If you have decades of peer-reviewed research then you might have something but that is not what you have here. Just because something's published doesn't make it correct.
Even just reading the abstract of this paper shows it is highly suspect. Because they went looking for something and then they found it. This is a well-known cognitive bias. What they should have been looking for is ways to disprove it not ways to find some correlation.
Mike Meager is a preeminent neurologist at Grossman/NYU, Jay Van Bavel is high-level academia. They didn't go looking for something to fit it into an argument, they used hard science to test the results.
The previous flagged posts are not "medical problems" it's hard science at Northwestern's brain lab, one of the premiere labs in the country.
This is fundamental, peer-reviewed research about how ideologies are developed. How fundamentalism and extremism as biases against flexible thinking are becoming epidemic now. The research is empirical, and it's built first in a theoretical approach (theory is evidence mapped in deeper hypothesis) and then developed through empirical results.
These are both decades of peer-reviewed approaches culminating in these papers, read the citations, check the academics, they are the highest caliber.
Two days after a CDC scientist is fired, she uploaded a research paper linking MAGA behavior to a mind-altering parasite. She never expects people to believe it. But they do—and that's not just the beginning. It’s the end.
The first one was flagged, here it is. This post here was a more specific study.
Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism Zhong https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5500821/
A neural network for religious fundamentalism derived from patients with brain lesions https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322399121
The neural underpinning of religious beliefs: Evidence from brain lesions https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9583670/
