My first issue with this sort of thing is in the measurement and philosophy. Like your elevator pitch starts with "You know how people get freaked out sometimes and can’t think straight?". And sure, I sort of know that, though I'm unsure whether it's One Thing. Like first of all, there's a distinction to be made between the interpersonal dynamic (in situation S, upsetting thing T comes up and makes person P unable to think straight), specific relationship to that dynamic (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when thing T comes up), the general factor underlying that relationship (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when various upsetting things come up), and various specific factors underlying that relationship (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when their political outgroup comes up).
It's not even clear to me which of these things you're trying to measure. If we do pick one of them, as you say it's unclear whether the fMRI method measures it well enough. But note that this uncertainty primarily exists because we don't know which thing we're trying to measure, as otherwise one *could* check whether the fMRI method gives similar results to what you'd get in the thing you're looking at.
This is one of the reasons I obsess about measurement so much. Measurement forms the foundation for all the other research that people do, one the one hand it makes it clear why one can just dismiss vast swathes of research out of hand, but on the other hand it also unveils tons of productive research questions. Admittedly those research questions start from a more sociological point of view (what do we mean by resilience and for which purposes do we care about it), but that also yield the benefit of making it easier for people to engage in, as it doesn't require expensive equipment, just some attention to the uses of the research.
My first issue with this sort of thing is in the measurement and philosophy. Like your elevator pitch starts with "You know how people get freaked out sometimes and can’t think straight?". And sure, I sort of know that, though I'm unsure whether it's One Thing. Like first of all, there's a distinction to be made between the interpersonal dynamic (in situation S, upsetting thing T comes up and makes person P unable to think straight), specific relationship to that dynamic (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when thing T comes up), the general factor underlying that relationship (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when various upsetting things come up), and various specific factors underlying that relationship (person P has a uniquely strong tendency to be unable to think straight when their political outgroup comes up).
It's not even clear to me which of these things you're trying to measure. If we do pick one of them, as you say it's unclear whether the fMRI method measures it well enough. But note that this uncertainty primarily exists because we don't know which thing we're trying to measure, as otherwise one *could* check whether the fMRI method gives similar results to what you'd get in the thing you're looking at.
This is one of the reasons I obsess about measurement so much. Measurement forms the foundation for all the other research that people do, one the one hand it makes it clear why one can just dismiss vast swathes of research out of hand, but on the other hand it also unveils tons of productive research questions. Admittedly those research questions start from a more sociological point of view (what do we mean by resilience and for which purposes do we care about it), but that also yield the benefit of making it easier for people to engage in, as it doesn't require expensive equipment, just some attention to the uses of the research.