Podcast appearances and mentions of rose mcdermott

Trending Globally will be back with all new episodes soon, but in the meantime we're rereleasing some of our favorite episodes from 2023. We hope you enjoy – and have a great start to 2024!***The beginning of 2023 saw a disturbing milestone: the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the ‘Doomsday Clock' forward to 90 seconds to midnight – the closest it's been to ‘Doomsday' since the clock was established in 1947. But what would it take for a nuclear weapon to actually be used in the world today? And if one was used, how would the rest of the world respond? In this episode (originally released in February 2023), the second in our limited series on the theory, policies, and practice of conflict escalation, you'll hear from two experts rethinking how nuclear threats are understood and modeled. Rose McDermott is a professor of International Affairs at the Watson Institute, and Reid Pauly is an assistant professor of Nuclear Security and Policy at Watson. Their paper “Decision-making Under Pressure: The Mechanisms and Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship” is the lead article in the current issue of International Security. In it, they reframe one of the most fundamental theories for understanding nuclear risks: nuclear “brinkmanship.” They highlight why conventional models of brinkmanship fail to fully explain how a nuclear crisis might unfold and explore what interventions are needed to prevent one from starting. Read Rose and Reid's paper, “Decision-making Under Pressure: The Mechanisms and Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship.”Listen to the first episode in our limited series, “Escalation,” with Lyle Goldstein. Learn more about the Watson Institute's other podcasts.

