Political rigidity across the spectrum, from far-right Christian nationalists to far-left Marxist-Leninists, can momentarily disrupt the socio-political landscape. Landmark insights into this phenomenon have been presented by neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod, who details new dimensions of what she terms the “ideological brain” in her recent book “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking.” Zmigrod’s work shines a light on how strongly-held beliefs shape—and are shaped by—neurological processes, echoing themes that are as relevant in Thailand as they are globally.
Zmigrod defines ideology as a comprehensive narrative that prescribes how the world operates and ought to be, both socially and naturally. She highlights that ideologies often carry rigid prescriptions, dictating specific ways of thinking, acting, and interacting with others. This rigidity can stifle deviation from its rules, potentially explaining the polarization witnessed in many democratic societies, including Thailand, as citizens and leaders alike navigate evolving political terrains.
In her discussions with the New York Times, Zmigrod sheds light on intriguing research involving children, revealing how young minds process ideological information differently. Liberal children demonstrated a remarkable ability to recall traits of characters in stories accurately, balancing appealing and less desirable traits. On the contrary, those inclined towards ideological thinking tended to mold narratives to fit their biases, suggesting an early neural firmness in ideology-driven patterns.
Zmigrod’s innovation lies in how she tests these mindsets with puzzles. She has developed experiments involving sorting playing cards by rules like suit or color—a test that gains complexity when the rule subtly changes. Participants prone to rigid ideological thinking struggle with such nuances, resisting change even when it’s necessary for success. This illuminates a core neurological rigidity: maintaining consistent, fixed ways of comprehension and judgment, despite evidence or changes.
In Thailand, where political discourse often involves significant ideological diversity, Zmigrod’s findings could potentially inform understanding and improvement of educational systems, fostering cognitive flexibility from a young age. This might benefit Thailand’s socio-political integration and tolerance, foundational to its diverse cultural fabric.
Historically, many Thai philosophers and leaders have advocated for balance and flexibility—a resonant theme in the country’s Buddhist teachings, which emphasize the path of moderation. Zmigrod’s work presents modern scientific insights that align with these traditional values, offering fresh ways to bridge contemporary ideological divides.
Looking forward, Zmigrod’s research might inspire policies and educational reforms aimed at enhancing cognitive flexibility. By prioritizing teaching methodologies that encourage students to adapt their thinking creatively, Thailand can prepare future leaders better equipped to handle the complexities of an interconnected world.
For the Thai public, engaging with Zmigrod’s insights might spur broader conversations about individual and collective attitudes towards politics and ideology. Encouraging critical thinking, openness, and adaptability in schools, homes, and the workplace could fundamentally enhance societal cohesiveness, promoting understanding in diversity.
For further exploration of Zmigrod’s themes and their implications in Thai contexts, readers can refer to her book “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” available online.