A growing body of research reveals that political rigidity—across the spectrum from far-right to far-left—reflects deep neural patterns as much as personal beliefs. Neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod explores this in her book, The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking, highlighting how strongly held views influence and are influenced by brain processes. The discussion is highly relevant to Thai audiences as debates around policy, identity, and social cohesion continue to evolve.
Zmigrod describes ideology as a complete narrative that explains how the world works and what should happen next. Such worldviews often come with strict rules about thinking, behaving, and interacting with others. This rigidity can limit openness to new information, helping to explain polarization in democracies worldwide, including Thailand, where diverse perspectives compete in a dynamic political landscape.
In conversations with major media, Zmigrod discusses fascinating research on how children process ideological information. Liberal-leaning children often recall traits of story characters with a balanced lens, while those inclined toward dogmatic thinking may shape narratives to fit their biases. This points to early neural patterns that favor fixed ideological frames.
Her experiments use card-sorting tasks where rules shift from suit or color to identify how easily people adapt. Those prone to rigid thinking tend to cling to initial rules, even when adaptation is beneficial. The result is a neurological tendency toward stable, fixed interpretations, even in the face of new evidence.
In Thailand, where political dialogue encompasses a wide range of views, these insights could inform education and public discourse. Developing cognitive flexibility from a young age may strengthen social tolerance and democratic participation, supporting a more cohesive society.
Historically, Thai philosophy and Buddhist teachings emphasize balance and moderation. Zmigrod’s findings resonate with these values, offering modern scientific perspective on reconciliation and open-mindedness in contemporary politics.
Looking ahead, the research could influence educational reforms that cultivate flexible thinking. Emphasizing inquiry, creativity, and adaptability in schools can prepare Thai students to navigate an interconnected world and collaborate across differences.
For the Thai public, engaging with these ideas invites broader conversations about personal and communal approaches to politics. Encouraging critical thinking, curiosity, and adaptability in homes, schools, and workplaces can enhance social cohesion while honoring diversity.
Further exploration of Zmigrod’s themes in Thai contexts is encouraged through her work, which examines how flexible thinking can support more resilient democratic participation.