#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 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 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 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.

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.