Rose McDermott, Professor of International Relations at Brown University, argues that dominant theories of nuclear brinkmanship lack a nuanced understanding of the crucial factor of human psychology. She discusses the psychology of political leaders, the rational actor model, Thomas Schelling's notion of "threats that leave something to chance," the psychology of revenge, the coercive utility of nuclear weapons, and why nuclear deterrence may not be as stable as many people think, among other topics. Show NotesRose McDermott bioReid B.C. Pauly and Rose McDermott, “The Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship,” International Security 47, no. 3 (2023): pp. 9-51.James W. Davis and Rose McDermott, “The Past, Present, and Future of Behavioral IR,” International Organization 75, no. 1 (2022): pp. 147-177.Rose McDermott, Anthony C. Lopez, and Peter K. Hatemi, “'Blunt Not the Heart, Enrage It': The Psychology of Revenge and Deterrence,” Texas National Security Review 1, no. 1 (November 2017): pp. 68-88. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thank you for joining us for this edition of the Modlin Global Analysis Podcast. This week, we're going to be focusing on Vladimir Putin and the bomb. We're going to consider the national discussion and global discussion on the ramifications of Putin's references to nuclear posture and what are perceived as nuclear threats and the war in Ukraine, and how we as a society grapple with that. But perhaps most importantly, how do we think through what Vladimir Putin as the singular actor may be considering these questions? I'm glad to be joined by Dan Modlin as always and some questions that he has on this important issue.DanAnd obviously this is an issue that concerns a lot of people, not just in the United States but around the world, obviously one of the changes that some people have remarked on in Putin's approach to the discussion of nuclear weapons or possible use of nuclear weapons is that in the Cold War. Era. Both sides tended to take the position they didn't want to be the first to use a nuclear weapon. How has Putin's approach changed?KevinYeah, that's a great point. And that goes right into the weeds of this question. Both sides during the Cold War, after they both acquired weapons, realized that they were better off not first using them because of the retaliatory nature of the weapons, especially the threat of retaliation, was so undesirable that both sides decided not to escalate tensions and a lot of times it may have helped quell some fears throughout the Cold War. So in a sense, even though weapons are very damaging and of course, deadly to some people analyzing it, it created a degree of stability because both sides had a sense of what the other side would do and a retaliation part of that aspect was an understanding by both sides that they would not be the ones to start a war. They would not be the ones to escalate it and that helps also contribute to some semblance of stability. Again, it's kind of contrarian to think that stability comes from these terrible, destructive weapons, but many people came to that conclusion when gaming out in various scenarios. Part of that has been a position that both sides, after the end of the Cold War. Reduce their nuclear stockpiles and in fact. Even Putin was part of the range of treaties that reduced weapons, but there is an evolution in discussion on what that doctrine looks like, and there's two components on that. One is the suggestion that they may escalate by their own decisions and that they have a mindset or an argument, especially people in the US think tank community emphasizes this idea that Russia may escalate a situation in order to deescalate. So they may uilized nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic, with the goal of using that as a way to get out of a conflict. This is troubling to a lot of analysts and therefore they emphasize this aspect, but I think what's important in this is also to realize that both of those components emphasize the singular decision making of a president. So a policy that is retaliatory or says that they will not be the first one to use that actually puts less responsibility and decision. By that country, right? That would just mean that they would have to retaliate if they were attacked. So that puts less decision weight on that. But this change in policy puts greater emphasis for us to consider how Vladimir Putin thinks, and I think this is very important as it. As a conversation, as you mentioned, because I hear a lot of people ask questions about this. This is when the war started. This was what a lot of people were concerned about, and I hear people continue to be concerned. Whether it be my students or friends I run into, they ask about this question. So it's important for us to think about what Putin is thinking about. But it's also important for us to pause. And recognize all of the flawed analysis that has preceded this conversation. A lot of people have basically baked in their own assumptions of how Putin thinks. is he rational? Is he hypermasculine? Is he insecure? Is he risk averse? Well, many of these assumptions have been shown to not hold up much weight. So how can we instead of try to package information of how we see Putin? How can we instead pull back and provide some analysis, and recently Foreign Affairs came out with an article by Rose McDermott, Polly and Slovic on Putin in the psychology of nuclear brinksmanship. And what they help us see is a different way of examining this instead of us trying to. Package Putin as how we see him, they instead look at the psychology and rationales that people in general look at questions around nuclear brinksmanship. And then use that to then contextualize how Putin may be. Thinking so, this is a very engaging article. I think it will be very helpful for us to look into.DanMaybe you can help to describe again what the significance of that article might be and what we should take away from the research by McDermott, Pauline slogan.KevinFirst off, it's available on the Foreign Affairs website, so you can pull it up to read. It's available for free on their site. So First off they emphasize the fact that people have difficulty with making decisions, and this is a broad statement, but the individuals have difficulty with that. And of course they have difficulty weighing nuclear decision. And because of the complexities involved, they will seek to simplify choices, right? So then that starts to narrow that choice, and then they start to not only simplify choices, they start to prioritizing what's most important. So is that the survival of a state, Is it the survival of the Person, is the survival of an idea? These become aspects that are most acute that so I think it's important for us to recognize that and that plays a lot into the conflict that we're seeing right now. Has not been successful in this military operation. In fact, it's been a disaster. Recently, Secretary Blinken made the remark that the Russian military was rumored or discussed to be the second leading military in the world. And then it's cutting statement after that was is it is actually the second leading military in Ukraine, they have not performed as expected, but what's important in thinking about this is that if Russia has objectives, and specifically Putin has objectives and is not able to meet those objectives, what tools will he consider? What options will he consider? In this so regardless if the whatever the West's posture is, if he doesn't achieve his objectives, what tool set will he consider when trying this? So it's this is very complicated for thinking about how the West may respond because. Even if he's defeating himself, that could still be escalatory. So this again, is it has presents some unique challenges in this situation.DanIt seems like it would always be difficult to get in someone's head and really understand exactly what they're thinking, but he's perhaps a more. Complicated figure then many other world leaders that people have tried to analyze in the past.KevinHe is complicated. It's also again worthwhile to note how many times our analysis of leaders is wrong. So our analysis of Putin is wrong. Our analysis of many leaders has been wrong, so it's probably good again to take this framework. That they apply with this and consider what they point to as the number of surveys done of the general public and of leaders and the trade-offs they're willing to. Take when considering nuclear actions and basically they find that individuals are. And be less willing to trade the lives of their own citizens. Versus others and the ratios in that death affected are pretty startling in these surveys. Now, are these sentiments held closer, are they not? But you have to consider that politicians would weigh the similar types of questions, and that would be just as startling what they would consider so. If a loss is too great for Russia. What would they consider it's also worth noting that Putin can always revisit what he defines his loss. He is in Exterritorial and is defending. In parts of what they occupy in Ukraine, is he going to claim that as a success and go forward with that with continuous fighting? On both sides. That's worth considering also. So again, it's really hard to know what's in that mental space of where he is, but it is worth noting. Because he is a centralized. Leader what unique role? That since plays in and of course his sense of Russian nationalism, and increasingly, when listening to Putin, the sense of victimhood he has when discussing these issues.DanAgain, the article that prompted today's discussion is in foreign affairs. It's titled Putin and the Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship, the war in Ukraine hinges on one man's thoughts and feeling by Rose McDermott, Reid Pauly and Paul Slovic. Kevin, in closing, any any comments you'd like to share?KevinYou know, there's two things that I think that are important. Again, building off of what the authors discuss here. And again, I encourage people to read the article is there is a growing perception in the West. This is a note of caution that because Putin has not escalated relative to NATO. Whenever the West provides assistance to Ukraine that the perception is because that has been not been seemingly escalatory, that each additional thing made is going to be less threatening or less problematic for them, when in fact it accumulates differently on Russia's side. So at one point it may actually be seen as unfeasible that it is threatening, so from different perspectives, how these incremental changes are weighed are very different and people are actually probably not looking at the lessons properly. Again, a few examples of one act should not be viewed as. Examples of how they will. Go forward the other thing that I think is really important when listening to Putin's speeches, whether it be around the annexation of territories or whenever he talks about the conflict, is both his rhetoric and how he portrays Ukrainians. That's very important but also the grievances that are expressed and how there is a mix of ideas that he is dealing with here and it is a hybrid approach of ideas that are this mix of nationalism. Even a mix of socialism and different ideas that are all coalesce around this Russian idea. But a lot of this is borrowed from Hagel. And Hegel talks about this link around these ideas if that it is moral for the survival of the state and in fact how history determines the superiority of a state or a race or people is how they survival, war and everything so that it may be that these spirits of destiny, if you will, with in Hegel's framework, are being played out right now. As we watch this puts a lot on the line for Russia and in these mindsets, so I think this is again important for us to think seriously through the weight of this situation. And also consider the effects of this again it may be very escalatory, but I think the most important thing for us as citizens is to recognize things haven't escalate, but that doesn't mean that things won't escalate. Putin's own failings could be viewed as rationales for him to escalate when even others are not playing a direct role in that. At the same time, things haven't escalated significantly and both sides. Have the capabilities to discourage the other one from escalating the nuclear realm and discouraging those actions. So it is true that the concern about the nuclear environment is higher than it was. Two years ago, that doesn't mean that it is imminent that there is a nuclear threat. Risk is still close to 0, but it is not as close to 0 as it was before. So be cautious. Think through what this means and think about the psychology of Putin and also be cautious and our assumptions around.DanVery important information about a very important subject, Kevin, thank you very much for giving us this update.KevinYes, thank you all for your time.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/putin-and-psychology-nuclear-brinkmanship This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modlinglobal.substack.com

