ideological brain; From dogmatism to unresponsive governance/ Loyalty prevails over expertise, the dual result of "insider and enemy"/ Necessity of suppressing questioning to the right to cash
This mechanism of dogmatism is not unique to a religion, party or political movement. Any stream of thought may be caught by it; Even the movement that started with the slogan of freedom and liberation. The criterion of dogmatism is not the content of a belief alone; The degree of tolerance of criticism and readiness to correct it. This criterion can be measured by indicators such as the number and quality of protest mechanisms, the amount of publication of opposing data, and the history of correcting incorrect decisions.
Andisheh Group: Dr. Ali Hashemi, a university lecturer, in this article, which he provided to Ambassador Arjan for publication, examines the link between intellectual blockage and the paralysis of governance structures, using the book "Ideological Brain" written by Leor Zmigrod and the findings of cognitive neuroscience. The author argues that dogmatism turns from an individual error into a national danger when an intellectual dogma—regardless of its religious, political, or idealistic content—immunizes itself from criticism and is linked to power, law, and public resources. In such an atmosphere, ideological loyalty is prioritized over expertise and meritocracy, the critic is viewed as an "enemy" and the concealment of unpleasant facts creates a deep gap between the lived experience of society and official reports. The way out of this blockage is not to negate beliefs, but to guarantee the rule of law, restore citizen rights (such as principles 23, 19, and 20 of the constitution), formalize the independence of scientific and media institutions, and create practical mechanisms to evaluate, accept errors, and actually correct inefficient policies. You will read this article below:
Sometimes the problem does not start with a belief; It begins at a moment when belief can no longer be questioned. When an idea, no matter how idealistic, remains immune from criticism, reality must adapt to it; Not that beliefs are corrected against reality. To examine this situation, one can ask whether opposing evidence is regularly reviewed, whether it is possible to modify decisions, and whether critics can express their views without disproportionate cost.
This is where the boundary between having an opinion and being a prisoner of an opinion is formed. In his book The Ideological Brain, Leor Zmigrod, a cognitive neuroscience researcher, examines the link between ideological beliefs and cognitive flexibility, addressing the question of why some people resist new evidence and how hard and unchangeable beliefs affect the way of thinking and social interaction. Of course, his research alone does not explain all political behavior or the functioning of governance systems; But they provide a framework for posing an important question: What happens to decision-making and power when the mind becomes incapable of revising its beliefs? To answer, one must distinguish between psychological findings, institutional evidence, and observable policy outcomes.
From personal belief to social boundaries
Ideology in itself is not necessarily harmful. Religious, moral and political beliefs can give meaning to human life and provide the basis for social cooperation. The problem starts when a belief becomes the only criterion for recognizing the truth and valuing people. To evaluate this claim, one can examine whether people with different beliefs have equal rights and whether public decisions are made based on stated and verifiable criteria.
In such a situation, the society is divided into two categories of insiders and non-insiders; Instead of being a citizen with a different point of view, the critic may be presented as an enemy or deviant. Instead of being an opportunity to clarify the truth, the question is seen as a sign of disloyalty, and contrary evidence is dismissed, rather than examined, by questioning the speaker's intentions. Considerable examples of this situation could include disproportionate restrictions on the expression of views, exclusion of critics from the decision-making process, or documented disregard for dissenting reports.
This mechanism is not exclusive to a religion, party or political movement. Any stream of thought may be caught by it; Even the movement that started with the slogan of freedom and liberation. The criterion of dogmatism is not the content of a belief alone; The degree of tolerance of criticism and readiness to correct it. This criterion can be measured by indicators such as the number and quality of protest mechanisms, the amount of publication of opposing data, and the history of correcting incorrect decisions.
When intellectual error becomes a governance issue
Dogmatism at the individual level may lead to differences and prejudice; But when it is linked to political power, public resources and legal instruments, it has wider implications. To discern this link, attention must be paid to hiring procedures, resource allocation, monitoring, and evaluation of decisions, not merely to official pronouncements. Expert decision-making suffers if intellectual allegiance takes precedence over expertise and competence.
This claim can be tested by examining appointment criteria, managers' professional records, and the relationship between stated competencies and performance outcomes. Experts may hide the truth if unfavorable reporting costs managers. Its observable sign can be the difference between internal and public reports, or the lack of a mechanism to support error reporters. If the media is only allowed to reflect successes, mistakes will be revealed later and the possibility of policy reform will be reduced.
To evaluate this issue, one can check the diversity of news sources, access to public data and the amount of documentary reviews published. In such an environment, there may be a gap between what the society experiences and the image that is presented to the decision makers. This distance is not just a communication issue; It can lead to costly decisions, erosion of public trust, and missed opportunities for reform. Investigating this relationship requires comparing official data with indicators such as service quality, policy implementation cost, independent surveys and the number of post-evaluation reforms.
Another danger is expanding the boundaries of power intervention in the lives of citizens. When a difference in opinion, lifestyle or peaceful protest is perceived as a threat by itself, the relationship between the government and society moves from mutual trust and rights to surveillance and suspicion. To evaluate this claim, the type of restriction, legal basis, stated purpose, implementation period, proportionality with the claimed risk and the possibility of effective objection should be checked. Of course, every legal restriction cannot be considered the result of dogma; The issue is necessity, proportionality, legal basis and the possibility of objecting to that restriction.
This framework can be used to raise questions about Iran's governance; Not in the sense that Zemigrod's book was written directly about Iran or that all the country's problems can be explained with a psychological theory. In the decision-making system, is reporting unpleasant facts as valuable as announcing successes? To examine it, we can study the mechanisms of recording and publishing critical reports, support for reporters, and official response to errors.
Are managers evaluated based on expertise, cleanliness and performance results? This question can be followed by examining the appointment process, performance indicators and audit results. Can a citizen criticize a policy without his mere opposition becoming a security issue? Here, laws, enforcement procedures and documented examples of dealing with peaceful protest should be reviewed. And do failed policies have the possibility of real revision?
The number of post-implementation evaluations, modification of regulations and publication of reasons for policy change can be a suitable measure. These questions should be answered by examining laws, procedures, performance data and citizen experience; Not simply by attributing motivation to individuals or generalizing a feature to the entire governance structure. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also provides criteria for this evaluation. Article 23 prohibits the inquisition and stipulates that no one can be attacked and impeached simply because of having an opinion.
Principles 19 and 20 also deal with equality and the protection of the law. Of course, the interpretation and implementation of these principles should be examined according to the full text of the Constitution and other related provisions. To evaluate these principles in practice, one can compare the text of laws, judicial decisions, administrative procedures and the access of different groups to legal protection.
The bottom line is that there is a difference between having an opinion, expressing it peacefully, and committing a criminal act. The confusion of these concepts can both threaten the rights of citizens and reduce the possibility of social dialogue and peaceful reform. The criterion for examining this distinction is the clarity of the definition of the prohibited behavior, the existence of specific evidence, the appropriateness of the legal response, and the possibility of independent handling of the objection.
Dealing with dogma does not mean eliminating religious, moral or political beliefs. Society needs values and intellectual frameworks; But these frameworks should leave the possibility of questioning, dialogue and revision. The existence of criticism mechanisms, independent evaluation and correction of decisions can show to what extent this possibility exists in practice. In education, the power of reasoning, questioning and recognition of valid information should be strengthened instead of just emphasizing on keeping ready answers.
This goal can be measured by evaluating problem-solving skills, variety of educational resources, and the possibility of proposing competing viewpoints. In management, expertise and performance results should be clear evaluation criteria; For example, performance indicators, quantitative targets, and periodic performance reports can be published. In the media and university, the possibility of documentary criticism and publication of unfavorable findings should be maintained; The level of access to data, the independence of the arbitration process and the public correction of errors are among the criteria that can be examined in this field.
In governance, decisions must be accountable to the law, public opinion, and independent evaluation; The publication of the reasons for the decision, the cost-benefit report and the possibility of an official protest can be a part of this accountability. It is also necessary to evaluate the performance of the policies with measurable indicators. The reduction of corruption and discrimination, the quality of public services, social trust, access to justice and the possibility of peaceful expression of views are among the areas on which data can be collected and the process of change can be measured.
To increase the validity of these evaluations, the method of data collection, time period, groups under investigation and measurement limitations should also be announced. These principles are not only for governments. Opponents of power may also reproduce the same dogmatic logic if they cannot bear to hear a different opinion or if they seek to eliminate the rival's voice. This claim can be tested by examining the behavior of groups against internal criticism, the transparency of decision-making and the acceptance of fair competition. Freedom of thought becomes meaningful when the right to criticize is not only reserved for our like-minded people.
final word; A power that fears criticism
Ideology becomes a serious issue for society when it deprives belief from the possibility of revision and removes power from accountability. To detect this situation, it is necessary to check whether the disagreement is regularly answered by labeling, whether the errors are evaluated with independent data and whether the unsuccessful decisions are corrected. The way out is not to eliminate the opinion or to humiliate the believers; Rather, it is the guarantee of the right to question, freedom of criticism, independence of scientific institutions, rule of law and accountability of those in power.
Each of these concepts requires practical criteria: the possibility of accessing information, the independence of the process of consideration, the publication of the reasons for decisions, and the existence of an effective path for protest and reform. Rather, its way of treating people is the possibility of correcting mistakes and the results it creates in people's real life. These results should be evaluated as much as possible with repeatable data, time comparisons, and examining the experience of different groups. No opinion should exempt power from accountability, and no power should consider itself immune from criticism.