What if the way we think—not just what we think—determines the ideologies we adopt? What if our brains are not just passive observers of politics and religion, but active participants—wired in ways that make some of us more susceptible to extreme beliefs than others?
At the Royal Society’s Summer Science Exhibition, political neuroscientist Dr. Leor Zmigrod delivered a spellbinding talk that explored exactly that. Drawing from her new book The Ideological Brain, Zmigrod took the audience on a journey through love, legacy, extremism, and the neural architecture of belief.
Darwin’s Silent Struggle with Ideology
Zmigrod began with a surprising protagonist: Charles Darwin.
Most know Darwin as the father of evolutionary biology, not as a thinker on ideology. But Zmigrod revealed a personal and poignant story. Darwin, in love with his devoutly religious fiancée Emma, faced a profound ideological divide. Emma believed deeply in God. Darwin didn’t. She told him that unless he could cure his skepticism, there would be "a painful void" in their marriage. And so Darwin, ever the empiricist, relented—for love.
But the ideological tension never disappeared. It smoldered beneath the surface for decades, until finally surfacing in Darwin’s unpublished autobiography. There, he speculated that the inculcation of religious belief in children could have long-lasting biological effects on their developing brains—making the belief as hard to shed as a monkey’s fear of a snake. Emma was horrified. She successfully campaigned to have the sentence removed before publication.
It wasn’t until years later, when Darwin’s granddaughter Nora Barlow restored the missing passage, that the world got a glimpse of Darwin’s radical idea: ideology isn’t just social or intellectual—it may be biological.
And this is exactly where Zmigrod’s research picks up.
Political Neuroscience: Where Biology Meets Belief
Zmigrod coined the field she works in as political neuroscience—a fledgling discipline that explores how our biology, psychology, and cognitive styles predispose us to certain ideologies. Her central question: Why are some people more likely to embrace extreme beliefs than others?
To understand this, Zmigrod designs experiments that test how people think—especially how flexible or rigid their thinking is. Take, for example, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test—a deceptively simple task where participants must match cards based on unknown rules that change mid-game. Some people adapt quickly. Others stubbornly stick to outdated rules, failing to adjust. That’s cognitive rigidity.
In another test, participants are asked to think of alternative uses for a mug. The rigid thinkers stick to the obvious: tea, coffee, maybe water. The flexible ones say toothbrush holder, flower pot, or mini-golf club. The difference? One group sees the world through narrow categories; the other is open to creative reinterpretation.
Ideological Rigidity and the U-Curve of Extremism
Here’s the punchline: the more cognitively rigid someone is, the more likely they are to support ideological violence.
Zmigrod’s research shows a striking U-shaped curve when it comes to politics: people on both the far right and far left tend to be the most cognitively rigid, while moderates and independents score higher on flexibility, creativity, and nuance. In short, ideological extremism may have less to do with specific beliefs and more to do with thinking style.
But her findings go deeper—into the biology itself. Brain scans show structural and functional differences between people with rigid versus flexible ideologies. Even genetics play a role. This isn’t to say ideology is destiny—but rather that it interacts powerfully with our environments, experiences, and stressors.
From ISIS to Instagram: Why Some Brains Are More Susceptible
Zmigrod was drawn to this field during a wave of youth radicalization in Western democracies—young people, often educated and seemingly well-integrated, joining extremist groups like ISIS. Traditional explanations—poverty, demographics, youthfulness—felt incomplete.
She asked instead: Could these individuals be neurobiologically more vulnerable to ideological dogmas?
Her answer: yes. And this susceptibility isn’t confined to the headlines. It’s in all of us, on a spectrum. Some are more resilient, requiring extreme circumstances to radicalize. Others are just one push away from being swept up by dogma.
This raises urgent questions about education, media, and online environments where ideological inculcation happens daily, sometimes invisibly.
Is Extremism Ever Good?
During the Q&A, a member of the audience raised a provocative point: some forms of extremism—like the fight for women's suffrage or the abolition of slavery—have advanced human rights. Isn’t extremism sometimes necessary?
Zmigrod acknowledged the historical truth in that. But her concern lies with the individual cost of extremism. While radical ideas can propel societies forward, the people who carry them often suffer. Ideological dogmatism can narrow empathy, numb experience, and reduce cognitive flexibility.
So perhaps the challenge is not to eliminate all strong beliefs, but to cultivate flexible strength—convictions held with curiosity, not rigidity.
Beyond Labels: A New Way to Study Belief
Zmigrod’s approach departs from traditional political science. She isn’t interested in what people believe—right, left, liberal, conservative—but how they believe. Are they open to evidence? Do they separate ideas from identity? Can they tolerate ambiguity?
This shift has profound implications. It means we can study extremism not through partisan labels, but through measurable cognitive traits. It opens the door to interventions—not to change someone's politics, but to enhance their flexibility, resilience, and openness.
Darwin Was Right—And Hopeful
In the final moments of her talk, Zmigrod circled back to Darwin. His suppressed sentence may have shocked Victorian sensibilities, but in 2025, it reads like a prescient hypothesis in a neuroscience lab.
Ideologies, Zmigrod argues, can reshape our brains. But they are not destiny. “It’s difficult to throw off,” Darwin wrote, “but not impossible.”
And therein lies hope. Our flexibility is itself flexible. Through education, reflection, and choice, we can loosen the grip of harmful dogmas, resist radicalizing forces, and cultivate minds more open to nuance and empathy.
In a polarized world, that may be the most radical idea of all.
#SummerScience | #TheIdeologicalBrain | #PoliticalNeuroscience
Want to learn more? Watch Dr. Zmigrod's full talk on the Royal Society’s YouTube channel or read her book “The Ideological Brain.” It might just change the way you think—about how you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment