Abstract

Uncompromising wars, revolution, rights movements, and today’s global terrorism are in part driven by “devoted actors” who adhere to sacred, transcendent values that generate actions dissociated from rationally expected risks and rewards. Studies in real-world conflicts show ways that devoted actors, who are unconditionally committed to sacred causes and whose personal identities are fused within a unique collective identity, willingly make costly sacrifices. This enables low-power groups to endure and often prevail against materially stronger foes. Explaining how devoted actors come to sacrifice for cause and comrades not only is a scientific goal but a practical imperative to address intergroup disputes that can spiral out of control in a rapidly interconnecting world of collapsing and conflicting cultural traditions. From the recent massive media-driven global political awakening, horizontal peer-to-peer transcultural niches, geographically disconnected, are emerging to replace vertical generation-to-generation territorial traditions. Devoted actors of the global jihadi archipelago militate within such a novel transcultural niche, which is socially tight, ideationally narrow, and globe spanning. Nevertheless, its evolutionary maintenance depends on costly commitments to transcendental values, rituals and sacrifices, and parochial altruism, which may have deep roots even in the earliest and most traditional human societies. Fieldwork results from the Kurdish battlefront with the Islamic State are highlighted.

The Devoted Actor

sounds good to me lol

but the Devoted Actor should read some Wilde, Twain, Nietschze, Wittgenstein, Lao-Tzu, etc
to sharpen (concision/precision)-fu
ie Einstein’s imagined 5-year-old might have trouble with that paragraph
Cheers,
-b

New Statesman called it “something of a unicorn” and credited the book for discussing “Islamism and jihadism from a historical as well as a philosophical angle, with no trace of sentiment or dogma.”[1] Brian Stewart in the National Review also rated it positively, declaring it “provocative and profane” and lauded the authors for “endeavoring to provide a spark”.[6]

Publishers Weekly also gave it a positive review noting that “Harris, maintaining his provocative persona, asks questions and tosses ultimatums in the direction of Nawaz, who deftly replies with well-reasoned and thoughtful responses that will inform and inspire.”[7] According to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, “This honest and intelligent dialogue is a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved.”[1]