We Need to Talk About TED

[Swift]

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

At the same company, the Chairman of the Board at the time, was a nice guy, a very affluent business man, that knew absolutely nothing about science, named Nelson Talbott. When he ran into me he liked to chat and he asked me what I was working on. I'd tell him about what experiments I was trying.

It would always confuse him as to why I would actually have to do the experiment - if I thought A was going to result in an improvement to Z, why did have to do the experiment, why not just implement A. He didn't seem to understand that a hypothesis had to actually be tested, and that sometimes my ideas were just wrong. He especially struggled if the first time you tested something and it worked, that you had to reproduce the result.

From that developed two expressions: First Order and Second Order Talbodian Errors.

A Second Order Talbodian Error was drawing a line through one data point.

A First Order Talbodian Error was drawing a line through no data points.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Let me guess: every time he asked you why you had to do the experiment you'd answer 'if we use the approach without testing and its wrong we'll lose money" or something similar to that, he'd say that it made sense and by the next time he asked you the same thing he had forgotten the answer?

[Swift]

Let me guess: every time he asked you why you had to do the experiment you'd answer 'if we use the approach without testing and its wrong we'll lose money" or something similar to that, he'd say that it made sense and by the next time he asked you the same thing he had forgotten the answer?

I don't think we ever got that detailed.

For the most part I think he was just pretending to be "one of the people" and didn't really listen to any of my answers.

[Sigma_Orionis]

I'd say you're right.

[geonuc]

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

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

I'm also a non-practicing geologist, so hiding under a rock won't help you. I'll find you.

[geonuc]

We all know people who have decided they are experts and thus entitled to an opinion because they gained a little knowledge - be it from TED, googling or wherever. As mentioned, that's just an ego problem, not a knowledge dissemination problem.

In-depth teaching/training is best; short lectures are good; keeping people completely ignorant is bad.

[FZR1KG]

In-depth teaching/training is best; short lectures are good; keeping people completely ignorant is bad.

Totally agree.
I think where we disagree is that I see the short lectures being used as a substitute for the real thing.
It seems like no one has the time for a real education so they have super fast crash courses.
Looking at it from the perspective, they are bad. Not because they are providing a little knowledge but because they are devaluing real education.
Maybe I'm not coming across clearly on this. To me short lectures should be used to inspire the audience to go and get educated on the issue/topic. What I see is the exact opposite. People leave thinking they have now educated themselves on the issue and therefore don't need to do any more study because they now know what they need to.
The net result is the creation of a class of confident individuals with a pre-disposition to the Bunning-Kruger effect complete with the limited knowledge base to match.

[Swift]

To me short lectures should be used to inspire the audience to go and get educated on the issue/topic. What I see is the exact opposite. People leave thinking they have now educated themselves on the issue and therefore don't need to do any more study because they now know what they need to.

I'm curious (but only mildly so, so don't sweat it) how do you know? How do you know that is how most people who see TED lectures think or act? How do you know that a bunch of them don't go out and really study the topic.

And I guess I'm in that group that only studies a topic till the point I feel I know enough about it. I'm a generalist, in many ways, and like to know a little about a lot of things. I'm curious, but frankly, time is limited and my interest even more limited.

Its not like what I know or don't know about any particular topic really makes a damn bit of difference.

I think I've decided that the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" quote is actually wrong. It is only a problem if one is in a position of power, and that knowledge is critical to the execution of that power. For us worms, a little knowledge is better than none, and more than enough.

I'm sorry Zee, for some reason your comment really pissed me off... I don't know why. I guess I'm done with this thread....

[FZR1KG]

To me short lectures should be used to inspire the audience to go and get educated on the issue/topic. What I see is the exact opposite. People leave thinking they have now educated themselves on the issue and therefore don't need to do any more study because they now know what they need to.

I'm curious (but only mildly so, so don't sweat it) how do you know? How do you know that is how most people who see TED lectures think or act? How do you know that a bunch of them don't go out and really study the topic.

