3 ms·

>>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 t

>>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.

larrys 12y ago
Agree. Talking a good game and doing are two different things. (That doesn't mean however that it's not possible to do both). People for sure go for pithy sound bites and easily digestible (with no way to verify) information thrown at them. Typically with little skepticism. Plus, there is a bit of the claque (esq.) effect in play I'm sure when you are in the audience. [1] [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/119756/claque http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/119756/claque
derriz 12y ago
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.
Panoramix 12y ago
Were they not TEDx talks? you can virtually pick up anybody from the street to do one of those.
lazaroclapp 12y ago
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.
- frozenport 12y ago
  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`.

larrys 12y ago

Agree. Talking a good game and doing are two different things. (That doesn't mean however that it's not possible to do both). People for sure go for pithy sound bites and easily digestible (with no way to verify) information thrown at them. Typically with little skepticism. Plus, there is a bit of the claque (esq.) effect in play I'm sure when you are in the audience. [1] [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/119756/claque http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/119756/claque

derriz 12y ago

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.

Panoramix 12y ago

Were they not TEDx talks? you can virtually pick up anybody from the street to do one of those.

lazaroclapp 12y ago

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.

frozenport 12y ago
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`.