The Ideological Brain: Exploring the Neurological Roots of Belief
In contemporary discourse, the concept of "ideology" permeates discussions, often implicitly shaping perspectives and fueling debates. Politicians and commentators frequently invoke the term, either directly or indirectly, to critique opposing viewpoints. Whether it’s President Trump denouncing "gender ideology" or critics accusing him of "fascism," ideology serves as a lens through which policies are evaluated, dismissed, or justified.
A common thread in these discussions is the unspoken assumption that ideological rigidity resides primarily with the "other side." The label "ideological" often carries connotations of fanaticism and dogmatism. However, is this characterization accurate? Do we truly grasp the meaning and implications of ideology? And could it be that we are all, to some extent, ideological beings, whether we realize it or not?
Leor Zmigrod, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of "The Ideological Brain," delves into these questions. Her work posits that our political beliefs are not merely intellectual constructs but are also deeply embedded neurological signatures, etched into our neurons and reflexes. These signatures, she argues, have the power to reshape our brains over time. Zmigrod emphasizes that her research does not subscribe to the notion of "brain is destiny." Rather, she highlights the intricate interplay between our biology and our belief systems.
In a conversation on "The Gray Area," Zmigrod explores the biological underpinnings of belief and the extent to which ideology can be reduced to the workings of the brain. She begins by defining ideology as possessing two key components: a fixed doctrine and a fixed identity. The fixed doctrine comprises a rigid set of beliefs about the world, characterized by absolutism, black-and-white thinking, and resistance to evidence. This doctrine provides a causal narrative, prescribing how individuals should act, think, and interact with others.
The second component, the fixed identity, emerges from the division between believers and non-believers within an ideology. Thinking ideologically involves embracing rigid identity categories, exclusively associating with those who share the same beliefs, and rejecting those who do not. The degree of ideological extremism, Zmigrod suggests, can be measured by the level of hostility directed towards individuals with differing beliefs, and the willingness to inflict harm in the name of the ideology.
Zmigrod distinguishes ideology from culture, arguing that while culture can embrace eccentricities, deviations, and reinterpretations of traditions, ideology imposes rigid prescriptions about what is permissible and what is not. The moment tolerance for deviation disappears, culture transitions into ideology.
To assess cognitive flexibility versus rigidity, Zmigrod emphasizes the importance of unconscious assessments, such as cognitive tests and games, rather than relying solely on self-reporting, as individuals often lack accurate self-awareness in this regard.
One such test is the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, where participants sort cards according to a rule they must deduce. Initially, participants learn to sort cards by color and receive positive feedback. However, the rule then changes, requiring them to sort by shape instead. Cognitively flexible individuals adapt to the change, identifying the new rule and adjusting their behavior accordingly. In contrast, cognitively rigid individuals resist the change, clinging to the old rule despite negative feedback.
Zmigrod explains that difficulty switching gears in the card-sorting game reflects a broader aversion to change and ambiguity. Individuals who struggle with change and ambiguity in this context may also exhibit a resistance to pluralism in politics, perceiving it as chaotic. However, she notes that cognitive rigidity can manifest across the political spectrum, with individuals on both sides exhibiting militancy about certain ideas.
While extreme rigidity is generally viewed as detrimental, the conversation also addresses the potential downsides of excessive flexibility. Zmigrod clarifies that true flexibility involves updating beliefs in light of credible evidence, rather than simply adopting beliefs based on authority.
The discussion delves into the challenge of distinguishing principled thinking from dogmatic thinking. Zmigrod acknowledges the fine line between principles and dogmas, particularly in the moral domain. She suggests that a psychological approach to understanding ideology can help navigate the slippery relativism that arises when judging values based on personal alignment. By focusing on the resistance to evidence, one can discern whether a belief is rooted in principle or dogma.
Zmigrod proposes that ideologies serve as coping mechanisms, providing our brains with ready-made solutions to the problem of uncertainty. Ideologies offer a comprehensive set of rules, descriptions, and causal mechanisms, relieving the brain of the computationally expensive task of figuring everything out independently. This seductive appeal stems from the brain’s inherent drive to resolve ambiguity and understand the world in a coherent way.
Zmigrod also addresses whether all ideologies are equally susceptible to extremist practices. She emphasizes that her research focuses on the presence of rigid thinkers within all ideologies, rather than comparing the ideologies themselves. While not every ideology is equally violent or quick to impose rules, she argues that any ideology with a strong utopian vision or a dystopian fear has the potential to become extreme.
Finally, the conversation explores the question of causality. Zmigrod suggests that the relationship between biology and ideology is bidirectional. Preexisting predispositions may drive some individuals to join ideological groups, while becoming more extreme and dogmatic can reshape the brain, leading to increased ritualism, narrowness, and rigidity in various aspects of life.
In conclusion, the exploration of the ideological brain sheds light on the complex interplay between belief, biology, and cognition. By examining the neurological roots of belief and the characteristics of ideological thinking, Zmigrod’s work offers a nuanced perspective on the nature of ideology and its impact on individuals and society. It encourages us to question our own beliefs, to be aware of our potential for rigidity, and to strive for a balance between conviction and openness to evidence.
