We Need to Talk About TED

[SciFi Chick]

This article brings up some very valid points and quantifies some of the vague feelings I've been having about the TED talks I've watched.

Thoughts?

[The Supreme Canuck]

On the one hand, yes, I agree. The article makes some very good points. The Malcolm Gladwellization of popular discourse is disheartening, and Silicon Valley has its own agendas that may not square with developing the sort of society that we want. That's all true, and all something that needs to be dealt with.

On the other hand, I have noticed a certain amount of, well, hipsterism when it comes to criticizing TED. Not this article and not you, since this is a thoughtful and constructive piece with no hint of looking down on people, but for the last year or so I've noticed a certain souring on the concept of TED. It seems that as TED became more mainstream and popular, people decided that it no longer holds any value. It's just for the plebes, for people who don't actually matter. It's pap. Not the things that real people watch. When TED was for the Silicon Valley folk, it was cool; now that it's popular, it's not cool.

That's troubling. Though it's no more troubling than the near-religious regard that people hold for TED that your linked article is criticizing. Hell, it's even kind of the same problem: value is being put in "what's hot" rather than in the veracity and usefulness of the ideas being presented themselves. Dismissing something for "not being TED enough" or for being "too TED" are both problematic. And both happen. A lot.

Hm. Not sure what I'm trying to say, here. Probably that the problems with TED run pretty deep--on the one hand, you have the problems that you point out, including the dismissal of "boring" ideas as lesser, no matter their truth; on the other, you have the dismissal of "normal" people who find value in TED, again despite the truth of the ideas being presented.

Yeah, that's not good. Seems to me it would be nice to find a middle ground where we fix TED rather than deify it or turn our noses up at it.

[Rommie]

I was never really that into TED talks for this reason. I mean I do think it's a good idea that you could do a 10 minute talk where you bring up an issue to people and maybe teach them something they don't know. The idea that there needs to be a solution and conclusion in 10 minutes... yeah, not a fan of that at all. There's a reason physics lectures go for the better part of an hour.

[FZR1KG]

I've never heard of TED before.
10 minutes is the allocated time frame?
Wow. That's nothing but a sales pitch.

*edited to add*

Ok, 18 minutes or less. Still not much more than a sales pitch as far as I can see.
I can't even teach someone new to electronics what a resistor is in anything more than the most basic terms in that time and their knowledge gain is next to nothing.

According to the site, its the opportunity to give the talk of your life in 18 minutes or less.
Even the description is a sales pitch.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I gave them about 12 minutes of research and decided its a load of crap.

[FZR1KG]

Ok, another few minutes of research to get me to about their 18 minutes worth.
One of their partners are American Express.
Now I'm officially done. Anyone who has had any small business knows just how that company screws you.
It was one of the few we refused to deal with because they wanted more % than we would have been earning just to allow their customers to swipe with their cards. IOW, this is a company that kills small business and that's where most of the big changing ideas come from.

[Cyborg Girl]

I've heard to TED, but never looked into the talks because I much prefer reading about science-related stuff to watching people talk about it on a screen. Looks like I didn't miss much.

[SciFiFisher]

I guess it depends on your perspective. 18 minutes might be enough to get someone interested in learning more. It also might be enough to make you think about how you think about things. Or change your mind about how you view things. Like this talk by Cameron Russell on why even super models are not always happy.

[FZR1KG]

I guess it depends on your perspective. 18 minutes might be enough to get someone interested in learning more. It also might be enough to make you think about how you think about things. Or change your mind about how you view things. Like this talk by Cameron Russell on why even super models are not always happy.

But that's just it. It's a sales pitch for a topic.
While I can see some people being able to pull off something useful, I just see the majority being nothing more than a filler of time for those who have plenty of it to waste.

[geonuc]

I've only seen a few TED talks so maybe I'm clueless. But the idea of criticizing the dissemination of knowledge from people who know what they're talking about to people who are willing to learn or at the very least willing to gain an insight into fields they know nothing about, dumbfounds me. And I use the word 'criticizing' in its colloquial meaning - trashing something.

Any time - almost literally any time at all - knowledge is passed from the learned to the ignorant, that's a good thing. One might suggest ways to improve the process, but it's unquestionably (in my opinion) a good idea. Especially in this day where the US in particular seems to be regressing in terms of emphasizing intellectual pursuit and prowess. Just consider the people who use the term 'intellectual' as a pejorative. TED works to counter that trend.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Never heard of TED till this thread came up.

I don't think much of it, Why? Because they are in essence a Sales Pitch like Zee says? no, Sales Pitches sometimes are useful (even if I don't like them very much), it's simply saturation.

In my side of the business I get PLENTY of stuff that looks, walks and smells like those TED talks: Seminars sponsored by this or that technology company, "White Papers" (in essence, written sales pitches). SO basically unless it's a particular topic I am VERY interested in I ignore them.

I don't know how common is in other occupations, but I'm pretty sure mine is not the only one with "white paper" saturation. If I want to learn about something I don't rely on them as the original idea of white papers, which is basically an "executive report" for managers about a particular IT concept, has been turned into basically sales pitches.

TED looks like an idea set up with the best of intentions, whether it's execution is useful or not, I don't know. And I don't think I'll stick around those talks to find out, seen too many like those on my side of the business. So yes in essence I said "don't know and don't care" . Which probably means that those talks aren't geared to grunts like me.

[FZR1KG]

I've only seen a few TED talks so maybe I'm clueless. But the idea of criticizing the dissemination of knowledge from people who know what they're talking about to people who are willing to learn or at the very least willing to gain an insight into fields they know nothing about, dumbfounds me. And I use the word 'criticizing' in its colloquial meaning - trashing something.

It's not the dissemination of knowledge that's the problem, it's the false illusion that one has gained knowledge that is.
18 minutes or less is a very small time frame to do much information transfer. So from that POV its just not going to be effective.

If I had 18 minutes to do something I'd go on and tell them that education is so vital that people should be willing to share their expertise for free as charity, to pay back a little to society that taught them.
Free lectures where anyone can go in and learn taught by people that are not only knowledgeable but also inspired to teach it because they love to teach rather than further their career.
Allow testing of people to gain their qualification certificate etc without being forced to go to a particular school and only then sit that schools exams.
Education isn't for the rich, it's for those who have the ability and desire to learn and it should be treated as such.
Back in Oz in the 1980's we had community houses where people would come in and teach their specialty.
I learned some maths from a math professor, some electronics from an electronics engineer. Others learned other things.
Not sure if that place still exists or not but that is what the USA needs now, not this.

Any time - almost literally any time at all - knowledge is passed from the learned to the ignorant, that's a good thing. One might suggest ways to improve the process, but it's unquestionably (in my opinion) a good idea. Especially in this day where the US in particular seems to be regressing in terms of emphasizing intellectual pursuit and prowess. Just consider the people who use the term 'intellectual' as a pejorative. TED works to counter that trend.

I agree with you, I just don't see this as knowledge transfer. It's a one off 18 minute maximum spiel about a subject and then it's gone.
That's nothing other than wishful thinking.
Do the above (community housing and teaching) to teach kids/adults who otherwise would not have the opportunity instead.
That I could get behind. But this is to me something that the rich or famous can jump up onto make themselves feel good like they actually achieved something and then it's done.

You don't have to believe me but when I was teaching I could inspire students that were considered to be failures by the system and get them to score honors. It can't be done in 18 minutes. It takes a long term commitment to do.

TED to me is like taking a group of young men to a strip club to learn about women and thinking it's doing some good.
But hey, I've been wrong before. It is however what I see this being and from what I've read, the concept has not got a very good track record of success. So as an engineer I'd recommend scraping it and investing the time/money and energy into a more effective and efficient idea.

I could also go on about this being a top down approach and how it reminds me of the educational version of trickle down economics and that plainly doesn't work, but I think I'll just stop here.

I just wanted you to understand it's not the dissemination of knowledge I have issues with, it's the illusion of it in place of the real thing that I have problems with.

[Swift]

I've watched a few TED talks over the years, even linked to a couple on my Facebook page (and maybe here). I've liked some of the ones I've seen (and the ones I didn't I stopped watching after a couple of minutes).

I think the author of the linked article is over-selling them to shoot them down. The sub-title of his piece is "Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster". Civilization disaster? Really?

Anyone who thinks a 10 minute talk is going to fix the world or solve some problem is delusional. Heck, I don't think 10 month long concerted efforts fix the world (or 10 years for that matter). It is all 1.1 steps forward and 1.09 steps back. But to bitch about sharing ideas is stupid too.

[FZR1KG]

I think the author of the linked article is over-selling them to shoot them down. The sub-title of his piece is "Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster". Civilization disaster? Really?

