"More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins." I love that line. He pretty much summed up my feelings about TED, though more eloquently than I ever could. TED was interesting at first, but has turned into a platform for ideas that are about as shallow as the books in the self-help aisle of your local bookstore.
One of the best? You think so? I thought it a bit silly. The guy (like we all do sometimes) wanted to stand on his soapbox and feel a little indignant and superior---Behold TED! The great scourge. Behold! The beast, she has come! Take cover from the Reader's Digest condensed version of real science and technology and economics. Did Disney's Epcot ruin the 1980's or the future? Epcot is the most "toe-dip-in-the-waters-of-tech for the public at large" I can think of---much more so than TED. Public relations vehicles like TED have been around for centuries. So what? Have they held us back? Nah. Not any more than religion or materialism or (insert your favorite soapbox platform here). And make no mistake, TED is a public relations vehicle for science, technology, new ideas, etc ... Case in point, this speaker himself uses it for -- ta da! -- public relations. This speaker reduced some concepts like "systems" and egalitarianism to pablum (which I thought he was against) and padded his lecture with them. I liked the Tony Robbins line and Malcolm Gladwell story, but this speaker comes off like the dad in Dirty Dancing. Using the example of Kony2012, he's misinterpreting the significance of TED in the system and attempting to lead us to do the same. There are plenty of avenues for those inclined to hold deeper conversations about their passions and lifes' work. Unlike Chris Christie on the George Washington Bridge, TED does not plug them up.
Truthen Tolden He is scathing in his criticism, sure, but also acknowledges that TED has good things to offer too. I think TED (and TED(x) should be able to be looked at with a critical eye, and I think Benjamin Bratton was spot on with many of his points. People pay a lot of money to attend / support TED, and deserve a lot of value from the non-profit. Many presenters don't do it, but perhaps they could refer people to URLs etc. to more detailed items that they cover during their talks, and add value to what they are saying during their brief lectures. Often TED just comes across for many as an ego-boosting opportunity of narcissistic proportions, and does deliver the Reader's Digest version of science to many, which you could pick up in 5 minutes watching a PBS special or similar. This is where TED falls down a bit. You can attend a Maker-space for example, or a private user/interest-group, and get very similar talks for free. That has been happening since forever. TED needs to refine the quality of the presentations a bit, and add value, I think that is all that he is asking for here. Most of all, TED should not be above critical discussion, and acknowleged for what it does and does not deliver to a mass-audience.
Oversimplifaction seems to be huge trend right now. What he says is not only applicable to TED talks and science, but also to media, politics and everyday discussion, especially to internet discussion. *'This is not how we confront our most frightening problems, this is one of our most frightening problems'* Thank you so much Benjamin! Even though it's just a TED talk, and it didn't offer any deep insights into complex scientific studies, it is a huge inspiration to remain doubtful, considerate and hard working, to utilize all accumulated knowledge and full intellectual capacity, and not fall into the trap of mental laziness and half baked nonsolutions.
Not only do I agree with everything this man said, I'll say what obviously he couldn't in a TED talk: That virtually every TED speaker is a selfish pretentious, self promoting agendist. I understand the principals upon which TED were established, but these were hijacked very quickly. And what we're now left with is self pontificating and intellectual excrement.
That was one of the best TED videos I have ever seen. Easily in the Top 10. Certain irony in that I recognize. Ted is at best as starting point, but it has been turned into a series of lullabys for the idealistic technorati.
Best Ted talk ever. Thank you Mr Bratton, you managed to highlight what has smelt rotten for many. Well-articulated and smart with a number of essential points.
Before I even start watching this video, 2 things that just jumped to mind 1. We are at the peak of postmodernism. Therefore this talk is long overdue 2. In the information age, nothing is no longer black or white as it intends itself to be. This video will grey out TED talks. Can't wait to see if this video will nail what I think it seeks to tell.
Not only did it nail exactly what I speculate that every keen fan of TED talks has long feared, but the speaker went on and emphatically showed that TEDTalks is on the declining part of its intelligent/sensational bell curve continuum - "megachurch" as he puts it. I hate that he is right.
I've been hoping to see a proper meditation on the central fallacy of the TED Talks for quite a long time now and I'm glad I finally came across this. He's so right: the TED "model" is essentially to passively deify the idea of technology as representing the magic silver bullet solution to the world's problems while remaining embarrassingly ignorant of human economics and culture. There are many complex phenomena that determine the course of human history (most of which are not strictly technological) and we really tend to show off our collective naiveté when we buy into TED's central fallacy - ie: "More gizmos from the Enlightened West = a better world for everyone". Ridiculous! Technology is great, but it only represents one of many tools that can be used to shape the future and solve social problems. But, TED talks tend to discourage that kind of modest-scale multi-factorial analysis. Instead, they often encourage the mindset that technologies are solutions, in and of themselves, rather than tools used along the way to developing solutions. This was a great narrative-busting talk, all around.
''if you pause and think about what he's saying, you'll realize he's spewing a lot of gibberish''' ---------------------------------- It's not gibberish. Maybe it's hard to follow some references he's throwing at you, but his talk makes a lot of sense. I don't know if I can simplify and convey it, but according to him (maybe I'm wrong or he's wrong) TED or society in general, believe that some guys coming up with ideas can just change the world. For example, a guy travels to India, sees the shit on streets and decides that people need to be set up with portable toilets and Indian sanitation problem (at least this aspect of it) will be solved. But then it turns out that this doesn't work, because Indian culture says that it's not right to sh** indoors on such a toilet, and when you're outdoors, nobody uses the toilets because they can just sh** on the street. It's not that they're dumb people, but their view of the world is different. And that's much harder to change than just give them some tech solution. The same with drones and automated manufacturing and new technologies... People think that actually IN CAPITALISM AT ITS CURRENT FORM we'll be better off with all that, but we won't be. They'll either 1) make us lazy and complacent 2) kick us out of our jobs. We need to tear down the old system, at least question it more, and I also don't know the magic formula, but whatever we have now will not help us to correctly distribute the benefits of information age to everyone. He said it correctly- when people on TED talks talk about something they have invented, they usually just brush past any cultural, politic, economic, social etc. implications of it. They just say ''well, it can be used both in good and bad way, but I'm sure we'll all be ok, because this gives us XYZ etc. benefits''. People hype Google Glass, only to realize that people still want their privacy badly and can even beat you up because you have a camera face. People invent Bitcoin and say ''oh this will change the world'', only to stumble with hacks, thefts and government regulation.... All the ideas and hard work won't help you, if society is not on the same page with you. We co-opt technologies, we don't disclose their and also our potential. For example, why the f*** a person living in India cannot access the same Netflix Americans can? Cause society, regulations, distribution of rights- it's not a technological problem. It's our problem as society. With lots of things, the problem is not our lacking of technology, the problem is culture, politics etc. Why Mexico and India are poorer than USA? And do you think that if we teach them code or farm, they'll be better off. Hell no! Why? Because centuries of fucked up political and cultural shit, that's why. There needs to be a cultural shift. If culturally people of those places changed overnight, they wouldn't need any aid or help from outside, the same for Africa. Transplant any working part of democratic participatory society in poorest corner of Africa, and if it will not thrive, it will at least be the most developed corner in the continent. Not because racism, but because these people will have completely different cultural and political background. I mean, look at Israel and its neighbours. It's not that Arabs are worthless people and Jews are just that good. It's also not a religion thing. It's political thing. Fu** up any Western country's political systems enough (increase corruption a few times, destroy trust to justice system, private property rights and free competition) and they'll be right where most of Africa is. No drilling of wells can help the big picture, if a local villager who sets up his own business is shut down and bankrupted because some president's right wing man is his competition... Sure it happens in West too, but these are exceptional cases, not everyday realities. The essence of the long rant is just that THINGS... ARE... COMPLICATED.
His rant is idiotic. TED's mission statement says nothing about changing the world. It's about sharing ideas. There are many people who believe ideas on their own can change the world, but that is not TED's fault. Those people would believe that regardless of TED's existence. There are also many people who understand that real change requires lots of hard work. Those people still like to hear experts share their ideas. Mr. Bratton heard someone tell an astrophysicist to be more like Malcom Gladwell, and instead of concluding that that man was an asshole, he blames TED (and then insults Malcom Gladwell for seemingly no reason). Mr. Bratton is an asshole.
Abe Dillon his argument is to simply point out how we blindly accept whatever hyped up innovation is going to change the world for the better and glossing over the actual implications of said innovation. i recall one ted talk of the implementation of a microphone that could record vibrations picked up visually by a cam, the speaker just jokingly glossed over the fact that it is THE espionage/survailance holy grail. ted portrays almost romanticized views of new tech and how it will change our world for the better.
Abe Dillon "We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world." Straight from their mission statement. www.ted.com/about/our-organization He raises an interesting perspective on TED talks, and just because it threatens to take them off the pedestal you seem to place them on does not make it "idiotic." That is a logical fallacy and is a classic response from people who don't know how to logically address an argument. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't worth contemplating. If you are always agreeing with the information you hear, you are severely limiting your exposure to new information and capacity for understanding.
Fine, yes. It's in their mission statement that ideas have the power to change the world. You got me. I don't hold TED on a pedestal, however, don't put words in my mouth. I called this talk out as being an idiotic and assholish rant not because I wish to defend TED but because the rant is idiotic and the ranter is an asshole. Apparently very few people can see the fallacies that saturate this talk, so allow me to enumerate them: "Have you ever wondered why so little of the bright futures promised in TED talks actually come true?" No. I haven't. You know why? Because I know that discussing ideas about how to change the world is very different to actually changing the world. I know that actually changing the world is a very difficult thing to do, so many of the ideas discussed will ultimately fail. I also know that many TED talks are not about promising a bright future. Some are about music, art and entertainment (you know, the 'E' in TED). Some are about discoveries. Some are about the problems we face. I also know that many past TED talks have actually come to fruition and changed the world. "My TED talk is not about my work" That's a great lie. His talk is almost word-for-word a recitation of an article he wrote called, "Why TED is a recipe for Civilizational Disaster". This talk is no different then when Malcolm Gladwell paraphrases what his latest book is about. "The first problem is oversimplification. Now, to be clear I have nothing against the idea of interesting people who do smart things explaining their work in a way that everyone can understand" Really? That's interesting because he then goes on to recite an anecdote where some idiot demands that an astrophysicist explain his work like Malcolm Gladwell, but instead of slamming that particular individual as being one of the many idiots that inhabit this planet, he slams Malcolm Gladwell who's very job description is "explain the work of interesting people who do smart things in a way that everyone can understand". This should be the very first hint that Mr. Bratton is completely full of shit. What does he even mean by "a journalist who recycles fake insights"? Are they recycled because Gladwell didn't conduct the experiments himself? How are the insights 'fake'. Let's go on. Maybe Mr. Bratton will explain why he resorts to petty name-calling hidden behind flowery language... "This is not popularization. This is taking something with substance and value and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing." That's just a flowery, cynical description of paraphrasing. Apparently Mr. Bratton thinks paraphrasing will bring about the downfall of civilization. Let's hear him explain why. "TED is a proposition. One that says, 'if we talk about world changing ideas enough then the world will change'" Wow. I thought this guy was against paraphrasing and 'oversimplification'. Apparently when it serves the purpose of building a shitty straw man, it's OK. I thought he was OK with the goal of letting experts share their ideas with the public, but now it sounds like doing so could end all of Civilization. I'm still unclear on how that works, so let's listen on. "TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. To me, TED stands for middle-brow, mega-church, infotainment." More petty name-calling wrapped in hyperbolically cynical language. "The key rhetorical device of any TED talk is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony." I can think of dozens of TED talks that don't follow this stereotype (or is it an 'oversimplification'), however, if you're going to explain an idea to people, it often helps to relate how you arrived at said idea which often reads as personal testimony leading to epiphany. So what's wrong with that? "What does the TED audience hope to get from this. A vicarious insight. A fleeting moment of wonder. A sense that it's all going to work out after all. A spiritual buzz." Here is the set-up to his main argument. A wonderful stereotype of the TED audience as a gaggle mindless dullards. Another straw man. Apparently the TED audience isn't made up of individuals with their own reasons for watching TED talks. He's enumerated all the possible reasons. I must just watch TED for the spiritual buzz it gives me. Right. What's his evidence for this so far? He once heard an idiot mention Malcolm Gladwell. "Well I'm sorry, but that's not up to the challenge of the problems that we are ostensibly here to face. Their complex and difficult and not given to tidy, just-so solutions. " OK. So the goal of 'facilitating the spread of ideas in hopes of bringing about change in the world' has now become 'solve all of the world's problems' and Mr. Bratton is upset because TED is not enough to solve all the world's problems. Is his complaint "TED is horrible because it won't fix the world"? "[the world's problems] are complex and difficult and not given to tidy, just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism." Ah, so the real problem goes back to the dummy audience who apparently is just in it for the high and doesn't realize there's more to solving problems than just talking about solutions. Stupid audience. What a bunch of dummies. "Given the stakes, having our best and brightest waste their time and the audiences time dancing about like infomercial hosts is too high a price. And it's cynical" Sharing ideas in a paraphrased manner is a huge waste of time? Apparently if I go to someone with an interesting idea and say, "do you want to share your thoughts in a concise talk." I'm actually asking them to dance about like an infomercial host. Mr. Bratton laughably uses the word 'cynical' to describe such an act while he himself apparently loves hyperbolic cynicism. "Plus it just doesn't work. [tangent about TED discouraging science-woo]. The corollary to placebo science and medicine is placebo politics and placebo innovation, and on this count TED has a ways to go. [gives Konny 2012 as an example]. You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. And if you're not cynical, you should be skeptical." This is not an example of TED not working. This is an example of why people should approach new information with skepticism, because TED, like all other forums of discussion, is not perfect. So, the real take away of the Konny 2012 anecdote is not that TED is fundamentally harmful to society, but that accepting information without critical thinking is a bad idea. That has nothing to do with TED. The only way Mr. Bratton has so far tied that lesson to TED is by building a straw man of both TED and the TED audience. "Technology: We're told that not only is change accelerating, but the pace of change is accelerating. In terms of the computational capacity, this is true. But at the same time, (and in-fact the two are related) we're at a moment of cultural deceleration. We invest our energies in futuristic information technology including our cars, yet we drive them home kitch architecture copied from the 18th century. The future on offer is one in-which everything can change as long as everything stays the same. We'll have google glass but we'll still have business casual. This timidity is not our path to the future. This is incredibly conservative and more gigaflops will not inoculate us because if a problem is endemic to the system then the exponential effects of moors law also amplify the problems. It's more computation along the wrong curve." No single person or even group of people can offer what Mr. Bratton demands of Technology-oriented TED talks. A complete vision of the future including all of the social, artistic, and technological changes in one cohesive view. Is it surprising that one person talks about the single aspect of technology that they are focused on and another talks about the work that they are doing without also talking about how 'business casual' and architecture will change. There's a reason society follows the 'timid' trajectory and it's endemic to our limitations as a species. Our inability to track every social, political, and technological implication of every possible change in trajectory. Moors law is featured in some tech-oriented TED talks, but there are plenty that don't. There are plenty that talk about changes in architecture and society that must take place. I'm bored analyzing this shitty talk. He's mad at TED for not being something it never purports to be and for his stereotype of the audience being so stereotypical.
Exceptional talk. He quickly identifies some real problems that, as a society, we are not addressing nor are we on the road to addressing. I see these problems in academia, where funding is now becoming tied to industry projects. Real knowledge creation has a time scale of years or decades, where business thinks in terms of quarters. We are losing the ability to think deeply about problems, which means that we will lose the ability to deal with any sense of complexity.
"To comprehend is not to clarify, or simplify, or reduce things to a perfectly clear logical scheme. To comprehend is to complicate, to augment in depth. It is to widen on all sides. It is to vivify." Lucien Febvre
Bratton hits hard at the status quo at 7:00 for about a minute. Overall- strongly reasoned, passionately presented and worthy of sharing. thank you, Lo. 4 stars.
Before anyone comes here talking about how "there's this TED (OK, most likely TEDx) talk where this doesn't happen", the answer is "of course, there's tens of thousands of them". The next comment is "but that's not what they use to market TED". This isn't even knocking on any particular speech, given how I very much enjoyed a recent TEDx where the most practical advice was "make people know that species conservation is economically convenient - preferably with your wallet" (paraphrasing, of course). Inspiration is a good thing, and getting these platforms for passing around nice ideas is by all means somewhat nourishing- but acting like they will magically make the world a better place is pipe dreams.
I was glad to come across this talk and think it is one worth discussing--much like many Ted Talks. There is nothing wrong about what the donor said of Malcolm Gladwell. People respond well to passion and while yes many need facts to back up potential investments, some want to know if your heart is really in it. At the end of the day the donor said no because of a lack of trust, not because he didn't sound like a best selling author. I'm not sure if TED promises anything and I agree--that's on us to do the work. If anything, they can spark the initial interest, that otherwise wouldn't have been there in the first place.
For all you intellectuals and computer intellectuals out there, Prof. Bratton's TED talk is a perfect example of satire. The problem with satire is that in an attempt to "call for change" the satirist usually ends up relying on the same techniques and methods that they are trying to dissolve. For example, Shrek is satirical of Disney movies, but as a plot device does not deviant one iota from the proven Disney formula. More specifically to Prof. Bratton's talk, he criticizes the methods of delivering information by using said method of information delivery. If he truly believed what he was saying, he would not use the platform he is asking us to take a "new perspective" on. The reality is the TED talks have changed the way we learn, communicate and grow as a species, and that is an undeniable, provable and demonstrable fact. As Proven by Benjamin Bratton, so thanks!
"more computation along the wrong curve" well said! Most of these TED talks only scratch the surface of what is going on. I've always felt it was just a bunch of talks stating very obvious things, nothing really insightful.
This talk also perpetuates the same problem he criticizes. I was hoping that he would suggest that his own catchphrase-laden talk was going to go in one ear and out the other of people listening. I found myself nodding my head a lot, like I do when I listen to a TED talk, especially to lines like, "If a problem is endemic to a system, the exponential effects of Moore's Law also amplify what's broken." But as much as I intuit that there's some truth to that, I cannot produce a book with solid evidence that technology inherently makes things worse. So thanks for the TED Talk slamming TED Talks, Prof. Bratton. You are a great speaker, but if you can produce a well-researched book backing your thoughts, I'll be the first in line.
+Philip Dhingra You yourself cannot produce a book with solid evidence that technology inherently makes things worse. Then again maybe you can. However there has not been enough ground breaking research to support this assumption. If you yourself began researching this supposed phenomenon then maybe you can or can provide a framework in which someone else can. The point of his Ted talk was to get people to act on these inspiring ideas instead of it just being inspiring. Other than that I agree with a lot of what you said.
+Philip Dhingra I'm pretty sure you can. Sure, predicting the future to the effects of "groundbreaking" technology will be hard, but looking at past technologies can help us reach a conclusion (for example, the Industrial Revolution, agriculture techniques, etc.). Then again, judging what is "better" or "worse" would be the sticky issue. Point is, there's a way.
A sobering look at the TED talks, for sure. And while, to me, this doesn't mean ignore all the TED and TED-like lectures out there but to, rather, apply this standard of reasoning and expectation to them. I find this fascinating and will be interested to see what (if anything) comes of this. Like most TED talks, this talk doesn't really promote a series of action items or steps to take or even an assessment of what steps need to be built before we can take them. But it does provide a different perspective through which we can view our problems and work on solutions.
While some talks may be very anecdotal, many do encourage that we should invest our time in the things that change the world. It is difficult to see what happens after a TED talk, but that's because those reactions happen on an individual level. People digest the ideas they receive and act of of those; some lives are changed, and some are not. But for those changed lives, that TED idea, was the beginning to a different way of viewing the world, and set the stage for them to do something awesome that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Many speakers give talks about what they've accomplished and how they already have changed the world for the better. It's not just entertainment; it's an expansion that pushes us to new heights.
Very well presented. I personally love TED talks and enjoy the thought provocation that follows. At the same time I treat them not as an avenue to solve world problems but similar to a conversation started with a fiend over lunch where we have all these great ideas and not enough time to execute. Change is like anything. You have to actually commit, stay on task and see it through. There was a recent talk on "Grit" being a better predictor of success in life than intelligence. Same here. The supposition of "Why don't the futures promised in TED come true" makes a pretty big assumption that the purpose of TED is to provide a better future. I find with TED talks (and this one for sure!) is that the ones I like the best are the ones I wasn't even sure I wanted to watch.
Have heard some of Ted talks, but I tend to agree with what Prof. Bratton's putting down. The man is surely a great teacher. Speaks very well, and really a bit mesmerising. Would love to sit in one of HIS classes.
Heard about Bratton from Avessians ”Future Metaphysic”, googled and landed here. This talk is highly illuminating and the placebo politics and innovation inspiration is relevant to the current times.
This hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with Ted Talks, and yet at the same time was doing the exact same thing that he was pointing out as faults. He even says he has no solution to these problems, but he says what they are doing is wrong, while he has no solution. Kind of seems pointless.
A problem statement as divorced from a proposed solution is not a waste of time. Formulation of the problem is a legitimate and necessary step in solving it, and should not be coupled with solutions.