Since I became an engineer I have consistently worked in two areas, design and teaching/training.
I've done short talks, long talks, short training, long training, semester courses and all the years of engineering from 1st year to graduation.
It's not TED that's the problem, it's the idea of a short course or short training being effective that is. To explain why I'd be writing a really long post but if you want I can do so.
I've been the key part of training that I watched fail when I expected it to work many times.
A classic example was when I did a short training session to a group of mechanical engineers who consistently failed to correctly size motors for applications. I worked out why by asking questions and it was basic, they didn't understand how to translate mechanical power and torque to electrical power and torque. So I organised a training session and had three hours to get the message across. I figured it was pretty simple. Three hours, very basic stuff to people who had engineering degrees already. How could it go wrong?
Well it did. The only person that consistently correctly sized the motors after the training was also the only person who consistently correctly sized the motors before the training. IOW, three hours of their time, about 20hrs of mine (prep time vs contact time are quite different) and nothing whatsoever was achieved. I could break down for you why it failed since I had to correct it later and to do so I needed to understand why that initial training didn't work.
Surffice to say, they left thinking they knew what to do but had no clue.
I just want to stress that the dissemination of knowledge to a group of trained individuals in their specific field about their specific field, failed for a very specific issue that was causing problems that they had the power to correct. That is pretty telling in itself.
It's also not the first time this has happened. Its also the reason that I refused to do 1 day training anymore. Since I put the ex boss into a position where to get training he had to give me the time I asked, the problems disappeared. Well, for a while anyway. Knowledge fades, mistakes get mixed in and propagated, people leave and new people arrive. After a year it generally needs to be redone.

And I guess I'm in that group that only studies a topic till the point I feel I know enough about it. I'm a generalist, in many ways, and like to know a little about a lot of things. I'm curious, but frankly, time is limited and my interest even more limited.

Its not like what I know or don't know about any particular topic really makes a damn bit of difference.

You just hit the nail right on the head why these things don't work.
You're going in to gain a little information for yourself. That's all and, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, it will never be applied back into society. It will never be used. It will never make any difference to anything other than in your own mind you have learned something.
The thing with education is that if that knowledge gained is never used then from the societies POV it makes no difference if you were educated or not. Nothing has changed except a lot of time and resources wasted for no gain.
There is my issue. We're wasting time and money on giving individuals who will do nothing with that knowledge instead of channeling it where it will make a difference.
And just to clarify my position, I have no problem with the concept of TED and giving knowledge to people. I to like to gain knowledge myself that I will really do nothing with just because I find it interesting. What I'm saying however is that its not ever going to be a solution to problems and thinking it will be is detrimental to the actual goal of making a change. Which ironically these things are claimed to be targeting to do.
It's placebo knowledge in place of the real thing.

I think I've decided that the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" quote is actually wrong. It is only a problem if one is in a position of power, and that knowledge is critical to the execution of that power. For us worms, a little knowledge is better than none, and more than enough.

Again, I disagree. When I train people to do a job if they only get part of that knowledge they become more confident and are likely to injure equipment or themselves because of that. There is no requirement for power, just opportunity to apply the limited knowledge they have gained.

I'm sorry Zee, for some reason your comment really pissed me off... I don't know why. I guess I'm done with this thread....

No need to appologise to me. I'm sorry I pissed you off.
I sure didn't mean to piss you or anyone else off.
I'll tell you what, you stay in the thread. I've already pointed out my objections to the TED concept (basically short lectures) several times and nothing I add will further contribute to discussion so it's pointless me posting here further anyway.
So I'll not post here, you and everyone else can continue to discuss it to your hearts content.
I'll only answer any questions if they are directed specifically to me.

[SciFi Chick]

I believe I can sum up what FZ has been trying to say with a quote from Stephen Hawking:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."

FZ is worried that people will think they've gained knowledge they can use from a TED talk, rather than realizing they've been given an advertisement that should make them want to actually seek out knowledge. Something that TED could easily fix.