Through the conversation.
20 sections010:00 – 6:55Introduction and International Humanitarian Law Perspectives
Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof introduce the podcast and guest Michael Moncrieff, a scholar of international law. They discuss Moncrieff's work connecting evolutionary psychology with international humanitarian law and organizations like the UN and the Red Cross, highlighting how traditional approaches often overlook evolutionary motivational foundations in armed conflict.
evolutionary psychology can provide useful perspectives on the motivations of militant groups in international armed conflict
“simplistic ideas from EP can be really useful because you can say, hey, what about this?” 3:38
026:56 – 12:05Ideology, Coalition Building, and Counterterrorism Research
The hosts and Michael Moncrieff discuss the role of political ideology, arguing that ideologies often serve as confabulations or strategic covers for underlying coalition-building and evolutionary motivations. They examine ongoing debates in counterterrorism and radicalization research regarding whether ideology is a core driver or a flexible tool.
political ideologies often function as confabulations for underlying alliance and coalition dynamics
“political ideologies are largely confabulation for some underlying sort of alliance thing” 7:11
terrorism scholarship experiences recurring debates over whether ideology is a primary driver of radicalization
“you see that there's this constant debate about ideology and what role, and it's coming back again” 10:18
0312:05 – 18:08Radicalization, Group Commitment, and the Role of Envy
Host Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss the psychological and game-theoretic processes of radicalization. Moncrieff explains that group commitment often precedes ideological understanding, and he proposes that envy plays a central emotional role in driving individuals toward extremist organizations and perceived ultra-cooperative harmony games.
people that radicalize oftentimes are really ignorant of the things that they're talking about until they get to a later stage when they actually start to adopt the ideology
“people that radicalize oftentimes are really ignorant of the things that they're talking about until” 12:05
we finally settled on envy as this emotional system that we think if you look at the envy literature that's out there, it matches very, very tightly with what's happening during radicalization
“settled on envy as this emotional system that we think if you look at the envy literature” 15:37
0418:08 – 24:07Ethnic Conflict, Social Coordination, and Common Knowledge
The speakers transition to discussing field research on ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the fundamental importance of coordination and common knowledge. Moncrieff and Pinsof explain how signal creation, such as turning house lights on and off or public protests, helps transform private discontent into shared collective awareness.
you're trying to achieve a state of kind of common knowledge, which is this idea that, you know, I know that this other person knows that I'm willing to engage in this action
“achieve a state of kind of common knowledge, which is this idea that, you know, I know that” 21:21
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss how indirect signaling and coordination facilitate collective action and political dissent, such as flicking house lights to protest a regime. They connect these concepts to evolutionary psychology, moral theories based on coordination, and how rural versus urban social networks influence ethnic conflict and moral condemnation.
The hosts and guest discuss how indirect signaling and plausible deniability allow people to coordinate opposition to a regime without getting caught by authorities.
“And so the beauty of this signal of turning on and off one's lights” 25:08
Moncrieff explains how rural communities with pre-existing, dense coordination networks may experience a rapid shift in moral rules and increased moral condemnation during ethnic conflict.
“this heightened sense of pre-existing coordination” 28:54
Michael Moncrieff reflects on conducting face-to-face interviews in rural and urban communities in the former Yugoslavia regarding the 1990s conflict. He shares harrowing accounts of personal betrayal among lifelong acquaintances during the war, the challenges of applying standard academic survey measures in the field, and how the harrowing firsthand stories impacted him personally and scientifically.
Moncrieff describes conducting around sixty interviews in rural and urban communities regarding the aftermath of the Yugoslav conflict.
“We did about 60, I think, interviews. Um this is about the history of this conflict” 29:59
Moncrieff recounts an instance during fieldwork where participants mocked a standard academic survey measure around a kitchen table because it did not fit their lived reality.
“the people are filling it out around a kitchen table, and the one just starts laughing” 35:12
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss Michael's research on the natural emergence of the drag queen phenomenon as a high-cost status-building strategy in early gay communities, comparing it to costly signaling models of self-harm practices in specific social environments.
the right type of social constraints in the gay community um that we think kind of led to the opening up of this pathway towards status building
“the right type of social constraints in the gay community um that we think kind of led to the opening up of this pathway towards status building” 39:02
by doing these really um uh kind of grotesque uh but formidable enhancing displays to others that they can gain some type of uh status and credit in the community
“by doing these really um uh kind of grotesque uh but formidable enhancing displays to others that they can gain some type of uh status and credit in the community” 41:25
0844:28 – 48:12Biological Origins and the Evolutionary Psychology Framework
The hosts interview Michael Moncrieff about his personal origin story, exploring how his early work with wildlife in zoos and aquariums led him to biological and evolutionary perspectives to answer fundamental questions about human and animal behavior.
it was really from those kind of biological origins that I was really interested in, like, oh, well, you know, what drives animal behavior?
“it was really from those kind of biological origins that I was really interested in, like, oh, well, you know, what drives animal behavior?” 45:57
it finally provided uh really satisfying answers to that why question
“it finally provided uh really satisfying answers to that why question” 47:16
Guest Michael Moncrieff explains how evolutionary psychology helps explain why terrorism triggers intense, all-or-nothing coalitional threat responses and precautionary administrative measures. Host David Pinsof then discusses how terrorism provokes an outsized emotional reaction despite objectively low statistical risk, comparing it to historical policy blunders and exploring whether this dynamic represents an evolutionary mismatch.
terrorism in particular presents a very interesting thing. Like I have a paper that talks about this, is that I think it's uh what the mind is keen to detect here, and it's using cues to detect it, is something that is really an all-out, all or nothing coalitional threat.
“terrorism in particular presents a very interesting thing” 48:45
Michael Moncrieff discusses the ambiguity in defining terrorism and how varying social positions and degraded cues affect how people categorize violent acts. The hosts then examine the staggering human and economic toll of post-9/11 military conflicts, reflecting on how evolved psychological drives for retribution generate catastrophic downstream consequences.
one of the things I think is that there's a lot of representational mismatch. There's there's not a very high degree of uh coordination amongst minds when it comes to what is terrorism
“there's a lot of representational mismatch” 54:44
the psychology of under s of wanting retribution, retaliation, and the consequences of it, uh it's it's it's just interesting to think about how our evolved psychology uh you know it feels good
“the psychology of under s of wanting retribution” 58:42
Guest Michael Moncrieff and the hosts discuss the challenges facing international humanitarian law in modern conflicts, such as terrorism and cyber warfare. Moncrieff argues that international legal frameworks are fundamentally coordination problems without central enforcement, and emphasizes the need to integrate evolutionary psychology and game theory into legal scholarship.
Moncrieff notes that international law essentially operates on coordination games because there is no third-party police force to enforce compliance.
“you're dealing with purely coordinational problems because there is no third party to police it.” 1:02:40
The speakers reflect on the massive human toll of state conflicts and military interventions, noting that public support generally favors protecting civilians despite actions taken by administrations. They explore how modern warfare detaches decision-makers from the evolutionary cues of suffering—such as displacement and famine—that historically served as natural checks on retaliation.
One of the hosts reflects on the disconnect between widespread public support for avoiding civilian casualties and the massive scale of non-combatant deaths caused by state actions.
“the US population is overwhelmingly nonpartisanly supportive of like, you know, not attacking civilians” 1:08:25
The host discusses how modern warfare removes individuals from the direct evolved cues of human impact that once provided a natural check on retaliation.
“the experience of seeing people of impacted or knowing that people are impacted would have been part of our evolutionary history.” 1:10:32
Host Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss the distinction between predatory aggression and bargaining aggression, examining how states respond to terrorism and how political incentives can lead leaders to favor strong reactions over effective long-term solutions.
The speakers distinguish between predatory aggression and bargaining aggression, noting that international law and political survival pressures complicate how modern states respond to terrorist organizations.
