A wave of research is reshaping the way we understand ideology—not just as a social or political phenomenon, but as a deeply rooted function of the human brain. A recent book by political neuroscientist Dr. Leor Zmigrod, “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” has captured global attention by revealing how our biological wiring underpins not only our convictions but also our openness—or resistance—to evidence and change (Nautilus, NY Times). Why does ideology “taste” so good to the mind, and what makes some of us more likely to become deeply entrenched, even to the point of dogma? The answers emerging from neuroscience offer insight for Thais grappling with political polarization and social change.
The research matters in Thailand, where ideological clashes—in politics, religion, and social norms—frequently surface, from heated election debates to protest movements. Thailand’s societal context, long shaped by hierarchical traditions, Buddhist philosophy, and generational divides, finds new resonance in Zmigrod’s findings: that some brains are more “wired” than others for flexible, open thinking, while others gravitate towards rigid, exclusionary worldviews (PoliticsHome).
Zmigrod’s research, including her Ph.D. work at the University of Cambridge, pivots from the clinical to the cultural. Instead of focusing only on self-reports and social studies, she and her peers have begun mapping unconscious, biological processes using neuroimaging and genetic analysis. Why is this radical? Because it allows scientists to peer beneath ideology’s surface—past history and social context—right into neural circuits that shape how we respond to threat, uncertainty, and community.
At the core: the brain’s relentless drive to predict and communicate effectively, traits that helped humans survive. Ideologies, says Zmigrod, are “the brain’s delicious answer to the problem of prediction and communication.” When the world feels unpredictable, rigid beliefs simplify that chaos by promising answers and community belonging. “We can rely on a compelling story and logical system that many other people are buying into, even if it’s wrong,” she explains. But this convenience comes at a price—conformity can stunt “elastic, free, and authentic thought.”
Neuroscientific findings clarify the roots of this rigidity. Studies, mostly in Western societies but with broad implications, reveal that people drawn to conservative, order-oriented ideologies tend to have a larger amygdala—a brain region linked to threat and fear responses (Neuroscience News). This anatomical difference may predispose some to seek out ideologies that emphasize tradition and control, or it may arise in response to chronic exposure to fearful, threatening narratives.
But ideology is not just political. The human tendency to group people into “in-groups” and “out-groups” is ancient. Experiments show that those who justify social hierarchies—believing that inequalities are “natural” or “good”—can physiologically numb themselves to others’ suffering. In one chilling study, people who saw such suffering as a problem showed heightened bodily responses (like increased heart rate) when watching videos of homeless people, while those who justified inequality remained largely unresponsive, indicating how ideologies can condition us even at the level of skin and heartbeat.
Zmigrod rebuts the famous philosopher Hannah Arendt’s notion that ideological minds are “thoughtless.” In fact, she argues, those drawn to radical ideologies often possess highly sophisticated—but twisted—cognitive processes. Dogmatic thinking is not ignorance, but a rigid form of intelligence, fiercely resistant to evidence and open debate.
What sets the most flexible minds apart? Creativity and what scientists label “cognitive flexibility.” In Zmigrod’s large-scale studies, people who score high in flexibility are more likely to question routines, entertain novel ideas, and adapt to changing evidence. They’re less attached to strong ideological identities—politically, religiously, or culturally. Interestingly, even after accounting for general intelligence, this flexibility is what predicts resistance to ideological extremism.
The roots of flexibility, it turns out, have a genetic component, particularly in genes regulating dopamine—a neurotransmitter central to learning and reward. People with certain “dopaminergic profiles” are more prone to rigidity, while others are naturally inclined to adapt and shift perspectives. However, genes are not destiny; experience, education, and stress all profoundly influence how flexibly—or narrowly—we think.
Under moments of stress—be it public speaking or even dunking a hand in ice water—most people’s thinking narrows. This shrinking of open-mindedness is natural, but as Zmigrod reminds, “flexibility is a Sisyphean task”—it requires conscious, ongoing effort.
These findings are crucial for Thailand. Thai schools often emphasize rote learning, conformity, and respect for authority, which are sometimes at odds with fostering cognitive flexibility (Mahidol Neuroscience). In society, deference to elders, monastic traditions, and collectivist mindsets can foster community but also make it difficult for new ideas to gain traction. Yet, as Thailand undergoes rapid social, political, and technological change—from youth protest movements to debates over constitutional reform—the need for creative, flexible thinkers has never been greater.
Globally, the rise of algorithm-driven “information bubbles,” both in Thailand’s LINE chat groups and on international social platforms, exacerbates ideological rigidity by reinforcing existing beliefs and isolating people from opposing evidence. Zmigrod’s work underscores how easily our brains can slip from flexibility into dogmatism—particularly when under stress, uncertainty, or community pressure.
Expert opinions concur: “We’re seeing that ideological conviction has both psychological and neurobiological roots,” says Dr. Zmigrod. Lord Alderdice, reviewing her work, notes that “the challenge is to encourage environments that nurture flexibility rather than stifle it”—a challenge as relevant in bustling Bangkok as in London or New York (PoliticsHome).
Importantly for Thais, this science offers not just a diagnosis but a hint at remedies. Educators are urged to foster open discussion and critical thinking—in Buddhist monastic education, in public schools, and even inside the family unit. Mental flexibility is a learnable skill. As Zmigrod says, “Finding your ways to practice that flexibility, that inventiveness, that thinking otherwise, is a powerful way to resist pressures to think in a narrow way…it’s a more authentic, free way of living.”
Practical steps for Thai readers include actively interrogating personal habits and routines—whether in meditative practice, daily social media consumption, or family customs. Questioning rote behaviors, seeking diverse viewpoints, and consciously exposing oneself to perspectives outside the familiar are all ways to “exercise” the brain’s flexibility muscle.
Looking back at Thai political and cultural history, swings between rigid conservatism and episodes of radical change (from the 1932 revolution to recent pro-democracy protests) can be seen through this neuroscientific lens. Societies, like individuals, must wrestle between the comfort of certainty and the challenge of adaptability.
As Thais face contentious elections, rapidly evolving gender norms, and the complex interplay of tradition and technology, understanding the brain’s craving for ideology offers powerful tools for self-understanding and social harmony. The insights drawn from global neuroscience are strikingly relevant to Thai society’s past, present, and future.
To move forward as a nation and as individuals, the call is clear: Cultivate curiosity, resist the seductive pull of rigid dogmas, and embrace the lifelong task of “thinking otherwise.” เมืองไทยจงเจริญ (May Thailand prosper), with brains that are not only sharp—but nimble.
Sources:
- Why Our Brains Crave Ideology (Nautilus)
- Leor Zmigrod Official Website
- The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking (Amazon)
- NY Times: Ideology May Not Be What You Think but How You’re Wired
- Neuroscience News: Shared Brain Circuit Drives Political Passion
- PoliticsHome: Lord Alderdice reviews ‘The Ideological Brain’
- Mahidol Neuroscience Program