His criticism is that TED talks DO propose answers- Tidy, tiny answers that leave viewers feeling that they have touched a nugget of good in the world, when actually they are doing nothing more consequential (or strenuous) than clicking "like" on a Facebook petition. His call is explicitly for people to do work too complicated to be summed up into a tidy TED nugget, and for the people interested in TED talks to stop looking for tiny, tidy answers to big messy questions. One of my professors a few decades ago liked to say, "any cause that can be adequately summed up on a bumpersticker is too simple-minded to work." Think big, think messy, think solutions that will evolve new problems. That's reality, not happy little nuggets that change nothing long-term.
But he doesn't have an answer, which is fine I guess. It just seems weird that his argument is summed up in it's own tiny Ted Talks, rather than something else. He is doing exactly what he says not to do.
CaptainPajamaPants he is doing exactly what he is making an argument against and that proves his point that we have not done the necessary work to have any real substantial effect with the TED talks. TED talks and our current social/political/economic system reduces us to use the same means that we are in essence trying to undermine in order to enact some sort of change whatever that is. Like how I can wax on about how we do not have any constructive debates as a society and we do not understand how to best communicate with each other and yet I am using youtube to try to engage you to understand my point. Any man that comes to you suddenly with these words, "I have cured what ails you" should first be asked, what ails me and why? I am all for education which is what TED was trying to enact but education is a process and it should be more than summarized lectures that gives you an answer at the end as if they were a math problems that fail to even show their proof. err... i can talk about this all day but i still don't have an answer for you mate.
A very interesting perspective- I think this should challenge future TED speakers to take their Talks to the next level- to modify their talks toward change more than just "talking". Benjamin really explains the dichotomy of "placebo techno radicalism". Really enjoyed this- thank you!
Well, that puts into words something I've felt about TED Talks all along. I've gotten as far as "it feels like there's some kind of ulterior motive," and that not really being exactly right, and people just thinking I'm paranoid. There's a lot of hopeful optimism, which itself isn't bad, but that's all I've felt there is. It just always seemed like a person got on the stage, said their bit, and away they went having changed nothing really at all to me. At 11:36 it really sums up how I feel about Ted Talks. Just because I agree with the views of the people presenting the hopeful, bright future, doesn't mean I *like* having my own views presented back to me, on a silver, Utopian themed platter. Ted Talks have always been so empty and lacking substance to me, which has annoyed me to no end. It was impossible for me to put it into words in a way that made sense, so a big thank you to Benjamin Bratton for this. Now I can put my thoughts together in a way that don't make me sound like a complete loon.
This is one of the most insightful comments here and I have read many of them. Hat's off to you, GE. You put into words a nagging feeling I have been having after viewing about ten of these talks. After each one, I asked myself if that was worth my time and also if I might find one that really got to me. How many more of them do I have to see and hear to come to a proper conclusion. Maybe just a few more.....
Many good points, only I don't think culture is stagnating. I think it's changing just as rapidly as it has for the last several decades. Compare today to the 1920's.
I think what he means is that it's stagnating as in every single teen on the planet listens to Justin Beiber, wants the same pairs of shoes, has the same set of celebrities as idols, posts those fake insights Professor Bratton mentions on facebook or whatever platform is used that are just ego building, you get the idea.
Pedro S. What are you even talking about.. What this TED talk is mainly referring about is the future of technology is so cynical that the use of technology that people believe on "technology" to seek the future, as the speaker says that it won't lead to "transformation" due to ambiguity & contradictions in which he ties it all with other TED talks in which his final conclusion is on what's wrong in em
Pedro S. I agree with BB that TED often conveys this idea that innovation is going to fix everything and that it's a kind of denial about the problems we live with today. I disagree with his depiction of culture. I think it is changing as rapidly as technology. Technology changes culture, think of how the industrial revolution changed the nature of society. Stereotyping teens or anyone does not help us to understand culture.
Cy Porter do you actually know many youth and children? Because I do, I work with them. They aren't just stereotypes they're social realities that are obviously not that simplistic. And if you can't see the state of culture in general in western society is totally dysphoric than you are either completely in denial or live in an intellectual/ social bubble like so many acedemics/artists or people of social privilege.
Bravo, Mr. Bratton. My personal mantra for 2014, and ever after, is "No one and no thing is safe from me. Especially me." Meaning if it's crap then I WILL find out. Your talk gives me a great example of the possibility of how to proceed with extracting myself from vapidity. Thank you.
The only reason why I watch ted is to gain perspective, as I was able to gain this speaker's through his speech. tHe Problem is a lot of ego an "inward out" attitude that is prevalent among most people. We must change ourselves before we can make any collective progress towards change.
TED is for the 2% that want to listen. I would rather listen to the classes than the masses. Its people like you that make people like me, people like you.Dream Big my friends.
This was good. And I also applaud TED talks for wanting to improve. Growth can come with growing pains. But, it's better to deal with them early, than sweep them under the rug.
@Mercedes You've failed to even BEGIN to address whether he is RIGHT. If he is right, why should it matter how it makes you feel?!? I am often seen as negative because I focus on the things that are wrong and on understanding what exactly is wrong with them. What people don't seem to get is that, at least for me, the focus on the things that are bad stems from a genuine desire to really make things better, not just to feel good for a fleeting moment. I truly believe that it is NECESSARY to really put our finger on what is wrong and to ACT in accordance. While I too feel inspired and love the feeling of optimism that I get watching TED talks, I'll gladly give that up if a less enjoyable conference can achieve more. Look at the world we live in. We have known for decades about - to name a few! - the massive deforestation, the freshwater problem, the energy crises, the disappearing corals and fish stocks, and the threat of resistant bacteria. We have been warned that we're headed straight into a wall and had ample time to verify that indeed, it seems we are. But what have we DONE about these things? In every single one of the areas I've mentioned, every one of which is hugely important, we are in a worse position now than 30 years ago. Basically we have decided to head faster still towards that wall. I for one believe that the culture of positivism and using social stigmatization to stop people from voicing their concerns, so we don't have to feel bad, is the MAIN problem - it is the one common factor that is working against us in dealing with ALL of the absolutely MASSIVE challenges we are facing. There is no way you can know that his saying TED is cynical is "a projection of self-identified traits". You can disagree, think that he's wrong, and explain to the rest of us what exactly makes him wrong. But all you did was knee-jerk react with anger at the man that made you feel bad, seemingly without even considering whether he had a point. THAT scares me.
Very perceptive. I've always been skeptical of TED Talks - they tend to oversimplify. TED Talks remind me of that dorky mantra coined by psychologist Émile Coué: "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." These TED Talks lectures seem to say if you just follow a formulaic series of simple little steps, then your life will abruptly and magically improve. Very, very unrealistic.
He doesn't say what is wrong with TED talk - he says why TED talks suck which are totally different. I really like the ending of his talk and recommend to listen with 100% of concentration :)
One of the reasons I was drawn to this Tedtalk was because my school does TedTalk Discussions, where two students get together, pick a Tedtalk, watch it with the class, and then discuss it. During this time, I've found that time and time again, the topics I've been wanting to choose with my partners seem either non-existent or are presented and focused on the aspects we weren't interested in. And it's become frustrating, because time and time, the stuff me and my partners want to discuss seem to be either misrepresented or just not there. The two best examples are with wanting to discuss 1) Alzheimer's and 2) what being a youtuber is really like. With 1) I was HIGHLY saddened not only in the lack for talks, (keep in mind we were only supposed to use the official site), but the only talk that wasn't just talking about cures and investment into it, didn't nearly cover as much info as I hoped about what the diseases is like and how it affects both the person with it and the caretakers. As for 2) me and my partner felt disappointed on how many talks focused on "How to get big!" or "Make money at home barely working!" when in reality that's not the full picture. We did find one talk, thankfully, that did address the point we hoped for, that youtube is not all ease and no work, and focused on how unpredictable and unstable the job can be. But one talk is all we found...
@Tony Primera I think you missed the part of the TED Talk where the speaker actually argues. Your criticism is essentially the "judge not, lest ye be judged" rebuttal, an empty criticism devoid of substance meant to either deflect from the subject being raised or attempting to conceal the commenter's ignorance. I think the very fact that Bratton tries hard to differentiate his speech from that thing he criticizes, "that's kind of the point" as he says towards the end, answered your comment before you even made it.
I love many of the TED talks which are often inspiring. But let's be honest, subjects which are threatening to the Establishment never get aired. And who decides what is relevant? Bratton talks about the true core placebo problems which not only characterise much of TED and TEDx but the world at large. He takes us towards a real antidote to the staid mediocrity that passes for innovation. Kudos to Bratton.
This is so refreshing: TED reinforces our collective myth that innovation and technology is progress, or a best is a distraction. Innovation as we usually understand it is conservative, it protects the status quo.
The status quo has worked throughout all of human history. It's why we use it to guide our path to the future. Capitalism evolved out of feudal economic systems, and continues to evolve. The Communism he mentioned was an abandonment of that conservative evolution of the status quo in favor of a revolutionary approach to cultural change. It set a large part of humanity back. Innovation and technology is just a part of humanity's collective progress. We have no collective vision of what the future is supposed to look like, so encouraging society as a whole to abandon the status quo in pursuit of this mythical future is silly at best and dangerous at worst. As a society, we will continue chipping away at the parts of ourselves we don't like, and keeping the parts that we do like. That's the status quo, and it works.
IamTheSherm Your faith in natural and linear progress is the status quo. And it's not universal as you claim, it is a modern and Western idea of how the world and history evolves. Technology and innovation is neutral: it can mean a sense of freedom and better material conditions (for some), but it is also climate change, the nuclear bomb and tools of oppression. We're going to need to let go of this faith if we want to start effectively discriminating between what is important and good for us, and what is destroying our cultures and our conditions of existence.
Climate change is driven by the lack of technology. Clean technology that can sustain the world's population is produced by the modern western world. Climate change and nuclear bombs are status symbols for industrially primitive nations like China and India, and pose little concern to modern western societies. Oppression predates technology, and the rise of technology has correlated to a decline of oppression of those who possess it. Our culture is flourishing. Fretting about climate change and nuclear weapons today is the same paranoid fear that drove concerns about horse overpopulation and gasoline engines 100 years ago. Dr. Bratton is as much part of the status quo as anyone else, just one more in a long history of contrarians arguing that the inevitable progress of mankind will be our demise. Thanks to technology and innovation, the climate change crisis of 1994 will one day be as long forgotten as the great manure crisis of 1894. I look forward to whatever crisis awaits the next century.
Great video! That smear of the right wing at the end really ruined it, though. I won't be sharing this as much as I would have otherwise. Why, Mr. Bratton, why? In that one sentence, he very hypocritically engaged in a version of placebo politics.
