Health
Ideology May Not Be What You Think but How You’re Wired
So sharp are partisan divisions these days that it can seem as if people are experiencing entirely different realities. Maybe they actually are, according to Leor Zmigrod, a neuroscientist and political psychologist at Cambridge University. In a new book, “The Ideological Brain: The Radical Science of Flexible Thinking,” Dr. Zmigrod explores the emerging evidence that brain physiology and biology help explain not just why people are prone to ideology but how they perceive and share information.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
What is ideology?
It’s a narrative about how the world works and how it should work. This potentially could be the social world or the natural world. But it’s not just a story: It has really rigid prescriptions for how we should think, how we should act, how we should interact with other people. An ideology condemns any deviation from its prescribed rules.
You write that rigid thinking can be tempting. Why is that?
Ideologies satisfy the need to try to understand the world, to explain it. And they satisfy our need for connection, for community, for just a sense that we belong to something.
There’s also a resource question. Exploring the world is really cognitively expensive, and just exploiting known patterns and rules can seem to be the most efficient strategy. Also, many people argue — and many ideologies will try to tell you — that adhering to rules is the only good way to live and to live morally.
I actually come at it from a different perspective: Ideologies numb our direct experience of the world. They narrow our capacity to adapt to the world, to understand evidence, to distinguish between credible evidence and not credible evidence. Ideologies are rarely, if ever, good.
Q: In the book, you describe research showing that ideological thinkers can be less reliable narrators. Can you explain?
Remarkably, we can observe this effect in children. In the 1940s, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, interviewed hundreds of children and tested their levels of prejudice and authoritarianism, like whether they championed conformity and obedience or play and imagination. When children were told a story about new pupils at a fictional school and asked to recount the story later, there were significant differences in what the most prejudiced children remembered, as opposed to the most liberal children.
Liberal children tended to recall more accurately the ratio of desirable and undesirable traits in the characters of the story; their memories possessed greater fidelity to the story as it was originally told. In contrast, children who scored highly on prejudice strayed from the story; they highlighted or invented undesirable traits for the characters from ethnic minority backgrounds.
So, the memories of the most ideologically-minded children incorporated fictions that confirmed their pre-existing biases. At the same time, there was also a tendency to occasionally parrot single phrases and details, rigidly mimicking the storyteller.
So by “liberal” you mean flexible in thought rather than politically liberal, yes?
Right. The work with children is about prejudice rather than conservatism. Ideologues are strong partisans either to the left or right. Psychological rigidity is linked to ideological extremity regardless of the mission of the ideology.
Are people who are prone to ideology taking in less information? Are they processing it differently?
The people most prone to ideological thinking tend to resist change or nuance of any kind. We can test this with visual and linguistic puzzles. For instance, in one test, we ask them to sort playing cards by various rules, like suit or color. But suddenly they apply the rule and it doesn’t work. That’s because, unbeknownst to them, we changed the rule.
The people who tend to resist ideological thinking are adaptable, and so when there’s evidence the rules have changed, they change their behavior. Ideological thinkers, when they encounter the change, they resist it. They try to apply the old rule even though it doesn’t work anymore.
In one study you conducted, you found that ideologues and nonideologues appear to have fundamental differences in their brains’ reward circuitry. Can you describe your findings?
In my experiments I’ve found that the most rigid thinkers have genetic dispositions related to how dopamine is distributed in their brains.
Rigid thinkers tend to have lower levels of dopamine in their prefrontal cortex and higher levels of dopamine in their striatum, a key midbrain structure in our reward system that controls our rapid instincts. So our psychological vulnerabilities to rigid ideologies may be grounded in biological differences.
In fact, we find that people with different ideologies have differences in the physical structure and function of their brains. This is especially pronounced in brain networks responsible for reward, emotion processing, and monitoring when we make errors.
For instance, the size of our amygdala — the almond-shaped structure that governs the processing of emotions, especially negatively tinged emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, danger and threat — is linked to whether we hold more conservative ideologies that justify traditions and the status quo.
What do you make of this?
Some scientists have interpreted these findings as reflecting a natural affinity between the function of the amygdala and the function of conservative ideologies. Both revolve around vigilant reactions to threats and the fear of being overpowered.
But why is the amygdala larger in conservatives? Do people with a larger amygdala gravitate toward more conservative ideologies because their amygdala is already structured in a way that is more receptive to the negative emotions that conservatism elicits? Or can immersion in a certain ideology alter our emotional biochemistry in a way that leads to structural brain changes?
The ambiguity around these results reflects a chicken-and-egg problem: Do our brains determine our politics, or can ideologies change our brains?
If we’re wired a certain way, can we change?
You have agency to choose how passionately you adopt these ideologies or what you reject or what you don’t.
I think we all can shift in terms of our flexibility. It’s obviously harder for people who have genetic or biological vulnerabilities toward rigid thinking, but that doesn’t mean that it’s predetermined or impossible to change.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
No sex for the win? This was the advice given to this year’s NBA champions.
New York Knicks owner James Dolan addressed the now-champs as they headed into the playoffs in April 2026, acknowledging their high potential to eventually win the championship.
“I don’t know if you understand what it would mean for you to win a championship this year … It would be life-changing,” he said. “It will stick with you the rest of your lives, and if you don’t win, you’ll be thinking about it the rest of your lives.”
MALE FERTILITY RATES CRASH AS DOCTORS REVEAL HEALTH THREATS: ‘SOMETHING VERY WRONG’
As Dolan’s inspirational speech to the team went on, he explained how the next 10 weeks would require each player to make sacrifices – watching their diets, getting proper sleep and perhaps even abstaining from sex.
“You need sacrifice and you need to eliminate all the distractions around you,” he said.
Jalen Brunson of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award trophy and Knicks owner James Dolan after defeating the San Antonio Spurs in Game Five of the 2026 NBA Finals at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas, on June 13, 2026. (Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)
“I had this idea that maybe you should give up sex for the next 10 weeks,” the owner said. “You don’t have to give up sex for the next 10 weeks – but, like the Spartans … They denied themselves, so that they can have an edge. Get the edge.”
This received a few snickers from the team, and Dolan responded, “Don’t tell [your wives and girlfriends] you’re not going to have sex and don’t tell them it was my idea. But let them know what this is going to be like … and how they’re going to have to sacrifice, too.”
DOCTORS WARN SOME POPULAR FOODS AND DRINKS COULD BE SECRETLY SABOTAGING MEN’S TESTOSTERONE LEVELS
Dr. Anna Elton, licensed marriage and family therapist and clinical sexologist in Massachusetts, confirmed that this belief has been around for centuries, dating back to the ancients Spartans and early Olympic competitors.
Avoiding sex can preserve energy, increase aggression and sharpen focus, according to Elton.
The theory behind abstaining from sex for better athletic performance supports that it can preserve energy, increase aggression and sharpen focus. (iStock)
But modern research has found little evidence that consensual sexual activity negatively impacts strength, endurance, reaction time or athletic performance when it occurs at least 10 hours before competition, the doctor countered.
However, “activity very close to competition may affect recovery measures,” she added. What may be more important, according to Elton, is the psychological value of abstinence.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Choosing to abstain can reinforce discipline and total commitment to a larger goal,” she said. “In those cases, the advantage may come more from mindset and focus than from any physical effect.”
“Whether the sacrifice is alcohol, social activities, favorite foods or sex, the message is often the same: ‘We are all in.’”
New York Knicks guard Jalen Brunson celebrates with teammates after the Knicks defeated the San Antonio Spurs in game five of the 2026 NBA Finals at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas, on June 13, 2026. (Geoff Burke/Imagn Images)
The science of abstinence
This discussion has historically focused on men, which Elton said is often based on “misconceptions about testosterone and energy depletion.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
“Research has not demonstrated that normal sexual activity causes a meaningful decline in athletic performance, and concerns about testosterone depletion have not been consistently supported by the evidence,” she said.
“For women, sexual activity may have additional benefits related to stress reduction, emotional regulation and relationship satisfaction.”
Abstaining from sex for athletic performance may create a sense of discipline, minimize distractions, maintain focus on training and reinforce a team culture centered on sacrifice and commitment, experts say. (iStock)
In a separate interview with Fox News Digital, Dr. Anthony Puopolo, a men’s health expert and lead medical provider for RexMD, echoed Elton’s assessment that research largely does not support abstinence as a performance enhancer.
This is despite a small amount of evidence that suggests engaging in sexual activity within two hours of competition could pose a risk to cardiovascular recovery.
WEIGHT LOSS MEDICATIONS COULD IMPACT SEXUAL HEALTH IN UNEXPECTED WAYS
“Unfortunately, nearly all studies (99%) have been conducted in males aged 20 to 40, so there is virtually no data on female athletes, older athletes or diverse populations,” said the Puerto Rico-based expert. “We know what to tell the Knicks, but we are not sure what to recommend for the New York Liberty.”
Importance of connection
Elton said abstinence may still offer psychological benefits for some competitors. “For some athletes, it can become part of a pre-competition ritual that enhances confidence,” she told Fox News Digital.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Some other potential benefits of sexual activity include stress reduction, improved sleep, mood enhancement, emotional connection with a partner and relief from performance-related tension.
“Strong, supportive relationships are associated with better psychological resilience, which can be valuable during high-pressure competitions,” Elton said.
“One of the most overlooked performance advantages may be having a supportive relationship waiting at home,” a doctor said. (iStock)
“Ultimately, there is no universal rule,” she went on. “What helps one athlete perform at their best may not help another.”
Elton stressed that sleep, recovery, nutrition, stress management and support from loved ones are universal performance boosters.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
“Athletes devote tremendous attention to training their bodies, while overlooking the importance of their personal relationships,” she cautioned. “A supportive partner can be one of the greatest assets during a demanding season.”
“If competition requires temporary sacrifices, make those decisions together and keep communication open.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Eliminating sugar from your diet may seem like the key to healthy eating, but research suggests it could have unintended effects on digestive health.
A study presented at ENDO 2026, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting, suggests that a total lack of sucrose, or table sugar, may harm gut health and disrupt the body’s natural metabolism.
To explore how the total absence of dietary sugar impacts the body, researchers at the Dasman Diabetes Institute in Kuwait City conducted a 16-week study on two groups of mice. Both groups were placed on a low-fat diet, but with one critical difference.
COMMON CHEMICALS FROM FOOD ADDITIVES TO PESTICIDES MAY BE WRECKING YOUR GUT HEALTH, STUDY SAYS
One group consumed a low-fat diet that included a standard amount of sucrose, while the other group ate a low-fat diet that was completely sugar-free, according to the study’s press release.
Throughout the trial, the scientists monitored a wide variety of physiological factors, including the animals’ weight, glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, hormone levels, internal inflammation and the specific composition of their gut bacteria.
A total lack of dietary sugar can cause imbalances in the gut bacteria and lead to signs of fatty liver disease, even without any weight gain, researchers said. (iStock)
The study outcome suggested that completely removing sugar caused several unexpected health problems.
“Completely removing sucrose from a low-fat diet may unexpectedly disrupt gut health and promote inflammation and metabolic dysfunction,” Rasheed Ahmad, principal scientist and head of the Immunology & Microbiology Department at the Dasman Diabetes Institute, said in the release.
AMERICANS’ HIGH SUGAR CONSUMPTION PROMPTS URGENT WARNING FROM HEALTH LEADERS
Even though the mice on the sugar-free diet did not gain any extra weight compared to the control group, their internal health indicators deteriorated.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
The animals that lacked sucrose developed an imbalance in their gut microbes and increased inflammation within the intestines and liver.
They also showed signs of poor glucose regulation, insulin resistance and cellular changes associated with fatty liver disease, according to the research.
Future dietary guidelines may shift away from strict, absolute sugar bans and instead focus on overall gut health through balanced nutrition. (iStock)
“The findings suggest that complete removal of sucrose from a low-fat diet may negatively affect gut microbiota and metabolic health,” Ahmad concluded.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
While the risks of high-sugar diets are well-established, the researchers noted that little attention has been given to the effects of completely eliminating sugar from low-fat meals.
Scientists say these new findings highlight that dietary carbohydrates play a valuable role in supporting balance between the immune system and the gut microbiome.
Completely cutting sucrose from a low-fat diet can unexpectedly trigger gut inflammation and disrupt the metabolism, experts say. (iStock)
Because this research was conducted on mice over a relatively short 16-week period, further clinical trials are necessary to determine whether a completely sugar-free diet causes the same gut and liver inflammation in humans.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
Additionally, the study focused specifically on removing sucrose from low-fat meals, meaning the results might not apply to people eliminating sugar while following higher-fat or ketogenic eating plans, the researchers noted.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The team believes that future dietary guidelines may shift away from strict, absolute sugar restrictions and instead place a greater emphasis on maintaining a diverse, healthy population of gut bacteria through balanced nutrition.
“In the long term, these findings could help improve strategies for preventing and managing metabolic disorders, fatty liver disease and chronic inflammatory conditions,” Ahmad said.
Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
-
Sports3 minutes ago2026 World Cup Odds: How Far Can Mexico Go After Winning Group A?
-
Technology10 minutes ago6 in 10 identity crimes now begin with a new account
-
Business13 minutes agoJanuary 2025 wildfire victims seek tougher penalties against State Farm over claims handling
-
Entertainment18 minutes agoReview: ‘Sugar,’ with Colin Farrell as an alien private eye, gets a new and improved second season
-
Politics28 minutes agoPolitical watchdog fines Newsom for failing to report $5.5M in solicited donations on time
-
Sports40 minutes agoGoalkeeper Raúl Rangel’s elite play and South Korea’s mistake help Mexico advance
-
World48 minutes agoUS-Iran talks postponed as Israel attacks Lebanon
-
News1 hour agoLuigi Mangione’s lawyers withdraw plans for psychiatric defense
