TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

[Illuminate]

I never really got into TED, even though the road show came here to Sydney nothing really got me very captivated to go see it. I don't know if there are any fans on this forum, but have always pondered what do you get out of a talk?

As Benjamin Bratton's article puts it;

TED of course stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and I'll talk a bit about all three. I Think TED actually stands for: middlebrow megachurch infotainment. The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an "epiphimony" if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
I'm sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience's time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.

Also, it just doesn't work.

His sole and recumbent argument is:

In our culture, talking about the future is sometimes a polite way of saying things about the present that would otherwise be rude or risky.
But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?

And... a good point on:

Perhaps the pinnacle of placebo politics and innovation was featured at TEDx San Diego in 2011. You're familiar I assume with Kony2012, the social media campaign to stop war crimes in central Africa? So what happened here? Evangelical surfer bro goes to help kids in Africa. He makes a campy video explaining genocide to the cast of Glee. The world finds his public epiphany to be shallow to the point of self-delusion. The complex geopolitics of central Africa are left undisturbed. Kony's still there. The end.You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. If you are not cynical you should be sceptical. You should be as sceptical of placebo politics as you are placebo medicine.

Well you get the idea, read the whole article and what do you make of it?

We need to talk about TED | Benjamin Bratton | Comment is free | theguardian.com

He does break out the overall definition of the acronym of TED which, I have always wanted to know. Pretty clever read,

[floridaorange]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

I just take it as a discussion of ideas, or in many cases a performance. I'm not sure I follow the above argument at all. There are plenty of boring Ted talks but also some good ones. Especially if the speaker is far more educated on the given topic than I. Some of the Ted talks are philosophical and interesting and can also spawn new ideas and inspiration. What exactly is the harm? Dont like? Don't watch.

[Illuminate]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

I don't have a problem with TED, but I am little cynical on the message it delivers that's all. I cannot really comment as I have only seen the snippets of talks, but I just hope TED is not destroying the means of research and a multiple digression of views and insights, rather than a single point of view.

TED does sell itself as a everything is ok, and more of a cynical view of show and tell. My only concern is people only viewing this as the only form of information.

Plus, I just thought it was a pretty clever and spiteful article.

[floridaorange]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

I've seen loads of them. They are just speakers giving info . But there are plenty of shitty ones.

[feather]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

TED run the risks of diluting its mission or ideas with TEDx. I've read incidents where, because TEDx is kinda like a franchise, quality or standards weren't upheld. So you get the good and the bad, no big deal—this goes the same with journalism, entertainment, anything—if the person watching a TED talk had half a brain (presumably since that's the crowd TED targets) and is discerning in anyway, it's easy to sift through the good and bad. Just look at the synopsis and glance through the transcript.

Now this Bratton dude, he sounds like an academic douche. The entire article is a rant with no proffered alternative.

Does he lump Alain de Botton with the pop philosophers he seems to be deriding?

I was at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I'm a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, "you know what, I'm gonna pass because I just don't feel inspired ...you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell."


At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine?

Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights!

First sign of whambulance.

Without knowing what the presentation was, he might not be an astrophysicist but as an academic, he could well be used to the convoluted language academics use in their ridiculous journals.

I submit that astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.

He goes on to make a stretch suggesting TED is like American Idol? And Malcolm Gladwell, maybe de Botton too, are what, participants? Judges?

Sounds like bruised ego and some self-righteous ranting couched as his 'professional' opinion.

What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?

I'm sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience's time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.

Also, it just doesn't work.

Err wha? Is this academic speak suggesting, leave it to us experts to ponder and solve these challenges because TED is really just infotainment?

I don't believe TED ever claimed to solve these things. Their tagline as I remember is simply 'Ideas worth spreading.' Is that a bad thing? If any of us watched a TED video and learnt something new, is that bad? As opposed to TED not existing and us never learning anything? Is it a bad thing if I learn something from watching Nat Geo or a documentary, vs never watching and never learning anything?

And as an academic, he should know the difference between the passive ingestion of information vs its more active, critical counterpart. He seems to discount the viewer's participation and intelligence when viewing TED, throwing TED under his whambulance.

He goes on to rant about Technology, Economics, and Design. The only insight I found fascination was

Because, if a problem is in fact endemic to a system, then the exponential effects of Moore's law also serve to amplify what's broken.

But that is an insight into technology and us. His entire rant on Technology was about technology, not TED. Is he suggesting his rant as a theme for TED topics?

Same with his rant on Economics. Don't have an issue with the substance of it, but how does that translate into anything actionable, or applicable to TED? Is he suggesting 'TED explores: Another economic architecture is prerequisite.'

Again with his rant on Design.

We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.

Okaaay ... so does he have issues with Design at large, with 'our designers prototyping the same "change agent for good" projects over and over again,' or does he, have an issue with TED?

The rest of his conclusion just sounds like a bunch of academia obfuscation, stringing up a bunch of ideas and philosophies into what? It's like hanging out in a gallery and listening to people wax on in post-modern speak, and I'm left wondering as I leave, WTF did I just hear?

For an academic, he displayed an amazing lack of focus and ability to convey his intent, with no takeaway that can be actioned on if TED was to take up his feedback.

Which then makes me wonder about his original complaint that sparked off his rant, and the sponsor's feedback to his friend. Birds of a feather?

[Illuminate]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

I would agree to a degree that his writing is a little obfuscated, but this could be typical of intellects posing to be journalists. It was funny yet crude which, made it more interesting.

[feather]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

Which really proved the point he seems to be ranting about. Simplify that shit.

[feather]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

TED isn't a recipe for 'civilisational disaster' | Chris Anderson | Comment is free | theguardian.com

[simonr]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

I though you meant this

[Illuminate]

Re: TED Talks - An article on why it doesn't really do much...

So that's where they got that name from.

Yeah not a bad rebuttal.