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

How NOT to spot a murderer's brain

May 13, 2013, 5:21 AM

Update 13/05/13 12PM: The Guardian have now corrected the article to place David Eagleman's quote in appropriate context. 1.55PM: The paragraph has now been cut completely with the following note "A paragraph that misrepresented the views of the neuroscientist David Eagleman has been removed. The paragraph implied that Eagleman believed that the possession of particular genes resulted in criminal behaviour. This is not his belief, in his words, "Genes are part of the story, but they're not the whole story. We are likewise influenced by the environments in which we grow up". 

An article by Tim Adams in yesterday's Observer (the Sunday edition of British newspaper The Guardian) is currently topping the most read list on The Guardian's science section. The piece makes a spine tingling case, the byline reads: "Do your genes, rather than upbringing, determine whether you will become a criminal?". The most damning segment of the article is the following quote from neuroscientist David Eagleman, taken utterly out of context:

"If you are a carrier of one particular set of genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is four times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes. You're three times as likely to commit a robbery, five times as likely to commit aggravated assault, eight times as likely to be arrested for murder and 13 times as likely to be arrested for a sexual offence. The overwhelming majority of prisoners carry these genes; 98.1% of death row inmates do… Can we honestly say that the carriers of those genes have exactly the same range of choices in their behaviour as those who do not possess them? And if they do not, should they be judged and punished by the same standard?"

Jim Parkinson, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Body and Action Group in the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL helpfully pointed out on Twitter that Eagleman's punchline seems to somehow have been misplaced from the quoted text. Eagleman’s punchline is that the mystery gene in question is the Y chromosome. So yes, men are more likely to be arrested for most crimes but this tells us precious little regarding whether "genes, rather than upbringing, determine whether you will become a criminal" and that was Eagleman’s point! You can read Eagleman’s quote in full in a 2011 Atlantic article:


Jim Parkinson has submitted a letter The Observer which I've seen, I'll be watching closely to see if they publish it along with a correction on Sunday. If they don't I'll post it here on Monday. By the way, I've posted this debunking to Rbutr, a fantastically useful tool for debunking misinformation on the internet, it’s worth checking out and installing on your browser - it'll give you a small notification if an article you are reading has been debunked elsewhere and added to the system.

This article, like so many others written for legacy newspapers, is made infinitely, nightmarishly more difficult to assess because there are so many studies mentioned but few real references are provided. This means that if I'm to try to assess this or that point, I have to quite literally guess what studies the author is referring to. This task is no mean feat without even basic information such as names of the study authors or date of publication. This really is a tragic situation to be in two decades since hyperlinks became a basic feature of the internet. There's plenty more in this article that I'd love to address, but I simply don’t have the spare time to spend guestimating what studies the author might or might not be referring to. If you have been able to divine which studies the author refers to in this piece or if you'd like to add to the discussion please do so in the comments. For a slightly more balanced account of Adrian Raine’s case check out NPR’s interview which you can listen to here.


To keep up to date with this blog you can follow Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS or join the mailing list.



How NOT to spot a murderer'...

Newsletter: Share: