For some years, I have been trying to understand why large numbers of intelligent, otherwise reasonable people can look at the same political events and arrive at interpretations that feel not just different, but incompatible. Currently, that can be seen in how the country is divided by the MAGA movement. Each side is firmly entrenched in its opinion despite being exposed to the same events. How is that possible?
The answer may not lie primarily in ideology or information. It may lie in biology. There are many neurobiological systems contributing to how we form opinions. Do conservatives have an active amygdala while liberals have active anterior cingulate cortices? Probably. But there are also other theories that look at how neurobiology expresses itself in daily action. In this post, I will look at one of those: System 1 thinking versus System 2 thinking.
System 1 and System 2 thinking
In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow[i], Kahneman argues the human cognition operates through two interacting systems. One is fast, intuitive, emotionally charged, and highly sensitive to threat. It evolved early and runs automatically. The other is slower, analytical, deliberative, and effortful. It requires attention and energy.
In stable conditions, these systems cooperate. Under stress, the fast system tends to dominate.
System 1 — rapid, threat-oriented — is not a defect. It kept our ancestors alive. It reacts quickly, simplifies complexity, prioritizes loyalty, and favors decisive action over ambiguity. Many logical fallacies emerge from this architecture: confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, threat amplification, identity-protective cognition. These are not random errors. They are predictable shortcuts that align with an amygdala that is more active than baseline.
System 2 — slower and reflective — tolerates ambiguity, weighs tradeoffs, and delays judgment. It is indispensable for science, law, and democratic governance. But it is metabolically expensive and psychologically uncomfortable. Under perceived threat, it often yields. In this case, the highly active area of the brain associated with this system is the anterior cingulate cortex.
Not everyone navigates these systems in the same way. Individuals differ in baseline sensitivity to threat, tolerance for ambiguity, and need for cognitive closure. These tendencies are shaped early, influenced by biology, and remarkably stable over time. And the indelible key point is that no one chooses their neurological starting point, which ultimately determines how they will decide whether their observations are factual or fictional.
Habits and institutions can strengthen deliberation. Education can cultivate reflection. But under stress, people tend to revert to baseline. Some experience political conflict as existential danger. Others experience it as procedural tension. The divergence is less about intelligence than about how the brain weighs threat against complexity.
This tension matters politically.
Democratic institutions are largely System 2 constructions. They depend on restraint, procedural friction, compromise, and the acceptance of ambiguity. None of these feel satisfying when people perceive instability, cultural displacement, economic anxiety, or institutional failure. In such conditions, clarity feels better than nuance. Direction feels better than debate. Strength feels better than restraint.
History offers examples of how this unfolds. Private diaries from Germany in 1933 reveal reactions that are striking not for their extremism, but for their normalcy. When a new government promised decisiveness after years of instability, one writer recorded:
“It is so incredibly marvelous… This is a memorable 30 January!”
Another, weary of political infighting, observed:
“People are tired of the endless quarrelling. At least now there is direction.”
As civil liberties narrowed, reassurance persisted:
“They say terrible things abroad, but surely it will not go so far.”
“I do not like it, but what can one do?”
These statements are not ideological manifestos. They are psychological adjustments — relief after uncertainty, assumption of limits, incremental normalization, resignation. They show how ordinary people metabolize structural change without experiencing it as rupture.
The point is not historical equivalence. It is cognitive continuity.
When large populations experience sustained stress, threat-sensitive cognition becomes more dominant. Leaders who frame politics in terms of emergency, betrayal, and existential danger activate circuitry that is already primed. Appeals to loyalty override procedural caution. Institutional constraints begin to feel like obstruction.
Supporters in such contexts are not necessarily ignorant or malicious. They may simply be operating within a cognitive environment saturated with perceived threat. When threat dominates, rapid judgment and strong leadership feel adaptive. This is where System 1 thinking dominates, and based on neurobiology, the degree of activation varies.
The structural question, then, is not whether any single leader is uniquely dangerous. It is whether democratic institutions — which require repeated System 2 engagement — can withstand prolonged System 1 activation across a large segment of the population.
Institutions can buffer impulsive reactions for a time. Norms can restrain overreach. But if enough citizens come to see procedural limits as impediments rather than protections, the cultural support that sustains those institutions weakens.
I believe the current moment presents that risk. Not because collapse is inevitable, and not because history repeats mechanically, but because the biological mechanisms that shaped political behavior in the past remain unchanged. We do not evolve away from threat sensitivity in a few generations.
Democracies rarely disappear in a dramatic instant. More often, they erode quietly, as ordinary people convince themselves that each adjustment is temporary, necessary, or exaggerated.
The unsettling possibility is not that citizens today are uniquely reckless. It is that we are neurologically predictable.
If democratic governance depends on sustained tolerance for ambiguity, restraint, and procedural friction, then its survival depends on something biologically unnatural: large numbers of people repeatedly overriding their most ancient cognitive reflexes.
That may be possible, but it is not guaranteed. And that is what lingers.
[i] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Confronting Mediocrity 