January 24th, 2023 marked an unsettling milestone: the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the ‘Doomsday Clock' forward to 90 seconds to midnight – the closest it's been to ‘Doomsday' since the clock was established in 1947. But what would it take for a nuclear weapon to actually be used in the world today? And if one was used, how would the rest of the world respond? In this episode, the second in our limited series on the theory, policies, and practice of conflict escalation, you'll hear from two experts rethinking how nuclear threats are understood and modeled. Rose McDermott is a professor of International Affairs at the Watson Institute, and Reid Pauly is an assistant professor of Nuclear Security and Policy at Watson. Their paper “Decision-making Under Pressure: The Mechanisms and Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship” is the lead article in the current issue of International Security. In it, they reframe one of the most fundamental theories for understanding nuclear risks: nuclear “brinkmanship.” They highlight why conventional models of brinkmanship fail to fully explain how a nuclear crisis might unfold and explore what interventions are needed to prevent one from starting. Read Rose and Reid's paper, “Decision-making Under Pressure: The Mechanisms and Psychology of Nuclear Brinkmanship.”Listen to the first episode in our limited series, “Escalation,” with Lyle Goldstein. Learn more about the Watson Institute's other podcasts. Transcript coming soon to our website.

It's been 12 months since a mob of American citizens, driven by the false belief that the presidential election had been stolen from Donald Trump, attacked the US Capitol. The insurrectionists couldn't overturn the election results, but they did make us question basic assumptions about the state of American democracy.   On this episode, host Sarah Baldwin ‘87 and producer Dan Richards talked with experts at Watson and Brown about the attack. They asked scholars of political science and international affairs: what did the insurrection teach us about the state of American politics? How has it changed us? And, perhaps most important: what do we need to do to protect our institutions going forward? Guests featured on this episode: Wendy Schiller, Professor of Political Science and Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for American Politics and Policy Juliet Hooker, Professor of Political Science at Brown University  Rose McDermott, Professor of International Relations at the Watson Institute Stephen Kinzer, Senior Fellow in International and Public Affairs at the Watson Institute https://watson.brown.edu/news/podcasts (Learn more about the Watson Institute's other podcasts. ) https://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2021/UScapitolattack (Read what other experts at Watson had to say in the immediate aftermath of the insurrection. )

Dr. Rose McDermott joins Nick on the 36th episode of the Psychology Is Podcast for an important conversation about Covid, politics, perception, violence, nuclear war, world peace, and heroism. Our world is tumultuous and beautiful and terrible and awesome. Let's talk about it. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/psychology-is/support

How does a President’s health affect their ability to lead? Do Presidential candidates deserve any privacy in terms of their medical history? How do we define what health issues ‘matter’ for a role as all-encompassing as President of the United States? On this episode Sarah looks for answers with the help of Watson Professor Rose McDermott. McDermott’s 2010 book ‘Presidential Leadership, Illness, and Decision Making,’ explores the history of health issues faced by US Presidents, and the effects they’ve had on the country and the world. As we prepare for the inauguration of a 78-year-old President amidst a global pandemic, there’s no better time to understand the complex relationship between a President’s health and health of the nation. You can learn more about and purchase Rose McDermott's book here: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/presidential-leadership-illness-and-decision-making/9A5FE725BE2C9156E6A82554B3E50705]

2002 CITATION ROLE OF LAW AWARD  Delivered by Rev. Kevin E. McKenna  The recipient of our 2002 Role of Law award exhibits in a most profound and worthy way the attributes and qualities that the award is intended to honor. Our recipient has been actively involved in the ministry of canon law in a variety of settings and ministries. Our recipient has contributed most especially in the field of education, beginning in high school and parochial schools in three archdioceses (Philadelphia, Newark and Washington, DC and two dioceses, Camden and Harrisburg). Our recipient received a Bachelor's degree in English and History at Chestnut Hill College in 1969 and an M.A, in Religious Studies from Providence College in Rhode Island in 1974. Our recipient received a doctorate in canon law from the Catholic University of America in 1979. Since receiving that degree our recipient has been involved in a variety of teaching positions in the field of canon law, including classes in Canon Law for the Laity at Boston College and Trinity College in Washington; has also taught in seminary formation programs at Mary Immaculate Seminary (Vincentian Seminary) in Northampton, Pennsylvania, St. Charles Archdiocesan Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and seminarians from Theological College and Washington Theological Consortium at Catholic University. In addition, our recipient has served as a canonist for several Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, has served as a consultant for many bishops, chancellors and Vicars in promoting Consecrated Life. Our recipient presently serves as a Consultor for the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, an appointment renewed in 2000 for five more years. Our recipient has published articles on consecrated life in Review for Religious, The Jurist, Commentarium pro Religiosi, Studia Canonica, Bulletin de Saint-Sulpice, and Jeevadhara. The award winner has contributed articles to the New Catholic Encyclopedia as well as to the commentaries on the canons on conse­crated life in The Code of Canon Law: A text and Commentary (1985) and New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (2000). Most importantly – our recipient has been a member of the Canon Law Society of America since 1977, serving on the Board of Governors from 1980 – 1982. She has been Assistant Editor of Roma Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions since 1991. She is presently Associate Professor of Canon Law at Catholic University of America, where in addition to the work she does with licentiate students, continues to be available to assist any and all who call her as a consultant on matters of Consecrated Life and other issues. And she says that her greatest claim to fame is that she is a Sister of St. Joseph. I am extremely proud to present this year's winner of the Role of Law Award, Sister Rose McDermott.

Sister Rose McDermott is a Sister of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill. Among her numerous ministries, she has been a teacher and professor, a writer of articles and books, a consultant to bishops and the Holy See, and one bishop's diocesan delegate for institutes of consecrated life. The members of the Canon Law Society of America are extremely grateful to Sister Rose for her dedication to helping anyone who calls upon her. She was the Society's 2002 Role of Law Award recipient.

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Friday, February 21, 20204:05 pm: Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a Democratic candidate for President, joins the program to discuss her candidacy during her visit to Utah today4:35 pm: Robert Tracinski, editor of The Tracinski Letter, joins the program to discuss his piece in The Bulwark about the popularity of President Trump’s tweeting habit5:05 pm: Former state lawmaker Rebecca Chavez-Houck, now Executive Director of Protect Better Boundaries, joins the program to discuss a move by Utah legislative leadership to repeal the gerrymandering reform (Prop 4) approved by Utah voters in 20186:05 pm: Utah Senate President Stuart Adams joins the show for his weekly visit with Rod about the 2020 Utah Legislative session, and today they’ll discuss the push to decriminalize polygamy, education budgets, and the repeal of gerrymandering reform6:20 pm: Representative Craig Hall joins the show to discuss his bill that would ban any child under the age of 12 from being prosecuted or incarcerated in Utah6:35 pm: We’ll listen back to Rod’s conversations this week with Dr. Rose McDermott, professor of International Relations at Brown University and author of “The Evils of Polygyny” on why she thinks decriminalizing polygamy in Utah would be a mistake, and (at 6:50 pm) with Rowan Scarborough, National Security Reporter with the Washington Times, on his piece about employees of the Department of Justice preference for Democratic candidates

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Tuesday, February 18, 20204:20 pm: Christine Stenquist, co-founder of TRUCE (Together for Responsible Use and Cannabis Education), joins the show to discuss a new bill on Utah’s Capitol Hill that would clarify that private employers are not required to allow the use of medical cannabis by its employees5:20 pm: Dr. Rose McDermott, Professor of International Relations at Brown University and author of “The Evils of Polygyny”, joins the program to discuss Utah’s bill to decriminalize polygamy6:05 pm: Rowan Scarborough, National Security Reporter for the Washington Times, joins the show to discuss his piece about employees of the Department of Justice showing a preference for Democrats6:20 pm: Commentary writer Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner joins Rod for a conversation about the many major reporting errors made by the news industry during yesterday’s New Hampshire primary6:35 pm: Senator Scott Sandall joins the program to discuss his bill that would use money typically given to the now defunct USTAR program to create a grant program to help boost the economy of rural counties in Utah

Justin talks about the Bill Taylor testimony and if it is hurting the democrats that it is not live on television. An interview with Rose McDermott about the psychology of politics and why it might be a bad match for online conversation.

From the industrial revolution to the rise of globalization, human society has changed profoundly since our early days as hunter-gathers. But our brains? Not so much. On this episode, Sarah talks with Watson professor Rose McDermott about this evolutionary mismatch, and the vexing problems it creates in our politics and culture. Perhaps nowhere is this more urgently felt than in the rise of anti-immigrant, far-right populism around the world, where leaders and the media have learned to play into our most primal instincts. Download transcript

Vanessa Volz, executive director of Sojourner House [http://www.sojournerri.org], a resource and advocacy organization for victims of domestic and sexual abuse, joins Rose McDermott [https://watson.brown.edu/people/faculty/mcdermott], a political scientist and author of The Evils of Polygyny [https://www.amazon.com/Evils-Polygyny-Evidence-Society-Lectures/dp/1501718045], to talk about why everyone should care about safe and equitable relationships between men and women. Watch The Evils of Polygny book talk: https://youtu.be/5t7b2lY53jA Download episode transcript

