In this episode I want to start at the very beginning. Not the beginning of my story. The beginning of the human nervous system, which is where the trouble starts.

In the 1940s, the psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed what is now one of the most widely recognized frameworks in social science — a hierarchy of human needs. At the base of the pyramid sit the most elemental needs: food, water, warmth, rest. Above them sits safety. Only once those foundational needs are met can a human being move upward toward belonging, esteem, and what Maslow called self-actualization — the full realization of one’s potential.

The hierarchy has been critiqued and refined over the decades, but its core insight endures. Before we can be wise, generous, curious, or creative, we need to feel safe. Safety is not a luxury. Safety is the precondition for everything else that makes us human.

This is not a metaphorical claim, it is a claim about the architecture of the human nervous system. The amygdala — the small, almond-shaped structure deep in the temporal lobe — is the brain’s primary threat-detection system. It responds to perceived danger faster than the conscious mind can process information. It generates the fear response, the fight-or-flight activation, before the prefrontal cortex has had time to evaluate whether the perceived threat is real.

This is adaptive. In the environment in which human beings evolved, the cost of a false alarm was trivial compared to the cost of missing a real threat. Better to run from a shadow that turns out to be a branch than to ignore a shadow that turns out to be a predator. We are the descendants of the ones who ran. The ones who hesitated too long are not our ancestors.

The problem with this architecture is that it was designed for an environment of physical threats, and we live in an environment of social and cognitive threats for which it is poorly suited. The amygdala cannot reliably distinguish between a physical threat to bodily integrity and a social threat to group identity. And the political economy of manufactured certainty exploits this fact systematically.

When political messaging frames LGBTQ people as threats to children, or immigrants as threats to the nation, or secular education as a threat to faith, it is activating a threat-detection system that evolved for lions, not for policy disagreements. The physiological response is similar. Elevated heart rate. Narrowed attention. Reduced capacity for complex reasoning. Increased in-group loyalty. Heightened out-group hostility.

Joseph LeDoux, who has spent his career studying the neuroscience of fear, describes a useful distinction here. There is fear as a first-person subjective experience, and there are the threat-response systems that produce it. The threat-response systems are not infallible. They are, in fact, reliably manipulable. Every political strategist who has ever run a fear-based campaign has understood this.

The question is whether we can, through conscious effort, interrupt the automatic threat response long enough to evaluate whether the perceived threat actually corresponds to anything real. This is supposed to be difficult. The architecture of the system is designed to prioritize speed over accuracy. But it is not impossible — and it is not optional, if we are to govern ourselves by evidence rather than fear.

I would venture that most of the people who support policies that harm LGBTQ youth, that restrict teaching about racial history, that impose religious frameworks on secular governance – are not primarily motivated by malice. They are more likely to be motivated by fear. Genuinely experienced, neurologically real fear, that has been deliberately activated by political messaging designed to exploit the architecture of the threat-response system.

Understanding this does not excuse it – accountability still matters. Fear-based governance causes the same harm regardless of whether the fear is sincere or manufactured. But it changes the strategy. The work isn’t primarily confrontation of bad faith. It’s the patient work of demonstrating that the perceived threat is not real. That the evidence, examined honestly, does not support the fear.

This is slow work, and it requires patience that manufactured certainty does not. But it is the only work that produces lasting change rather than the pendulum swings of fear-driven politics.

I want to spend a moment on the deeper history, because Maslow only describes what evolution built. Every species on this planet is governed by a prime directive — survive long enough to reproduce. The entire apparatus of the human body and brain, its reflexes and immune system and social instincts and capacity for fear, is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of selection pressure aimed at that single goal.

This is the inheritance we are working with when we try to build a society that governs itself by honest uncertainty. We are working against a cognitive architecture designed for a different problem. Designed for a world where the cost of false certainty was typically a missed meal or a bruised ego — not the systematic harm of vulnerable people.