+ᅚᅚlskdjf I know, it was the perfect way to end this talk. Right wingers have had the blinker set for longer than the progressive liberals in our society, but more and more, the gooyness of it all the new progressive blinkers is mind boggling. I guess it had to come. As a Deep Green, I always felt apart from either end of that political spectrum... I can only hope that more progs can learn from this, as for the right, I have no hope whatsoever.
***** *bi·as* ˈbīəs/Submit noun 1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. Good luck in explaining how I'm attempting to "divide and conquer" in this thread! :) Oh, and yes, _by definition_, you are expressing bias too. How very depressingly ironic.
+awesomeferret When you don't know, or haven't bothered to check, about someone's biological sex... you should probably abstain... Lest you make additional erroneous assumptions.
ᅚlskdjf ᅚ wow. That was a stupid response. I have a few liberal friends (and even a socialist uncle) and many of them (especially my uncle) would find your comment amusing. tallard666 if that's the only thing I did wrong (which yes, I guess it was) then I'm doing pretty well, aren't I? :) I can tell neither of you wish to have a serious conversation. I don't know what brings people to troll on the internet.
Absolutely love and completely agree with what he says about new economic systems. We have not figured out what to do with our current technological abilities within the current paradigm.
Great talk, "Our machines get smarter and we get stupider" Exactly that. Idiocracy. And I agree with a lot of his comments about TED talks. The popularity of the Jill Bolte Taylor talk (summary: Brilliant agnostic suffers brain damage and develops spirituality) is a perfect example of the lack of reality TED popularises. On the other hand, it's the mark of a organization that they accept criticism, and provide a wide range of opinions. I find fault, not with TED, but with the TED audience.
"You people make me sick. You're vultures just looking for another high tech gadget kill! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!" *audience claps* seriously tho that was a good talk.
I've had this argument repeatedly with friends, usually playing devil's advocate for whatever side they support. I think it's true that TED talks tend to wrap things up in a nice little bow, leaving the audience fat and satisfied with the "placebo politics" and revelations and proposed solutions. But personally, I think if TED was some sort of in-depth, drawn-out, all-encompassing seminar that left things open-ended - and difficult to swallow… we would have no idea what TED is. It's precisely the format being criticized that has allowed TED to become what it is today, a platform for ideas to reach an audience that normally wouldn't take time to observe any of the power-pointed problems. This guy seems pretty bummed out about it. I see why, but I think that the digestibility of TED Talks is what makes them so popular. This isn't to say that anyone who watches TED can't be forward-thinking and analytical and skeptical, but those who match that description are probably already the type of people who do their own research and read their own supplementary materials. Those who don't, probably wouldn't be compelled to do so by any other means, IMO. I'm in the middle. I don't watch many TED Talks because of my skepticism of the format, but I don't really do much to educate myself on these matters in other ways. I guess the irony of my apathy is that I'm a couple hundred words deep in this youtube comment. I guess what I'm saying, and I know what I'm saying isn't very revelatory, is that while TED might be dangerous because it misleads the audience into believing the solutions are on the horizon, or readily available, or otherwise simple to imagine, the alternative is that most people just wouldn't care. I don't know what's worse. The first thing I imagined at the end of this talk was that everyone's eyes in the audience went from TED Talk-induced hypnosis spirals back to normal, everyone looking at each other bewildered, before shrugging and returning to their previous lives of not giving a fuck. Just my two cents.
I liked this talk. It reminded me of the documentary Surviving Progress featuring Ronald Wright. Essentially, it's about how technology keeps "improving" and "innovating" yet we as humans are still stuck with the basic biological programming of hunter-gatherers. As a result, technology that could potentially be doing a lot of good, in fact isn't, because we only use it to cause more harm. Our brains haven't evolved with our tech.
TED is not perfect (very few things are) but it has undoubtedly given the world many gifts. For me the greatest is probably that it has taken the professor out of the ivory tower; the researcher out of the lab; the swashbuckling cowboy off his high horse; the recluse out of his shell; and most importantly, the idea out of the box. It will take a very, very long time (or a much better argument than what Benjamin is putting forward) before anyone is able to convince me that something as useful as TED is, is bad for civilisation.
"it has taken the professor out of the ivory tower; the researcher out of the lab; the swashbuckling cowboy off his high horse; the recluse out of his shell; and most importantly, the idea out of the box" What, exactly, (i.e. literally) do you mean by any of this? This is exactly the kind of meaningless jargon that Bratton is critiquing. It sounds good, feels good, but is essentially empty rhetoric covering up a distinct lack of import and intervention. Try again.
what a perfect illustration of the general weakness of political engagement in the anglophone world this idea that TED is great because it takes professors out of the ivory tower... it just shows how effective the conservatives have been in the culture wars sterilizing practical outcomes and inverting the effects of major symbolic shifts like 68 and 2011... if this is how academics are engaging, they haven't been doing a very good job.
Interesting message. It does make me wonder if we need to frame information better. An overload of data and facts -- in fact, a continual accumulation and agglomeration of innovations and ideas -- that still remain disconnected, somehow, and plunged into the same ol' framing that has existed before. That is one message I saw. Like a previous video from Corey Anton, can it be considered knowledge without an accompanied question? Without that curious attitude, and perceptive eye for the enigmatic, then a fact remains irrelevant without its context. Its motive for being thought about, mulled over, and understood remains unknown; thus, it merely remains. New perspectives require a broader focus, a more integrative approach as opposed to more specialization. There are inquiries yet to be formulated. Puzzles yet to be noticed. There isn't much of an epiphany in the talk itself, but its almost like a call for more heroic polymaths mixed in with begging the audience to change its sentiments regarding its rubric used to judge talks. If anything, it's to ask of more self-awareness, deliberation, and reflectiveness when approaching these issues; what comes off as heavily optimistic, innovative, and futuristic has a hidden tone of cynicism as it approaches problems with the very same veracity and faith as others attached to similar jig-saws. My only complaints are, well, one: Are all TED talks like this? To me, we are taking it as a given, and not considering to what extent the issue is an issue. Two, there is some vagueness in the concept of what would be considered truly representative of TED, and what is currently damaging it. I worry the talk was a courageous battle, partly with reality -- partly with one's imagination, and anxieties about the future state of affairs. Nonetheless, lovely video to think about :)
Thought and insight are useful indeed, however fostering the engagement needed to really approach and actualize "ideas" is a necessary first step in my view. At the root of the effects of thought are the thoughts themselves, who is driving?
While it's true that the whole Kony video sort of fizzled, I don't believe there would have been a higher chance of change had the video not existed at all. Would people would have used their 18 minutes of Kony video time to pour over articles detailing the complexities of African Geopolitics instead? I doubt it. TED talks aren't about directly affecting change, they're about inspiring people to do all the hard things required to make change. Just like a "Tony Robbins talk" will sometimes inspire someone to follow their dreams or get fit. Usually it won't, but sometimes, rarely, it will.
The point isn't just that people should have spent their energy in a more productive way than by putting up KONY stickers on streetlamps, but that they are now more jaded and and probably less willing to get involved in a project that can actually achieve something. I think this speaker wants to be hopeful and not cynical. But he wants to warn us against spreading false promises. And if there is one thing TED is biased towards, it is the promise of a better world.
Particularly in the closing I heard Chomsky... The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. The Common Good, by Noam Chomsky, Odonian Press, 1998
Just love the way his talk includes all the characteristics of the "Wrong Ted Talks" .. epiphany and self experience, that's what he criticizes, and BUM, just what he does the whole talk...
I have had people look down upon me because I found TED Talks to be no more than a series of motivational type entertainment speakers There is no one arguing the facts and views of the speaker and I sense that the audience member's feel stupid if they do not agree and applaud. It is great to know that I am not the only person who sees these talks for what they are. there may be some TED Talks that are on point but I don"t have the patience to wade through the B.S.
well i watched a talk about using 1 napking only to dry ur hands after u wash.. like u wash ur hands.. shake em 8 times n take a napkin fold it then use.. I still don't do this
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
"More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins." I love that line. He pretty much summed up my feelings about TED, though more eloquently than I ever could. TED was interesting at first, but has turned into a platform for ideas that are about as shallow as the books in the self-help aisle of your local bookstore.
This is by far the most interesting and challenging thing I've heard on TED. Very glad to come across it!
EyeLean5280 MICHELANGELO!
EyeLean5280 I just googled, Ted Talk is pretentious and found this. Good, cause it's true.
Ironically, one of the best TED(x) talks...
One of the best? You think so? I thought it a bit silly.
The guy (like we all do sometimes) wanted to stand on his soapbox and feel a little indignant and superior---Behold TED! The great scourge. Behold! The beast, she has come! Take cover from the Reader's Digest condensed version of real science and technology and economics.
Did Disney's Epcot ruin the 1980's or the future? Epcot is the most "toe-dip-in-the-waters-of-tech for the public at large" I can think of---much more so than TED.
Public relations vehicles like TED have been around for centuries. So what? Have they held us back? Nah. Not any more than religion or materialism or (insert your favorite soapbox platform here). And make no mistake, TED is a public relations vehicle for science, technology, new ideas, etc ... Case in point, this speaker himself uses it for -- ta da! -- public relations.
This speaker reduced some concepts like "systems" and egalitarianism to pablum (which I thought he was against) and padded his lecture with them.
I liked the Tony Robbins line and Malcolm Gladwell story, but this speaker comes off like the dad in Dirty Dancing. Using the example of Kony2012, he's misinterpreting the significance of TED in the system and attempting to lead us to do the same.
There are plenty of avenues for those inclined to hold deeper conversations about their passions and lifes' work. Unlike Chris Christie on the George Washington Bridge, TED does not plug them up.
Truthen Tolden
He is scathing in his criticism, sure, but also acknowledges that TED has good things to offer too. I think TED (and TED(x) should be able to be looked at with a critical eye, and I think Benjamin Bratton was spot on with many of his points. People pay a lot of money to attend / support TED, and deserve a lot of value from the non-profit.
Many presenters don't do it, but perhaps they could refer people to URLs etc. to more detailed items that they cover during their talks, and add value to what they are saying during their brief lectures. Often TED just comes across for many as an ego-boosting opportunity of narcissistic proportions, and does deliver the Reader's Digest version of science to many, which you could pick up in 5 minutes watching a PBS special or similar. This is where TED falls down a bit.
You can attend a Maker-space for example, or a private user/interest-group, and get very similar talks for free. That has been happening since forever. TED needs to refine the quality of the presentations a bit, and add value, I think that is all that he is asking for here. Most of all, TED should not be above critical discussion, and acknowleged for what it does and does not deliver to a mass-audience.
Frankly, one of the best TED talks ever. Reflection is needed.
Oversimplifaction seems to be huge trend right now. What he says is not only applicable to TED talks and science, but also to media, politics and everyday discussion, especially to internet discussion. *'This is not how we confront our most frightening problems, this is one of our most frightening problems'*
Thank you so much Benjamin! Even though it's just a TED talk, and it didn't offer any deep insights into complex scientific studies, it is a huge inspiration to remain doubtful, considerate and hard working, to utilize all accumulated knowledge and full intellectual capacity, and not fall into the trap of mental laziness and half baked nonsolutions.
Not only do I agree with everything this man said, I'll say what obviously he couldn't in a TED talk: That virtually every TED speaker is a selfish pretentious, self promoting agendist. I understand the principals upon which TED were established, but these were hijacked very quickly. And what we're now left with is self pontificating and intellectual excrement.
What about reggie watts tho
there is a reason people like smelling their own farts
@@geld420 and he is doing that through this whole talk. Huffing really.
Best "TED" talk ever, actually maybe the only truly useful one.
That was one of the best TED videos I have ever seen. Easily in the Top 10. Certain irony in that I recognize. Ted is at best as starting point, but it has been turned into a series of lullabys for the idealistic technorati.
This should be played before EVERY TED talk, and the speakers should KNOW beforehand that it will be played.
"Placebo techno radicalism toying with risk so as to reaffirm the comfortable." Couldn't have summed up TED better.
I enjoy some TED talks, but I definitely agree with the general thrust of this lecture. It just feels like we're being fed platitudes.
Best Ted talk ever. Thank you Mr Bratton, you managed to highlight what has smelt rotten for many. Well-articulated and smart with a number of essential points.
Still the best TED talk after all these years.
I'm completely amazed by this talk. Thank you Mr. Bratton.
Fantastic talk -- I think his criticisms are spot-on, especially regarding "placebo politics".
And then every presenter slated to go after him runs crying from the room...
Yeah, can you imagine being the next person? Just proving everything he said?
Oh man
Before I even start watching this video, 2 things that just jumped to mind
1. We are at the peak of postmodernism. Therefore this talk is long overdue
2. In the information age, nothing is no longer black or white as it intends itself to be. This video will grey out TED talks.
Can't wait to see if this video will nail what I think it seeks to tell.
Hello Dave; have you watched the video yet? Did it nail it, or did it not? I'm interested in your insight about it.
Not only did it nail exactly what I speculate that every keen fan of TED talks has long feared, but the speaker went on and emphatically showed that TEDTalks is on the declining part of its intelligent/sensational bell curve continuum - "megachurch" as he puts it. I hate that he is right.
The most insightful TED talk I've ever seen.
I've been hoping to see a proper meditation on the central fallacy of the TED Talks for quite a long time now and I'm glad I finally came across this. He's so right: the TED "model" is essentially to passively deify the idea of technology as representing the magic silver bullet solution to the world's problems while remaining embarrassingly ignorant of human economics and culture. There are many complex phenomena that determine the course of human history (most of which are not strictly technological) and we really tend to show off our collective naiveté when we buy into TED's central fallacy - ie: "More gizmos from the Enlightened West = a better world for everyone".
Ridiculous!
Technology is great, but it only represents one of many tools that can be used to shape the future and solve social problems. But, TED talks tend to discourage that kind of modest-scale multi-factorial analysis. Instead, they often encourage the mindset that technologies are solutions, in and of themselves, rather than tools used along the way to developing solutions.
This was a great narrative-busting talk, all around.
+
''if you pause and think about what he's saying, you'll realize he's spewing a lot of gibberish'''
----------------------------------
It's not gibberish. Maybe it's hard to follow some references he's throwing at you, but his talk makes a lot of sense.
I don't know if I can simplify and convey it, but according to him (maybe I'm wrong or he's wrong) TED or society in general, believe that some guys coming up with ideas can just change the world. For example, a guy travels to India, sees the shit on streets and decides that people need to be set up with portable toilets and Indian sanitation problem (at least this aspect of it) will be solved.
But then it turns out that this doesn't work, because Indian culture says that it's not right to sh** indoors on such a toilet, and when you're outdoors, nobody uses the toilets because they can just sh** on the street. It's not that they're dumb people, but their view of the world is different. And that's much harder to change than just give them some tech solution.
The same with drones and automated manufacturing and new technologies... People think that actually IN CAPITALISM AT ITS CURRENT FORM we'll be better off with all that, but we won't be. They'll either 1) make us lazy and complacent 2) kick us out of our jobs. We need to tear down the old system, at least question it more, and I also don't know the magic formula, but whatever we have now will not help us to correctly distribute the benefits of information age to everyone.
He said it correctly- when people on TED talks talk about something they have invented, they usually just brush past any cultural, politic, economic, social etc. implications of it. They just say ''well, it can be used both in good and bad way, but I'm sure we'll all be ok, because this gives us XYZ etc. benefits''. People hype Google Glass, only to realize that people still want their privacy badly and can even beat you up because you have a camera face. People invent Bitcoin and say ''oh this will change the world'', only to stumble with hacks, thefts and government regulation....
All the ideas and hard work won't help you, if society is not on the same page with you. We co-opt technologies, we don't disclose their and also our potential. For example, why the f*** a person living in India cannot access the same Netflix Americans can? Cause society, regulations, distribution of rights- it's not a technological problem. It's our problem as society. With lots of things, the problem is not our lacking of technology, the problem is culture, politics etc. Why Mexico and India are poorer than USA? And do you think that if we teach them code or farm, they'll be better off. Hell no! Why? Because centuries of fucked up political and cultural shit, that's why. There needs to be a cultural shift. If culturally people of those places changed overnight, they wouldn't need any aid or help from outside, the same for Africa. Transplant any working part of democratic participatory society in poorest corner of Africa, and if it will not thrive, it will at least be the most developed corner in the continent. Not because racism, but because these people will have completely different cultural and political background. I mean, look at Israel and its neighbours. It's not that Arabs are worthless people and Jews are just that good. It's also not a religion thing. It's political thing. Fu** up any Western country's political systems enough (increase corruption a few times, destroy trust to justice system, private property rights and free competition) and they'll be right where most of Africa is. No drilling of wells can help the big picture, if a local villager who sets up his own business is shut down and bankrupted because some president's right wing man is his competition... Sure it happens in West too, but these are exceptional cases, not everyday realities.
The essence of the long rant is just that THINGS... ARE... COMPLICATED.
His rant is idiotic. TED's mission statement says nothing about changing the world. It's about sharing ideas. There are many people who believe ideas on their own can change the world, but that is not TED's fault. Those people would believe that regardless of TED's existence. There are also many people who understand that real change requires lots of hard work. Those people still like to hear experts share their ideas.
Mr. Bratton heard someone tell an astrophysicist to be more like Malcom Gladwell, and instead of concluding that that man was an asshole, he blames TED (and then insults Malcom Gladwell for seemingly no reason).
Mr. Bratton is an asshole.
Abe Dillon his argument is to simply point out how we blindly accept whatever hyped up innovation is going to change the world for the better and glossing over the actual implications of said innovation. i recall one ted talk of the implementation of a microphone that could record vibrations picked up visually by a cam, the speaker just jokingly glossed over the fact that it is THE espionage/survailance holy grail. ted portrays almost romanticized views of new tech and how it will change our world for the better.
tl;dr
Abe Dillon "We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world."
Straight from their mission statement. www.ted.com/about/our-organization
He raises an interesting perspective on TED talks, and just because it threatens to take them off the pedestal you seem to place them on does not make it "idiotic." That is a logical fallacy and is a classic response from people who don't know how to logically address an argument. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't worth contemplating. If you are always agreeing with the information you hear, you are severely limiting your exposure to new information and capacity for understanding.
Fine, yes. It's in their mission statement that ideas have the power to change the world. You got me.
I don't hold TED on a pedestal, however, don't put words in my mouth. I called this talk out as being an idiotic and assholish rant not because I wish to defend TED but because the rant is idiotic and the ranter is an asshole. Apparently very few people can see the fallacies that saturate this talk, so allow me to enumerate them:
"Have you ever wondered why so little of the bright futures promised in TED talks actually come true?"
No. I haven't. You know why? Because I know that discussing ideas about how to change the world is very different to actually changing the world. I know that actually changing the world is a very difficult thing to do, so many of the ideas discussed will ultimately fail. I also know that many TED talks are not about promising a bright future. Some are about music, art and entertainment (you know, the 'E' in TED). Some are about discoveries. Some are about the problems we face. I also know that many past TED talks have actually come to fruition and changed the world.
"My TED talk is not about my work"
That's a great lie. His talk is almost word-for-word a recitation of an article he wrote called, "Why TED is a recipe for Civilizational Disaster". This talk is no different then when Malcolm Gladwell paraphrases what his latest book is about.
"The first problem is oversimplification. Now, to be clear I have nothing against the idea of interesting people who do smart things explaining their work in a way that everyone can understand"
Really? That's interesting because he then goes on to recite an anecdote where some idiot demands that an astrophysicist explain his work like Malcolm Gladwell, but instead of slamming that particular individual as being one of the many idiots that inhabit this planet, he slams Malcolm Gladwell who's very job description is "explain the work of interesting people who do smart things in a way that everyone can understand". This should be the very first hint that Mr. Bratton is completely full of shit. What does he even mean by "a journalist who recycles fake insights"? Are they recycled because Gladwell didn't conduct the experiments himself? How are the insights 'fake'. Let's go on. Maybe Mr. Bratton will explain why he resorts to petty name-calling hidden behind flowery language...
"This is not popularization. This is taking something with substance and value and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing."
That's just a flowery, cynical description of paraphrasing. Apparently Mr. Bratton thinks paraphrasing will bring about the downfall of civilization. Let's hear him explain why.
"TED is a proposition. One that says, 'if we talk about world changing ideas enough then the world will change'"
Wow. I thought this guy was against paraphrasing and 'oversimplification'. Apparently when it serves the purpose of building a shitty straw man, it's OK. I thought he was OK with the goal of letting experts share their ideas with the public, but now it sounds like doing so could end all of Civilization. I'm still unclear on how that works, so let's listen on.
"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. To me, TED stands for middle-brow, mega-church, infotainment."
More petty name-calling wrapped in hyperbolically cynical language.
"The key rhetorical device of any TED talk is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony."
I can think of dozens of TED talks that don't follow this stereotype (or is it an 'oversimplification'), however, if you're going to explain an idea to people, it often helps to relate how you arrived at said idea which often reads as personal testimony leading to epiphany. So what's wrong with that?
"What does the TED audience hope to get from this. A vicarious insight. A fleeting moment of wonder. A sense that it's all going to work out after all. A spiritual buzz."
Here is the set-up to his main argument. A wonderful stereotype of the TED audience as a gaggle mindless dullards. Another straw man. Apparently the TED audience isn't made up of individuals with their own reasons for watching TED talks. He's enumerated all the possible reasons. I must just watch TED for the spiritual buzz it gives me. Right. What's his evidence for this so far? He once heard an idiot mention Malcolm Gladwell.
