Zane Hassoun

After listening to one of his conference talks this summer, I purchased Dominic Johnson's book: Strategic Instincts: The Adaptive Advantages of Cognitive Biases in International Politics

One of the key themes of the book is the idea that biases such as overconfidence, the optimism bias, and the fundamental attribution error have evolved as adaptive responses in high-stakes situations. Johnson argues that these biases, far from being detrimental, can actually enhance survival and success by promoting bold decisions, fostering unity, and encouraging perseverance. I found this quite interesting as it aligns with recent trends in cognitive science that view these mental shortcuts as contextually beneficial rather than universally harmful. There have been interesting publications in the Decision Science literature on overcofidence ex: (Soll et. al., Piehlmaier), but I had never expected to find (perhaps naively) international relations approached from this angle.

Johnson’s book uses historical and modern examples to show how cognitive biases impact key decisions in international politics and military strategy. It appears that leaders who display these biases might succeed due to their seemingly irrational choices. He argues that framing Homo Economicus in these situations is overly simplistic. Human behavior is complex, and psychological and social factors play a significant role in decision-making, often making it impossible to rely solely on the notion of rational decision-making. This seems trivial to agree with, but I suppose models are best approximations of nature anyway.

Overall I found this to be an enjoyable and compelling read. I think there is much to be learned from non-traditional approaches to research (in this case evolutionary biology to international relations).