Politics: It May Just All Be In Our Heads, Literally

We can be passionate about our political views.  We can treat our preferred political parties and candidates like the sports teams we root for.  We can fall victim to heated political debate in which we speak and write in ways we typically wouldn’t do with others.  We can go down online rabbit holes and convince ourselves that the “other side” is diabolical and ill-intentioned. 

We tend to all think that we have reached our political viewpoints and beliefs through years of careful observation, weighing of various viewpoints, and deliberative cognitive processes. What if in fact, our politics were more determined by factors that have less to do with reasoned, well-thought-out thinking and more by factors largely outside our awareness and control?

That is what two fascinating lines of research might be suggesting.  That our cherished political views and beliefs are actually more a function of our psychological makeup and our brain anatomy. 

The Moral Foundations of Political Beliefs

Ever wonder why political debates feel more like emotional battles than rational discussions? Why your Uncle Bob at Thanksgiving refuses to “see reason”, even when you lay out the facts perfectly? Turns out, politics isn’t just about policies or logic, it’s about psychology too. More specifically, it’s about moral intuitions hardwired into our brains.

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has spent years studying why people hold different political beliefs. His work suggests that our political leanings are deeply tied to moral instincts rather than cold, hard reason. These are some of his key insights and what they mean for our  political beliefs and behavior.

1. Your Politics Are Rooted in Your Moral Foundations

Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory explains that we all share six core moral instincts – but we prioritize them differently based on our political outlook:

• Care/harm – Compassion and protecting others (big for liberals)
• Fairness/cheating – Justice and reciprocity (important across the spectrum but defined differently)
• Loyalty/betrayal – Group solidarity and patriotism (more emphasized by conservatives)
• Authority/subversion – Respect for tradition and social order (valued more by conservatives)
• Sanctity/degradation – Avoiding contamination and preserving purity (stronger in conservative thinking)
• Liberty/oppression – Resisting tyranny and control (resonates with libertarians)

Liberals tend to build their moral world mostly on care and fairness, while conservatives rely on a broader foundation, including loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This explains why the same issue – say, immigration – resonates differently depending on how it’s framed. A liberal may argue it’s about protecting people (care), while a conservative might respond more to an argument about preserving the purity/safety of our country (sanctity).

2. Your Brain Decides First, and Your Logic Follows

If you’ve ever been frustrated by someone “ignoring the facts” in a political debate, Haidt has news for you: we all do it. In The Righteous Mind, he explains that moral reasoning works like a rider (logic) on an elephant (intuition). We think we’re making reasoned choices, but really, our gut feelings occur first, and our reasoning justifies them after the fact.

This means that persuasion is rarely about facts—it’s about emotions and moral framing. Trying to argue someone out of their political beliefs with pure logic is like trying to convince a cat to fetch: you’re using the wrong approach.

3. Politics Is Tribal, and That’s Natural

Haidt argues that humans evolved to be groupish creatures, wired to form tight-knit communities. This instinct has carried over into modern politics, where our party identity feels more like a team loyalty than a set of policy preferences. When someone challenges our political views, we react as if they’re attacking us personally—because, in a way, they are.

Understanding this can help us step back and realize that political debates aren’t just about facts; they’re about identity, belonging, and moral instinct.

4. Want to Persuade? Speak Their Moral Language

If political beliefs are rooted in moral instincts, persuasion requires framing arguments in a way that resonates with the other person’s moral foundations. For example:

• Instead of arguing for universal healthcare based on fairness, a liberal could frame it around loyalty: “We need to take care of our fellow Americans.”
• Instead of discussing climate change purely in terms of harm, an environmentalist could appeal to sanctity: “We must protect the purity of the land we inherited.”

People are more likely to listen when the message aligns with their existing moral instincts.

5. Social Media Is Making Everything Worse

If our brains are already wired for tribalism, social media throws gasoline on the fire. Platforms like X (i.e. Twitter) and Facebook reward outrage, making us more polarized and less likely to engage in meaningful dialogue. Haidt argues that social media has supercharged political tribalism, making us more emotionally reactive and less open to opposing viewpoints.

Can We Escape Our Political Programming?

Haidt’s research suggests that political persuasion isn’t about winning arguments – it’s about understanding the moral instincts that drive people. Recognizing this can make us more empathetic, better communicators, and maybe, just maybe, less frustrated when Uncle Bob brings up politics at Thanksgiving.