"Well I'm sorry, but that's not up to the challenge of the problems that we are ostensibly here to face. Their complex and difficult and not given to tidy, just-so solutions. "
OK. So the goal of 'facilitating the spread of ideas in hopes of bringing about change in the world' has now become 'solve all of the world's problems' and Mr. Bratton is upset because TED is not enough to solve all the world's problems. Is his complaint "TED is horrible because it won't fix the world"?
"[the world's problems] are complex and difficult and not given to tidy, just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism."
Ah, so the real problem goes back to the dummy audience who apparently is just in it for the high and doesn't realize there's more to solving problems than just talking about solutions. Stupid audience. What a bunch of dummies.
"Given the stakes, having our best and brightest waste their time and the audiences time dancing about like infomercial hosts is too high a price. And it's cynical"
Sharing ideas in a paraphrased manner is a huge waste of time? Apparently if I go to someone with an interesting idea and say, "do you want to share your thoughts in a concise talk." I'm actually asking them to dance about like an infomercial host. Mr. Bratton laughably uses the word 'cynical' to describe such an act while he himself apparently loves hyperbolic cynicism.
"Plus it just doesn't work. [tangent about TED discouraging science-woo]. The corollary to placebo science and medicine is placebo politics and placebo innovation, and on this count TED has a ways to go. [gives Konny 2012 as an example]. You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. And if you're not cynical, you should be skeptical."
This is not an example of TED not working. This is an example of why people should approach new information with skepticism, because TED, like all other forums of discussion, is not perfect. So, the real take away of the Konny 2012 anecdote is not that TED is fundamentally harmful to society, but that accepting information without critical thinking is a bad idea. That has nothing to do with TED. The only way Mr. Bratton has so far tied that lesson to TED is by building a straw man of both TED and the TED audience.
"Technology: We're told that not only is change accelerating, but the pace of change is accelerating. In terms of the computational capacity, this is true. But at the same time, (and in-fact the two are related) we're at a moment of cultural deceleration. We invest our energies in futuristic information technology including our cars, yet we drive them home kitch architecture copied from the 18th century.
The future on offer is one in-which everything can change as long as everything stays the same. We'll have google glass but we'll still have business casual.
This timidity is not our path to the future. This is incredibly conservative and more gigaflops will not inoculate us because if a problem is endemic to the system then the exponential effects of moors law also amplify the problems. It's more computation along the wrong curve."
No single person or even group of people can offer what Mr. Bratton demands of Technology-oriented TED talks. A complete vision of the future including all of the social, artistic, and technological changes in one cohesive view. Is it surprising that one person talks about the single aspect of technology that they are focused on and another talks about the work that they are doing without also talking about how 'business casual' and architecture will change. There's a reason society follows the 'timid' trajectory and it's endemic to our limitations as a species. Our inability to track every social, political, and technological implication of every possible change in trajectory. Moors law is featured in some tech-oriented TED talks, but there are plenty that don't. There are plenty that talk about changes in architecture and society that must take place.
I'm bored analyzing this shitty talk. He's mad at TED for not being something it never purports to be and for his stereotype of the audience being so stereotypical.
One of the most under-rated (& brutally honest & straightforward) TED Talks!
Exceptional talk. He quickly identifies some real problems that, as a society, we are not addressing nor are we on the road to addressing. I see these problems in academia, where funding is now becoming tied to industry projects. Real knowledge creation has a time scale of years or decades, where business thinks in terms of quarters. We are losing the ability to think deeply about problems, which means that we will lose the ability to deal with any sense of complexity.
so true!
"When inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation." -- Benjamin Bratton FTW...and today's world, we're all being 'inspired' and manipulated...
Wow!!! Powerful AF!!
"To comprehend is not to clarify, or simplify, or reduce things to a perfectly clear logical scheme.
To comprehend is to complicate, to augment in depth. It is to widen on all sides. It is to vivify."
Lucien Febvre
I first saw this talk and thought to myself wait his can't be a TED talk bashing TED talks. Extremely interesting and definitely worth a watch.
Awesome. I like his description of Malcolm Gladwell.
+Geoffrey Zoref Me too. Malcolm Gladwell annoys me to no end.
+Phlebas I like to think Gladwell annoys anyone who bothers to investigate anything at all.
Ironically, possibly the most insightful and best TED Talk ever, is possibly not a TED Talk and is against TED Talks. Brilliant.
By far the most meta TEDx Talk to date.
Ted Talk pisses me off. I agree with this man 100%
I like your neckbeard, Nero
If they piss you off, why are you watching them?
I am curious to see whether I will hate a Ted Talk or not. This one struck me because it was a Ted Talk about how Ted Talk sucks
Nerō Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Tru
@@baronungern7034 which is of course the most pretentious ted talk of all.
Bratton hits hard at the status quo at 7:00 for about a minute. Overall- strongly reasoned, passionately presented and worthy of sharing. thank you, Lo. 4 stars.
Oh, the irony of how much I liked this TED talk.
"Phones, drones, and genomes..." Brilliant. This talk is something San Diego can be proud of for a change.
Before anyone comes here talking about how "there's this TED (OK, most likely TEDx) talk where this doesn't happen", the answer is "of course, there's tens of thousands of them". The next comment is "but that's not what they use to market TED".
This isn't even knocking on any particular speech, given how I very much enjoyed a recent TEDx where the most practical advice was "make people know that species conservation is economically convenient - preferably with your wallet" (paraphrasing, of course). Inspiration is a good thing, and getting these platforms for passing around nice ideas is by all means somewhat nourishing- but acting like they will magically make the world a better place is pipe dreams.
I was glad to come across this talk and think it is one worth discussing--much like many Ted Talks. There is nothing wrong about what the donor said of Malcolm Gladwell. People respond well to passion and while yes many need facts to back up potential investments, some want to know if your heart is really in it. At the end of the day the donor said no because of a lack of trust, not because he didn't sound like a best selling author. I'm not sure if TED promises anything and I agree--that's on us to do the work. If anything, they can spark the initial interest, that otherwise wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Nicely done, Prof Bratton.
This is the only good TEDx talk ever
For all you intellectuals and computer intellectuals out there, Prof. Bratton's TED talk is a perfect example of satire. The problem with satire is that in an attempt to "call for change" the satirist usually ends up relying on the same techniques and methods that they are trying to dissolve. For example, Shrek is satirical of Disney movies, but as a plot device does not deviant one iota from the proven Disney formula. More specifically to Prof. Bratton's talk, he criticizes the methods of delivering information by using said method of information delivery. If he truly believed what he was saying, he would not use the platform he is asking us to take a "new perspective" on. The reality is the TED talks have changed the way we learn, communicate and grow as a species, and that is an undeniable, provable and demonstrable fact. As Proven by Benjamin Bratton, so thanks!
"more computation along the wrong curve" well said!
Most of these TED talks only scratch the surface of what is going on. I've always felt it was just a bunch of talks stating very obvious things, nothing really insightful.
"More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins"
This talk also perpetuates the same problem he criticizes. I was hoping that he would suggest that his own catchphrase-laden talk was going to go in one ear and out the other of people listening. I found myself nodding my head a lot, like I do when I listen to a TED talk, especially to lines like, "If a problem is endemic to a system, the exponential effects of Moore's Law also amplify what's broken." But as much as I intuit that there's some truth to that, I cannot produce a book with solid evidence that technology inherently makes things worse. So thanks for the TED Talk slamming TED Talks, Prof. Bratton. You are a great speaker, but if you can produce a well-researched book backing your thoughts, I'll be the first in line.
+Philip Dhingra You yourself cannot produce a book with solid evidence that technology inherently makes things worse. Then again maybe you can. However there has not been enough ground breaking research to support this assumption. If you yourself began researching this supposed phenomenon then maybe you can or can provide a framework in which someone else can. The point of his Ted talk was to get people to act on these inspiring ideas instead of it just being inspiring. Other than that I agree with a lot of what you said.
+Philip Dhingra I'm pretty sure you can. Sure, predicting the future to the effects of "groundbreaking" technology will be hard, but looking at past technologies can help us reach a conclusion (for example, the Industrial Revolution, agriculture techniques, etc.). Then again, judging what is "better" or "worse" would be the sticky issue. Point is, there's a way.
A sobering look at the TED talks, for sure. And while, to me, this doesn't mean ignore all the TED and TED-like lectures out there but to, rather, apply this standard of reasoning and expectation to them. I find this fascinating and will be interested to see what (if anything) comes of this.
Like most TED talks, this talk doesn't really promote a series of action items or steps to take or even an assessment of what steps need to be built before we can take them. But it does provide a different perspective through which we can view our problems and work on solutions.
ZING! Time to get involved in politics to really find the problems close to home.
司馬偉
and... you know... DEAL and COPE with them... BREAK THE MASS HYPNOSIS!
Anyone else appreciate the irony of a TEDx talk criticizing TED?
I'm so proud to be a San Diegan at this moment and time
There is a wonderful irony in giving a talk at TED that criticises TED talks.
Similar to a successful person who criticizes capitalism, but that doesn't make their points invalid.
Well, best to deliver the points to those who partake.
The best part was the end when everyone was delighted and clapped.Beyond absurd.
Excellent. Really gets to the bottom of the BS.
While some talks may be very anecdotal, many do encourage that we should invest our time in the things that change the world.
It is difficult to see what happens after a TED talk, but that's because those reactions happen on an individual level. People digest the ideas they receive and act of of those; some lives are changed, and some are not. But for those changed lives, that TED idea, was the beginning to a different way of viewing the world, and set the stage for them to do something awesome that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Many speakers give talks about what they've accomplished and how they already have changed the world for the better.
It's not just entertainment; it's an expansion that pushes us to new heights.
The best TED talk I have heard. It put the finger in the deep wound that needs to be healed.
Thanks
Best TEDTalk ever. As he says, we need deeper discussions. We need actual changes that can only be accomplished at a core, root level.
Very well presented. I personally love TED talks and enjoy the thought provocation that follows. At the same time I treat them not as an avenue to solve world problems but similar to a conversation started with a fiend over lunch where we have all these great ideas and not enough time to execute. Change is like anything. You have to actually commit, stay on task and see it through. There was a recent talk on "Grit" being a better predictor of success in life than intelligence. Same here. The supposition of "Why don't the futures promised in TED come true" makes a pretty big assumption that the purpose of TED is to provide a better future. I find with TED talks (and this one for sure!) is that the ones I like the best are the ones I wasn't even sure I wanted to watch.
Have heard some of Ted talks, but I tend to agree with what Prof. Bratton's putting down. The man is surely a great teacher. Speaks very well, and really a bit mesmerising. Would love to sit in one of HIS classes.
Heard about Bratton from Avessians ”Future Metaphysic”, googled and landed here. This talk is highly illuminating and the placebo politics and innovation inspiration is relevant to the current times.
Likely the best TED talk ever.
Best ted talk yet.
This hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with Ted Talks, and yet at the same time was doing the exact same thing that he was pointing out as faults. He even says he has no solution to these problems, but he says what they are doing is wrong, while he has no solution. Kind of seems pointless.
A problem statement as divorced from a proposed solution is not a waste of time. Formulation of the problem is a legitimate and necessary step in solving it, and should not be coupled with solutions.
But that is exactly what he was saying Ted Talks do and yet no action ever comes from them, which is the same for this Ted Talks.
His criticism is that TED talks DO propose answers- Tidy, tiny answers that leave viewers feeling that they have touched a nugget of good in the world, when actually they are doing nothing more consequential (or strenuous) than clicking "like" on a Facebook petition. His call is explicitly for people to do work too complicated to be summed up into a tidy TED nugget, and for the people interested in TED talks to stop looking for tiny, tidy answers to big messy questions. One of my professors a few decades ago liked to say, "any cause that can be adequately summed up on a bumpersticker is too simple-minded to work." Think big, think messy, think solutions that will evolve new problems. That's reality, not happy little nuggets that change nothing long-term.
But he doesn't have an answer, which is fine I guess. It just seems weird that his argument is summed up in it's own tiny Ted Talks, rather than something else. He is doing exactly what he says not to do.
CaptainPajamaPants he is doing exactly what he is making an argument against and that proves his point that we have not done the necessary work to have any real substantial effect with the TED talks. TED talks and our current social/political/economic system reduces us to use the same means that we are in essence trying to undermine in order to enact some sort of change whatever that is. Like how I can wax on about how we do not have any constructive debates as a society and we do not understand how to best communicate with each other and yet I am using youtube to try to engage you to understand my point. Any man that comes to you suddenly with these words, "I have cured what ails you" should first be asked, what ails me and why? I am all for education which is what TED was trying to enact but education is a process and it should be more than summarized lectures that gives you an answer at the end as if they were a math problems that fail to even show their proof. err... i can talk about this all day but i still don't have an answer for you mate.
Most important TED talk ever I think.
Mr. Bratton, Thank you, sir.
A very interesting perspective- I think this should challenge future TED speakers to take their Talks to the next level- to modify their talks toward change more than just "talking". Benjamin really explains the dichotomy of "placebo techno radicalism". Really enjoyed this- thank you!
Great! He told whatever I have in my mind about oversimplification in TED! Thanks Mr REAL Scientist!
Well, that puts into words something I've felt about TED Talks all along. I've gotten as far as "it feels like there's some kind of ulterior motive," and that not really being exactly right, and people just thinking I'm paranoid. There's a lot of hopeful optimism, which itself isn't bad, but that's all I've felt there is. It just always seemed like a person got on the stage, said their bit, and away they went having changed nothing really at all to me. At 11:36 it really sums up how I feel about Ted Talks. Just because I agree with the views of the people presenting the hopeful, bright future, doesn't mean I *like* having my own views presented back to me, on a silver, Utopian themed platter. Ted Talks have always been so empty and lacking substance to me, which has annoyed me to no end.
It was impossible for me to put it into words in a way that made sense, so a big thank you to Benjamin Bratton for this. Now I can put my thoughts together in a way that don't make me sound like a complete loon.
What are you hoping to get from TED talks?
This is one of the most insightful comments here and I have read many of them.
Hat's off to you, GE. You put into words a nagging feeling I have been having after viewing about ten of these talks. After each one, I asked myself if that was worth my time and also if I might find one that really got to me. How many more of them do I have to see and hear to come to a proper conclusion. Maybe just a few more.....
Thoroughly enjoyed this talk.
Many good points, only I don't think culture is stagnating. I think it's changing just as rapidly as it has for the last several decades. Compare today to the 1920's.
I think what he means is that it's stagnating as in every single teen on the planet listens to Justin Beiber, wants the same pairs of shoes, has the same set of celebrities as idols, posts those fake insights Professor Bratton mentions on facebook or whatever platform is used that are just ego building, you get the idea.
Pedro S. Quit hiding behind your cynicism.
Pedro S. What are you even talking about.. What this TED talk is mainly referring about is the future of technology is so cynical that the use of technology that people believe on "technology" to seek the future, as the speaker says that it won't lead to "transformation" due to ambiguity & contradictions in which he ties it all with other TED talks in which his final conclusion is on what's wrong in em
Pedro S. I agree with BB that TED often conveys this idea that innovation is going to fix everything and that it's a kind of denial about the problems we live with today. I disagree with his depiction of culture. I think it is changing as rapidly as technology. Technology changes culture, think of how the industrial revolution changed the nature of society. Stereotyping teens or anyone does not help us to understand culture.
Cy Porter do you actually know many youth and children? Because I do, I work with them. They aren't just stereotypes they're social realities that are obviously not that simplistic. And if you can't see the state of culture in general in western society is totally dysphoric than you are either completely in denial or live in an intellectual/ social bubble like so many acedemics/artists or people of social privilege.
He nailed it.
Bravo, Mr. Bratton. My personal mantra for 2014, and ever after, is "No one and no thing is safe from me. Especially me." Meaning if it's crap then I WILL find out. Your talk gives me a great example of the possibility of how to proceed with extracting myself from vapidity. Thank you.
The only reason why I watch ted is to gain perspective, as I was able to gain this speaker's through his speech. tHe Problem is a lot of ego an "inward out" attitude that is prevalent among most people. We must change ourselves before we can make any collective progress towards change.
TED is for the 2% that want to listen. I would rather listen to the classes than the masses. Its people like you that make people like me, people like you.Dream Big my friends.
This was good. And I also applaud TED talks for wanting to improve. Growth can come with growing pains. But, it's better to deal with them early, than sweep them under the rug.
@Mercedes You've failed to even BEGIN to address whether he is RIGHT. If he is right, why should it matter how it makes you feel?!?
I am often seen as negative because I focus on the things that are wrong and on understanding what exactly is wrong with them. What people don't seem to get is that, at least for me, the focus on the things that are bad stems from a genuine desire to really make things better, not just to feel good for a fleeting moment. I truly believe that it is NECESSARY to really put our finger on what is wrong and to ACT in accordance. While I too feel inspired and love the feeling of optimism that I get watching TED talks, I'll gladly give that up if a less enjoyable conference can achieve more.
Look at the world we live in. We have known for decades about - to name a few! - the massive deforestation, the freshwater problem, the energy crises, the disappearing corals and fish stocks, and the threat of resistant bacteria. We have been warned that we're headed straight into a wall and had ample time to verify that indeed, it seems we are. But what have we DONE about these things? In every single one of the areas I've mentioned, every one of which is hugely important, we are in a worse position now than 30 years ago. Basically we have decided to head faster still towards that wall.
I for one believe that the culture of positivism and using social stigmatization to stop people from voicing their concerns, so we don't have to feel bad, is the MAIN problem - it is the one common factor that is working against us in dealing with ALL of the absolutely MASSIVE challenges we are facing. There is no way you can know that his saying TED is cynical is "a projection of self-identified traits". You can disagree, think that he's wrong, and explain to the rest of us what exactly makes him wrong. But all you did was knee-jerk react with anger at the man that made you feel bad, seemingly without even considering whether he had a point. THAT scares me.
Yo dawg, I heard you hate TED Talks so I made a TED talk about TED Talks at TED Talks so you can hate TED Talks while listening to my TED talk.
This restored my faith in RUclips comments.
by doing this he's using the metaphor of Wittgenstein's stair case. look it up
It is called Wittgenstein's ladder, but besides that you are probably right: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_ladder
Thanks, english is not my first language; i just translated from scratch
*TEDX
My mind is enlightening!!! My mind is enlightening!!! My mind is enlightening!!!
This is the most important talks ever.
Very perceptive. I've always been skeptical of TED Talks - they tend to oversimplify. TED Talks remind me of that dorky mantra coined by psychologist Émile Coué: "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." These TED Talks lectures seem to say if you just follow a formulaic series of simple little steps, then your life will abruptly and magically improve. Very, very unrealistic.
At the end of the day... TED gave him a stage to critique them... so more power to them.
technically TedX are independant events that utilise the branding, most TedX speakers would ever make it to the official "real" Ted
He doesn't say what is wrong with TED talk - he says why TED talks suck which are totally different. I really like the ending of his talk and recommend to listen with 100% of concentration :)
One of the reasons I was drawn to this Tedtalk was because my school does TedTalk Discussions, where two students get together, pick a Tedtalk, watch it with the class, and then discuss it. During this time, I've found that time and time again, the topics I've been wanting to choose with my partners seem either non-existent or are presented and focused on the aspects we weren't interested in. And it's become frustrating, because time and time, the stuff me and my partners want to discuss seem to be either misrepresented or just not there.
The two best examples are with wanting to discuss 1) Alzheimer's and 2) what being a youtuber is really like.
With 1) I was HIGHLY saddened not only in the lack for talks, (keep in mind we were only supposed to use the official site), but the only talk that wasn't just talking about cures and investment into it, didn't nearly cover as much info as I hoped about what the diseases is like and how it affects both the person with it and the caretakers.
As for 2) me and my partner felt disappointed on how many talks focused on "How to get big!" or "Make money at home barely working!" when in reality that's not the full picture. We did find one talk, thankfully, that did address the point we hoped for, that youtube is not all ease and no work, and focused on how unpredictable and unstable the job can be. But one talk is all we found...
this ted talk is not immune to its own criticisms tho
+Tony Primera ikr
+Tony Primera True, but it raises fair criticisms.
+Tony Primera Ok, the burden is on you to elaborate friend. :) I'm all ears..
@Tony Primera I think you missed the part of the TED Talk where the speaker actually argues. Your criticism is essentially the "judge not, lest ye be judged" rebuttal, an empty criticism devoid of substance meant to either deflect from the subject being raised or attempting to conceal the commenter's ignorance. I think the very fact that Bratton tries hard to differentiate his speech from that thing he criticizes, "that's kind of the point" as he says towards the end, answered your comment before you even made it.
He reminds me of Sideshow Bob. "I'm aware of the irony of appearing at TEDx in order to decry it, so don't bother pointing that out."
I love many of the TED talks which are often inspiring. But let's be honest, subjects which are threatening to the Establishment never get aired. And who decides what is relevant? Bratton talks about the true core placebo problems which not only characterise much of TED and TEDx but the world at large. He takes us towards a real antidote to the staid mediocrity that passes for innovation. Kudos to Bratton.
Critical thought here. What's relevant and who decides?
Great TED talk, the way he talks reminds me of my science teacher
This is so refreshing: TED reinforces our collective myth that innovation and technology is progress, or a best is a distraction. Innovation as we usually understand it is conservative, it protects the status quo.
