The Human Mind’s Aversion to Uncertainty: A Challenge for Liberal Democracies

The exploration of the dynamics within liberal democracies has typically emphasized economic, emotional, and educational influences. However, an additional field of neurology plays a critical role.

Liberal democracies engage our cognitive processes differently than authoritarian regimes. Dictatorships provide a sense of predictability, exemplified by Adolf Hitler’s envisioned timeline, while liberal democracies leave the future open to our choices, presenting it as a canvas we shape ourselves.

This is politically significant yet cognitively daunting. Historically, the future was dictated by a select few, prioritizing preservation over progress. The inherent ambiguity and adaptability of liberal democracy can challenge individuals neurologically, as uncertainty is a state the human mind often resists. Studies indicate that uncertainty triggers more anxiety than the anticipation of an electric shock, leading to various historical attempts to diminish uncertainty through mechanisms like insurance and weather forecasting.

Your position on the spectrum of uncertainty tolerance is influenced by cultural background, age, and gender, as well as neurological factors. Research in political neuroscience reveals that conservative brains lean towards security, generally steering clear of conclusions that lack clarity. This tendency is associated with a larger amygdala, the brain region linked to threat detection, resulting in a heightened discomfort when confronted with the unfamiliar.

On the other hand, a liberal brain exhibits greater gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region involved in processing ambiguity. This anatomical difference enables liberals to tolerate uncertainty and confrontation more effectively. Liberal democracies can provide space for both perspectives under less stressful conditions. Although conservatives and liberals may have distinct neural predispositions regarding their preferences for the future, evolutionarily, all humans share the ability to envision multiple futures.

However, increased uncertainty can push some individuals beyond their comfort zones, particularly as the future of pressing issues—like environmental change, technology, and social norms—becomes less predictable. To cope with this anxiety, some individuals gravitate towards populist and authoritarian political leaders, committing to rigid decision-making and a black-and-white perspective. They often seek certainty—howbeit a mere illusion—by rejecting innovations (such as medical advancements) or dismissing foreign cultures and religions, thus limiting uncertainty and suppressing potential futures. This obsession with ambiguity and anxiety can create a more tranquil mindset for those affected.

This doesn’t imply a total surrender to an illiberal mindset. Instead, it underscores the necessity for liberal democracies to candidly inform their constituents that embracing liberalism may not come intuitively. Educational initiatives, public discourse, and civil engagement must derive insights into overcoming illiberal tendencies at a brain-based level.

We must communicate the collective benefits of cooperation in various domains, including identity. Ultimately, only through collaboratively addressing the vulnerabilities inherent in our brains can we tackle the significant global challenges we face today.

Florence Gaub is the author of Future: Manual (Hurst, 2026). Riya Yu has authored Fragile Minds: The Neuropolitics of Divided Societies (Columbia UP).