Different factors, including education and the environment, can affect the level of political activity. A new study led by the North Western University and Shirley Ryan Abanslavb first showed which brain networks control the political passion.
The study analyzed and without brain injuries in Vietnam. Comparing people who had very localized brain lesions with those who did not do so, the research team was able to determine the brain structures that could change the intensity of political feelings.
As brain injuries affect political intensity
Damage to the prefrontal crust, the region responsible for cognitive control and reasoning has led to an increase in the intensity of political feelings. Conversely, damage to the tonsils, the brain structure involved in emotional processing has reduced the political intensity of participants. These conclusions were fair even after accounting for factors such as age, education, affiliation with the party, personality traits and other nervous -psychiatric symptoms.
“While most people have not suffered brain injuries, similar to those who have experienced veterans in the study, our findings tell us what neuronic schemes are playing for the population as a whole,” said the senior author Jordan Grafman, a professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the North University of Feinberg.
“We did not find brain networks associated with liberal or conservative ideology, but we have identified the schemes that affect the political activity intensity,” Granman added. “This suggests that factors such as emotions are expressed by previous political beliefs, not to determine the ideology itself.”
Recognition of these brain mechanisms can help manage people in productive political activity. For example, one of the strategies would interact with others while reducing emotional attachment or taking the enemy’s position in the discussion. Another approach would be to cooperate on the project that support both sides.
The consequences for clinical practice and political dialogue
The results also have clinical consequences. Currently, neuropsyiatric evaluations rarely include questions about the shift of political behavior, but graphman suggests that they should. “Like other aspects of social behavior, the assessments should consider whether the patient feels changes in his political relationship after brain injury,” he said.
Grafman and his team studied Vietnam veterans with and without brain injuries as part of a study of Vietnam’s head injuries, a long -term project on neurobacular effects related to brain combat injuries. Grafman has ruled this study since his stay in the US Air Force decades ago.
Between 2008 and 2012, the neuro scientists conducted a widespread behavioral issue of these veterans, assessing different aspects of their political beliefs and the intensity of feelings – approximately 40 – 45 years after the injuries. Participants reported their current political behavior, and memories of political behavior before injuries.
The study included 124 US military veterans with a penetrating head injury and 35 control participants, which did not undergo brain injuries.
Prior to the interrogation, scientists have already reflected the lesions of the veterans brain, using the reflection of the network lesion, the technique of neurovisualization, which determines the broader chain of the brain connected to this lesion. They then analyzed whether certain brain networks were related to political beliefs based on behavioral data.
Grafman, who also studied the connection between the biological and cognitive basics of religious fundamentalism, says that understanding the role of the brain in the formation of beliefs “allows us to better evaluate significant aspects of life for patients and healthy people.” In addition, he says: “We expect this study will indicate the ways we can help patients in recovery from brain injuries.”
