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
With rendition switcher


Matthew Nisbet:  Right, well, you know, the history of research and framing really spans across social disciplines, social psychology, sociology, political science and linguistics.  The basic research methodology, I actually argue that deductably you can start based on past research, early research that was first done in the nuclear energy debate and then apply to biotechnology and I argue applies to climate change and teaching of evolution, are roughly a generalizable set of frames or latent meanings that appear to happen over and over again across science debates.  You can start with that set of sort of reoccurring meanings and on any particular issue, then do focus groups, polling, in depth interviews as a way to figure out for what particular public do these latent meanings really resonate or apply and then when trying connect the scientific topic to something they already know, what are the frame devices, what are the catch phrases, what are the comparisons to history, what are the metaphors, what are the stories, who are the best spokes-people, what are the examples to use that really hit home and activate this interpretative meaning?

Question: Is accessibility the same as simplification?

Matthew Nisbet:  Well, in fact actually there's nothing wrong with simplification, I mean often times you have to simplify for an audience that doesn't already have the necessary background to understand a very complex sometimes uncertain scientific topic.  And in fact, as I talked about earlier, if you can shift the mental box for the audience, if you can take an issue that's unfamiliar to them and suddenly connected to something that they already understand or is familiar to them or they already care about, that activates interest, it activates understanding and activates motivation then to pay really good attention to the good science content that's out there, say the really good news coverage on the science issue.  So, for example, on stem cell research, when stem cell research first came along in 2001, few people have ever heard about the issue and in fact people that were fighting against government funding for stem cell research immediately put it in the mental box of this is a moral religious debate similar to the issue of abortion and that was a very effective frame, it really triggered a lot of opposition and when Bush announced his compromised position in August 2001 in the funding for stem cell research there was majority support for his compromised position.  On the other hand when patient advocacy groups and scientific institutions came together after that compromised decision and started to reframe the debate over stem cell research as really a matter of social progress, stem cell research leads to cures and also it's a matter of growing the economy, about economic development, now they switched into a familiar context that the public really cared about.  When the public thinks about science generally historically, they think about making their lives better, social progress leading to cures or technology or growing the economy.  And over the subsequent four or five years, you saw very strong growth in public support especially among the moderate religious, Catholics and mainline Protestants of up to 20 percentage points as that message started to get across to the public.


Matthew Nisbet On Studying ...

Newsletter: Share: