Verified by 
Neuroscience
Terrorism in Paris: New Neuroscience Tells Us How to Respond
Controlling ourselves is as important as controlling ISIS
Posted November 14, 2015
The President of France vows a “merciless response” to the ISIS violence in Paris. Talk show hosts in America have called the attacks a ”game changer” that will end our “no boots on the ground” policies in the Middle East.
These are understandable reactions to the horror of Paris.
But are they right?
It’s very rare that my backgrounds in Neuroscience and Counter Terrorism collide, but the Paris terrorist attacks have just made this happen.
And the atrocities have lead me to a strong opinion about what we should do about ISIS
The bottom line is that both Neuroscience and lessons from Counter Terrorism experience argue that military force, by itself is, not going to solve the problem. Neither will efforts to “de-radicalize” Islamic teenagers. Ditto for diplomacy, support to foreign governments that motivate them to fight ISIS harder, or efforts to win over “hearts and minds” of Sunni populations that support ISIS.
We’ve tried these approaches for decades, and the best you can say is that they’ve only partly succeeded.
The reason for the mixed success is that these approaches focus primarily on “them” (terrorists) and very little on “us” (victims or potential victims of terrorists).
Here’s what I mean.
One of ISIS’s objectives in the Paris attacks was to polarize non-Muslims against Muslims. This increased anger could produce two things ISIS covets: Western military responses in Muslim countries that deepen Islam’s resentment of the West, and increased bias against Muslims, which, in turn, increases alienation of Islamic youth in Western countries.
Resentful populations in Muslim countries are more likely to support ISIS and so are disaffected Islamic youths in the West.
So… how we react to the events in Paris will play a big role in how often such incidents are repeated.
And , unfortunately, the latest Neuroscience suggests that our response will be dangerously imbalanced.
Bear with me while I explain.
Dr. Gregory Berns at Emory University has shown that the part of our brains that respond to “utility” (cost vs. benefit) are entirely different from the parts involved in “sacred values” (absolute right vs. wrong). And it’s because these two parts are unconnected that I’m worried.
For instance, when faced with decisions like “how much money would it take to get you stop drinking Coke," fMRI scans showed that test subject’s right Inferior Parietal neocortex activated. But when asked whether money could make them kill an innocent person, other areas, such as the Tempororparietal Junction and amygdala lit up.
In other words, no amount of cost/benefit analysis will change the strong responses in our brain to fundamental beliefs, like" terrorists are evil and should be killed."
So, in responding to terrorism, our “sacred value” brains will tend to ignore cost vs benefit-- such as how much American military action will raise our taxes. Or how many more American soldiers and civilians will die with escalated military operations. Or-- most important--will added military action really work?
Worse, the attacks are likely to make our sacred beliefs about Muslim terrorists—and by association all Muslims—even more sacred. This is bound to affect some of our conscious and unconscious attitudes towards Muslims.
And Muslims in the West are bound to feel it.
And some of them will become more radicalized. If that happen, ISIS wins.
Not just once, with military attacks on Muslim countries that increase ISIS support
Not just twice with increased alienation of Muslims in the West.
But three times with attitudes we pass on to our children.
Dr. Eva Telza has shown that the parts of our brain—such as the amygdala-- involved in making “us vs. them” distinctions, do not automatically and unconsciously respond to racial (or other differences) until about the age of 14. So, “us vs. them” wiring is not innate, but acquired, and probably changeable up to puberty.
Thus, messages we give our kids—conscious or not—will influence how their brains automatically sort “good guys” from “bad guys.” If the Paris attacks increase the number of kids who—by virtue of their parent’s attitudes-- permanently place Muslims in the “bad guy” bin, ISIS will have won the long game.
All of this suggests that each of us can do things to combat ISIS-- and terrorists like them-- now and in the future.
We can resist the natural reflex to demand solely military responses from our government. Military action may be necessary, but we should be aware of both its limitations and its terrible price in human suffering and “hearts and minds” backlash.
A more balanced solution would be for us to act externally (e.g. military action, diplomacy, etc.) AND internally (tempering our conscious and unconscious attitudes).
We must keep one eye on ISIS and one eye in the mirror.
Author Lawrence Wright said it best in the closing line of his play “My trip to Al Qaeda”.
Al Qaeda cannot destroy America.
Only we can do that
