The argument came up again, on the left, on the right, and even within the majority, almost with each intervention. If Emmanuel Macron chose dissolution, it would be partly because he “likes risk”, we repeat, among the president’s friends and among his adversaries. “Courage is being afraid and going anyway,” said the person concerned, three days before the fateful Sunday, in front of the veterans of the Landing. Was he afraid? Nobody knows. But he went there.
The head of state, known for his propensity to dare, would have risk-taking inscribed in his political philosophy, forged at the heart of his personality. Did he not come to power without a party or experience? Since then, it has been impossible to make him respect a protocol. His security service may have told him so, but that didn’t stop him from taking a slap in the face in Valencia in 2021. So, of course, we don’t play Russian roulette for the future of a country, simply for the thrill. But it’s still part of the character, we whisper in many places.
These explanations say nothing of the logic used, of what the president really hopes to do with these new legislative measures. But they at least have the merit of emphasizing one thing: not everyone is equal when it comes to risk assessment. Faced with the abyss represented by potential cohabitation with the far right, many would have chosen to step back. This is also what scientific studies say on the subject: it is normal, even common, to prefer the possibility of gaining nothing to that of losing everything.
Gain nothing, or risk losing?
Especially when the chances of winning the bet are low. In this case, no poll gave a majority to Emmanuel Macron when he appeared in front of the cameras at the Elysée to confirm the dissolution. The bet is uncertain, even he cannot ignore it. All you had to do was look at the faces at Renaissance’s field headquarters last Sunday: a group of novice mountaineers who, when they looked up, suddenly understood that they were on a ridge line. Emmanuel Macron had time to see the void, and yet he chose to rush into it.
Why do some people seem to seek risk, as if seized by an appetite for these situations, when most, on the contrary, prefer to avoid it? In 1980, a researcher, psychologist and economist, Daniel Kahneman, demonstrated that individuals’ decision-making did not only obey the rules of rationality. It is in reality subject to a whole series of biases, like so many forces that manipulate us, in one direction or the other. This work earned its author a Nobel Prize and, since then, publications on the subject have multiplied.
If genetics plays a role in this story, its role is minimal. Twins with similar genetic heritage often do not have the same relationship to danger, concludes, for example, a study published in 2009 in THE Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Harvard scientific journal. In 2021, an international team reviewed the genomes of 1 million people, looking for more encouraging answers. Published in Nature Genetics, This work does reveal some correlations between certain genes and a propensity to play with fire, but nothing significant.
Getting used to risk
This type of study, on the other hand, makes it possible to clarify the biology of decision-making. At the moment of choice, two neural systems are activated in the brain. On the one hand, there is a series of mechanisms at the origin of an unpleasant sensation, which leads to avoidance. And on the other, a network linked to pleasure, which makes you want to act. Each time, with different neurotransmitters, in different quantities. “We constantly balance these two forces, in particular thanks to cortisol. This hormone blocks the negative effects of stress and allows the release of dopamine. It is when the latter takes the advantage that we switch to action”, explains neurobiologist Pier-Vincenzo Piazza.
Some people are born with a particularly sensitive cortisol-dopamine loop. Others get used to danger, as one gets used to a drug: “As this mechanism is pleasant, repeated exposure to stress or predispositions can lead to the subject starting to seek it. He ends up find a certain pleasure in discomfort”, explains Pier-Vincenzo Piazza. This is why some people like to jump into the void or get depressed on vacation. No inevitability there: other biological mechanisms modulate these phenomena. So the same person can be cautious or reckless depending on the situation. “Still, to become president, you must not be distressed by uncertainty,” smiles the scientist.
To this we must add important cultural levers: “Asian societies tend to take a lot of financial risks, for example, but refuse to put themselves in danger for their leisure activities, which Westerners do without batting an eyelid,” illustrates Hernán Anlló, researcher at the cognitive neuroscience laboratory at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. Just like beauty or goodness, risk is appreciated differently depending on social conventions. This is one of the keys to understanding why boys are more prone to danger than girls, for example. Education pushes them to preserve themselves.
The luxury of losing
Having nothing, or seeing others have a lot, also seems to broaden the spectrum of acceptable risk, especially when it comes to money. Poor countries are on average more tolerant of financial risks, observes a study published in 2019 in Quantitative Economics. Just like countries where inequalities are high, underline work published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in 2017. But, within a highly developed society, where overall even the least advantaged benefit from relative security, the richest are also the most inclined to opt for uncertainty, in the hope of maximizing their gains. potential.
Unsurprisingly, liberals are more often found to be comfortable in environments where there is great uncertainty, as shown by a study published in 2020 in Social Psychological and Personality Science. “They are more flexible, and seek to adapt rather than resist developments, unlike the conservatives,” notes Hernán Anlló. Those loyal to the Head of State, who are currently repeating that “risk is in our political DNA”, do not think they are saying so well. Any resemblance to a former banker turned president would be coincidental, but it is also true that on average those who work in finance appreciate hazard better than most people.
De Gaulle said: “Circumstances dictate decisions.” The phrase, recalled by the members of Emmanuel Macron’s “dissolution cell” to justify his decision to journalists closest to power, is particularly true. In the same socio-economic environment, the context has a huge influence on the perception of risk: “When we state a situation in terms of loss, we will rather be optimistic with regard to uncertainty, and consider that the worst “won’t happen”, details Stefano Palminteri, research director at Inserm and author of a study on the subject, published Friday June 14 in Natural Human Behavior.
“The worst will not happen”
On this mechanism, an experience left its mark. In 1981, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky ask volunteers to imagine that they have to manage a health crisis. They are then asked to choose between a program that could save 200 lives, or another that could save 600 people. The latter is hazardous: there is a 2 out of 3 risk that it will fail, and will not help anyone. In this case, most people prefer to make sure they have an effect, and rely on the first proposition, rather than risking the potentially better program.
Same experience, but stated in terms of loss: program C causes 400 people to die. The D may kill none, but with only a 1 in 3 chance of doing so. Here, everyone rushes to the hazard. However, from a purely rational point of view, the two examples are identical: losses and gains correspond to the same probabilities. Faced with the wall, the first reflex is therefore to try everything for everything. From there to saying that, lost for lost, Emmanuel Macron has opted for “audacity”, there is only one step.
Dissolving just after the European elections had never been presented as a possible option. The idea would only have gained ground late. Without leaving any room for chance: everything was made public the same evening, with a very short deadline to organize the legislative news. The president opted for speed. Stefano Palminteri laughs again: “Having the result of your bet quickly makes it easier to take risks,” notes the researcher. He has just put an end to a scientific article on this phenomenon. Surprisingly, no mention of the head of state is made there.
.