At a recent forum focused on tackling modern information challenges facing societies around the world, I posed a question that stopped the conversation: "How much of our lives are driven by facts we reassess daily versus the mental stories we tell ourselves?"

Most of us want to believe we're rational people who make decisions based on evidence and careful analysis. Yet if we examine our actual behaviors, most flow from stories and beliefs we've constructed about how the world works. This isn't irrationality. It's how human cognition evolved.

This dynamic creates challenges for leaders working across communities, especially now. People across nations worldwide feel anxious about their ability to provide for themselves and their loved ones. As the world feels more turbulent, we retreat into our corners rather than making sense of things together.

Understanding why requires examining fundamental differences in how we process information.

Why Neuroscience Informs Work Across Different Communities

The neuroscience reveals patterns that matter. Humans exist on a spectrum. Some of us experience more intense emotional responses to daily events, both positive and negative. Others experience the same events with less intense reactions. Neither is better or worse. They're simply different ways our brains have evolved to function.

These differences correlate with fundamentally different preferences for establishing common ground. People who experience less intense emotional responses generally prefer sharing a common set of agreed-upon facts first, then building different interpretations from there. People who experience more intense emotional responses generally prefer sharing a common story or narrative first, with facts fitting into that framework.

This creates a communication challenge that plays out everywhere. In almost any conversation about important issues, one person might focus on establishing facts first. Another person might focus on establishing narrative first. Both approaches are valid. But they often result in people talking past each other completely.

One person says, "But what about the evidence?" The other says, "But what about the bigger picture?" Both feel frustrated. Both feel the other is missing something essential. Neither realizes they're operating from different neurobiological starting points about what creates understanding.

This happens in free societies across every continent. Wherever people have freedom to construct their own understanding rather than having narratives imposed by authority, we see these patterns. Different communities prioritize facts versus narratives differently, and finding common ground becomes increasingly difficult.

The challenge intensifies when people feel threatened. Research on human cognition shows that our brains operate in two distinct modes. One mode operates automatically and quickly, relying on intuition, emotion, and narrative. It asks whether information makes sense and fits with existing understanding. The other mode is logical and analytical but requires significant cognitive effort. It asks whether information is accurate and corresponds to reality.

When people are stressed or seeking stability, they default to the first mode. This isn't laziness or irrationality. It's how brains evolved to make quick decisions in uncertain situations. But it means that in turbulent times, people rely more heavily on whether information fits their existing narrative and less on whether it corresponds to verified facts.

Research on how narratives affect cognition helps explain this. When people are absorbed in a story, they show reduced tendency to counter-argue. The cognitive resources required to follow a narrative leave fewer resources available for fact-checking. This isn't a design flaw. It's how brains evolved to learn from others' experiences without having to verify everything firsthand.

The brain treats a well-told story as a lived experience, creating what researchers call a privileged status in human cognition. Stories literally synchronize brain activity across audiences, creating a shared social reality that feels more real than isolated facts.

Compelling narratives trigger chemical responses that increase empathy and trust.

Why Narratives Can Be Powerful, Especially in Turbulent Times

This explains why narratives are so powerful and so persistent. They serve a neurobiological function, helping people make sense of events that otherwise feel random or threatening. They create a sense of order in a chaotic world. That's soothing, especially when everything else feels uncertain.

But facts matter too. They provide anchors that prevent narratives from drifting into territory that doesn't correspond to reality. They allow us to test whether our stories actually help us navigate the world effectively. The question isn't whether facts or stories matter more. The question is how we create space for both in our communities.

Brain imaging studies have documented structural differences that correlate with these preferences. Some people have larger regions involved in processing fear and emotions. Others have larger regions involved in monitoring uncertainty and conflict. Research has found that individuals with stronger physiological responses to threats often prefer stability and shared narratives.

Other research shows that while everyone values care and fairness, some people prioritize loyalty, authority, and shared values more heavily. For these individuals, a breach of the shared story feels like a greater threat than a discrepancy in shared facts. This isn't about one approach being superior. It's about recognizing genuine variation in how humans process information.

As the world feels more turbulent, as people feel more threatened in their ability to provide for themselves and protect their loved ones, these patterns intensify. Those who prioritize narratives seek communities that reinforce their stories. Those who prioritize facts seek communities that validate their evidence. Both groups become more convinced the other side is unreasonable.

This fragmentation serves no one well. Communities that only prioritize facts without coherent narratives struggle to inspire action or build solidarity. Communities that only prioritize narratives without factual anchors struggle to address problems effectively or adapt to changing circumstances.

We need both approaches to work together.

What This Means For Leaders

First, recognize that people aren't being difficult when they prioritize facts or stories differently. They're responding to genuine neurobiological differences in how they process information and seek stability. The person focused on facts first isn't being pedantic. The person focused on narrative first isn't being careless with truth. They're operating from different starting points.

Second, build bridges that respect both approaches. Those who prioritize facts need to understand that for many people, a coherent narrative provides the essential framework within which facts make sense. Without that framework, facts feel like disconnected data points that don't help with decision-making or provide stability. Those who prioritize narratives need to understand that for many people, shared facts provide the necessary foundation on which meaningful stories can be built. Without that foundation, narratives feel untethered from reality.

Third, create spaces where people can acknowledge their anxiety about an uncertain world without being dismissed or pathologized. When someone reaches for an explanation that helps them feel stable, even if that explanation isn't based on high-quality information, they're responding to a genuine neurobiological need. Addressing that need requires more than just providing better facts. It requires understanding what function the explanation serves and providing alternatives that serve that function while also corresponding to reality.

Fourth, adapt your communication approach based on who you're engaging. If you're naturally facts-first, engaging with story-first people requires starting with the narrative framework that makes sense to them, then showing how facts support or challenge that framework. If you're naturally story-first, engaging with facts-first people requires starting with specific evidence, then building toward the larger narrative that emerges from that evidence.

This becomes especially important as we face challenges requiring cooperation across different ways of thinking. Whether addressing technology governance, economic opportunity, public health, climate adaptation, or any other complex challenge, we need people who prioritize facts and people who prioritize narratives working together, not talking past each other.

The alternative is continued fragmentation. As the world feels more turbulent, people retreat further into corners that feel safe. Those corners become echo chambers where everyone processes information the same way. We lose the ability to understand people who think differently. We lose the ability to address challenges that affect all of us.

The path forward requires humility. We need to recognize that our own preference for facts-first or story-first isn't the only valid approach. We need to stop assuming that people who think differently are simply misinformed, irrational, or acting in bad faith. They're responding to genuine neurobiological differences in how they make sense of the world.

Understanding these differences doesn't mean abandoning our own values or approaches. It means recognizing that serving all people across all communities requires creating frameworks that provide both the coherent narratives some people need and the verified facts others require. It means building institutions and communication practices that respect both approaches.

It means acknowledging that in an era of anxiety and turbulence, people need both stability and accuracy. They need stories that help them make sense of the world and facts that anchor those stories to perceived realities. They need communities that respect how they think while also exposing them to different perspectives.

Most importantly, it means recognizing that we're not going to bridge divides by simply providing more information or better arguments.

We need to understand how people think, what they need to feel stable, and how we can create spaces where different ways of processing information can coexist and strengthen each other.

How We Can Tackle Shared Challenges Together

When we talk past each other, we can't address shared challenges. When we retreat into our corners, we lose the capacity for collective action. When we dismiss people who think differently, we fragment into communities that can't work together. That serves no one well.

Leaders in free societies face a choice. We can continue allowing people to talk past each other, retreating into corners that feel safe but leave us unable to address shared challenges. Or we can build frameworks that respect both facts-first and story-first approaches, creating space for different ways of processing information to work together.

This requires understanding that the person across from us isn't being unreasonable. They're responding to a different neurobiological starting point about what creates stability and understanding. That's not a problem to solve. It's a reality to work with.

Working with that reality is how we build communities and institutions that serve all people well, regardless of how they process information. It's how we make sense of the world together rather than retreating into separate corners. It's how we address challenges that require cooperation across different communities with different ways of making sense of the world.

The stakes are high. The challenges we face don't respect the boundaries between facts-first and story-first communities. They require both approaches working together. Leaders who understand this can build bridges where others see only divides. They can create frameworks that provide both narrative coherence and factual rigor. They can help people make sense of turbulent times together.

Dr. David Bray is both Chair of the Accelerator and a Distinguished Fellow at the non-partisan Stimson Center as well as Principal and CEO at LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc. He previously served as a non-partisan Senior National Intelligence Service Executive, as Chief Information Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, and IT Chief for the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program. Business Insider named him one of the top “24 Americans Changing the World” and he has received both the Joint Civilian Service Commendation Award and the National Intelligence Exceptional Achievement Medal. The U.S. Congress invited him to serve as an expert witness on AI in September 2025. He also advises corporate Boards and CEOs on navigating the convergence of AI, cybersecurity, and geopolitical risk.