"TED, with its airy promises, sounds a lot like a secular religion ... The TED style, with its promise of progress, is as manipulative as the orthodoxies it is intended to upset."
Many (though not all!) TED presentations showcase individuals who think highly of themselves explaining in digestible soundbites how they're going to make the world a better place, in front of live audiences who have a high opinion of themselves, for video distribution to online audiences who want to think highly of themselves.
It may not be a religion, but TED definitely has a cult-ish feel to it.
If, on appropriate occasions, the members tell, enjoy,
trade, and/or devise transgressively funny jokes about
their denomination, it’s a church.
If such jokes reliably meet with stifling social
disapproval, it’s a cult.
This works for TED as well. I find some TED talks to be really useful. Others not so much. Just like every other group gathering whether it be a conference, educational institution, club, or whatever.
Can't you frame every social organization in this kind of light? Stuff that people spend their lives on - they make it sound simple so other people understand it - this forms a 'social group dynamic' through the action of communication or information transfer. If other people understand it, then they participate and contribute to the growth of 'stuff'.
> Can't you frame every social organization in this kind of light?
This reminds me of the comment I recall from 'patio11's podcast, someone was talking about how their sales pitch uses a lot of spam-associated techniques like suggestive rhetorical questions ("Are you happy with...", etc.), and was asked (in order to give structure to the guest's pitch) something to the effect of, "What separates you from the spammers?" and his answer was, essentially, nothing except I deliver the goods.
I think in general this is the only sane answer to this style of question. Can't you frame every organization as a cult? Probably, if you word it carefully. Not the right question on either end, really.
Does TED deliver the goods... I don't think so. If these people truly have deep knowledge of their fields, <20 minutes is not long enough to really communicate that in general, and from the talks I've seen, while engaging and enjoyable, are not really informative. On a higher level, it's 2015 -- if I really want to change someone's brain so that it _gets_ my field, there will be e.g. interactive elements, which are largely missing from TED talks.
There's no shortcuts in science and knowledge. TED is in the business of presenting shortcuts.
TED seemed interesting from a lightning-talk perspective, but it's clear the goal isn't to whet your appetite, the goal is to deliver the promise of enlightenment before dinner time.
I can not understand or empathize with the intent of 'promising enlightenment'.
Do you think that if 'a given organization' figures out a way to actually offer enlightenment, or the illusion of, and people pay for this, that it is guaranteed successful?
I guess I see social organizations as 'structures that produce things because they are the things that are the easiest or most likely to structure/build'. I do not see this as any different than what the rest of humanity does. It's just a being in that place at that time and doing what humans naturally seem to do to survive, sort of thing.
There's a lot of emotions and hype that conflate the actual mechanics of social production. But most of those labels are ephemeral, some get discarded and others remain. That's just life in general though, I suppose.
I suppose the question I would ask is "why has humanity in general created and supported such cultural machines that prosper from the continual promise of enlightenment?"
Churches are a lot of things. Like most institutions, they have some strengths and failure modes. There are some of both which are arguably peculiar or more common to religious/mythical/magical approaches, but a lot of them come from the general humanity rather than the religion.
> It may not be a religion, but TED definitely has a cult-ish feel to it.
I think the best way to describe it is as having elements of a religion, as Bob Jesse would say. It is worth keeping in mind though that the NYT is competing for the same sponsorship dollars as TED, and has most of the same issues. E.g. I'm sure we all know people who don't believe anything is true unless it makes the print edition.
>TED presentations showcase individuals who think highly of themselves explaining in digestible soundbites how they're going to make the world a better place
You haven't articulated how any of this is bad. Somehow "arrogance" is all that needs to be said against someone to be considered a substantive critique.
The implication is that these people's opinions of themselves are unwarranted by their actual accomplishments. It should be an easy test: how many TED speakers have followed through and implemented their ideas?
This is an incorrect rubric to judge the quality of these talks. The implication of your statement is that there is no value in speaking on current research or ideas until some point where the technique has been realized. But this misses the importance of spreading ideas for their own sake, to get people thinking about and excited about the future that technology can bring us.
TED seems to be a "futurology" organization in that it offers a glimpse into a future made possible by technology. They make no apologies for offering a positive outlook on the direction technology and society is moving, and I'm perfectly fine with that. There is a counter-movement to ramp down on positivity as if somehow we are better served by a sober analysis, and that anything more is naive or religious dogma in disguise. This not the case.
I'm not implying anything - just explaining why "arrogance" is considered a negative. Someone is not called "arrogant" if they have actually delivered on what they claimed. Usually, it's applied to people who brag without anything to show for it.
I would disagree with the claim that successful people aren't called arrogant, and that its only applies to people who "brag without anything to show for it". I've seen many instances that contradict these points. There is something more going on beneath the surface here. My guess is that there is a psychological need to tear down those out there busting their ass to accomplish their vision. It's just disappointing to see that coming from this group.
I am learning public speaking, now that school is all over.
It turns out that my first speeches weren't very good. I didn't understand that writing and speaking are different. When it clicked, I wrote: "I have deciphered the master key to public speaking: use Vanity (idolz) or Pride (topic translatable to lowest common denominator), but not Envy (my endeavors)."
So in my opinion, TED by nature of being oral presentations would skew away from the dry wit, and piercing insight of writing.
Honestly... you haven't learned public speaking. Watch any widely-acclaimed comedian and tell me there's any lack of dry wit and piercing insight. Those routines are speeches. Pick one that you like and dissect it to see how it works.
There's two giant components to public speaking: (1) not freezing up and (2) successfully communicating what you want to communicate. Well, really, those are the two components to any form of communication. For most people, this is circular: they freeze up because they don't think they can communicate, and they can't communicate because they freeze up: so learning public speaking is a matter of breaking that cycle on either end.
Your speeches are good if you got your message across. Sometimes that requires getting a laugh. Sometimes that requires a plot twist to make them reconsider. Sometimes that only requires reciting the facts without embellishment. It depends on your audience and your relation to them. A "master key" that doesn't recognize that you can't give the same speech to a group of 5 year olds that you gave to a group of Nobel laureates is useless.
When you get more experienced at speaking, you can get back to dry wit and piercing insight. It is difficult, but I find TED to be very bland compared to the talks I'm used to watching.
I'm in the PL community, so talks by people like Gilad Bracha, Richard Gabriel, Guy Steele, Dave Thomas (the OTI founder), Christina Lopes, Simon Peyton Jones are really good. I saw a Bret Victor talk that wasn't really bad either, with lots of wit, though he seems to be a bit more subdued than I'm used to (which is fine, it is important to stay real to yourself as a speaker). I'm sure I'm missing many people in the list of good speakers.
Also, James Mickens in the systems community (and also a colleague at MSR) is really good. He tends to go off the wall a bit more, but that is just part of his rhythm.
The point of TED talks isn't that they're supposed to have a stand-up comedian's level of presentation skill. It's about captains of industry talking about their slice of the world.
TEDx has completely destroyed everything I thought of TED. I used to think of TED as a place of science where things are well vetted but TEDx has thrown everything away that they have built up in credibility, in my opinion.
Very true, but I think their brand has also been hurt by the vacuous nature some of the presentations have (for example the one Amanda Palmer gave regarding crowdfunding).
You talk about TEDx like if it is a single entity, but it is actually thousands of individuals making independent decisions, with minimal oversight from TED. So of course there are going to be a few mistakes and if anything we should respect TED for opening up their brand and allowing experimentation.
The whole point is staying alert to see these mistakes, whether they come from TEDx organizers or from TED itself because nobody is right 100% of the time.
Combining your brand name with minimal oversight is a poor choice. TEDx has a very strong signalling mechanism to me, which is "I couldn't get my ideas accepted anywhere else, but I think they are important enough for TED".
For most things, opening up is noble. But not for a brand -- can you imagine Apple allowing other companies to use their brand for experimentation? Or Coca-Cola?
Those brands are for-profit and opening up may indeed not make sense financially.
TED is a non-profit, and their goal is to build an efficient platform for sharing ideas (and not only theirs). In this regard, opening up makes total sense, even if brand damage is a risk. (hence the respect)
But if the Billion+ people in China believe in their system, then it is important for us to hear their perspective.
Its like all those damn libertarians. I hate their perspective, but damn it, I'm gonna listen to them. Libertarians are central to the changing Republican Party (especially in younger Republicans), so I must understand their viewpoint moving forward.
I may disagree, but its important enough that I need to listen.
The problem is, a libertarian will tell you their ideology because they believe in it. A CPC member knows the situation is bunk and is just in it for the guanxi; they don't even want a debate. They aren't believers, just opportunists.
I just saw the talk. Eric X. Li seems to believe in the CPC pretty strongly.
Here's a universal truth. Outside of sociopaths, a person must believe in his work in order to excel in his (or her) job.
Eric X. Li was a Legislative Councilmember in Hong Kong... a rather finely run district (probably one of the best run districts) in that country. And based on the talk, it sounds like he believed in himself, in the system of his culture, and believed in his work most of all.
It is alien, and definitely wrong to our perspective. But do remember, he lived this stuff for nearly 10 years of his life. He is one of the few English speakers I have ever seen describe the Chinese political system to me.
To call him just an "opportunist" is an insult to his work, and his bravery. He came to America to stand up in front of a crowd and then bash Democracy. And he wasn't ignorant to our culture either. So I'd have to give him an A+ on public speaking for sure.
I have lived in the PRC for 7 and a half years, all the officials I've met during that time are quite cynical about the whole system. Also, communism is an ideal that doesn't really exist within the PRC itself, it just sounds sexier than authoritarian aristocratic oligarchy.
Locally, I can't even debate the pros and cons of the system here; there are no true believers to be found. But we hear stories about outsiders who buy the propaganda and are quite disappointed about the realities.
But most Chinese I talk to seem to have your opinion. Li's opinion was interesting _because_ it deviated from the norm. :-)
While you may be cynical about the system, I personally have been waiting to hear the perspective from someone who actually does believe in it. I've never heard this train of argument before.
You won't meet such a person easily in real life, who isn't cynical about the "chinese dream" or "harmonious society" or the "three represents." I'm not unique in this at all.
Li is like Kaifu or any of the other VCs and/or tech leaders here: they have to be optimistic about China, their entire lively hood depends on it. A company cannot succeed in China without a very good relationship with the government.
>But if the Billion+ people in China believe in their system, then it is important for us to hear their perspective.
I don't believe for 1 second that 1E+9 people in China believe in their system. In any case it's not an assumption to throw around lightly much less take it for granted.
>a wide variety of nutters and pseudoscientists that have wrecked their brand
For those who aren't aware of this plague of bad quality TEDx talks, Sam Hyde's "2070 Paradigm Shift"[0] is a very entertaining, self-conscious deconstruction of such poor TEDx talks.
As much of cult as The Learning Annex, which is not much at all. I don't really accept the religious framing, preferring more to see TED as a curated series and TEDx much, much less so. Not without failings on the TED side, natch.
(Forgive the gizmodo link, but onion is blocked in China)
I think TED has to do with what I observe happens to corporate, startup, and ya, religious cultures that tend to take themselves a bit too seriously and live in an echo chamber too long.
I would totally pay for inspiring tech talks with sarcastic John Oliver style deliveries. A bit of cynicism and sarcasm goes a long way in making something seem real to me.
> This [The fact that science is a human-driven, human-invented process] is hard to explain to K-8 science teachers, who think that science is a new religion with new truths to be learned. They think it's their job to dispense these catechisms. [emphasis added]
I think viewers of TED talks are looking to be told what to believe. I'm not at all moralizing--I sometimes watch TED talks--but I do think science-as-religion (a bunch of facts or truths to be memorized or internalized) is a distortion that "opiates the people," so to speak.
I think that in science there is an inherent tension between what scientists know and what what the public knows.
Scientific knowledge is covered in asterisks. To read and understand science typically requires an extensive amount of background knowledge; without that it is very easy to misinterpret the strength, significance, or applicability of a scientific finding. Many of the asterisks are themselves scientific conclusions with their own set of asterisks.
The public, at least in areas which are not immediately relevant to daily life, cannot be assumed to have that background knowledge. Therefore, the tension is essentially this: How can scientists make people aware of (or interested in) scientific knowledge if they have to strip out all the asterisks when talking to them?
Making science into a catechism is simply one solution to the above problem. Ignore the asterisks and turn the fundamental findings of physics and chemistry into dogma and dispense it as gospel truth. I actually am somewhat o.k. with this. Sure, Joe Public might come away with an over-simplified and over-confident knowledge about what science says, but I think that a clumsy knowledge of scientific facts is better than the impression that scientific knowledge is arcane and out of reach. After all, it is highly unlikely that Joey P. will find himself in a situation where it is very important for him to really understand all the subtleties behind his k-8 scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is likely to come in handy.
The only problems with the science-as-religion solution are a potential "loss of faith" and the perception of arbitrarity with regards to scientific findings. The first can easily happen when someone learns about a new finding which contradicts the dogmatic version of science but is entirely consistent with the heavily asterisked actual scientific consensus. The second problem is basically "rejectability;" if people think that science is a set of arbitrary rules, then they are free to reject them the same way they would reject other religions.
FTA: "TED talks routinely present problems of huge scale and scope — we imprison too many people; the rain forest is dying; look at all this garbage; we’re unhappy; we have Big Data and aren’t sure what to do with it — then wrap up tidily and tinily. Do this. Stop doing that. Buy an app that will help you do this other thing."
... and at the bottom: Megan Hustad is the author of “How to Be Useful” .... From it's blurb: "There's a lot of career advice out there. Much of it dumb. But what if someone read all the advice books -- over a hundred years' worth -- and put all the good ideas in one place? Could you finally escape the cube? Stop mailing things? Be happier?"
I dunno, but Ms Hustad is doing exactly what the TED talks she derides are doing. Maybe she's upset because she has never been invited to talk at TED?
I have never looked at TED talks as a solution to anything; to me, they're just interesting people talking about what they do.
>>they're just interesting people talking about what they do.
I thought this, but then there were a few TED talks on fields that touch my work. I was furious that TED would provide a venue for charlatans. In some ways the people who promise the most, and whose can be boiled down to sound bites are rarely the folks who do the interesting work.
Had the exact same experience. I had assumed TED talks provided easily digested summaries of various scientific, economic, social, etc. fields. Until I saw a talk about my current field of work. Charlatan is too kind a description - as it suggests some sort of cynical intelligence behind the act; the speaker was simply an idiotic clown. He hadn't a clue - yet the audience treated his completely mistaken analogies as profundities. That was the end of TED for me.
Honestly curious here, could you mention which TED talk in particular and what you found to be inaccurate or misrepresented?
I just want to get a feeling for what level of distortion we are talking about. As it is, I assume the talks are hardly accurate by specialist standards, but I have no idea if we are talking "science news in mainstream news (say, BBC) publication" distorted or "Reddit conspiracy theory" distorted.
Its `science news in mainstream news`, although `mainstream` news can occasionally be stimulating as it often comes directly from university press releases. Remember that TED sells itself as `ideas worth spreading` rather than `shit worth smearing`.
Simply brilliant. I understand some of the criticism of TED but I've seen stuff - like this clip - that is so damn good, I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
Hey... wait a minute... something seems oddly off about that Ted Talk. I mean it's really deep and my life was irreversibly changed afterwards, sure, but something seemed off about that particular Ted Talk you linked.
Eddie Huang had an interview with Joe Rogan where he talked about the behind the scenes weirdness and cultish feeling he felt as a speaker when he tried to leave.
I have a lot of the same feelings about TED. The presenters come across as arrogant and usually misrepresent their project as ready to work, when in fact all they have is one dubious artifact.
"Oil Companies hate her: One TED presenter's idea will eliminate the world's oil usage."
I swear "arrogant" is the catch-all term to use to describe smart people you don't like. It's lost all meaning and so I find it hard to take any critique seriously where arrogance is central to its thesis.
>having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
Until they actually deliver, I'd say it holds true for most people. Myself included.
However, to achieve anything in life, you kind of have to be arrogant IMO. Because to believe in yourself without any tangible proof of your beliefs, is on its face arrogance (IMO).
I think self belief/confidence can be misconstrued as arrogance, but we're really splitting hairs IMO. It's mostly the delivery of said belief that we judge people on. And judging is pointless as well.
Some of us need to pump ourselves up in a world full of people that work to achieve little on their own to keep motivation going.
>However, to achieve anything in life, you kind of have to be arrogant IMO. Because to believe in yourself without any tangible proof of your beliefs, is on its face arrogance (IMO).
I completely agree with this, which is exactly why I find arrogance as the go-to criticism for smart people out there doing stuff to be extremely odd, and rather telling about the speaker.
I remember a similar theme way back in the 70's being used in the rear pages of auto magazines to sell some secret additive to getting high mileage in your car.
In a similar way, if something was a great idea, and could improve mileage, the oil companies with their power would kill it. (Or the entrepreneur had different variations). Or that they were in cahoots with the auto makers. Haven't researched it but wouldn't be surprised if history showed this existed literally back to when cars first appeared.
> if something was a great idea, and could improve mileage, the oil companies with their power would kill it.
This is incorrect by inspection. As my father (Air Force) told me, if there was an invention that substantially improved mileage, the military would be all over it. They would not let anyone stand in their way.
(Fuel consumption is a severe limiting factor in military machines.)
My office is about a 3 minute drive from where I live. The biggest improvement isn't the gas cost it's the fact that I pickup an immediate 1.5 to 2 hours a day in time from not having to commute!)
I am surprised at the cost and the graduate-job-interview style questions just to attend a satellite event like TEDx Sydney.
I applied and was rejected. I am not interesting enough for them I guess, maybe I will apply again once I have been to the moon. So freshly discontented, I am more inclined to agree Ted is a religion, cult etc. :=)
I do find the talks unsatisfying. The first 3-4 I watched were great (but I can't even remember what they are about) then they are same-ish after that. (My reason to attend was meeting people rather than the talks.)
There is a lot of style over substance in TED talks. I rather have an OK public speaker speaking about something very interesting to me than vice versa.
The one purported benefit of TED talks is democratizing knowledge and inspiring people. The latter, possibly it does. Some claim its benefit as giving access to knowledge for people without direct access to universities, etc. The former, TED talks fail at, spectacularly and dangerously. In the era of MOOCs, for someone without direct access to good learning resources, or for people who cannot learn stuff from books, TED talks are a dangerous distraction. I tend to some times view more 'academic' TED talks- like the U Penn professor on swarm robots, or the MIT prof's talk on childhood development. These talks are cripplingly inadequate for anyone serious about learning stuff. They present very little, if any discussion of existing literature or about other researchers work. TED talks are the antithesis of 'standing on the shoulder of giants'. Most academic TED talk speakers tend to present themselves as the lone giant in their field of expertise, and their work as being the final truth in their field.
TED talks are not edging out legitimate academic coursework. The dichotomy you speak of doesn't exist. There is a market and a need for talks that don't attempt to be rigorous in any sense, but are simply to show what is possible and what is coming. Why do many of you people seem to be against this? These critiques look more like territory-marking than anything substantive.
You're probably right, although I'm thinking that there must be more efficient ways of networking. I was considering going to Google I/O this year for the networking, but have decided that it's probably not worth the $3k it would cost me.
Perhaps someone needs to come up with a social networking tool for people like HN readers.
Many (though not all!) TED presentations showcase individuals who think highly of themselves explaining in digestible soundbites how they're going to make the world a better place, in front of live audiences who have a high opinion of themselves, for video distribution to online audiences who want to think highly of themselves.
It may not be a religion, but TED definitely has a cult-ish feel to it.