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

1

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

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

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

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

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
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: In what ways can professorial “groupthink” be harmful?

Louis Menand:  Well, you want diversity in any intellectual organization.  I mean, that’s how good ideas arise.  They have to do battle with less-good ideas.  If, to the extent that everybody is accepting roughly the same paradigms for inquiry and there’s certain expectations about what counts as good result of your research, that’s not very good for diversity and it’s not very good for intellectual ferment, which is what you want to encourage.

I mean, universities are set up to get people to work together by having them disagree with each other.  So one of the difficulties with relative homogeneity of opinion among professors is—I happen to be of the same opinion as most professors, most professors are kind of liberal Democrats—it’s just that it discourages people from getting into the profession, which it’s very difficult to get into anyway, because they feel they’re going to be discriminated against or shunned or just not included in the conversation.  I don’t think that necessarily would be the case, but it’s discouraging to people.

Basically what you want in any profession—I would say the same thing if I were a lawyer or a doctor—is you want bright undergraduates to look at your profession as something they would be interested in getting into.  If the barriers to entry are really high and there seems to be some requirement that you tailor your views to fit the views of your colleagues, it’s going to discourage people from entering and they’ll go do something else that’s got a, you know, more reliable track to a career.

So I do worry a lot about the time it takes for people to get a PhD, about the difficulty of finding employment, about the difficulty of getting tenure, and generally about the perception that undergraduates have, that this is a very high-risk career to get started. And I don’t want people to feel that.  I want people to feel this is something that would be fun to do, and doable.

Question: How can universities become more ideologically diverse?

Louis Menand:  Well, I think, I mean, there are lots of, there are ways in which universities will never be a reflection of the general opinion of the public and they probably shouldn’t be.  It’s generally sort of sociologically observed that the better educated people are, the more liberal they tend to be, which would suggest that professors are going to be more liberal than the general public.  And I don’t think that you want to see universities in any way trying to have any kind of quota system about political views, or views in general.  You want the market to work in the way the market works.

But I think that one of the things that would make it a little bit more likely to get diversity into—I would just say to oxygenate the system that we’re working in—would be to make it a little easier to get a PhD.  Sometimes I think we should just give more PhD’s, but even if we didn’t get more PhD’s, if we just didn’t, if we didn’t make it 8 or 9 or 10 years to get a PhD, I think it would encourage people to enter who would otherwise find lots of reasons why it wasn’t a very wise thing to do.

More from the Big Idea for Friday, October 21 2011

 

Fighting Groupthink at Univ...

Newsletter: Share: