In today’s world, partisan divisions are so sharp that it can feel like people are living in completely different realities. According to neuroscientists and political psychologists at the University of Cambridge, such as Leor Zmigrod, they are. In her new book, “The Brain of Ideology: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” Dr. Zmigrod delves into new evidence suggesting that brain physiology and biology can shed light on why people are susceptible to ideology and how information is perceived and shared.
This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.
What is ideology?
Ideology is a narrative about how the world operates and should operate, whether in the social or natural realms. It goes beyond just being a story, providing strict guidelines on how to think, act, and engage with others. Ideology discourages deviations from its established rules.
You mention that rigid thinking is attractive. Why is that?
Ideology satisfies the desire to comprehend and explain the world. It also fulfills our need for connection, community, and a sense of belonging. Additionally, relying on established patterns and rules is a cognitively efficient strategy for navigating the world, as many ideologies insist that adhering to their rules is the morally correct way to live.
I approach this from a different angle: ideology hinders direct engagement with the world, limiting our ability to adapt to it, understand evidence, and differentiate between trustworthy and unreliable information. Ideology is seldom beneficial.
Q: The book discusses research showing that ideological thinkers can become unreliable storytellers. Can you elaborate?
This phenomenon has been observed even in children. In the 1940s, psychologist Frenkel Brunswick conducted studies on children’s bias levels and authoritarianism tendencies. When these children were given stories to recall, those with strong prejudices tended to distort the narratives to fit their biases, inventing details that aligned with their ideologies.
In contrast, children with less ideological leanings were more accurate in their story retellings, remaining faithful to the original narrative and recalling the characters’ traits correctly. This suggests that ideologically-driven individuals often incorporate fiction that reinforces their existing biases into their memories.
Do ideologues tend to integrate less information? How do they handle it differently?
Individuals inclined towards ideological thinking often resist change and nuance. This resistance is evident in tasks involving visual and verbal puzzles, where ideological thinkers struggle to adapt when the rules are altered, clinging to outdated frameworks even when they are no longer effective.
On the other hand, individuals who are more adaptable are willing to modify their behavior in response to new evidence. Ideological thinkers, however, tend to resist change and persist in applying outdated rules despite their ineffectiveness.
You have conducted a study indicating fundamental differences in brain reward circuits between ideologues and non-ideologues. Could you elaborate on your findings?
My research has revealed that individuals with strong ideological tendencies exhibit genetic traits related to dopamine distribution in the brain.
Rigid thinkers typically have lower dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex and higher levels in the striatum. Thus, our susceptibility to rigid ideology may stem from biological variances.
Moreover, individuals with differing ideologies may exhibit variations in brain structure and function. This is particularly noticeable in brain networks associated with reward processing, emotional regulation, and error detection.
For instance, the size of the amygdala, a brain region linked to emotional processing, influences whether an individual leans towards a conservative ideology that upholds tradition and the status quo.
What are your thoughts on this?
Some researchers interpret these findings as a correlation between amygdala function and conservative ideological leanings. Both revolve around a heightened response to threats and fears.
The ambiguity surrounding these results raises the question: does our brain shape our politics, or can ideology reshape our brains?
Can we alter our wired-in ideologies?
Ultimately, individuals have the capacity to choose whether to adopt or reject ideologies.
While it may be challenging for those predisposed to rigid thinking due to genetic or biological factors, it is not predetermined or impossible to change.
Source: www.nytimes.com