“you have more bargaining aggression, which is more limited aggression.” 1:12:25
Michael Moncrieff and the hosts explore how radicalization is often driven by envy and predatory motives rather than simple reactive grievances, and how leaders frame conflicts to manufacture group support and disguise their true objectives.
Moncrieff explains that radicalization is frequently misunderstood as a purely reactive, grievance-based response rather than a form of predatory aggression.
“there's this tendency in the literature to look at radicalized actors as doing it in response for retaliatory reasons.” 1:18:04
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss why radicalized actors and terrorists engage in extreme violence, challenging the mainstream view that terrorism is primarily motivated by retaliatory grievance-based bargaining. Moncrieff argues that much of this behavior is actually predatory, driven by an inversion of costs and benefits where inflicting destruction feels thrilling and pleasurable, bypassing traditional collective action problems.
the mainstream view of literally what it defines terrorism
“And that's kind of the mainstream view of literally what it defines terrorism.” 1:25:51
it's no longer so much of a collective action problem
“then it's no longer so much of a collective action problem” 1:31:17
The speakers examine how cost-benefit landscapes, social structures, and familial support systems incentivize individuals to participate in extreme violence and suicide bombing. Moncrieff notes that only a small percentage of the population typically initiates ethnic violence or terrorist acts, and these active starters generally possess low community connections and high potential payoffs.
there's a lot of social structure sorting throwing as many benefits
“you can really see how there just there's a lot of social structure sorting throwing as many benefits” 1:34:11
It's about 16% of the adult male population
“I think looking back at that data, it's about 16% of the adult male population” 1:35:17
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss the complex causality of radicalization and violence, noting that even radicalized individuals require specific supporting conditions to act. Moncrieff shares an impactful anecdote from Croatia where a victim of violence appealed to a soldier's humanity, illustrating how cognitive scripts can be disrupted. They consider how cognitive behavioral therapy and lower-cost interventions might counteract violent group-based thinking.
And so it's trying to bring complexity and the complex systems idea back into causality here.
“trying to bring complexity and the complex systems idea back into causality here” 1:37:09
So it's like disrupting the natural tendency of those systems to operate, it might be as simple as that in order to revert.
“disrupting the natural tendency of those systems to operate, it might be as simple as that” 1:41:13
The hosts and Michael Moncrieff reflect on the emotional weight of studying conflict and transition into discussing Moncrieff's policy research. Moncrieff highlights the productive potential of collaborating with international lawyers and organizations like the ICRC and the UN. He points out a significant disconnect between what academic social scientists research and what policymakers and legal practitioners actually need.
However, there's not really social scientists looking at theorizing and applying that to or running experiments that would be applicable to legal issues outside of these very kind of constrained areas.
“not really social scientists looking at theorizing and applying that to or running experiments that would be applicable” 1:46:35
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Michael Moncrieff discuss the disconnect between academic social scientists and applied professionals such as policymakers and legal decision-makers. They talk about the lack of coordination or a matchmaking service to align scientific research with real-world practical needs.
The speakers discuss how applied professionals want scientific input, but there is not enough dialogue or connection between scientists and practitioners.
“The people who are doing the practical work are ready and willing and able and want” 1:48:40
Michael Moncrieff points out that drawing policy conclusions as an afterthought feels half-hearted unless research is done with a specific policy goal in mind.
“I always feel a bit half-hearted when I end my article and I try to draw policy conclusions from it.” 1:49:13
Guest Michael Moncrieff shares where listeners can find his work online, and the hosts encourage audience support and feedback. The hosts also preview upcoming guests bridging evolutionary psychology and law before concluding the episode.
Michael Moncrieff mentions his newly launched website for people to find his pages and profiles.
“Well, um I just started uh recently having my own website, so michaelmontgrief.com.” 1:50:57
The hosts encourage listeners to share the podcast, leave reviews, and support the show on Patreon.
“Tell people on social media, tell a friend, leave us a kind review, support us on Patreon.” 1:53:11