Failure is not just the result of one part of the equation. [Sometimes] you can give the right piece of intelligence and they won't act on it. What does it take to be a successful intelligence officer or civilian? Or perhaps, what negative traits indicate the likelihood of failure? In this second episode in the WAR ROOM series on Intelligence, special guest Dr. Rose McDermott of Brown University discusses the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that intelligence professionals need (or must avoid), along with a political culture where success is often miscredited to policy while intelligence is blame for any perceived failure. U.S. Army War College resident student Mr. Paul Mekkelson moderates, and the Intelligence series editor Genevieve Lester provides the introduction.     Rose McDermott is the David and Mariana Fisher University Professor of International Relations at Brown University and a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Paul Mekkelson is a Department of Defense civilian and a student in the U.S. Army War College resident class of 2018. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense. Image Credit: Photo of the Operations Deputy's Conference Room in the National Military Command Center located at the Pentagon (1984) by Robert D. Ward (public domain). Composite by Tom Galvin. Posts in the "Intelligence" series: THE ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE TODAYPOLICY SUCCESS VS. INTEL FAILURE?IMPACT (OR NOT) OF INTEL ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKINGSTRATEGIC ATTACKS AND THEIR FALLOUTNEEDLES IN HAYSTACKS: ANALYZING TODAY’S FLOOD OF INFORMATIONWHERE DOES INTELLIGENCE GO FROM HERE? AN INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CLAPPERTHE DOD-CIA RELATIONSHIP: ARE WE MILITARIZING STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE?THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ODNI: AN INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CLAPPER

‘You will by and large become what those closest to you EXPECT you to become’ was a phrase I heard a number of years ago from the great motivational speaker Tony Robbins. I couldn’t agree more. People around us have a HUGE impact on us but most of the time we don’t actually recognise it. The effect is going on below the surface. It is happening at an unconscious level. A lot of our behaviour just ‘mirrors’ what others close to us are doing. During this podcast we take a really good and hard look at what we need to do to ‘create’ our own tribe. To actually create an environment that supports your dreams and ambitions To ACTIVELY seek out the very people who can help us on our journey to being a full version of our capabilities. The stunning research from Rose McDermott about the actual jaw dropping effect others have on us. This is science backing up what we know to be true but often ignore The ‘Mind Factor’ community and being with people who share a like minded vision We talk about Energy givers and energy takers   People you encounter on a regular basis will either GIVE us energy or they will DRAIN us of energy and we need to be VERY vigilant that our life is not filled with energy drainers.   The concept of ‘rocks’ and ‘sponges’ How the rocks don’t want to know anything new. They want to just keep things as they are. Maintain the status quo. Stay in their comfort zone. The sponges have a thirst for knowledge They WANT to improve They want to go into the discomfort zone. They are brilliant people to have in your group. In fact they are ESSENTIAL people to have in your group. Too many rocks and not enough sponges and you will have a much less than optimal experience How the ‘tribe’ around you can influence your sport, your physical training Setting of on the journey of creating your tribe Being ACTIVE instead of passive Making things happen I think you will find this podcast thought provoking at sometimes a little uncomfortable but at all times with the intention of sharing ideas that will help you move forward to the world of POSSIBLE   For details of the Mind Factor course go to www.themindfactor.com   For details of potential coaching on a 1 to 1 basis to move you in the direction of your goals get in touch with us at www.themindfactor.com      

In his latest book, Tribe, award-winning war reporter and documentary filmmaker Sebastian Junger examined how, throughout human history, a sense of shared purpose and identity has resulted in altruistic communal behavior. Today, he says, in a large-scale society that’s not in crisis, “our best behaviors are not called forth on a daily basis.” So how do we intentionally create that sense of tribe—that impulse to become our best selves and act for the common good? Junger explores this question with political scientist Rose McDermott, and talks about why he stopped reporting from the front lines, what it means that the American public trusts the military more than Congress, and the role veterans can play in fostering bipartisanship—and safeguarding our democracy.

Recent research shows that genetics as well as environment contribute to our political opinions. Social and political psychologist Rose McDermott of Brown Univiersity, a Stanford CASBS fellow, explains the biological foundations of ideology, how conservative and liberals react to each other's scent, and much more. From July 02016.