What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Changing Minds Isn't Like Changing Light Bulbs

April 11, 2014, 12:15 PM

Changing minds often isn’t like changing light bulbs. Many bright ideas don’t fit your sockets. Wonks particularly need to grasp that incorporating new data or arguments can be closer to rewiring or remodelling.

“Politics is Making Us Stupid,” partly because “we can’t trust our own reason.” That’s uber-wonk Ezra Klein’s assessment of Dan Kahan’s “identity-protective cognition” research (on how social-status factors influence reasoning). Kahan used a brain-teaser presented in neutral and politicized forms to measure how reasoning varied by numeracy and ideology. Some highlights: 59% fail the neutral case. Participants with 90th-percentile numeracy got neutral and politicized cases correct 75% and 57% respectively. Insanely, higher numeracy worsened politicized results. Klein’s piece illustrates seven issues:

1. That we aren’t impartial thinkers should surprise nobody. Motivated reasoning is everywhere evident. As Upton Sinclair noted “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” For wonks harboring “rationalist delusions” and needing further evidence: “confirmation bias” was “discovered” in the 1960s.

2. “The more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements” is greatly overgeneralizing. Kahan couldn’t have shown that, he only used one kind of numeric data. Other sorts of information (e.g. of a partisan leader switching positions) likely have different effects. And unquantitive factors (like morals/rights) are properly influential.

3. “Being better at math...drove [partisans] further apart.” Drove is too causal for Kahan’s correlations. Similar laxity in Klein’s piece equates “smarter” with higher numeracy.

4. Too much science/wonkery ignores that our cognitive capabilities evolved in contexts where disrupting your tribe hurt your chances of survival. Only relational rationality was and is adaptive.

5. Social science results, like humans, are motley (high-numeracy politicized case: 57% correct, 43% wrong). “Explainers” and policymakers must cope with such heterogeneity. Some are safer in trusting their reason. 

6. Klein is admirably wrong in believing the “point of politics is policy.” For many the point is winning, even at the cost of policies you prefer. GOP attacks on Obamacare, including on elements they first proposed, show they’d rather disown their own ideas than see opponents use them. The Founders rightly feared such “faction.” Democracy without heterospective (other-view-ness) is unstable.

7. Division of mental labor is as useful as any other kind. Most make neither their own shoes, nor much of what’s in their own minds. We choose among shoes and thought patterns built by others. (Darwin: “Much of the intelligent work done by man is due to imitation and not to reason.”)

The lesson here isn’t that “we can’t trust our own reason.” There are three takeaways: first, changing minds is hard because they’re not empty. Anything new requires integration into the (often arduously built) preexisting contents. Undisruptive data and ideas plug-in more easily. Second: complex decisions are stressful, so shortcuts are tempting, e.g. relying on trusted others, especially leaders. Third: since all reason is motivated, we need leaders motivated by more than faction and self-interest. As the Founders declared, leaders motivated by what is “wholesome and necessary for the public good.


Changing Minds Isn't Like C...

Newsletter: Share: