Journalist and author Simone Stolzoff says growing political instability, rapid technological change and declining public trust are intensifying people’s fear of uncertainty, arguing that modern society increasingly rewards the appearance of certainty even when the future remains unknowable.

In his new book, How to Not Know: The Value of Uncertainty in a World That Demands Answers, Stolzoff examines how individuals respond to unpredictability in work, relationships, politics and personal identity, and why learning to tolerate uncertainty may be essential in an era shaped by artificial intelligence, misinformation and economic disruption.

Stolzoff said the idea for the book emerged after readers of his earlier work, The Good Enough Job, repeatedly asked how they should think about their futures amid rapid technological and social change.“The most common question asked by readers was how to think about the future of their careers, given AI and all these other changing forces,” Stolzoff said.

The author describes himself as someone naturally prone to self-doubt and overthinking, tendencies he said became especially pronounced earlier in his career when he faced a decision between remaining a journalist in New York City or taking a role at a design company in San Francisco.

At the time, Stolzoff said he struggled to decide between what he saw as two diverging versions of his future identity.“I could see these two diverging paths Simone the journalist, Simone the designer and, for the life of me, I could not make up my mind,” he said.

He recalled seeking advice from nearly everyone around him, including friends, relatives and even casual acquaintances, because he believed he needed certainty before making a decision.

Looking back, Stolzoff said the problem was not uncertainty itself but his inability to tolerate it.“It was my intolerance of uncertainty that was causing so much of the angst,” he said.Stolzoff argues that the human tendency to seek certainty evolved as a survival mechanism, helping people anticipate threats and reduce risk.

However, he said modern life surrounds individuals with constant triggers that encourage anxiety about the future.“We have these brains that are wired to get out of uncertainty as quickly as possible, in a world where there are triggers all around us,” he said.

The book explores how this dynamic affects public life, including political polarisation and declining social trust. Stolzoff said people increasingly rush to fixed conclusions about others based on political identity or online narratives, reducing the possibility for dialogue or ambiguity.

“I do think that intolerance for uncertainty is at the root of so much of our political polarisation,” he said.He also linked uncertainty to what many researchers and policymakers describe as a growing loneliness epidemic, arguing that social connection often requires people to accept unpredictability in human interaction.

“You have to be willing to enter into an interaction with a stranger, not knowing how it will go,” he said.Stolzoff cited research by psychology professor Philip Tetlock, whose long-term analysis of expert forecasting found that many predictions performed little better than random chance.

He also referenced psychologist Daniel Gilbert and the concept of the “end-of-history illusion,” which describes people’s tendency to believe their current preferences and identities will remain stable over time.According to Stolzoff, individuals often underestimate their own capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.

“We discount our ability to course-correct or adapt,” he said.While some decisions merit careful consideration because they are difficult to reverse, Stolzoff argued that many everyday choices become unnecessarily stressful when approached with excessive analysis.

“There’s a huge cost if we take that highly analytical framework and apply it to decisions like what to watch on Netflix,” he said.

Instead of waiting for complete clarity before acting, Stolzoff said people should continue making decisions despite incomplete information. He compares the process to “rowing through the fog,” a metaphor that became central to the book.

“You might not be able to see very far ahead, or know exactly where you’ll end up, but you have to keep rowing,” he said.Stolzoff said he encourages people to make decisions that align with their values rather than trying to guarantee specific outcomes.

“If you act in alignment with your values, you can still stand by the choice, even if you don’t get the outcome that you desire,” he said.At the same time, he stressed that uncertainty tolerance does not mean embracing instability in every aspect of life.

The book encourages readers to identify “anchors” stable relationships, values or commitments that can provide continuity during periods of change.“I think about my family, my values and my commitment to my home,” he said.

Part of Stolzoff’s reporting for the book took him to Tuvalu, one of the countries considered most vulnerable to rising sea levels caused by climate change. He said conversations there shaped his understanding of how communities respond collectively and individually to uncertain futures.

One resident focused on self-sufficiency and resilience at the household level, while another emphasised international cooperation and collective support.“They’re two approaches to uncertainty,” Stolzoff said. “It’s not either-or; it’s both-and.”

He compared those responses to debates surrounding artificial intelligence and employment, where discussions often become polarised between technological optimism and fears of widespread job displacement.“Often they’re set up in the media as opposites,” he said.

“I think the truth is probably somewhere in between.”The book also examines how uncertainty intersects with mortality. Stolzoff argues that fear of death is closely connected to the human desire for certainty and control, but says accepting life’s limits can also deepen meaning and purpose.

“Part of what makes life meaningful is the fact that it’s not going to be forever,” he said.He argued that complete certainty about the future, including knowledge of exactly when or how a person would die, could ultimately diminish the unpredictability that gives life emotional depth.

“In the uncertainty, that’s where magic, surprise and delight lives,” he said.

The rapid expansion of digital media and emerging technologies is contributing to what analysts describe as a widening “information crisis,” marked by declining trust, rising misinformation, and increasing social fragmentation.

Observers note that these developments are not occurring in isolation but are interacting with broader societal trends, including political polarisation and a growing sense of disconnection among individuals.One of the defining features of the current environment is the weakening of shared social frameworks that once anchored public discourse.

Loneliness, increasingly understood by researchers as a structural rather than purely personal issue, is shaping how individuals engage with information and politics. Experts argue that socially disconnected individuals are more likely to seek community in online spaces, where simplified narratives and emotionally charged messaging often dominate.

These online ecosystems frequently provide direct, personalised communication that attributes blame for individual or societal grievances to identifiable groups. Such narratives, which may target elites or minority communities, can gain traction in environments where users are seeking clarity and belonging.

At the same time, influencers operating within digital platforms have built large audiences by promoting highly individualised worldviews, including forms of aspirational capitalism or identity-based messaging that critics say offer limited substantive engagement.

The cumulative effect is an information landscape that many users find difficult to navigate. Rapid technological change, combined with the perceived inadequacy of institutional responses, has contributed to a sense that traditional political and social mechanisms are struggling to address contemporary challenges.

Analysts suggest that this disconnect can lead individuals to question not only specific claims but the broader reliability of information itself.

Attempts to improve the quality of online discourse have had mixed results. Earlier initiatives by media organisations to moderate comment sections and encourage more constructive engagement demonstrated that platform design can influence behaviour.

Adjustments such as limiting the number of discussion threads and reframing participation guidelines were associated with improvements in tone and substance within controlled environments. However, these efforts have not been replicated consistently across the wider internet, where scale and commercial incentives complicate moderation.In recent years, the tone of online interaction has become increasingly hostile, particularly for public figures and members of marginalised groups.

Reports indicate that harassment, including threats of violence, has become a routine aspect of online visibility. The emergence of new technologies has further intensified these concerns. Tools capable of generating synthetic images and other manipulated content have expanded the range and scale of potential abuse, raising questions about regulation and accountability.

At the same time, the prioritisation of user engagement by technology platforms has altered the incentives governing information distribution. Content that captures attention regardless of accuracy tends to be amplified, while verification processes struggle to keep pace. The proliferation of low-quality, automatically generated material, often referred to as “AI slop,” alongside increasingly convincing deepfakes, has complicated users’ ability to distinguish between authentic and fabricated content.

This shift is contributing to what some commentators describe as “epistemic uncertainty,” in which individuals lose confidence in their ability to evaluate truth claims. The phenomenon is reinforced when real-world events themselves appear unusual or contradictory, further blurring the line between credible information and misinformation.

In such an environment, even accurate reporting can be met with scepticism.Public figures and policymakers have also become part of this dynamic. Statements or positions that challenge established scientific or factual consensus can gain visibility in fragmented media ecosystems, amplifying confusion. Analysts note that the presence of such viewpoints in positions of authority may further erode trust in institutions, particularly when combined with broader patterns of misinformation.

Despite these challenges, there is evidence that audiences continue to value credible, human-centred journalism. Media organisations that maintain direct relationships with their readershipthrough transparency, accountability, and engagement—have reported continued trust and participation from their audiences.

These interactions often extend beyond passive consumption, with readers contributing insights, feedback, and information that support investigative reporting.The role of community in this context remains central. As traditional forms of social connection evolve, the demand for reliable information sources that also provide a sense of belonging is increasing. Analysts suggest that rebuilding trust in information systems will require not only technological solutions but also renewed emphasis on social cohesion and institutional credibility.

The ongoing transformation of the information environment highlights the complexity of balancing openness, innovation, and accountability. As digital platforms continue to shape how information is produced and consumed, the implications for public discourse, governance, and social stability are likely to remain a central area of concern.