The status quo has worked throughout all of human history. It's why we use it to guide our path to the future. Capitalism evolved out of feudal economic systems, and continues to evolve. The Communism he mentioned was an abandonment of that conservative evolution of the status quo in favor of a revolutionary approach to cultural change. It set a large part of humanity back. Innovation and technology is just a part of humanity's collective progress. We have no collective vision of what the future is supposed to look like, so encouraging society as a whole to abandon the status quo in pursuit of this mythical future is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
As a society, we will continue chipping away at the parts of ourselves we don't like, and keeping the parts that we do like. That's the status quo, and it works.
IamTheSherm Your faith in natural and linear progress is the status quo. And it's not universal as you claim, it is a modern and Western idea of how the world and history evolves. Technology and innovation is neutral: it can mean a sense of freedom and better material conditions (for some), but it is also climate change, the nuclear bomb and tools of oppression. We're going to need to let go of this faith if we want to start effectively discriminating between what is important and good for us, and what is destroying our cultures and our conditions of existence.
Climate change is driven by the lack of technology. Clean technology that can sustain the world's population is produced by the modern western world. Climate change and nuclear bombs are status symbols for industrially primitive nations like China and India, and pose little concern to modern western societies. Oppression predates technology, and the rise of technology has correlated to a decline of oppression of those who possess it.
Our culture is flourishing. Fretting about climate change and nuclear weapons today is the same paranoid fear that drove concerns about horse overpopulation and gasoline engines 100 years ago. Dr. Bratton is as much part of the status quo as anyone else, just one more in a long history of contrarians arguing that the inevitable progress of mankind will be our demise. Thanks to technology and innovation, the climate change crisis of 1994 will one day be as long forgotten as the great manure crisis of 1894. I look forward to whatever crisis awaits the next century.
What a great video. I'm certainly guilty of not thinking critically about "middlebrow infotainment"
One of the best talk so far !
Great video! That smear of the right wing at the end really ruined it, though. I won't be sharing this as much as I would have otherwise. Why, Mr. Bratton, why? In that one sentence, he very hypocritically engaged in a version of placebo politics.
+ᅚᅚlskdjf I know, it was the perfect way to end this talk. Right wingers have had the blinker set for longer than the progressive liberals in our society, but more and more, the gooyness of it all the new progressive blinkers is mind boggling. I guess it had to come. As a Deep Green, I always felt apart from either end of that political spectrum... I can only hope that more progs can learn from this, as for the right, I have no hope whatsoever.
***** that's your opinion. Unlike you, tallard666 was able to convey his bias in a more objective manner.
*****
*bi·as*
ˈbīəs/Submit
noun
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Good luck in explaining how I'm attempting to "divide and conquer" in this thread! :)
Oh, and yes, _by definition_, you are expressing bias too. How very depressingly ironic.
+awesomeferret When you don't know, or haven't bothered to check, about someone's biological sex... you should probably abstain... Lest you make additional erroneous assumptions.
ᅚlskdjf ᅚ wow. That was a stupid response. I have a few liberal friends (and even a socialist uncle) and many of them (especially my uncle) would find your comment amusing.
tallard666 if that's the only thing I did wrong (which yes, I guess it was) then I'm doing pretty well, aren't I? :)
I can tell neither of you wish to have a serious conversation. I don't know what brings people to troll on the internet.
Bravo! Best TED Talk ever!
Absolutely love and completely agree with what he says about new economic systems. We have not figured out what to do with our current technological abilities within the current paradigm.
Great talk, "Our machines get smarter and we get stupider" Exactly that. Idiocracy. And I agree with a lot of his comments about TED talks. The popularity of the Jill Bolte Taylor talk (summary: Brilliant agnostic suffers brain damage and develops spirituality) is a perfect example of the lack of reality TED popularises. On the other hand, it's the mark of a organization that they accept criticism, and provide a wide range of opinions. I find fault, not with TED, but with the TED audience.
This is brilliant. Nailed it on every level
back after 5 Years of watching this & it still Bangs !!!
"You people make me sick. You're vultures just looking for another high tech gadget kill! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!"
*audience claps*
seriously tho that was a good talk.
Is that a reference to something?
I've had this argument repeatedly with friends, usually playing devil's advocate for whatever side they support. I think it's true that TED talks tend to wrap things up in a nice little bow, leaving the audience fat and satisfied with the "placebo politics" and revelations and proposed solutions. But personally, I think if TED was some sort of in-depth, drawn-out, all-encompassing seminar that left things open-ended - and difficult to swallow… we would have no idea what TED is. It's precisely the format being criticized that has allowed TED to become what it is today, a platform for ideas to reach an audience that normally wouldn't take time to observe any of the power-pointed problems. This guy seems pretty bummed out about it. I see why, but I think that the digestibility of TED Talks is what makes them so popular.
This isn't to say that anyone who watches TED can't be forward-thinking and analytical and skeptical, but those who match that description are probably already the type of people who do their own research and read their own supplementary materials. Those who don't, probably wouldn't be compelled to do so by any other means, IMO. I'm in the middle. I don't watch many TED Talks because of my skepticism of the format, but I don't really do much to educate myself on these matters in other ways. I guess the irony of my apathy is that I'm a couple hundred words deep in this youtube comment.
I guess what I'm saying, and I know what I'm saying isn't very revelatory, is that while TED might be dangerous because it misleads the audience into believing the solutions are on the horizon, or readily available, or otherwise simple to imagine, the alternative is that most people just wouldn't care. I don't know what's worse. The first thing I imagined at the end of this talk was that everyone's eyes in the audience went from TED Talk-induced hypnosis spirals back to normal, everyone looking at each other bewildered, before shrugging and returning to their previous lives of not giving a fuck. Just my two cents.
This guys could not be more on point. Guess I will start watching Spongebob instead of TED from now on.
Absolutely brilliant.
I liked this talk. It reminded me of the documentary Surviving Progress featuring Ronald Wright. Essentially, it's about how technology keeps "improving" and "innovating" yet we as humans are still stuck with the basic biological programming of hunter-gatherers. As a result, technology that could potentially be doing a lot of good, in fact isn't, because we only use it to cause more harm. Our brains haven't evolved with our tech.
TED is not perfect (very few things are) but it has undoubtedly given the world many gifts. For me the greatest is probably that it has taken the professor out of the ivory tower; the researcher out of the lab; the swashbuckling cowboy off his high horse; the recluse out of his shell; and most importantly, the idea out of the box. It will take a very, very long time (or a much better argument than what Benjamin is putting forward) before anyone is able to convince me that something as useful as TED is, is bad for civilisation.
"it has taken the professor out of the ivory tower; the researcher out of the lab; the swashbuckling cowboy off his high horse; the recluse out of his shell; and most importantly, the idea out of the box"
What, exactly, (i.e. literally) do you mean by any of this? This is exactly the kind of meaningless jargon that Bratton is critiquing. It sounds good, feels good, but is essentially empty rhetoric covering up a distinct lack of import and intervention. Try again.
what a perfect illustration of the general weakness of political engagement in the anglophone world this idea that TED is great because it takes professors out of the ivory tower... it just shows how effective the conservatives have been in the culture wars sterilizing practical outcomes and inverting the effects of major symbolic shifts like 68 and 2011... if this is how academics are engaging, they haven't been doing a very good job.
Interesting message. It does make me wonder if we need to frame information better. An overload of data and facts -- in fact, a continual accumulation and agglomeration of innovations and ideas -- that still remain disconnected, somehow, and plunged into the same ol' framing that has existed before. That is one message I saw. Like a previous video from Corey Anton, can it be considered knowledge without an accompanied question? Without that curious attitude, and perceptive eye for the enigmatic, then a fact remains irrelevant without its context. Its motive for being thought about, mulled over, and understood remains unknown; thus, it merely remains.
New perspectives require a broader focus, a more integrative approach as opposed to more specialization. There are inquiries yet to be formulated. Puzzles yet to be noticed. There isn't much of an epiphany in the talk itself, but its almost like a call for more heroic polymaths mixed in with begging the audience to change its sentiments regarding its rubric used to judge talks.
If anything, it's to ask of more self-awareness, deliberation, and reflectiveness when approaching these issues; what comes off as heavily optimistic, innovative, and futuristic has a hidden tone of cynicism as it approaches problems with the very same veracity and faith as others attached to similar jig-saws.
My only complaints are, well, one: Are all TED talks like this? To me, we are taking it as a given, and not considering to what extent the issue is an issue. Two, there is some vagueness in the concept of what would be considered truly representative of TED, and what is currently damaging it. I worry the talk was a courageous battle, partly with reality -- partly with one's imagination, and anxieties about the future state of affairs. Nonetheless, lovely video to think about :)
TED shouldn't be about "BIG IDEAS" It should be about big questions. So why don't we organize a big question conference instead of more TED.
Intellectual, mind-bending. absolutely brilliant and thought provocative. The best TED talk in recent time
Thought and insight are useful indeed, however fostering the engagement needed to really approach and actualize "ideas" is a necessary first step in my view. At the root of the effects of thought are the thoughts themselves, who is driving?
While it's true that the whole Kony video sort of fizzled, I don't believe there would have been a higher chance of change had the video not existed at all. Would people would have used their 18 minutes of Kony video time to pour over articles detailing the complexities of African Geopolitics instead? I doubt it.
TED talks aren't about directly affecting change, they're about inspiring people to do all the hard things required to make change. Just like a "Tony Robbins talk" will sometimes inspire someone to follow their dreams or get fit. Usually it won't, but sometimes, rarely, it will.
The point isn't just that people should have spent their energy in a more productive way than by putting up KONY stickers on streetlamps, but that they are now more jaded and and probably less willing to get involved in a project that can actually achieve something.
I think this speaker wants to be hopeful and not cynical. But he wants to warn us against spreading false promises. And if there is one thing TED is biased towards, it is the promise of a better world.
Particularly in the closing I heard Chomsky...
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
The Common Good, by Noam Chomsky, Odonian Press, 1998
Just love the way his talk includes all the characteristics of the "Wrong Ted Talks" .. epiphany and self experience, that's what he criticizes, and BUM, just what he does the whole talk...
Wow! This guy hits it square on the head!
I have had people look down upon me because I found TED Talks to be no more than a series of motivational type entertainment speakers There is no one arguing the facts and views of the speaker and I sense that the audience member's feel stupid if they do not agree and applaud. It is great to know that I am not the only person who sees these talks for what they are. there may be some TED Talks that are on point but I don"t have the patience to wade through the B.S.
well i watched a talk about using 1 napking only to dry ur hands after u wash.. like u wash ur hands.. shake em 8 times n take a napkin fold it then use.. I still don't do this
That sounds like the equivalent of the mass thumb wrestling match I saw on ted.