But the same architecture that produces the craving for certainty also produces the capacity to examine that craving. To notice the manufactured character of the certainty being offered. To ask for the evidence. To refuse the comfort of false security in favor of the harder work of honest inquiry. This recursive capacity — the capacity to think about thinking — is what distinguishes the human animal more than any specific cognitive content. The same cognition that makes us vulnerable to an addiction to certainty also gives us the means to break it. Which one wins is, in the end, a choice.

The political scientist Arie Kruglanski has spent decades studying what he calls the “need for cognitive closure” — the desire for a definite answer on a topic, any answer, over continued ambiguity. His research shows that this need varies across individuals and intensifies under conditions of stress, time pressure, fatigue, and threat. Under those conditions, people become more authoritarian in their thinking. More hostile to information that complicates their certainties. More prone to stereotyping. More likely to defer to strong leaders who project confidence.

The cocktail of conditions that intensifies the need for closure — economic anxiety, demographic change, cultural disruption, a media environment that saturates the senses with threat — describes, with uncomfortable precision, the America of the last decade.

We are a nation that has been made to feel uncertain. And certainty is being sold to us, from every direction.

This is not new. The manufacture and sale of certainty has a history.

Consider the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Eugenics — the so-called science of improving human genetic stock through selective breeding and the sterilization of those deemed unfit — was not a fringe position. It was mainstream science in the United States and Europe from the 1880s through the 1930s. It was taught in American universities. It was endorsed by prominent progressive politicians, including Theodore Roosevelt. It was given the imprimatur of scientific respectability through academic journals, professional associations, and well-funded research institutes. And it produced, in the United States, the forced sterilization of approximately sixty-five thousand people deemed genetically inferior. Disproportionately poor. Disabled. Institutionalized. People of color.

The manufactured certainty of eugenics was not primarily religious. It was scientific in name — or rather, it was dressed in the language and the institutions of science while lacking the substance. The research was selectively compiled. The conclusions were predetermined by the desired outcome. The peer review process was captured by people who shared the predetermined conclusion. The result was a system that used the authority of science to authorize atrocity.

I tell this story not to discredit science, but rather to highlight both its vulnerabilities and safeguards. The internal mechanisms of science eventually caught up with eugenics, exposed its methodological failures, and rejected it. The point is to demonstrate that the production of false certainty is not limited to religion. Any framework for determining what counts as knowledge can be corrupted when it is placed in the service of power rather than truth. The difference is the correction mechanism. Science has one, and it eventually worked. But sixty-five thousand people had already been irreversibly harmed.

The manufactured certainty of the anti-trans movement is built on pseudo-scientific claims — about the brain, about childhood development, about the effects of gender-affirming care — that follow the same pattern as eugenics. Selective citation. Predetermined conclusions. The deployment of scientific-sounding language in the service of a predetermined social and political agenda. The endocrinologists and pediatricians and psychiatrists who have developed evidence-based protocols for gender-affirming care are in the position of the scientists who knew the eugenics research was corrupted, watching the manufactured certainty gain political traction while the actual evidence is dismissed as ideology.

History has a verdict on the people who did the corrupted science and on the people who did the honest science. History will have a verdict on the people doing each version now.

I want to name one more piece of neuroscience, because it explains something I have had to come to terms with in a decade of public advocacy. Research by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated that moral and political judgments are almost always made in the first fraction of a second — intuitively, automatically, emotionally — and the reasoning we do afterward is primarily post-hoc rationalization, not genuine deliberation. We feel a policy is wrong, and then we construct an argument for why it’s wrong. The argument feels like the cause of our judgment. It is almost always the product of it.

This is not a character flaw. It is the architecture of a brain that evolved for speed, not accuracy. But it means that the person who says “I don’t need to look at the evidence on gender-affirming care because I already know what I believe” is not making an unusual choice. They are doing what brains do. The unusual choice is what the scientific method asks of us. To slow down. To examine the evidence before forming the judgment. To hold the judgment open to revision. That’s the harder thing, cognitively speaking. It requires overriding the very circuits that evolution spent hundreds of thousands of years perfecting.

