One of the most exciting insights that this collection features is about how the brain processes political uncertainty. Different research teams – led by Amy Krosch, Ingrid Haas, and Laura Cram– repeatedly found that similar brain regions (such as the anterior cingulate cortex) were implicated in how the brain responds to socio-political ambiguity in the context of race, political policy evaluation, and misinformation. This is quite remarkable because it starts to point to common neural mechanisms that may shape ideological cognition in diverse contexts. Indeed, it is fascinating to see how the concept of uncertainty was one that shaped how the researchers conceptualized group membership, polarization, and political emotions. These converging patterns and parallels would not have been as potent and visible if they were not brought into the collection, and so this is a wonderful example of converging science at work. Relying on psychophysiological approaches to embodiment and brain functions, Tsakiris et al. [ 14] examine the theoretical and empirical basis for a study of politics that puts visceral processes at its heart. Tsakiris et al. [ 14] discuss the intersection of interoceptive inference, emotions and politics, and argue that physiological signals may influence political behaviour. Through a proof-of-concept study, the researchers suggest that inducing physiological arousal can impact individuals' inclinations towards less authoritarian leaders, illuminating the potential mechanisms governing visceral politics. As Tsakiris et al. [ 14] conclude, understanding how biological anxiety translates into ideological behaviour can shed light on both historical events as well as humans' reactions to future existential threats. It didn't help, of course, that the media did their postmodernism routine, turning Gore's claims about Bush's Medicare plan and tax cuts - which both turned out to be true - into a he said/she said contest of competing claims to a truth that somehow couldn't be adjudicated.

For the politically neutral figures, the inconsistency was also real, but it was not threatening to partisans of one candidate or the other. Thus, it provided a useful comparison. An edition of The political mind: why you can't understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain The implications of the findings reach far beyond politics. A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process. What can we do about it?

Two-thirds of the way through the commercial, the plot shifted, with Teresa Heinz-Kerry introducing the theme of optimism. The insertion of this non sequitur no doubt reflected his consultants' belief that optimism is a "winner" for presidential candidates. The optimism theme seemed grafted on to both the message and the candidate.

We presented partisans with six sets of statements involving clear inconsistencies by Kerry, six by Bush, and six by politically neutral male figures (e.g., Tom Hanks, William Styron). Although many of the statements and quotations were edited or fictionalized, we maximized their believability by embedding them in actual quotes or descriptions of actual events.Read the excerpt from the book below, watch the report and interview with Drew Westen on Newsnight, Wednesday 15 August and let us know your thoughts. And don't forget there's plenty of other titles in the Newsnight Book Club.

Johnston, A. (2012). Think big: Toward a grand neuropolitics—Or, why I am not an immanent naturalist or a vital materialist. In F. Vander Valk (Ed.), Essays on neuroscience and political theory: Thinking the body politic (pp. 156–177). London/New York: Routledge. Echoing the dazzling diversity of ideologies that exist in human societies, this theme issue sought to reflect the multiplicity of theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding the nature of the political brain. Needless to say, investigating such complex processes is fraught with challenges, and it is for this reason that we aimed to exhibit a selection of the most innovative and cutting-edge research being conducted in the field. Computational approaches offer the promise of precision, neurocognitive perspectives hold the potential to add biological and mechanistic depth, and behavioural studies reveal how these dynamics play out in varied social contexts and can be used for constructive policy and political cooperation.

My Book Notes

The excesses of corporate and militaristic influences on democratic processes are demanding a paradigm swings in domestic and foreign policies. Rational readers may take solace in noting that in American politics today, partisans are roughly equally split, with a little over a third of voters identifying themselves as Republican and roughly the same percent identifying themselves as Democrats. So they cancel each other out, leaving those in the center to swing elections based on more rational considerations. Metacognition is dissected further by Rollwage & Fleming [ 7], who use simulation-based modelling to demonstrate that metacognitive insight modulates the adaptiveness of confirmation bias. Agents with accurate metacognitive skills can in fact benefit from biased information processing, suggesting that confirmation bias itself may only be deleterious for individuals who also have a metacognitive impairment. Metacognitive ability may thus be a useful locus for interventions aiming to reduce dogmatism and belief polarization. Vogt, E. (2010). Technoscience, neuroscience, and the subject of politics. The European Legacy, 15(6), 709–720.