O Cérebro Ideológico

by Leor Zmigrod

Porque é que algumas pessoas se radicalizam?
Como é que as ideologias moldam o cérebro humano?
E como é que podemos libertar as nossas mentes de dogmas tóxicos?

Ao guiar os leitores através das suas experiências inovadoras, a Dra. Leor Zmigrod desvenda os mecanismos ocultos que orientam as nossas crenças e comportamentos e argumenta que as nossas posições políticas não são superficiais, mas antes desenvolvidas no tecido das nossas mentes. Os seus resultados mostram que os ideólogos de todos os espetros políticos têm dificuldade em alterar os seus padrões de pensamento quando confrontados com novas informações.
Embora alguns indivíduos sejam mais suscetíveis ao pensamento dogmático do que outros, todos nós podemos esforçar-nos por ser mais flexíveis, e Zmigrod acaba por explicar como podemos manter as nossas mentes abertas face a ideologias extremas.
Revelador, provocador e inesquecível, O Cérebro Ideológico é um livro inovador que nos desafia a resistir ao pensamento a preto e branco e a reavaliar as nossas convicções mais profundas.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Politics, Philosophy, Self Help, Neuroscience

352 pages, Paperback

First published March 25, 2025

Reviews

[Gabriela · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was looking forward to reading something between neuroscience and political science, but sadly this book was a huge disappointment. Many of the assumptions that Zmigrod makes are unsupported, sometimes even presumptuous, and make the whole book project dubious. All in all, it is more subjective stream of random thoughts than evidence-based, scientifically sound literature.

Most importantly, throughout the book, the author doesn't define exactly what ideologies are. Zmigrod takes "ideological" to mean anything that is dogmatic (by any standard, who knows). Also, the game tests and surveys she conducts and describes in the book don't measure ideologies, just some dispositions (flexibility, adaptability) that (maybe) make someone more likely to lean towards *some* ideology (which is a correlation, not a causal mechanism).

Second, she doesn't provide references to almost anything and I believe she sometimes misinterpretes theorists she criticizes, ending up labelling them with pathethic adjectives. Most notable example is "the conspiratorial and populist overtones in Marx's philosophy" or "the calamitous irony in Marx's hatred of ideology".

This culminates in the Epilogue section of the book, which she approaches as a rather absurd event, in which she presents her research findings to an audience consisting of the scholars mentioned in the book, including Marx. In this self-congratulatory section she tells people like Arendt, Marx or Frenkel-Brunswik how wrong their questions are (although it is Zmigrod who actually formulates them) and how unique and important her own research is.

The peak of the absurdity and self-indulgence of the writing are the following two quotes, taken from the Epilogue:

1
"But scientists don't do ideology critique," an accusatory scholar of the humanities resounds sceptically. "This is the task of philosophers, historians, economists, sociologists, and cultural thinkers." Why not? I ask, recalling that every aggression is an act of defence.

2
"These are excellent methods for critique!" Marx stresses.
Indeed, they are.

[Carol · Rating 5 out of 5]

I want to give it 20 stars! I actually recognized a part of the neurocognitive testing that I had to determine if I had Mild Cognitive Impairment or worse! That was the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which I hated with so much vigor when taking it. It determines how rigid or flexible your thinking is. The test gives you a the task of figuring out which card is next in the sequence. Doesn’t sound bad, does it? But now I know why the test made me angry and frustrated. The rules of the sorting change while you take the test. It starts out with sequence that is easy to figure out, You think you know the rules. then the rules change, over and over again. I can remember my anger while taking the test, how dare they change the rules! If you are flexible thinker you will soon realize the rules have been changed and figure what works until the rules change again. Apparently my reaction to the test was like many of the college kids who took the test. Change is painful when your structure of thinking doesn’t work and you have to figure out the rules again.

The part about brainwashing seems logical and explains why it is so difficult to change the thinking of a person like in a cult to change. It shows why it so difficult to undo the damage done to a brainwashed individual.

I was so glad to learn about the work of Else Frenkel-Brunswik. She left Poland and later Austria to escape Jewish persecution. In United States, she conducted vey important interviews with children. She found that rigidity, like dividing into black and white, good and evil, strong vs. evil with no middle gradations, is demonstrated through strongly prejudiced children.

The author delves into parts of the brain and dopamine neurons. The brain and inner workings are extremely complex and amazing. I wish I had an animation of the processes that she discussed that I could watch several times to understand it better.

I love the humor that the author employs with the "whispers" back and forth during the explanations, she knows that what had been learned is a lot to take in and she leads us through in a friendly and careful way.

The good part is that this book makes me think! The bad part is that if I have to take Neurocognitive Testing again, I know how to cheat to get a better score!

If you would like your brain to have some healthy exercise, please read this book! I am very interested in the future developments in how political beliefs and the biology of the brain relate.

[Mircea Petcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

De la fascism la comunism, ideologiile oferă soluții absolute, utopice la problemele societății, reguli stricte de comportament și o mentalitate de grup exclusivist prin intermediul unor practici și simboluri specifice.

