To fund breakthrough ideas, don't seek consensus. Instead, identify proposals that are highly polarizing among experts—where half think it's brilliant and the other half thinks it's terrible. This indicates a departure from the norm and holds the potential for true innovation.

Prioritize projects that promise significant impact but face minimal resistance. High-friction projects, even if impactful, drain energy on battles rather than building. The sweet spot is in areas most people don't see yet, thus avoiding pre-emptive opposition.

Recognizing that policy change is difficult, IFP adopts a venture capital mindset. They maximize their "shots on goal" on high-expected-value policies, accepting a low success rate. The few major wins they achieve are impactful enough to justify the entire portfolio of attempts.

Effective advocacy starts by understanding others' values instead of imposing one's own. The goal is to find partial agreement. For instance, people who disagree on animal rights might still collaborate on policies that improve public health or the environment, allowing for progress despite broader disagreements.

Bipartisanship often results in a "mushy middle" compromise nobody loves. The Institute for Progress's "cross-partisanship" strategy finds ways for both parties to earnestly support the same policy for their own distinct reasons, creating more durable legislation.

Large, established think tanks are losing relevance due to political polarization and their slow pace. Smaller, agile think tanks with niche expertise are gaining influence by focusing on direct, person-to-person engagement with policymakers to create tangible impact, rather than just publishing books.

Effective activism doesn't try to persuade politicians or stage a revolution. Instead, it should 'inject a retrovirus': build and run privately-funded alternative institutions (like citizens' assemblies) that operate on a different logic. By demonstrating a better way of doing things, this strategy creates demand and allows new institutional 'DNA' to spread organically.

Traditional think tanks silo research, communications, and outreach. IFP believes this is inefficient. They develop staffers who handle the entire process from research to Hill outreach, which leads to more relevant research and more credible advocacy.

When building a new and potentially controversial field, strategic prioritization is key. Start with issues that are familiar and relatable to a broader audience (e.g., bird-safe glass in cities) to build institutional support and avoid immediate alienation. This creates a foundation before exploring more radical or abstract concepts.