A new wave of scientific research is shedding light on the psychological and neurobiological roots of ideological extremism, revealing that certain mental traits may make people more susceptible to radical beliefs. According to recent findings discussed in Big Think, renowned researcher Dr. Leor Zmigrod, author of the book “The Ideological Brain,” has identified four principal psychological markers that correlate closely with extremist ideologies: cognitive rigidity, emotional volatility, differences in the amygdala, and structural traits within the prefrontal cortex.
Ideological extremism—whether political, religious, or social—remains a global challenge with far-reaching impacts, from violent conflict to everyday polarization witnessed online. For Thai readers, these findings are particularly relevant as Thai society continues to grapple with passionate divisions over political, cultural, and generational issues. Understanding the roots of extremism isn’t just an abstract scientific concern; it has practical implications for educators, health professionals, parents, and policymakers across Thailand, where social harmony and respect for diversity have long been cultural cornerstones.
The first psychological marker identified is cognitive rigidity, which refers to an individual’s tendency to view the world in strict, binary terms and struggle to adapt thinking or consider alternative perspectives. Dr. Zmigrod notes that those high in cognitive rigidity often think along one mental track, rather than exploring multiple solutions or creative uses for everyday items. For instance, when challenged to imagine alternative uses for a simple Coca-Cola bottle, cognitively rigid individuals may struggle to go beyond its intended function as a container for liquid. Research shows that this inflexible mindset is frequently associated with black-and-white thinking seen in extremist beliefs. The implications for Thai education are significant, as critical and flexible thinking are key to counteracting radicalization trends, both on- and offline.
The second marker is emotional volatility, sometimes described as emotional impulsivity. Individuals with high emotional volatility are prone to seek sensation and novelty, often acting on impulse and taking risks without thoroughly evaluating consequences. Dr. Zmigrod explains that such people may “gravitate towards violent solutions and self-sacrifice,” characteristics frequently observed in those drawn to radical groups or ideologies. This impulsivity—if left unchecked—can manifest in aggressive behaviors online or offline, such as heated political arguments or socially divisive acts, phenomena not unknown in recent Thai history. Mental health professionals in Thailand have long warned that unaddressed emotional instability in youth, especially in the context of family stress, academic pressure, or online exposure, can lead to destructive behaviors.
The third and fourth markers relate to brain structure and function. Advanced neuroimaging has revealed that the amygdala—a small almond-shaped region deep in the brain known for its role in processing negative emotions such as fear and disgust—tends to be larger in individuals with more extreme ideological beliefs, particularly among those with conservative or right-wing leanings. As Dr. Zmigrod notes, this finding has held true across diverse countries and hundreds of participants, suggesting a strong biological substrate for ideological differences. The amygdala’s heightened sensitivity to threat may make some individuals more susceptible to the rhetoric of extremist groups that emphasize fear of out-groups or impending danger, a phenomenon relevant to the anxieties sometimes stirred during contentious Thai political debates.
The fourth marker involves the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (PFC), a region critical for complex decision-making and rational thought. A 2025 study published in Neuroscience by Adrián-Ventura and colleagues found that individuals with a thinner dorsomedial PFC tended to exhibit stronger authoritarian traits on the political spectrum, regardless of whether these traits were oriented to the left or right. Structural differences in the prefrontal cortex appear to relate to cognitive processing styles that can underpin extreme belief systems, highlighting the complex nature-nurture interplay that shapes individual worldviews. Thai neuroscientists and psychologists echo these findings, emphasizing that brain development is heavily influenced by environment, education, and early influences—trends already recognized in local health and education campaigns supporting early childhood enrichment.
However, Dr. Zmigrod and fellow experts caution against simplistic conclusions. While the correlation between these psychological and neurobiological features and extremist ideologies is robust, correlation does not mean causation. As the broader scientific community notes, factors ranging from family upbringing and social environment to significant life events and exposure to polarizing media all play crucial roles in belief formation. “There will never be one factor we can point to and say, ‘Yes, this means someone will be an extremist,’” emphasizes Dr. Zmigrod, underlining that genetics, brain biology, upbringing, and lived experience all interact in shaping one’s ideology.
For Thai readers, the practical takeaway is that both family and education systems play a crucial role in developing cognitive flexibility and emotional stability in young people. Raising children who can adapt, think creatively, and regulate strong emotions is likely to decrease vulnerability to extremist narratives in later life. Programs already piloted by some schools in Thailand—involving mindfulness, debate clubs, and creative problem-solving—are promising approaches that experts suggest can help “reverse-engineer” the conditions that predispose individuals to extremism. As Thai society faces new pressures amid rapid social, economic, and digital change, such preventative mental health and educational measures are vital to social harmony.
Ideological extremism itself is not new to Thai society. While some forms have been associated historically with political radicalism—such as the “Red Shirt” and “Yellow Shirt” movements or student-led protests—others manifest in religious or cultural contexts, sometimes leading to violence or unrest. The country’s long tradition of mai pen rai (ไม่เป็นไร) tolerance and mediation stands as a cultural resource for promoting moderation and inclusive dialogue, but experts warn that these values may be tested by global and regional trends toward polarization and digital echo chambers.
Looking forward, researchers anticipate that further advances in brain imaging and behavioral psychology will deepen our understanding of the interplay between brain biology, life experience, and ideology. There is growing hope that such knowledge will inform targeted interventions, counseling, and education strategies—not only in Europe and North America, where much of this research is currently concentrated, but also in the Asian context. International cooperation between Thai researchers and global neuroscience and psychology networks may yield new insights and resources to inform domestic policy and practice.
For Thai families, educators, and policymakers seeking concrete steps, experts recommend prioritizing “cognitive flexibility training”—encouraging curiosity and open-mindedness through exposure to diverse perspectives, arts, problem-solving games, and multicultural experiences. Emotional regulation can be fostered through mindfulness, counseling, and classroom practices that teach self-control and empathy alongside academic subjects. Mental health supports, particularly for youth at risk of social isolation or emotional volatility, should be strengthened, while online literacy programs can help students recognize and resist extremist online content.
In summary, while the journey from brain structure or temperament to extremist ideology is complex, Thailand can draw on both science and local cultural wisdom to build resilience against radicalization. As Dr. Zmigrod puts it, the challenge isn’t to become “black and white” thinkers, but to find creative, flexible ways to understand—and sometimes reuse—a Coke bottle. Only through such flexibility and openness can societies like Thailand hope to curb ideological polarization and promote a safer, more harmonious future for all.
Sources: Big Think, Neuroscience journal article referenced by Big Think