It is worth exploring this in greater detail, because it fundamentally changes how we should think about persuasion. If people’s political and moral judgments are primarily driven by emotional responses to threat, then presenting better arguments and more accurate facts is necessary, but it isn’t sufficient on its own. The facts don’t reach the parts of the brain that make the decision. What reaches those parts is an emotional signal. The manufactured certainty of authoritarian movements is very good at sending the right emotional signals. The signals are: you are under threat. Your children are in danger. Your way of life is being destroyed. Your group’s survival depends on fighting back.

These signals activate the amygdala. They flood the system with cortisol. They shut down the prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain capable of evaluating evidence, weighing complexity, resisting the appeal of simple answers. And they make the person profoundly receptive to whoever is offering the most decisive certainty about who the enemy is and what to do about them.

This is not a theory about how authoritarianism works. It is a description of the neuroscience.

So what does that mean? It means the Scientific Rebellion I’m proposing cannot only be an argument. It has to be a story. It has to be a community. It has to provide what the manufactured certainty provides — a sense of belonging, of identity, of safety in numbers — but grounded in something true.

There’s a structural answer here, too, that I want to name clearly because it gets left out of conversations about epistemic crisis. The psychological conditions that produce the need for manufactured certainty — the anxiety, the sense of threat, the feeling that the future is unpredictable and dangerous — are not simply natural. They are produced, in significant part, by specific economic and political choices. When workers lose economic security and have no safety net to fall back on, their need for cognitive closure intensifies. When communities are told their traditions are under attack while simultaneously being given no viable path to economic stability, the turn to authoritarian certainty is as predictable as water running downhill.

This means defending evidence-based democracy is not separable from the project of economic justice. The people most vulnerable to manufactured certainty are often the people who have been given the least reason to trust that honest uncertainty leads anywhere good. Telling them the answer is to think more carefully, when their economic situation gives them every reason to feel desperate, is not only insufficient. It is tone-deaf. The Scientific Rebellion has to include a vision of an economy that creates genuine security — because genuine security is the precondition for the capacity to hold uncertainty honestly.

I came to this slowly, through a decade of advocacy. Through the uncomfortable recognition that my own relative security has given me a particular kind of luxury in my relationship to uncertainty. I can afford to sit with open questions. Many people cannot. That doesn’t absolve them. But it complicates the assignment of blame, and it points toward a more complete understanding of what needs to change.

The takeaway message is clear, however: Change is possible. This is the thing I hold onto when the news is worst and my son’s face is in my mind. But possible needs to be unpacked, because the history of progress is not the history of inevitable progress. It is the history of contingent progress. Progress that happened because particular people made deliberate choices under particular circumstances, and that could have gone otherwise if those choices had been different.

The history of this country is, in part, the history of manufactured certainties being dismantled. The certainty that women were not smart enough to vote. That Black Americans were not fully human, so should not have the same rights as full citizens. That gay and lesbian people were mentally ill or sexual deviants. That disabled people had nothing to contribute to society. Each of these certainties was once as solid as bedrock to the people who held them. Each of them fell. They fell because people decided to rebel — to insist, against the weight of institutional authority, that the evidence of shared humanity mattered more than the manufacture of comfortable hierarchy.

But there is a caveat. History has also taught us a lesson about what happens after these progressive gains. Expect the backlash to be swift, severe, and unprecedented in its brutality. This lesson, sadly, often goes unheeded in the euphoria of the moment.

When a progressive movement achieves a measure of success but falls short of its ultimate goals, it is a wake-up call to the oppressors, and they may completely dispense with the rule of law. Sound familiar? Some of the most horrific crimes against humanity have been committed in times like these, times like the one we’re in today and that we have been in since the Obama Presidency. The harsh reality is this: If we do not match the backlash with even greater energy and determination, there’s no guarantee we’ll get another chance. Let that sink in a moment. And then strap into the fightin’ chair, because we’ve got work to do.

Sign up on this site to receive updates on the soon-to-be-published book, “Hello, World, I’m the Dad of a Trans Kid: The Case for Curiosity in a World Addicted to Certainty.” If podcasts are your thing, please check out the podcast series of the same name.