The Political Brain

How the function and structure of our brain shapes our politics

Democracy is premised on the notion that our political views are shaped by a choice architecture in which we exert agency at every turn. As such, political choices are viewed as precisely that, choices that reflect our morals and ethics. This is part of the reason why many of us are so harsh towards those who disagree with us politically, we view their political choices as an extension of their character. Thus, we are now in the process of shaping a culture in which our politics are becoming the primary marker for identity and those who disagree with us politically are viewed as the ‘out-group’ and, in many cases, worthy of scorn and derision. However, recent research indicates that this may be a completely false way of interpreting political thought and behaviour.

The field of political neuroscience is relatively new but it seeks to study the structure and function of the brain in order to explain political variation amongst people. Much of the research conducted in this field so far is remarkably consistent in that it demonstrates that there may indeed be such thing as the political brain. In other words, our politics are largely shaped by the manner in which our brains are structured, function and respond to the outside world. Thus, brain scans can produce results that are highly predictive of political biases and persuasions.

In a 2010 study, led by a team at UCL, ninety young adults who had reported their political attitudes in advance, underwent a brain analysis using MRI scanners. It was found that there was a strong correlation between an individual’s political views and the structure of their brain. Those on the left tended to have increased grey matter in the anterior cingulated cortex, a region of the brain that is responsible for empathy and decision making. Those on the right had more grey matter in the amygdala which is responsible for emotions and threat perception, amongst other things.

Amygdala size is positively correlated with something called ‘system justification’, i.e. the view that the system as fair and just, and negatively correlated with the need to participate in political protests. People with a large amygdala are also more sensitive to fear, have a greater propensity to perceive threats and have less appetite for risk. This is perhaps why conservatives are more likely to view the system as fair and are not in favour of radical change of any kind since that triggers their acute sense of fear and ability to perceive threats.

Similarly, the anterior cingulated cortex helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, whilst being associated with managing nuance and complexity. It is responsible for monitoring uncertainty and conflicts, which may help explain why those on the left have a greater tolerance for incongruent information as well as being favourable to new and novel ideas. It is also linked with empathy and further research has shown that those on the left do have a greater sense of empathy, which is why they are more likely to engage in activism that champions causes associated with groups that are perceived as oppressed and marginalised.

In a 2023 study at Brown University, subjects from across the political spectrum were exposed to political stimuli, such as words and images, whilst having their brain activity examined via modern scanning techniques. It was found that people of similar political persuasions demonstrated similar neural fingerprints in that their brains processed and responded to information in a similar manner. Hence, it was possible for those on the left and the right to be exposed to the same political stimuli yet have divergent brain activity that was also synchronised along partisan lines. This suggests the function of the brain, as well as its structure, varies depending on one’s political views and so, unsurprisingly, people tend to perform quite differently in cognitive tasks based on their politics.

A 2021 study found that conservativism was related to greater caution in decision making tasks and reduced strategic information processing, meaning the ability to unpack and break down complex and seemingly contradictory information into smaller and more digestible segments. Conservatives also scored higher in temporal discounting, which is an academic term for what the rest of us call delayed gratification. This means they tend to be less impulsive and have greater control over their emotions and desires. Those on the left tend to have less impulse control and are likely to adopt less precise and much faster strategies, displaying less caution in cognitive tasks.

Interestingly, other research has found that those with more extreme conservative views tend to have greater caution in decision making and information processing too but they combine that with greater impulsivity, sensation seeking and a poor working memory. They also struggle to perform complex mental tasks that require intricate mental steps. That is not to suggest that they are not intelligent, rather their cognitive capacities limit their ability to process and organise highly complex and seemingly incongruent data that is conceptual in nature. This is consistent with other research that has found that extremists in general tend to score lower in cognitive flexibility, which is best defined as the ability to adapt ways of thinking to changing environmental conditions.

All of the above, as well as many other recent studies, illustrate that we are not merely blank slates waiting to be programmed and conditioned by incoming information. Rather the structure of our brains, and the manner in which they function, process incoming information in a very specific way that produces politically biased results. In other words, the notion that our political choices are actually choices can be questioned, since it is quite possibly more of a hardware issue than a software one.

There is, of course, a chicken and egg dilemma with this conversation too since the brain can be shaped by life experiences and environmental factors. That is a great source of comfort for those who are fearful of deterministic models of human behaviour. However, there is also strong evidence to suggest that our brains are heavily influenced by our genetic inheritance and so there is certainly a primary role for nature in shaping our politics. Furthermore, nature does not have to be at the expense of nurture which also plays a role but it is something that we have very little control over at the individual level.

What all of this means, in my humble view, is that political stances should be viewed as much more than simple choices that reflect our character or moral standing. They are deeply-rooted in the structure of minds and reflect our personalities as well as our cognitive functioning. I hope this realisation leads to a political climate in which we have more empathy for those with whom we disagree.