning.
Professional Military Education
- While the nature of war remains constant, its changing character imposes a premium on military education and the academic preparation required to cope with current and future security challenges.
- The dynamic and chaotic character of warfare currently on display in Europe and West Asia means that military officers are expected to produce results in the face of nebulous initial information and rapidly changing circumstances.
- To meet complex challenges, officers are empowered through a well-constructed Professional Military Education (PME) continuum that augments their abilities to correspond with changing assignments and increasing responsibilities over long career spans.
- The evolution of PME in the U.S. is of interest to us, since it has parallels with Indian theaterisation aims.
Slow progress
- The Indian armed forces, like others, need a broad-based education system, founded upon academic rigour.
- This realisation came soon after independence when, in 1967, the Chiefs of Staff Committee mooted the setting up of a Defence Services University.
- Based on recommendations, in May 2010, ‘in principle’ approval was accorded for setting up of the IDU in Gurgaon. Despite some optimistic reportage in 2017-18, the progress on setting up of the IDU has been rather slow.
- The several world-class training and education institutions run by India’s armed forces constitute a rich and vast ecosystem of professional training.
- However, they lack an overarching integrated PME framework and a multi-disciplinary approach to strategic thinking.
- The IDU would remedy such shortcomings in India’s PME system by providing a central institution of higher military learning through a well-qualified faculty with a mix of academicians along with serving and retired officers from the military and civil services. In effect, this would unite theory with practice.
- The university’s curriculum would vary among the various colleges and other institutions that would be governed by it.
- However, it would need to offer a variety of additional subjects relevant to national security and defence – both in sciences and humanities.
Rashtriya Raksha University (RRU)
- The realisation of the IDU is long overdue. Some experts have suggested that after the establishment of the Rashtriya Raksha University (RRU) in Gujarat, there may not be a need for IDU.
- This argument is flawed, because comparing the IDU and RRU is like comparing apples and oranges.
- Neither does the RRU Act specify education related to ‘defence’ in its objectives, nor is its curriculum focused solely on military requirements for management of war and execution of plans.
Way forward
- The IDU as an idea has come and delays attached in its commissioning come at the cost of defence preparedness, strategic culture, and inter-service integration.
- The need of the hour is to operationalise the IDU at the earliest, so that the first building-blocks of joint warfighting can be put in place through a well-calibrated and futuristic military education curriculum.