patrick.net

To me TED is just a platform for interesting talks, that are available to us all, because of the internet. Some of the talks are great, others not as much.

He calls them "middle brow" which is an elitist way of saying, that they are what,...too accessible ? Let's not forget that a lot of children and other nonintellectuals are tuning in to these.

He claims they don't work. What is that supposed to mean ? If he has better more transformational approaches to addressing change, and solving huge problems, I don't see that the existence of TED gets in the way.

If they are thought provoking and informative, and sometimes plant seeds, that's enough in my opinion to consider them successful.

Criticizing TED is a little like criticizing modern education. IT's so incredibly easy to criticize and yet realistically doing better is not so easy as the arm chair critics imagine.

It might not be the greatest comparison because our education system is deeply entrenched, and TED is a relatively new, internet phenomenon. But I like the comparison to education, because as a medium of education, and as a way for some great thinkers to share their ideas or perspectives, I think it's not bad at all.

In the future I would imagine it will be possible for people to get turned on to a particular teacher or lecturer on TED, and then to enroll in free or relatively inexpensive online classes taught by the same person.

I'll add this to my comment.

MY previous comment was written after skimming the written version of his talk. I then actually listened to his talk for the 12 minutes it took.

I appreciated his point a little better, and the talk itself was good down to his interesting way of framing it and detailing it. E.g. his descriptions of communism and capitalism, in theory versus in practice.

But still ultimately, the way that I got the point so much better listening to him than skimming the written version is sort of an endorsement (at least for the middle brow internet viewer such as myself) of TED.

I still don't agree about the "black hole of affectation" or cynicism that TED represents. I think the real issue that troubles him is that we aren't addressing problems nearly well enough. I'm not sure that that's TED's fault.

Another nice internet vehicle for shared ideas that I sometimes forget about.

http://bigthink.com/

Maybe it's just infotainment too. So ? I'm not sure what that even means. BUt I would feel better about our cultural evolution if everyone was in to these videos (TED and BigTHink).

What in the hell did I do now?

When I mentioned "black hole of affectation," I wasn't talking about you.

It was a quote from that Ted talk (quoting Benjamin Bratton).

You're right, Marcus, but I've found that TED is like a lousy stew with only a few really good bits in it, versus the other way around. Mostly, I find TED heavy on packaging.

I'm probably a little more turned-off because I know a couple in Seattle -- one a biophysicist and the other...I don't actually know what the fuck he does...(damn, I just realized that! He has one of those nebulous modern day quasi careers, not unlike this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK62I-4cuSY) and to them, the idea of giving a TED talk would be the summit of either of their careers. It's a thing. A status thing...

Middle-brow = McIntellectual. Think Malcolm Gladwell.

marcus says

BUt I would feel better about our cultural evolution if everyone was in to these videos (TED and BigTHink).

But conformity forecloses on culture...

JodyChunder says

But conformity forecloses on culture...

Not in all cases. For example everyone agreeing to conform to non conformity is not a problem.

Likewise, if everyone were to conform to being curious, open minded and wanting to learn and grow, this would not lead to problems.

I also dissagree about middle brow = McIntellectual, although that may be what Bratton meant. I think it was. I personally do not see myself as an intellectual, although I have my moments. I tend to respect intellect, more than I respect those who consider themselves intellectuals. Maybe the distinction is about humility, but it's also about not getting too standardized in the way that we judge or rate the intellect of others.

I know that may sound strange coming from a teacher, because I am asked to judge students in a standardized way all the time.

TED talks are often somewhat superficial on whatever topics they discuss, but that can open the door to further study or it can at least be provocative in a way that causes people to reconsider the way they frame issues.

I should have said, conformity forecloses on *good* culture.

marcus says

Likewise, if everyone were to conform to

I see where you're going here, but I think the verb aspire would be more germane than conform. Even within such a loose framework, compliance has no place in curiosity!

One of the things that Bratton mentioned in his talk was that we are in a period of cultural deevolution. I think he may be right.

JodyChunder says

I should have said, conformity forecloses on *good* culture

I thought that this was in response to my suggesting that if everyone was trying to learn and grow and get new insights, even if their primary sources were shallow sources like Wikipedia (which "intellectuals" also like to criticize), TED talks, and BigThink vidios, that then we would not be devolving culturally.

I said it more briefly "if everyone was in to......."

I stand by my point, even if it's simplistic, to suggest that if everyone had the type of curiosity that is implied (in my opinion) when people are in to these videos, that then we would not be culturally devolving. The context of this thread is my reason for making the point in this less than optimal way, and I would add that there is enough room for varied topics and interests and points of view with these videos that it doesn't lead to conformity, accept for conformity in the ways in which people learn.

I guess if people never took their learning deeper than the sort of abstracts or executive summaries we get from the videos, that would be a problem, but that's a separate issue from my point.

Also you completely missed my point if you thought that I want everyone to comply with something, such as a rule that everyone has to be curious. That's absurd.

marcus says

Also you completely missed my point if you thought that I want everyone to comply with something, such as a rule that everyone has to be curious. That's absurd.

Well, yeah, that's kinda what I thought -- but that's what conformity is at its most fundamental: compliance; a tacit injunction to adhere to a specific schematic. So to suggest the merit of more people 'conforming' to being more 'curious and open-minded'...well, it's an awkward contradiction on its face. (I'm not being passive aggressive with the bunny quotes, I just don't feel like dicking around with HTML). Apologies if I'm still missing your point completely (or even partially). I'm sure you meant something else.

As for devolution -- you're not being totally honest, here. I think this notion is a favored opiate of the cynic. I know, because I fall prey to it, too. The most I would say is that we're losing our poetry. And maybe our goodness. But I gotta disagree that if everyone were to partake of nosepickery indulgences like TED or other McIntellect outlets, that we would somehow reverse this trend by even a spick or a speck.

JodyChunder says

But I gotta disagree that if everyone were to partake of nosepickery indulgences like TED or other McIntellect outlets, that we would somehow reverse this trend

Okay.

I think it's obviously true. But I also think it was a silly and trivial point to make. What I was saying was sort of like saying if we weren't devolving we wouldn't be devolving. Or it was like saying, if the average persons intelligence was much higher then we wouldn't be devolving.

This is beyond question.

You can label common curiosity as nosepicking, and you can also think that curiosity and a enjoying learning are unrelated to intelligence. OR if you want, you are even entitled to think that only people that have hipster or creative eclectic or renaissance ways of expressing their curiosity are more intelligent than average.

The fact is that wanting to learn new things and being curious not just about the unknown but also about other peoples point s of view (at least other reasonable, legitimate, or previously unconsidered points of view) is the hallmark of intelligence.

You can point out that being curious and enjoying learning doesn't means one must like TED videos, or BigThink videos, or videos on other such websites (even youtube - where it's just not as easy to find the high quality stuff). I would respond that if someone is curious and likes learning (even if they are old and crotchety) then they very probably would like these, at least sometimes, such as you said you do.

But I do realize that love of learning and intelligence is often attributed to liberals. Science, facts and reality are commonly looked down upon by some conservatives as being a distraction from their agendas. So I guess a hard core conservative (which I didn't think you are), would maybe disagree about our devolution being tied to ignorance or a lack of intelligence.

That's something that I wouldn't even try to argue.

marcus says

Or it was like saying, if the average persons intelligence was much higher then we wouldn't be devolving.

This is beyond question.

I like what you've got to say here. And, of course, if we go by your definition of intelligence, (which I am fine with), then no, there is simply no room for debate.

If, however, we define intelligence on a scale ranging from Jody Chunder to The-Smartest-Man-In-The-World, then I've got to disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9-cOe6AxtdE

Chris Langan is obviously intelligent, in my estimation; but I think if the world were more full of Chris Langans...well, I'm not so sure it'd be an improvement, Marcus.

And you're right -- you can't throw the baby out the with bath water; there are some good and truly enlightening TED segments (in particular, Hanauer’s Rich People Aren’t Job Creators), but mostly, I think the ratio of bathwater to baby is quite high.

JodyChunder says

Chris Langan is obviously intelligent, in my estimation; but I think if the world were more full of Chris Langans...well, I'm not so sure it'd be an improvement, Marcus.

Yeah, I'm not all that impressed with that guy. Too much of a know it all and very much in his own little world hung up too much on his way of framing everything. Maybe dealing with narcissistic personality disorder. We've all known people like that, especially in their adolescence.

Found another video about him, where he tells his life story. I don't believe it all. He's a bullshitter, but yeah he's smart. Likely not nearly as smart as he claims.

He says something about "IQ" not being PC. IT's not that it's PC or not. It's also that it's a not a particularly meaningful metric when there are so many different kinds of intelligence. Are the greatest artists who may have had only above average IQs not geniuses ?

The very fact that the guy portrays himself as being smarter or as smart as the greatest minds of the past 500 years is pretty much proof that he's not. Anyone that was nearly that smart would have nothing to prove, and probably wouldn't even see themselves as smarter than or on a par with Einstein or Newton. They wouldn't care about their all time rank and would be totally uninterested in the comparisons or in being known as the smartest person alive.

marcus says

Are the greatest artists who may have had only above average IQs not geniuses ?

I agree. They transcend that unit of measure. There's something, dare I say it, Godlike, in the creative types. My life wouldn't have been even a third as good without the fruits of artists and inventors.

I think Chris is a subject all his own, and an interesting one to study. He really feels the onus is on himself and others like him to change the world in a way that he perceives as positive -- to stem the devolution, if you will; but he feels outnumbered and stymied by the dunces. We've all felt some variant of this, I think, but it's interesting to see it on such a grandiose scale. I've had mixed feelings about his perception of things since I first watched that Errol Morris feature in '99. The whole segment is worth watching, if nothing else but for some very chewy food for thought.