#Politics

A widely discussed New York Times opinion piece by a Harvard computer science professor has reignited debate about the role of personal ideology in university education, arguing that increased polarization on campus is eroding public trust in academia and undermining the primary mission of teaching and research (NYTimes).

The article, published on May 2, 2025, arrives at a moment when global conflicts and identity-based movements have sharpened divisions within higher education, including Thailand’s own top-tier universities. The professor, who describes involvement in Jewish and Israeli student support, anti-antisemitism initiatives, and other activism outside the classroom, explains a steadfast commitment to keeping his own teaching space focused solely on the subject of computer science—even amid requests from students engaged in campus protests for special academic consideration.

A recent New York Times opinion by a Harvard computer science professor has reignited global debate over personal ideology in higher education. The piece argues that campus polarization erodes public trust in academia and undermines the core mission of teaching and research. The discussion comes at a time when universities worldwide, including Thailand’s top institutions, are grappling with political and social tensions inside classrooms.

The Harvard professor describes his own activism outside the classroom—support for Jewish and Israeli students, anti-antisemitism initiatives, and other advocacy—while maintaining a commitment to a classroom focused on computer science. He notes that student protests seeking special academic consideration have tested the boundaries between subject matter and politics.

A recent surge in research is examining the impact of political divides within families, a topic brought to the forefront by a thought-provoking article published by The New York Times and republished by Ekathimerini, titled “I hate my parents’ politics. Should I keep my son away?” Such deeply personal questions resonate with families worldwide, including in Thailand, where shifting social tides and increased political involvement among youth are bringing generational values into sharper conflict.

A wave of recent research explores how political divides affect families, sparked by a provocative piece in The New York Times and echoed by Ekathimerini. The article asks a timely question: should a parent’s politics drive family estrangement? The discussion resonates in Thailand, where younger generations are increasingly politically engaged and values are shifting in public life.

The core issue: children of all ages wrestle with reconciling their own beliefs with those of parents and relatives. Polarized climates and the spread of misinformation on social media intensify these tensions. A key dilemma is whether to shield children from elders whose views clash with the family’s values. Globally, a Pew Research Center survey finds 61% of adults in advanced economies report heated political debates at home, and 15% avoid certain relatives because of disagreements. In Thailand, rising political awareness among youth underscores the relevance of these dynamics for families.

New scientific findings show our brains shape how we form beliefs, handle evidence, and stay flexible. A recent book by figurehead in political neuroscience, Dr. Leor Zmigrod, explores how biology underpins not just what we think, but how open we are to changing our minds. For Thai readers, these insights connect to everyday debates—from elections to cultural norms—and offer practical ways to foster constructive dialogue.

In Thailand, ideological clashes surface in politics, religion, and social norms. The country’s mix of Buddhist philosophy, hierarchical culture, and rapid social change makes open thinking especially relevant. Research suggests that some brains are more tuned for flexible thinking, while others gravitate toward rigid worldviews. This matters as Thai society navigates polarization, reform, and modernization.

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.

A new study identifies brain circuits that regulate how intensely people engage with politics, without altering their beliefs. Researchers from Northwestern University and Shirley Ryan AbilityLab show that the prefrontal cortex and amygdala influence political fervor rather than ideology. The findings could guide efforts to promote calmer public dialogue and improve neuropsychiatric assessments by revealing the neurological roots of political passion.

In a study involving Vietnam War veterans with various brain injuries, researchers found that damage to the prefrontal cortex heightened political intensity by reducing cognitive control. In contrast, lesions to the amygdala tended to lessen fervor by dampening emotional responses. The team notes these circuits affect political engagement across the ideological spectrum, reinforcing that intensity—not content—is shaped by brain activity. Thai readers will appreciate how this research speaks to everyday debates that can become emotionally charged, underscoring the value of emotional awareness in discussions.

A groundbreaking study has identified specific neural circuits that regulate the intensity of political engagement without swaying the content of political beliefs. Conducted by researchers from Northwestern University and the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, the study sheds light on how the prefrontal cortex and amygdala contribute to political fervor. The findings hold promise for promoting healthier political discourse and enhancing neuropsychiatric assessments through an understanding of the underlying neurological mechanisms.

In a study involving Vietnam War veterans with varying degrees of brain injuries, researchers found that lesions in the prefrontal cortex increased political intensity by diminishing cognitive control, whereas lesions in the amygdala reduced political fervor by muting emotional responses. Importantly, these brain circuits enhance or dampen the intensity of political engagement across the ideological spectrum, supporting the idea that the intensity of conviction rather than the nature of beliefs is influenced by these brain areas source.

A provocative finding sits at the crossroads of neuroscience, commerce, and public life. Brain activity during everyday grocery shopping may hint at political affiliation with around 80% accuracy. Researchers from a major Midwestern university led the study in collaboration with several institutions, signaling a step beyond curiosity into how biology intersects with beliefs.

The study, published in a psychology and biology journal, emphasizes practical relevance. Neural responses during routine economic decisions could reflect deeper ideological tendencies. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers observed adults making choices between common items like milk and eggs, ensuring the decisions were neutral and representative of daily life.

In a provocative study unearthing the fascinating intersection of neuroscience, commerce, and politics, researchers have discovered they can predict an individual’s political affiliation by analyzing brain activity during routine grocery shopping with nearly 80% accuracy. This innovative research, led by scientists from Iowa State University and collaborating institutions Iowa State University, introduces a new frontier in understanding the biological underpinnings of our political leanings.

This study, detailed in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences, does more than merely pique academic curiosity—it paints a picture of how specific neural responses during ordinary economic transactions can hint at something as profound as one’s political ideology. The researchers utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe adults as they made choices between types of milk and eggs, commodities selected for their neutrality and commonness in daily life.