8 ms·

"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

by cs702 12y ago

"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.

cheatsheet 12y ago
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'.
- hawkice 12y ago
  > 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.
  - batbomb 12y ago
    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.
    - cheatsheet 12y ago
      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?"
- wwweston 12y ago
  Yes. 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.
nailer 12y ago
Also TEDx has happily adopted a wide variety of nutters and pseudoscientists that have wrecked their brand.
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  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.
  - jeo1234 12y ago
    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).
- le_lenny_face 12y ago
  >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. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0
- 2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
  Even TED was not immune to that. See the aquatic apes talk.
- lingben 12y ago
  TED ruined their brand with Eric X. Li's talk.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    I haven't seen the talk. 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.
sheensleeves 12y ago
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.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  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.
  - dwiel 12y ago
    And which talks are those?
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      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.
      - mvkel 12y ago
        You think this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPpYseUZck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPpYseUZck is more exciting than a TED talk? I guess it's subjective... 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.
Alex3917 12y ago
> 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.
hackinthebochs 12y ago
>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.
- gaius 12y ago
  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?
  - hackinthebochs 12y ago
    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.
    - gaius 12y ago
      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.
      - hackinthebochs 12y ago
        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.
rhizome 12y ago
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.
milesf 12y ago
Heard this quip somewhere: 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. Think critically about everything.
ekianjo 12y ago
> in front of live audiences who have a high opinion of themselves Well when the principle (you can only be invited) turns it into an elitist-hipster-network in the first place.

by cs702 12y ago

cheatsheet 12y ago

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'.

hawkice 12y ago
> 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.
- batbomb 12y ago
  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.
  - cheatsheet 12y ago
    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?"
wwweston 12y ago
Yes. 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.

nailer 12y ago

Also TEDx has happily adopted a wide variety of nutters and pseudoscientists that have wrecked their brand.

BinaryIdiot 12y ago
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.
- jeo1234 12y ago
  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).
le_lenny_face 12y ago
>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. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0
2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
Even TED was not immune to that. See the aquatic apes talk.
lingben 12y ago
TED ruined their brand with Eric X. Li's talk.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  I haven't seen the talk. 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.

sheensleeves 12y ago

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.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
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.
- dwiel 12y ago
  And which talks are those?
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    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.
    - mvkel 12y ago
      You think this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPpYseUZck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPpYseUZck is more exciting than a TED talk? I guess it's subjective... 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.

Alex3917 12y ago

> 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.

hackinthebochs 12y ago

>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.

gaius 12y ago
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?
- hackinthebochs 12y ago
  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.
  - gaius 12y ago
    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.
    - hackinthebochs 12y ago
      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.

rhizome 12y ago

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.

milesf 12y ago

Heard this quip somewhere: 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. Think critically about everything.

ekianjo 12y ago

> in front of live audiences who have a high opinion of themselves Well when the principle (you can only be invited) turns it into an elitist-hipster-network in the first place.