Potrivit majorității definițiilor, ideologiile sunt curente istorice și mișcări sociologice. Autoarea le-a studiat ca fenomene psihologice. Aceasta a invitat mii de oameni să efectueze teste cognitive de flexibilitate mentală, cum ar fi Testul Wisconsin de Sortare a Cartonașelor, un test simplu cu stele portocalii și cercuri albastre în care regulile jocului se schimbă în mijlocul jocului. În urma efectuării testelor a descoperit că rigiditatea cognitivă se traduce prin rigiditate ideologică. Indivizii cei mai rigizi din punct de vedere cognitiv, cei care se chinuiesc atunci când se schimbă regulile, tind să manifeste cele mai dogmatice atitudini.

Mediul contează: copii obișnuiți cu ierarhia puterii și cu violența arbitrară de acasă, la maturitate, ar putea fi înclinați să devină parte a unor sisteme autoritare. În schimb, copii proveniți din familii care cultivă imaginația, empatia și pluralismul ar putea fi mai rezistenți la ideologiile totalitare. Genele contează: rigiditatea cognitivă și ideologică se corelează cu genele care produc puțină dopamină în cortexul prefrontal și CU genele care produc multă dopamină în corpul striat, fiind necesare amândouă!
Interacțiunea dintre gene și mediu este ceea ce ne face să fim noi înșine. Cum s-ar comporta o persoană cu un genotip predispus la flexibilitate într-un mediu dogmatic, spre exemplu?

După cum spunea psihologul Steven Pinker: "extremismul și polarizarea ideologică nu sunt doar probleme care trebuie să ne preocupe, ci și enigme care pot fi studiate și înțelese."

Recomand

[Bob Lieberman · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m on page 89, 1/3 of the way through. I look forward to getting to the actual science, which is what interests me. But so far, it is mostly overwrought bloviating. What I’ve read so far could have been thoroughly covered in ten pages. Very disappointed. In contrast to, for example, Kahneman’s Thinking Fast And Slow, whose subject matter is equally esoteric but which is a much more enjoyable and approachable read.
——
Finished now and reduced stars from 2 to 1. This is ho-hum book, written almost as a stream of consciousness. Condescending, self-congratulatory. Scientific research findings are of the “so what”variety. Quite the waste of money and time.

[J TC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um bom livro e imprescindível. Bom pela qualidade do texto e da escrita - irrepreensível. Imprescindível por a informação que disponibiliza ser essencial para compreendermos de que forma alguns cérebros são aprisionados por verdades em que acreditam e depois as replicam em tudo o que lhes dê sentido, mesmo que individualmente possam ser mais ou menos duvidosas. Mas também é relevante por se perceber que para além das questões do ninho - todo o ambiente é envolvimento que nos rodeia -, também a genética tem uma palavra nesta dualidade. Afinal não precisamos saber quem surgiu primeiro o ovo ou a galinha. Basta sabermos que há ovos e há galinhas

[Stetson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Ideological Brain is yet another entry in the buzzy social psych genre that has been a mainstay of popular science nonfiction titles since Malcolm Gladwell's pioneering The Tipping Point and Daniel Kahneman's genre-defining Thinking Fast and Slow. The Ideological Brain is more of the lineage of various throwaway titles that try to turn a the thin research program of the author into a fish-eyed manifesto that explains or solves some major social problem (in this case political conflict and atrocities downstream from dogmatism). This isn't to say there is never anything worthwhile in these book - there of course is - there is just a lot of fluff to wade through, and the science is almost always oversold or incorrect. Hence, it is now well past the heyday of these types of books as the (critical thinking) public has grown more conscious of the fundamental weaknesses of the underlying science. Anyway, let's set this disclaimer aside and address the content of this specific book.

Leor Zmigrod alleges that she has a scientific way of evaluating ideology and that through her research she thinks ideology arises from three interacting components: (1) Innate cognitive dispositions (rigidity, flexibility, threat response), (2) Neurobiological structures that filter information and control cognitive flexibility, and (3) Social and environmental influences that reinforce or challenge these tendencies. There is nothing particularly insightful or groundbreaking here. It is basically saying nature and nurture and their interactions explain trait X, and this is true for the vast majority of human traits, especially socially relevant ones. What matters here is not the qualitative picture of obvious processes, but the actual quantitative details, which identifies the most important explanatory factors, how exactly they explain ideological thinking, and whether these factors can be modified in ways that provide reliable results. Any semblance of this sort of rigor is essentially absent from the work. Instead the reader is treated to Zmigrod speculations about the pitfalls of " rigid cognitive styles" and the need for "cognitive flexibility" in a tittering and chirping style.

Just as an exercise and to demonstrate my point, let's examine an example of the type of evidence invoked by the author, especially with respect to what is known concerning the best epistemological practice in field I'm familiar with (let's broadly call this field social genomics). To support the claim that genes influence cognitive flexibility, Zmigrod cites her own research, which happens to be a 2021 candidate gene study (yes, you read that right) on the genes, DRD2 and COMT, published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (IF = 3.1). DRD2 is the a dopamine receptor gene that has long been the focus of genetic association studies interested in neurocognitive/behavioral traits and COMT is an enzyme that metabolizes dopamine in the prefrontal cortex. Zmigrod's study alleges a clear interaction effect between COMT and DRD2 variants in a subset of the study population. These claims are implausible for a number of reasons. One, the anticipated effect size of common variation (aka polymorphisms) on social traits is expected to be extremely small. Two, a gene association study can only be powered to reliably identify the effects of common variants when the sample sizes run to the five-to-seven digit range. Three, studying interaction effects among genes (epistasis) requires additional power and controls on top of the usual power requirements. Four, there should be some type of functional work that accompanies the association finding that at least, in principle, validates the identified biological relationship. Finally, it is almost pointless to study a one or two genes when thinking about a complex trait (cognitive flexibility). It is inevitably extremely polygenic, meaning most of the variation that genetic variation can explain can likely be accounted for with an additive model (the opposite of epistasis - genetically speaking), and the magnitude of that variation may be quite small (this is before we consider issues like population structure and assortative mating and GxE confounds). There is very little that should be written about the effects of DRD2 or COMT polymorphisms in a book for lay readers and what can be said about a locus like DRD2 has more to do with its association with addiction, depression, and suicide risk than cognitive flexibility. There are almost certainly important genetic contributions to "cognitive flexibility" and DRD2 may play some tiny role, but these have to be identified with rigorous methods. Zmigrod should have treated this subject and many others with greater care.

Zmigrod has moments where she writes intelligently and engagingly, but I don't think this book will be particularly useful to informed readers and may mislead less informed readers. Also, Zmigrod's speculations seem a bit funny to me as it they seem to be just an alternative explanation of intelligence, i.e. the ability to adapt to new information and circumstances by solving problems or using strategies that increase one's reproductive potential/output. If we regard ideology as a prior belief that guides information filtering and processing then priors that are already correct (in an evolutionary sense) or priors that can be most efficiently moved to the correct position are optimal. In the case of the latter, this is simply re-deriving the need for "cognitive flexibility" or trait openness or whatever one wants to call it using a basic evolutionary framework. What Zmirgrod's musings don't entertain, but should have, is that dogmatism itself may be adaptive when there is an absolute zero-sum conflict between individuals or groups. This is similar to the paradox of tolerance, but we could relabel it as the paradox of cognitive flexibility. If your openness is so high, you are accommodating interests in direct conflict with yours that you end up working against your own interests, then cognitive flexibility is no longer useful. This of course is more meaningful in the context of competing groups rather than individuals, but is nonetheless crucial to understanding why dogmatism or cognitive rigidity appears rather than vaguely blaming the factors that influence all traits.

I have other issues with the work that my above review didn't have space to address:
- credulous readings of weak science throughout including fMRI work
- takes "The Authoritarian Personality" hypothesis too seriously
- fails to reflect on the paradox of anti-ideological thinking itself being ideological
- refuses to engage directly with the assumptions central to the idea that ideology is socially deleterious. It is just accepted.
- doesn't engage deeply on relevant questions that inform the thesis: free will question, moral realism/relativism question, the nature of ideology.

Disclaimer: I received this book as an ARC through Netgalley.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book can only be considered scientific by those who are accustomed to treating tests and surveys as science. That is the only way you can get people to believe that rigidity or flexibility in thinking (whatever that concept even means) can be mapped from cognitive tests to political beliefs.

[Allison · Rating 5 out of 5]

First Goodreads giveaway win for 2025 and I am so happy to be reading about political neuroscience. Neuroscience is a big love of mine (totally missed my calling), so all the science reads -I am her for. And while I’m at it, I don’t mind the medical jargon that one finds in many science/medical publications but this author made it (I think) really super easy to follow and understand and LEARN. I honest to the Universe feel smarter after reading this book. 🙌 Now it did take a bit to get into to the really good stuff but I did catch myself thinking about it and looking forward to reading it while I was out doing the errands. Thank you again to the author and publisher for an ARC. Happy reading!

[Steven Rowley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recommend this educational foray into the nature vs nurture debate - which focuses on the roots of ideological thinking but incorporates a wide swath of medical and social science topics - including philosophy, religion and politics. I did not necessarily agree with all the conclusions; the narrative raised more questions than answers. Nevertheless, I learned a great deal - my goal when I started reading.

If you are a rigid thinker, this book will challenge you - and will probably piss you off. If you're a flexible thinker, you'll probably appreciate the insights about what makes humans tick. Where do you reside on the spectrum between these extremes?

