The Ideological Brain is another entry in the buzzy social psych genre that has been a mainstay of popular science nonfiction titles. It is of the same lineage as many throwaway titles that try to turn the research program of the author into the "one weird trick" that explains or solves some major social problem (political conflict downstream from dogmatism in this context). 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 science that these books are based on. 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 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 a 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. This 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. I don't think this will be that useful to informed readers and may mislead less informed readers. Also, these speculation seem a bit funny to me as it is 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 move 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

This book explores the neurological basis of political extremism, examining how ideologies shape the brain and how to resist radicalization. Blending psychology, politics, and neuroscience, the author discusses the biological and environmental factors influencing rigid thinking, and offers strategies for cultivating open-mindedness.

This book has something of a textbook feel. The content is interesting, but the science feels preliminary, incomplete, and not yet persuasive. I didn’t feel like the book offered much actionable information.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

What sets this book apart is its interdisciplinary approach—blending scientific research, sociopolitical implications, and real-world examples. Zmigrod explains how cognitive rigidity can lead to extremism and offers practical strategies for cultivating flexible thinking, with applications in education, policymaking, and conflict resolution. While some scientific concepts may feel dense, the book remains accessible and highly relevant.

For anyone curious about how beliefs form and influence decision-making, The Ideological Brain is a compelling and timely read. It encourages self-reflection and open discussion, making it essential for understanding the complexities of modern ideologies. Highly recommended!

This is not an easy book to read. It’s not because of the subject matter, which is fascinating, but because this is more of an academic discussion of ideology. It’s a book you would read because you are writing an academic paper on the subject.

Because this is such a complex subject, I queried ChatGPT—something I do with all my book reviews of scientific subjects to make sure I didn’t overlook some aspect—and this is what it said about Ideology:

“Ideology refers to a system of ideas, beliefs, or ideals that form the basis of a political, economic, or social theory. It’s about how people perceive the world and what principles they think should guide society.”

That essentially is what the book “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking” is about: how people end up clinging to whatever ideas, beliefs, or ideals—that is, Ideology—they hold.

Ideology was devised by Antoine Destutt de Tracy during the French Revolution. His idea was that “Idéologie [as he called it] would be a legitimate science that would use objective methods to ascertain how humans generate beliefs; [and] designed to be a scientific project oriented toward truth and against superstition.”

While there can be many different interpretations of Ideology, I read the book with the mindset of trying to understand why political ideologies can bring people to believe unpopular information or elect a president of the United States who may or may not believe in their best interests.

Author Zmigrod points out that “Religion is one of the strongest and most memorable forms of an ideological upbringing. This is because religion is highly performative, both as a doctrine and an identity.” Also, “ideologies offer the promise of “home,” a place where one is accepted and understood.” This aspect can apply to any social group (sports, popular culture, etc.)—the feeling of belonging and being understood is very powerful.”

While this doesn’t justify everything that the United States has experienced these last few years, it does explain some of the aspects of how those who followed Donald Trump felt and why they supported him.

This book would appeal to those who are interested in learning more about the history of ideology as well as those in academia who are interested in the application of sociological experiments. For me, this was a book that I found a bit hard to read in areas but was overall fascinated by the subject matter.

4/5 stars

[Thank you to NetGalley and the author for the advanced ebook copy in exchange for my honest and objective opinion, which I have given here.]

this is one of the best books i've read on the topic, i think. it's so balanced in its view (compared to so many others), and talks about the cog/neuro origins of ideology in terms of rigidity and inflexibility. it's a micro perspective that sells its idea very well, without going too much into the macro (which is kind of limiting, but that's the field in general).
i did think her writing was a bit cringe at first, but i think it does its job well. i liked the afterword, which gave me a very strong sense of "these are the thinkers i'm conversing with," which i feel like was a much better way to end a book than the usual "and this is what YOU can do about it." like, girl, i don't want to do anything about it. i'm done being an individual fighting the system, you know?

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.

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.

Are you in your right mind? This book will help you to finally get to a point in life when things can make a little more sense.

An excellent, timely summary of the neuroscientific and psychological implications of the ideological brain.

The Ideological Brain offers a groundbreaking exploration of how our political and ideological beliefs are shaped by biology, neuroscience, and personal experiences. It dives into the ways that convictions can alter not just our thoughts but our very brain structures, uncovering how deeply rooted ideological systems can affect perception and cognition. By integrating insights from politics, philosophy, and cutting-edge cognitive science, the book challenges the reader to reconsider how ideologies influence our behavior, decisions, and even our bodies. Through rich examples and accessible language, the text reveals how seemingly abstract beliefs manifest in tangible neural patterns. This unique perspective equips readers with a deeper understanding of the powerful grip ideologies can have on individuals and societies. Highly recommended for anyone curious about the intersection of the brain and the forces that shape our worldviews.

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.

Book begins a bit dry, but then proceeds intoa fascinating exploration of what drives people collectively into views, particularly extremist views. Interesting text with a unique premise, somewhat reminiscent of the "Lucifer Effect" by Zimbardo, but examining the sociological aspects and the common person rather than exceptional circumstances.