So next time you’re in a political debate, remember: It’s not just about facts. It’s about the deep, unconscious moral wiring in our brains. And if we understand that, we might just have a chance at bridging the divide.

The Anatomical Foundations of Political Beliefs

Ever wonder why political debates can feel so frustrating like you and the other person are literally speaking different languages? It turns out that our political beliefs may not just come from our upbringing, life experiences, or even conscious reasoning. They might also be shaped by our brains.

A fascinating study, Toward a Neuropsychology of Political Orientation: Exploring the Ideology of Patients with Frontal and Midbrain Lesions, suggests that brain anatomy plays a role in how we see the world politically. Researchers found that differences to specific brain regions—particularly the frontal lobes and midbrain—could shift a person’s political beliefs in measurable ways. In short, the way we think politically may be influenced by how our brains process information, emotion, and risk.

The Brain-Politics Connection

This study looked at patients with neurological injuries and found that damage to different parts of the brain affected their political outlook in predictable ways. But before we jump to conclusions, let’s be clear: this does NOT mean that one political belief is more “correct” or that ideology is purely determined by biology or pathology. Instead, this research suggests that different brain regions influence how we approach change, risk, structure, and new information—all of which shape our political preferences.

1. Frontal Lobe Function and Cognitive Flexibility

The prefrontal cortex – especially the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) – is involved in empathy, decision-making, and cognitive flexibility (the ability to consider multiple perspectives and adapt to new information). These traits are often linked with more progressive or liberal views, which emphasize change and adaptability.

• The study found that patients with frontal lobe injuries tended to shift toward more structured, cautious, and risk-averse political positions.
• This aligns with previous research showing that cognitive flexibility plays a role in openness to change, a trait that tends to be more associated with liberal ideology.

However, this does NOT mean conservatism is a “deficit”, far from it. In fact, a stronger preference for stability, tradition, and order can be an adaptive response to uncertainty and can provide societal cohesion. Both cognitive flexibility and structure-oriented thinking have their place in a functioning society.

2. Midbrain Processing and Response to Uncertainty

The midbrain, including structures like the basal ganglia and dopamine pathways, helps regulate motivation, emotion, and responses to uncertainty. These regions shape how we react to potential threats, social structure, and reward systems—all of which influence political ideology.

• The study found that patients with midbrain damage tended to display more rigid or authority-oriented thinking, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
• In uncertain situations, favoring stability, clear hierarchies, and structure can be protective.

In contrast, those with stronger midbrain function may be more comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, traits that correlate with more progressive thinking. But again, neither is inherently better, both perspectives have advantages depending on the context.

What Does This Mean for Politics?

The big takeaway here isn’t that one political ideology is “better” or that our views are biologically set in stone. Instead, this research suggests that different neurological traits influence how we approach risk, structure, and change – core aspects of political thinking.

• If the prefrontal cortex helps with adaptability and openness, it makes sense that damage here could make someone prefer more structure and tradition.
• If the midbrain helps regulate emotional responses to uncertainty, then impairments here could make someone more drawn to stability and authority.

This doesn’t mean we’re biologically programmed to vote a certain way. But it does mean that the way we process the world – through emotions, cognitive flexibility, and risk assessment – can shape our ideology more than we realize.

Bridging the Divide: Understanding, Not Attacking

This research offers an opportunity for more understanding, not more division. Instead of assuming political opponents are simply misinformed, irrational, or brain-damaged, we can appreciate that people’s perspectives are shaped by deep-rooted cognitive tendencies.

• Those who lean conservative may value stability, structure, and caution about rapid change—traits that help maintain social order and security.
• Those who lean liberal may prioritize adaptability, openness, and exploration of new ideas—traits that help drive progress and reform.

Rather than seeing these as opposing forces, a healthy society needs both perspectives working together, a balance of caution and innovation, tradition and change.

Final Thoughts: A Little More Empathy, A Little Less Outrage

If nothing else, these two lines of research should remind us that political disagreements aren’t just about facts or policies, they’re about how we view and process the world at a fundamental level. Understanding that political beliefs are partly influenced by our moral reasoning and neural wiring might just help us approach debates with a little more patience and a lot less frustration.

So the next time you’re locked in a political argument, take a step back and remember: It may not just be about opinions, it may just all be in our heads, literally.