He had 18 minutes or less to sell the pitch. In order to make it stick you have to oversell. kind of the problem with it. LOL

[The Supreme Canuck]

I've only seen a few TED talks so maybe I'm clueless. But the idea of criticizing the dissemination of knowledge from people who know what they're talking about to people who are willing to learn or at the very least willing to gain an insight into fields they know nothing about, dumbfounds me. And I use the word 'criticizing' in its colloquial meaning - trashing something.

Any time - almost literally any time at all - knowledge is passed from the learned to the ignorant, that's a good thing. One might suggest ways to improve the process, but it's unquestionably (in my opinion) a good idea. Especially in this day where the US in particular seems to be regressing in terms of emphasizing intellectual pursuit and prowess. Just consider the people who use the term 'intellectual' as a pejorative. TED works to counter that trend.

I tend to agree.

[Rommie]

I've only seen a few TED talks so maybe I'm clueless. But the idea of criticizing the dissemination of knowledge from people who know what they're talking about to people who are willing to learn or at the very least willing to gain an insight into fields they know nothing about, dumbfounds me. And I use the word 'criticizing' in its colloquial meaning - trashing something.

Any time - almost literally any time at all - knowledge is passed from the learned to the ignorant, that's a good thing. One might suggest ways to improve the process, but it's unquestionably (in my opinion) a good idea. Especially in this day where the US in particular seems to be regressing in terms of emphasizing intellectual pursuit and prowess. Just consider the people who use the term 'intellectual' as a pejorative. TED works to counter that trend.

I tend to agree.

I think my issue is more I've had more than a few people lecture me on topics in science because they "saw a TED talk on it" as if that means they know all the issues, and we scientists "just have to do X" to solve it.

There might be other mediums that yield similar results, but TED has stood out to me in recent years in how the solutions are rather simplified.

[cid]

...I think my issue is more I've had more than a few people lecture me on topics in science because they "saw a TED talk on it" as if that means they know all the issues, and we scientists "just have to do X" to solve it.

[Sigma_Orionis]

I think my issue is more I've had more than a few people lecture me on topics in science because they "saw a TED talk on it" as if that means they know all the issues, and we scientists "just have to do X" to solve it.

There might be other mediums that yield similar results, but TED has stood out to me in recent years in how the solutions are rather simplified.

Well yeah, that is exactly the same attitude a CEO has about IT after it has read an executive report composed of "white papers" prepared by its minions

[FZR1KG]

Hence the saying, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Swift]

I think my issue is more I've had more than a few people lecture me on topics in science because they "saw a TED talk on it" as if that means they know all the issues, and we scientists "just have to do X" to solve it.

There might be other mediums that yield similar results, but TED has stood out to me in recent years in how the solutions are rather simplified.

Well yeah, that is exactly the same attitude a CEO has about IT after it has read an executive report composed of "white papers" prepared by its minions

Not just IT. One place I worked, the VP was an "idea" guy. He would come up with these "brilliant" ideas and then come up to R&D (usually at about 5:30, just when I wanted to go home), to share them with me. They were all universally non-implementable; some tended to violate the laws of physics and chemistry. I would shoot them down. I don't think he was fond of my shooting them down, but it did stop him.

Hence the saying, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And none whatsoever is really bad.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Not just IT. One place I worked, the VP was an "idea" guy. He would come up with these "brilliant" ideas and then come up to R&D (usually at about 5:30, just when I wanted to go home), to share them with me. They were all universally non-implementable; some tended to violate the laws of physics and chemistry. I would shoot them down. I don't think he was fond of my shooting them down, but it did stop him.

Why is it that people that come up with stuff that is very difficult/close to impossible to implement always try to have someone else to do the dirty work for them?

Hence the saying, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And none whatsoever is really bad.

The thing is that "a little knowledge" and "none whatsoever" are not too different from one another. What makes the difference is the ego of the holder

[The Supreme Canuck]

Now imagine having a politics/law degree.

The system is such that everyone should have a say. People assume that this means that everyone is an expert.

It's exasperating.

[Sigma_Orionis]

That's different, you lawyers/politicians are all power hungry psychopaths.

It's all your fault anyways.

[The Supreme Canuck]

[FZR1KG]

That's different, you lawyers/politicians are all power hungry psychopaths.

Not all. There are non practicing lawyers for example.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Those are the worst, where do you think Politicians come from?

[hides under the nearest rock before TSC and geonuc read this]