This chapter demonstrates how basic income researchers can advance an iterative narrative methodology that allows researchers to understand how particular criticisms of basic income can persist even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary and, perhaps more importantly, open up new research questions and new policy formulations that address important but unarticulated considerations. Social scientists have long recognized that narratives are integral to policy analysis, shaping the ways that empirical models are used and results disseminated to target audiences. Narratives are collected as part of policy analysis through polls, interviews and focus groups, and those advocating for policy change recognize the importance of framing, language and metaphor. Virtually every basic income experiment, pilot or demonstration project collects participant “stories” that are subsequently used to provide evidence of the impact of basic income, which are then augmented by filmmakers, advocates and journalists keen to disseminate “visual” narratives. In all these cases, however, less attention has been paid to the ways in which people listen and engage with narratives. Claire Craig and Sarah Dillon have attempted to challenge this complacency, setting out a systematic framework of storylistening in policy analysis that articulates four functions that stories can play: creating new points of view; understanding relevant identities; expanding the range of models available; and supporting new “anticipations” of the future. Storylistening, they claim, is less about creating empathy for participants among those who hear stories or avoiding negative responses to particular language than it is part of the collective and cognitive process of making sense of policy in a complex and uncertain world. This chapter builds on the Craig-Dillon framework and applies it to the issue of basic income in an uncertain world.