B1 I believe that my glass of water fell to the floor.
B2 I believe that the floor is wet.
In this example, B1 addresses something that can be considered a logical antecedent (water falling to the floor) of what is addressed by B2 (wet state of floor). Conversely, what is addressed by B2 can be considered a logical consequent of B1. This can be represented as B1 → B2.
Figure 4. Example of a directed belief connection I.
Figure 5. Example of a directed belief connection II.
Consider another example about the connection between two true beliefs that describe something that is verifiable in the external world (B1) and addresses an internal sensation (B2) (see Figure 5):
B1 I believe that I ran 10 kilometers.
B2 I believe that my muscles are sore.
In this example, B1 also addresses something that can be considered a logical antecedent (running 10 km) of what is addressed by B2 (sore muscles). This can also be represented as B1 → B2.
Possibility Versus Necessity
Such belief connections indicate possibilities rather than necessities. Specifically, there are other possible antecedents of a floor’s being wet or muscles’ being sore (hence the terminology “logical antecedent” and “logical consequent”). Indeed, what is described by B2 (in both examples) may in reality be the consequence of something else, for example a person cleaning the floor (example 1) or climbing ten flights of stairs (example 2). This indicates the limits of human knowledge, which also become relevant later in this chapter (see section on External Interventions on Cognitive Maps). Here, it suffices to note that regardless whether what is described by B1 is the real antecedent of what is described by B2, it is possible for a person to consider B1 an antecedent of B2.
Temporality
Belief connections often represent common-sense temporal connections between physical things, and it might be tempting to think of directedness in terms of temporal structures.13 However, it is important to recall that all belief connections exist in human minds, and not in the external world where things unfold in time. Belief connections may give a cognitive account of time, but no chronological account of time. Cognitive accounts of time indicate people’s understanding about how things happen in time, and are not to be confused with the unfolding of time itself. Instead, they show how individuals at certain points in time believe time to be unfolding. It is therefore misleading to think of belief connections as representations of the chronological order by which things unfold.
Figure 6. Logical versus chronological order of beliefs.
On another level, the unfolding of time itself can be misleading for understanding certain phenomena or behavior. This becomes obvious from the following example of the connection between two true beliefs, based on Pearl’s Causality (2000: 252). It shows that the chronological order may differ from the logical order addressed by the beliefs (see Figure 6):
B1: I believe that it is raining.
B2: I believe that the barometer is falling.
In this example, what is addressed by B1 (rain) can be considered a logical antecedent of what is addressed by B2 (falling of the barometer). Again, this can be expressed as B1 → B2. However, the temporal order of the propositional contents of these beliefs cannot be considered in the order B1 → B2. According to the temporal order, B2 (falling of the barometer) is prior to B1 (rain), which translates into the opposite B2 → B1. This order contradicts the logical order, as rain is not a consequence of the falling of the barometer.
Directedness Implies Coherence
Directedness implies coherence, because considering something to be logically prior to something else implies that the two can be considered logically consistent. For example, B1 and B2 “I believe that dogs have wings” and “I believe that dogs can fly” described earlier as having a coherent connection can also be considered to have a directed connection, so that B1 → B2.
Figure 7. Overview of belief connections.
On the other hand, not every coherent belief connection can be considered directed. Take the example of the belief connection between beliefs B1 “I believe that the street is wet” and B2 “I believe that I am wet.” B1 and B2 can be considered logically consistent, because both address the state of being wet. However, B1 cannot be considered a logical antecedent of B2, or vice versa.
Figure 7 indicates this relationship between coherent and directed belief connections. It also includes unconnected beliefs.
Belief Systems
As described earlier, cognitive maps are illustrations of belief systems. Belief systems provide in-depth insight into the mechanisms underlying human behavior, such as political violence. My study examines belief systems to show how humans can reach decisions to take up arms against their state, or to refrain from doing so (Chapters 4–6). Providing the framework for this analysis, this section lays out the basic structure of belief systems. The next section deals with the semantics and some structural aspects specific to belief systems related to political violence.
Belief systems consist of belief connections. Belief connections follow certain rules, and belief systems therefore offer a consistent method to trace the microlevel mechanisms motivating human behavior. There are two types of belief connections: direct belief connections, which I have discussed above, and indirect belief connections, which consist of more than one direct belief connection. The indirect connections between beliefs can be called chains of beliefs. Those that include directed (rather than only coherent) belief connections can be called directed chains of beliefs. They can be represented in the following way:
Directed Belief Chain: B → B → B → B → B
Each belief system includes at least two belief chains. Inside a belief system, every belief is directly connected to at least one other belief and indirectly connected to all the other beliefs of the system. In the system, each belief chain shares at least one and at most all but one belief or belief connection with another chain. In principle, belief systems can involve an infinite number of belief chains. Moreover, they can address various types of factors (see “Belief Typology”). Accordingly, belief systems can be highly complex.
If belief systems are considered unlimited, it is not immediately obvious how to identify particular belief systems, such as those related to violence. It is therefore helpful to note that cognitive scientists more or less generally assume that beliefs are context dependent (Österholm 2010: 41). This suggests that belief systems can be limited by reference to certain contexts.14
If belief structures are limited, it is possible to identify particular belief systems and examine these in their