Why do some people seem unshakeable in their beliefs, even when faced with contradictory evidence? The answer lies in something called ideological thinking—a powerful cognitive process that goes far beyond simply having opinions. Neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod has identified the key components that make our brains so vulnerable to rigid belief systems, from political extremism to religious fundamentalism.
Read more to see how understanding these mental patterns can help explain why ideology feels so natural and why some people fall deeper into its grip than others.
Table of Contents
The Definition of Ideological Thinking
An ideology isn’t just a set of ideas: It’s a system of ideas that becomes deeply embedded in your mind and body, dictating your perceptions, thought processes, and behaviors. We’ll start by examining how Zmigrod defines ideological thinking—and why our brains are so vulnerable to it.
The 2 Components of Ideological Thinking
Zmigrod defines ideological thinking as a cognitive approach with two essential characteristics: It’s both doctrinal (rigid in its adherence to a set of beliefs and resistant to updating those beliefs with new evidence) and relational (favorably oriented toward an in-group; that is, a group of people who share the thinker’s interests or identity). Zmigrod explains that these two components appear consistently across various ideologies, whether you look at political extremism or religious fundamentalism.
(Shortform note: Why don’t we just see things objectively? Researchers in two different fields offer complementary explanations. Neuroscientists, like Zmigrod, find that our brains are wired to filter information through our existing beliefs and perspectives. Our neural pathways don’t passively record reality: They shape what we perceive. Meanwhile, sociologists suggest our biased understanding of the world comes from our social nature: We create meaning together through language and shared experiences, rather than discovering preexisting truths. Both ideas hint at why ideological thinking feels so natural: We need frameworks to interpret our world. The question isn’t whether we use these frameworks, but how strongly we cling to them.)
Doctrinal Thinking
You can see the doctrinal component of ideology at work when people embrace a dogmatic way of thinking: the kind that assumes there’s one true explanation for—and solution to—the world’s problems. Zimgrod explains that dogmatic ways of thinking typically outline sharp distinctions between those who see the “truth” and those who don’t, and they often categorize the world into “good versus evil,” and “us versus them.”
(Shortform note: The dogmatic certainty of ideological thinking is a response to the complexity of our world, which creates what experts call “psychological entropy.” In physics, entropy refers to disorder or uncertainty in a system. So, psychological entropy refers to the mental chaos and anxiety we experience when we feel overwhelmed by change, uncertainty, and information overload. Our minds naturally seek a reprieve from this chaos, and ideologies provide us with clear-cut explanations that reduce the mental effort required to make sense of uncertainty. But what begins as a helpful mental shortcut can harden into what researchers call “functional fixedness,” where we become stuck in one way of thinking even as circumstances change.)
Relational Thinking
Zmigrod explains that the relational component of ideology manifests itself when people adopt overt identity markers—by flying flags, wearing symbols, and taking part in rituals and other social practices—that signal their membership and loyalty to an ideological group. These markers create feelings of connection and belonging with fellow followers of the ideology, while simultaneously making it clear who doesn’t belong. Think about how quickly you can identify someone’s political affiliation by their clothing, the bumper stickers on their car, or even the language they use to talk about an election: These markers identify them as part of the group that believes in a certain set of ideas and thinks in a specific way about the world.
| From Gray Flannel Suits to Red Hats Zmigrod’s observation that visible identity markers communicate our ideological loyalties highlights a shift in how Americans signal group affiliation. In the 1950s, the epitome of corporate America was the “man in the gray flannel suit,” a uniform so ubiquitous it came to represent conformity and anonymity. The suit revealed nothing about political leanings or corporate ties: It just signified membership in the professional class and participation in the rituals of the nine-to-five job. Today’s identity markers serve a different purpose: From finance bros wrapped in company-branded fleece vests to rallygoers wearing hats and shirts emblazoned with candidates’ names, modern Americans advertise their affiliations. This shift in self-branding seems to align with what political scientist Robert Putnam observes as a sign of social capital in America breaking down. In Bowling Alone, Putnam explains that healthy communities balance two kinds of social connections: “bonding,” which unites people with similar identities, and “bridging,” which connects people of different backgrounds. As bridging connections weaken, bonding connections intensify, leading to stronger in-group identification and more visible markers of group membership. Taking perhaps the most recognizable political identity marker of our time, the red “Make America Great Again” hat, as an example, these markers of belonging make powerful statements about which “us” we belong to and which “them” we stand against. |
Why Our Brains Love Ideology
Zmigrod explains that our brains are naturally receptive to ideological systems because they satisfy two of our basic cognitive needs:
- The need for prediction: The doctrinal aspects of ideologies offer explanatory frameworks that help us to understand and predict the world around us. When your life feels chaotic or the world feels uncertain, an ideology can provide you with comforting answers and certainty.
- The need for connection: The relational aspects of ideologies connect us with groups who share our identity, which satisfies our desire for belonging. These communities tell us who “our people” are and give us a shorthand for understanding who’s with us and who’s against us.
| Why Prediction and Connection Are Necessary for Survival Our brains don’t just want predictions: They depend on them. We evolved to rely heavily on prediction rather than truth for two reasons. First, prediction helped our ancestors survive—it was safer to mistake a stick for a snake than vice versa. Second, our perception lags reality: It takes up to 15 seconds for visual information to be processed, so we’re always experiencing a slightly outdated version of the world. To compensate for this delay, our brains predict what’s happening based on past experiences and expectations. This leaves us prone to warping or even completely missing sensory information about events happening right in front of us because it doesn’t fit our predictions—or square with our ideology. Similarly, research suggests our need for social connection is as crucial to survival as food, water, and shelter. A sense of belonging (the subjective feeling of connection with our social groups) is fundamental to our mental and physical health. When our ancestors formed social groups, they could hunt larger animals, protect themselves from predators, and share the responsibilities of raising children. These survival benefits are so powerful that humans may have evolved larger brains specifically to manage the complexity of social networks and relationships. When our basic need for belonging isn’t met, our bodies respond with feelings of loneliness, which researchers see as a biological warning signal akin to hunger or thirst. |
Prediction and connection are basic human needs that we all want to satisfy, which makes ideological thinking appealing. Yet turning to ideological thinking to satisfy our needs can also lead our brains into patterns of rigidity and intolerance. Zmigrod explains that when you adopt a strong ideological stance, your brain adopts patterns of dogmatism and resistance to contradictory evidence. We’re all susceptible to this: Rather than seeing ideological thinking as something you either engage in or don’t, Zmigrod sees it as a spectrum from moderate to extreme.
(Shortform note: Zmigrod’s insight that ideology leads to rigid thought patterns is supported by other scientists’ research showing that when people exhibit rigid thinking about social and political ideas, they demonstrate similar rigidity in purely cognitive tasks. This suggests that ideological dogmatism isn’t just about what you believe, but how your brain processes information. Racial prejudice offers a clear example of this connection. Research indicates that prejudice simplifies the world in ways that appeal to people with lower mental flexibility because it involves over-generalizing traits to entire groups—and therefore not having to make sense of the tremendous variation within any racial category.)
Zmigrod explains that every person’s susceptibility ideological thinking falls along a spectrum from low to high. People at the low end of the spectrum are receptive to evidence that might contradict their beliefs and tolerant of those with different views. At the extreme end of the spectrum, people hold tightly to their doctrines and can seem willing to harm others (or even sacrifice themselves) for their beliefs.
Where you fall on this spectrum isn’t random; Zmigrod contends it’s in part determined by inherent differences in how our brains process and respond to ideological information. This helps explain why some people seem more vulnerable to ideological extremism than others—which we’ll explore in the next section.
(Shortform note: Other researchers agree with Zmigrod that people show rigid, ideological thinking to different degrees. However, they note that what looks like rigid thinking in some contexts, particularly for neurodivergent people, can represent different processing styles rather than inflexible thinking. For example, apparent rigidity in people with autism often represents an adaptive response to perceiving the world with higher levels of uncertainty than neurotypical people experience, rather than a lower tolerance of uncertainty. So, a preference for consistency may not be a cognitive limitation—it can sometimes represent a rational strategy for navigating an unpredictable world, and a valid approach to processing information.)
Learn More About Ideology
To better understand what ideological thinking is in its broader context, check out Shortform’s guide to The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking by Leor Zmigrod.