[Sahina · Rating 5 out of 5]

My thoughts on this book are somewhat divided. On one hand, I came across fascinating insights into ideological rigidity—concepts that genuinely left me awestruck. On the other hand, the book also left me confused at several places.
I was intrigued to learn that the term “ideology” was originally coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy as a scientific concept. Over the centuries, however, that meaning has evolved—sometimes distorted—under various social and political pressures. Zmigrod does a compelling job of illustrating how deeply ideology shapes our lives from the very beginning. Wrapped in a blanket of ideologies with layers of inherited belief systems that brings us comfort and which grows heavier and more layered as we grow, we often reach a point where we can no more distinguish between what is ideological and what isn’t.
One of the most captivating aspects of the book is its exploration into the biological roots of ideological thinking and the genetic predisposition to cognitive rigidity, and how something as seemingly unrelated as dopamine activity in the brain plays a role in shaping our ideological tendencies. I was particularly intrigued by the experimental methods and tools used to study such sophisticated processes as cognitive flexibility and ideological thinking. Another strength of Zmigrod’s writing is that she doesn’t overwhelm the reader with political or psychological jargon. Instead, she illustrates her points with real-world examples, making it easier to connect the dots. As someone without any background in psychology, I still found most of the book approachable and engaging.
That said, I did find myself questioning a few of her premises. For example, Zmigrod characterizes ideology as rigid and dogmatic, yet she also describes it as fluid and mobile. Another point worth noting is the focus on biological and cognitive determinants of ideology. While Zmigrod does briefly acknowledge the importance of environmental and social influences—like upbringing, trauma, and exposure to diversity—I felt these aspects could have been explored in more depth.
The book left me with more questions than answers—which, I think, is a sign of a meaningful read. Are ideas like nationalism or religion created only to satisfy the needs of ideologically rigid minds? How do we distinguish between “good” and “harmful” ideologies—and who has the authority to decide that?
It was not one of the easiest books that I’ve read, and though I was initially hesitant to begin it, I’m glad I did, as it helped me reflect on my own thinking and view the world from a very different perspective

[David Calado · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5*
Grandecíssimo feito por uma jovem com menos de 30 anos.

Tema muito relevante nos dias que correm, com um enquadramento histório e filosófico muito maduros - a tudo isto, soma-se o toque científico de Leor, que, desde logo, se diz piorneira em estudos que relacionam traços e padrões cognitivos com inclinações e estilos políticos (particularmente ideologias). Destes estudos, faz uma interpretação extremamente cuidadosa, zelando pela imparcialidade que é esperada no exercício científico.
Porém, senti que houve imensa repetição de ideias análogas (i.e, "o cérebro dogmático é menos flexível" e "a rigidez cognitiva torna os sujeitos mais susceptíveis (...)", o que tornou a leitura um pouco enfadonha. Menos compreensível ainda, é o facto da autora começar com uma frase que sugere que tudo é ideologia e que não temos como escapar dela e, no final, propõe como solução ao problema da ideologia, abandonar a ideologia, procurando outras formas de viver e de pensar, que não sejam ideológicas...

[Barbara McVeigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars
A historical, contextual and psychological approach to ideology by a political neuroscientist. Interesting to read, but I’m not sure what I’m left to think about it all at the end. Sometimes the writing is quirky (which I like).

Zmigrod encourages me to re-reread Susan Sontag when Zmigrod quotes from Sontag’s “Against Interpretation”:

“[I]deologies can impose interpretations. If one adheres to a doctrine rigidly, every perceptual experience becomes subjugated to meanings that fit that doctrine….Rather than experiencing art or the world directly, we come to experience it indirectly, inauthentically, avoiding its ambiguity in favor of predetermined meanings” (171).

[Lance · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was fortunate to win an early-release copy in a contest, and I am so glad I did.

Summary-

Leor Zmigrod explores the psychological and neurological underpinnings of ideological beliefs, delving into how cognitive traits like mental rigidity or flexibility influence a person's susceptibility to radical and moderate ideologies. The book presents research showing how these traits shape individuals' worldviews, decision-making, and behaviors. Zmigrod emphasizes the societal implications of ideological polarization and provides strategies to cultivate cognitive flexibility to reduce extremism, enhance empathy, and foster constructive dialogue.

Review-

The Ideological Brain is a thought-provoking exploration of ideology's cognitive and psychological foundations. Drawing from research in neuroscience and psychology, Zmigrod examines how our brains shape, and are shaped by, our ideological beliefs while presenting a compelling case for the importance of cognitive flexibility in fostering open-mindedness and social harmony.

One of the book's strengths lies in its interdisciplinary approach. Zmigrod seamlessly weaves together scientific insights with sociopolitical implications, making complex ideas accessible and relevant to both academics and general readers. The author delves into how mental rigidity can lead to extremism and how ideological diversity impacts societal resilience. Her arguments are supported by a wealth of evidence, from experimental studies to real-world examples.

What sets this book apart is its focus on the potential for change. Rather than merely diagnosing the problem of ideological entrenchment, Zmigrod offers practical strategies for cultivating flexible thinking. These strategies are applicable at an individual level and have profound implications for education, policymaking, and conflict resolution.

Some readers may sometimes find the book's scientific density challenging, but Zmigrod does an admirable job of explaining technical concepts for those of us who are less familiar with neuroscience or psychology. The book's rich content and thought-provoking ideas make it a rewarding read for anyone interested in understanding the roots of ideology and how to counter polarization.

The Ideological Brain is a powerful and timely work that encourages us to reflect on how we think and engage with the world. Zmigrod's insights are not only intellectually stimulating but also deeply relevant to the pressing challenges of our time. This book is a must-read for anyone seeking to navigate the complexities of modern ideologies with curiosity and compassion.

[Glenna Turney · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has a ton of information, not necessarily written for the layman. At times, it was just too much but was nicely tied together at the very end.
I did appreciate how ideology was explained.

*I won this ARC book from Goodreads. Thank you!

[Will Sharp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good stuff! longer than it needed to be to make the point, but I didn't mind too much.

[Antonio Gallo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Questa è una recensione scritta dal punto di vista di chi i libri li ha visti nascere e ora li legge su schermo. Mentre scorro le pagine digitali di questo volume di Leor Zmigrod sul mio Kindle, non posso fare a meno di sorridere dell'ironia della situazione. Io, figlio di un tipografo che mi ha cresciuto tra l'odore dell'inchiostro e il rumore delle macchine, che ho dedicato una vita a collezionare libri fisici - compresi quelli che qualcuno, in qualche momento della storia, ha voluto proibire - ora leggo di neuroscienze e rigidità mentale su uno schermo sottile come una rivista.

È una rivoluzione silenziosa quella che ho vissuto negli ultimi anni. Nel quinto ventennio di vita, a ottanta e passa anni, dopo una carriera di linguista e una vita da bibliomane incallito, ho scoperto il paradosso del libro digitale: posso portare con me migliaia di volumi in un oggetto che pesa meno di un tascabile, ma non posso più sentire sotto le dita la ruvidezza della carta vergata o la morbidezza della pergamena antica.

"Il Cervello Ideologico" della studiosa Zmigrod è arrivato nella mia biblioteca virtuale con un semplice clic. Nessun viaggio in libreria, nessuna attesa, nessun peso da portare a casa. Mio padre, che componeva ogni lettera a mano e conosceva il peso specifico di ogni carattere tipografico, non avrebbe mai immaginato che suo figlio avrebbe letto su un dispositivo dove le parole nascono dalla luce.

Eppure, mentre leggo le ricerche della neuroscienziata di Cambridge sui meccanismi cerebrali del pensiero dogmatico, capisco che forse non è cambiato l'essenziale. Il contenuto rimane potente, le idee mantengono la loro forza perturbatrice, il pensiero scorre con la stessa intensità che avrebbe avuto su carta. La Zmigrod mi conduce attraverso i labirinti neurologici della rigidità cognitiva con la stessa efficacia che avrebbe avuto in un volume rilegato.

Ma c'è una perdita che sento profondamente. La mia biblioteca fisica - con i suoi volumi proibiti salvati dai danni del tempo, le prime edizioni nascoste e preziose, i libri censurati conservati sfidando divieti di ogni epoca - quella biblioteca parla anche quando non la leggo. I volumi si fronteggiano sugli scaffali, creano dialoghi visivi, si contraddicono fisicamente. Il "Mein Kampf" accanto alle opere di T S Eliot non è solo una scelta intellettuale: è un confronto che si vede, si tocca, si respira.

Nel Kindle, tutto questo scompare. I miei libri proibiti coesistono nello stesso spazio digitale senza potersi guardare negli occhi. L'ideologia nazista e quella comunista, i testi sacri e quelli blasfemi, occupano tutti gli stessi pixel sullo schermo. È una democrazia digitale che forse livella troppo le differenze.

Leggendo la ricerca della Zmigrod sui correlati neurobiologici della rigidità mentale, mi chiedo se il mio passaggio al digitale non rappresenti proprio quella flessibilità cognitiva che lei descrive come antidoto al pensiero dogmatico. Ho dovuto superare decenni di feticismo librario, abbandonare la sensualità della carta, accettare l'immaterialità del testo. È stato un piccolo esercizio contro la rigidità mentale.

Dall'altro lato, però, mi preoccupa una cosa che la Zmigrod non poteva prevedere quando ha condotto le sue ricerche: il Kindle sa cosa leggo, quando lo leggo, quanto tempo dedico a ogni pagina. Algoritmi che non comprendo suggeriscono cosa dovrei leggere dopo, creando quelle che potremmo chiamare "camere dell'eco digitali". Il rischio di rigidità cognitiva non viene più dai roghi pubblici, ma da filtri invisibili che mi mostrano solo i libri che confermano i miei gusti precedenti.

Mio padre diceva sempre: "Ogni libro che stampiamo entra nel mondo per restarci". Con il digitale, questa certezza vacilla. I miei libri elettronici esistono finché funziona il dispositivo, finché l'azienda mantiene i server, finché non cambiano i formati. È una fragilità che la carta non conosce. Paradossalmente, i libri proibiti che ho salvato in forma fisica sopravvivranno probabilmente più a lungo dei file digitali che sto accumulando oggi.

Eppure, leggendo le conclusioni della Zmigrod su schermo, capisco che forse sto partecipando a una nuova forma di resistenza culturale. Il mio Kindle contiene oggi libri che in forma fisica non riuscirei più a trovare, opere rare che nessun editore ristamperebbe, testi censurati che circolano solo in formato digitale. In un certo senso, sono diventato un contrabbandiere digitale, come ero stato un conservatore fisico.

La ricerca della Zmigrod assume nuove sfumature quando la leggo su dispositivo elettronico. Lei descrive come certi pattern neurali predispongano al pensiero rigido, ma non ha potuto studiare l'effetto della lettura digitale su questi meccanismi. Io, che ho letto migliaia di libri su carta e ora centinaia su schermo, posso testimoniare una differenza: sul Kindle leggo più velocemente, ma rifletto meno profondamente. È come se la superficie liscia dello schermo favorisse uno scorrimento più superficiale del pensiero.

Questo mi preoccupa alla luce delle scoperte della neuroscienziata. Se la rigidità cognitiva si combatte con la riflessione profonda e il confronto paziente con idee diverse, forse stiamo perdendo qualcosa di essenziale nel passaggio al digitale. Non la capacità di accedere alle informazioni, ma quella di metabolizzarle lentamente, di lasciarle sedimentare, di creare quelle connessioni inaspettate che nascono dalla lettura contemplativa.

Chiudendo il Kindle dopo aver terminato "Il Cervello Ideologico", mi chiedo cosa penserebbe mio padre di questa trasformazione. Lui, che conosceva ogni segreto della stampa, che sapeva quando un carattere era consumato dal suono che faceva battendo sulla carta, che riconosceva a occhi chiusi il tipo di inchiostro dall'odore. Lui i libri li "faceva".

Forse capirebbe che l'essenziale non è cambiato: le idee continuano a viaggiare, a scontrarsi, a cercare menti disposte ad accoglierle. Ma forse si rattristerebbe sapendo che suo figlio non può più mostrare fisicamente a un visitatore la propria biblioteca, non può più dire: "Guarda, questo libro l'ho salvato da un rogo, questo l'ho trovato nascosto in una soffitta, questo me l'ho trovato su una bancarella.

Il lavoro della Zmigrod ci avverte sui pericoli della rigidità mentale, sui meccanismi neurobiologici che ci rendono vulnerabili al pensiero dogmatico. Il mio passaggio dal libro fisico a quello digitale è forse una piccola vittoria contro questa rigidità: ho saputo adattarmi, cambiare, accettare una nuova forma di lettura.

Ma rimane una domanda che il libro non può risolvere: nell'era digitale, dove tutto è accessibile ma niente è permanente, dove posso leggere qualunque cosa ma non posso più toccarla, stiamo diventando più flessibili mentalmente o stiamo solo cambiando il tipo di rigidità a cui siamo soggetti? La risposta, forse, la darà solo il tempo. Intanto continuo a leggere, su schermo e su carta quando posso, perché - come diceva mio padre mentre componeva i caratteri - "ogni libro è un esperimento. Non sappiamo mai che cosa succederà quando qualcuno lo aprirà". Anche se oggi "aprire" significa premere un pulsante su uno schermo.

Il figlio del tipografo, bibliomane analogico diventato digitale per necessità si rende conto di aver parlato poco delle ideologie e di chi l'ha scritto. Resto convinto che ogni essere umano è destinato a vivere con la sua ideologia. Leor Zmigrod è una neuroscienziata e psicologa politica di spicco, pioniera nel campo della "neuroscienza politica". Ha completato il suo PhD come Gates Scholar presso il Dipartimento di Psicologia dell'Università di Cambridge e successivamente è stata selezionata per una prestigiosa fellowship di ricerca a Cambridge per dirigere il proprio programma di ricerca indipendente.

La sua ricerca si concentra sullo studio delle caratteristiche cognitive, emotive e neurobiologiche che possono rendere gli individui vulnerabili alla radicalizzazione e al comportamento ideologico estremo. È una psicologa politica e neuroscienziata la cui ricerca indaga le caratteristiche cognitive ed emotive che rendono gli individui suscettibili all'estremismo ideologico.

Il suo libro esplora le radici neurologiche e biologiche del pensiero rigido, rivela le profonde connessioni tra le convinzioni politiche e la biologia del cervello, basandosi sulla sua ricerca all'avanguardia per esporre la complessa interazione tra cognizione e ambiente che predispone alcuni individui a modi di pensare inflessibili. Ha pubblicato oltre 30 articoli peer-reviewed Leor Zmigrod e è stata visiting fellow a Stanford, Harvard e presso gli Institutes for Advanced Study di Berlino. Il suo libro "The Ideological Brain" è stato nominato tra i libri più attesi del 2025. La Zmigrod rappresenta una voce autorevole nell'emergente campo che unisce neuroscienze e psicologia politica per comprendere i meccanismi alla base della formazione delle credenze ideologiche e del pensiero dogmatico.

[Angie Boyter]

I tried 3 times but could not get into this book. The idea was excellent, but the writing was not.

[John Szalasny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received an advance reader's edition through Goodreads.

My practical brain doesn't fully love the book only because it doesn't give me the easy workarounds to deal with people who don't think or act like me. My rational brain realizes that this is a very good review of the current status of understanding why some brains are hardwired to be rigid ideologues despite evidence to the contrary, and others are more adaptable and capable of changing their viewpoint based on new data.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read! Won a paperback advanced reader copy via a Goodreads giveaway. Personally, I found it a bit dense at times, but the subject matter and insight were compelling, so I stuck with it. Learning about the brain was really fascinating and I now find myself thinking about the Simon effect and other phenomena when in situations or reading about other topics that aren't even related! As a self-described "non-sciencey" person in the technical sense, learning about dopamine and other chemicals and their reactions was made pretty easy by the way Zmigrod described them, for which I was thankful.

[Jackie Sunday · Rating 4 out of 5]

Books about our thoughts and minds always catches my attention with great curiosity. You may be a conservative or liberal and question how it happened. If you want to know more about how we form specific views, then this is a remarkable book that gives you a solid understanding of ideologies influencing our minds.

Dr. Leor Zmigrod, an award-winning scientist, allows readers to dig deep into the world of brains and how it works. This is filled with information from ancient philosophers and to what is known now. The readers are updated with recent studies of genetics, results from brain scans and how the environment places a part.

The most interesting take-away for me was related to politics on how people form decisions. She talked about the differences between those that are flexible and follow the rules opposed to others who are rigid and dislike change. It’s complicated how the mind forms decisions and she gives examples of experiments that are used.

This book helps us understand more about ourselves. It would be great for open discussions in countries with free speech as it relates to world politics. Beliefs matter.

My thanks to Henry Holt & Company and NetGalley for providing me with an advanced copy of this book with an expected release date of March 25, 2025.

[Bonny · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Ideological Brain sounded like it might help me better understand how people become radicalized and believe in rigid ideologies, especially during this polarized political season in the US. In a combination of psychology, politics, and philosophy, the author argues that some people are biologically predisposed to rigid ways of thinking. Belief in strict ideologies has long been attributed to social forces but Zmigrod's research looks at this in terms of neural and cognitive principles. The book is written in a scholarly manner and can honestly be a little dry to this non-academic reader, but it has at least shown me that there may be reasons for political beliefs that I see as bordering on crazy. She also describes what an open and flexible thinker looks like. Three and a half stars rounded up.

Thank you to Henry Holt and Co. for providing me with a copy of this book. It will be published on April 25, 2025.

[Aimee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won an arc of this book from Henry Holt and Co in return for a honest review. Leor Zmigrod did an amazing job on this book. I was able to completely understand everything without being bored out of my mind or feel like I needed to google what she was talking about. It was extremely informative, humorous, and an understanding blend of philosophy, politics, and psychology. She explains how ideologies can take hold of your brain changing the way we believe, and how we react to others. She takes us through her experiments, and helps us see that anyone can open themselves up. This is definitely not a book I would have picked up to read, but I am glad I was picked to read this arc. I highly recommend this book!

[Cheyenne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you, NetGalley and Henry Holt & Company | Henry Holt and Co. books for this ARC for review. This book was fascinating that I read in spurts over about a week as it was a lot of information to process at once. It was interesting to read the comparisons of how different groups process or relate to information in different ways. It was especially interesting when the author was speaking of the studies with children as some behaviors are learned through parents or environments, but others are not.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won an advanced readers copy of this book from the publisher through Goodreads.

As a scientist myself, I often wonder about the science behind things that do not inherently pertain to science as well as the chicken/egg scenario of just about everything. This book scratched that itch pretty thoroughly.

Though it is scientific it reads smoothly and clearly. Since it is scientific by nature, there is not a lot of fluff which may bore some readers.

I would have liked to see further elaboration rather than just ending the book with a philosophical question.

[Chelsey Jolliff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leor Zmigrod wrote about how ideologically rigid minds can affect one’s actions as well as how one’s genetics, upbringings and surroundings can affect their ideological rigidity or flexibility.

Backed by science and mixed with a bit of humor, this book helped my mind not only be cognizant of my own ideological tendencies, but also be more understanding of the traits and factors that could shape others ideologies.

[nw · Rating 3 out of 5]

A deep look at the human mind and its tendencies while navigating our polarized and politicized world. 🧠

Things I loved:
👩‍🔬 honoring women’s research
🧪 biochemical factor discussion
🖼️ reframing

The pacing and considerations within this book were great; I simply wanted more! While I did learn things, most of the information was presented as coorelations that just made sense (though the author did a good job supporting them scientifically). 📖

[Kenzie Koopman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was quite good! I felt like I learned lots!

[Aaron West · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first heard Dr. Leor Zmigrod on Vox’s The Gray Area with Sean Illing. The episode immediately entranced and interested me—and it was based on this book, which led me to get it from the library.

Dr. Zmigrod’s research is based on a long history of psychology and physiology, but marries the two in a somewhat novel way. Her research is on that of ideology: rigid thinkers vs. flexible thinkers. The interesting take here is that it’s not about *what* people think, per se, but *how* they think. Who is ideologically firm and dogmatic vs. who is open to self-critique and flexibility. To quote: “The ideological brain is a brain that is cognitively rigid, emotionally dysregulated, physiologically less sensitive to injustice and injury, neurobiologically receptive to addictive rituals and binary categories.”

Her take is that the way we think—no matter what the content of our beliefs or ideas—has a profound impact on our biology: our neuroplasticity, our minds’ habits, our intuitions and emotional reactions, and our brain chemistry. She likens cognitive rigidity as a spiral—the more we move toward the center of this spiral, the more we are open to conducting radical actions and enacting dogmatic extremism—the harder it also gets to get out. But it’s important to note that she doesn’t advocate for pure moderation. She rightly states that the center can move and cave to dogmatism.

There were some very interesting studies conducted that she mentions and explores. Rigid thinkers are more rigid when faced with rejection, with exclusion, with scarcity and stress. This is intuitive. But people are also more extreme at times or susceptible to it when faced with mortality, with social pressure, with conversion to religious belief after being raised without it. The ‘zeal of the convert’ is a true phenomenon, whereas those who leave strict religious environments are shown to be more flexible. Children, even infants, begin to show signs of rigidity or flexibility with tests. But these are not predestined.

Zmigrod makes the important point that the spiral is a spectrum. We are not fixed—we can move on this spectrum, and our decisions are very crucial to this. It’s important to be compassionate with rigid personalities, but raising children and opening ourselves to flexible openness and committing to pluralism are vital.

I do wish there were more chapters on what to do to avoid rigid thinking. She spends a lot of time describing what the issues with it are and that we can change ourselves with habits, but I would have liked more tangible takeaways. Otherwise, this was super interesting and worth the read, despite it getting technical at times.

[Indra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unraveling The Ideological Brain: A Deep Dive into Thought and Belief

I recently had the privilege to dive into Leor Zmigrod's "The Ideological Brain," thanks to an ARC from Henry Holt and Co. This book is a masterful blend of science, philosophy, and political discussion, providing a fascinating insight into the biological underpinnings of our political and ideological leanings. Here's what you need to know:

🌟 Clarity Meets Complexity: Zmigrod takes on the complex interplay of biology and environment, explaining how certain individuals are wired for rigid belief systems. Her writing style is refreshingly accessible, even when discussing dense academic topics like neural and cognitive principles. She crafts a narrative that is both enlightening and engaging, despite moments that can feel a bit dry for the non-academic reader.

🧠 From Ideology to Insight: The book goes beyond just discussing problems like polarization; it delves into the why. Zmigrod's research offers a nuanced view of how ideologies not only shape but also change the wiring of our brains:

• She explains how our cerebral design can predispose us to different ideologies, illustrating
this with her groundbreaking experiments.
• Through these findings, Zmigrod enlightens us on the characteristics of an open, flexible
mind, crucial in today's often polarized environment.

📖 The book’s premise is both timely and timeless, given our current political climate, making it a must-read for those interested in understanding the root of ideological rigidity and extremism. I found myself unexpectedly entertained and educated, despite initial reservations about picking up such a topic.

In wrapping up, "The Ideological Brain" not only broadened my understanding of political beliefs but also encouraged a hope for flexibility. It's not just about critiquing polarized beliefs but also about fostering an environment where cognitive openness can thrive. 🌐📚 I give it a solid 4 stars, and not just because of its insightful content, but for its role in sparking a critical conversation at a crucial time.

I highly recommend this read to anyone interested in the crossroads where psychology, politics, and neuroscience meet. With its publication on April 25, 2025, it's set to enlighten many on the intricacies of the human mind in ideological contexts. 🔍🌍

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leor Zmigrod’s “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking” is a groundbreaking work that delves into the complex interplay between neuroscience, psychology, and political beliefs, arguing that our ideological leanings are fundamentally linked to the way our brains are wired and operate. Drawing from cutting-edge research, Zmigrod examines how cognitive traits—such as mental rigidity or flexibility—can shape the likelihood that an individual will adopt extremist or moderate positions, and how these traits manifest both politically and personally. Zmigrod’s central thesis is that ideological rigidity can be traced to neural patterns and cognitive habits, making ideological commitment not simply a matter of environment or rational choice, but a deep-seated neurological tendency. The book reveals that strict adherence to dogma or black-and-white thinking can literally rewire the brain, embedding extreme beliefs in the very fabric of our neural responses—even outside explicitly political contexts. This perspective challenges the idea that persuasion or education alone are sufficient to counter extremism: underlying biological predispositions matter enormously. By tracing the roots of cognitive inflexibility, Zmigrod masterfully investigates why some people are particularly vulnerable to radicalization, conspiracy thinking, or intolerance for ambiguity. The analysis spans historical and contemporary case studies, while incorporating philosophical questions about agency, freedom, and resilience. Zmigrod’s experiments—lucidly described—demonstrate that rigid mental traits cut across demographics and can be measured in simple, non-political tasks, indicating just how deeply ideology penetrates everyday cognition. Importantly, Zmigrod doesn’t leave readers stranded in fatalism. Strategies for cultivating cognitive flexibility and open-mindedness are presented, urging a turn toward curiosity and empathy as antidotes to dogmatism. “The Ideological Brain” is provocative and urgent, inviting readers to recognize—and reshape—their own cognitive rigidity for the sake of personal growth and social harmony. This book is a vital read for anyone interested in understanding the neural and psychological underpinnings of ideology, and for those seeking practical solutions to the polarized world.