Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Downside of TED Talks
The linked talk discusses some of the pitfalls with TED (Technology/Entertainment/Design) talks. I disagree with some of his points, but his major thesis is correct IMO:
So my TED talk is not about my work or my new book – the usual spiel – but about TED itself, what it is and why it doesn’t work.
The first reason is over-simplification.
To be clear, I think that having smart people who do very smart things explain what they’re doing in a way that everyone can understand is a good thing. But TED goes way beyond that.
Let me tell you a story. I was at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I’m a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, “you know what, I’m gonna pass because I just don’t feel inspired … you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.”
At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine?
Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.
When I was working with my co-author on finding a publisher for my book in the fall of 2010, my wife gave me a copy of Steven Johnson’s new book Where Good Ideas Come from: The Natural History of Innovation. I was appalled at the mistakes I found in this generally well-received book. He gave a TED talk which had similar problems.
The problems arise starting around 12 minutes into the video:
- Transit is not GPS. Transit uses Doppler; GPS uses range measurement (the time the radio wave takes to travel from the satellite to the receiver yields the distance). They are completely different space-based navigation systems.
- Reagan did not open GPS to public use after the KAL007 was shot down in 1983. TI was selling a civilian receiver in 1981. GPS was going to have a signal open to the public from its initial formulation in 1973. This is illustrated by page 2-9 in the linked 1974 document.
Of course, the TED audience knew little or nothing about the history of GPS and vigorously applauded Johnson at the end of his talk. Alas, the myth that GPS was opened to the public in 1983 was included in Walter Isaacson’s Trailblazers podcast last year and Simon Winchester’s new book The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World. Journalists are excellent at spreading false stories.
Published in History
Thanks for the insights. This is super interesting. (And I never knew what TED stood for before.)
I didn’t know what TED stood for either. I just assumed they were started by some guy named Ted.
And all I know is that when someone says “I just heard this great TED talk on ___________, and you should listen to it!” that’s my cue to go for a long walk far away from any device that might deliver it to me.
The only TED Talk I ever found interesting was one about how we no longer go to the moon and we aren’t sending astronauts to Mars, and what it says about a society that has developed the technology to do something and no longer bothers to do it. (Short version: “New Dark Ages.”)
Other than that . . . yeah, “watching videos on the internet” is not something I consider time well spent.
Best TED talk of all time: How to sound really smart when talking about nothing at all. OK, technically a Tedx talk which apparently is not affiliated with TED.
Here’s a direct link to Bratton’s TED Talk:
Here’s a link to another TED Talk that takes a poke at the format and, perhaps more importantly, the formula of TED Talks:
Yeah, me too.
Technology, Entertainment, & Design, eh?
Not science. Not philosophy. Not culture.
Huh.
So, in other words, it was created to be The Church of Technocracy. Techno-Evangelists giving sermons to less-than-critical worshipers of expertise, thereby contributing to the tyranny of best-practices.
ON THE OTHER HAND…
To be fair, they do often have speakers who don’t conform to the limits of the acronym. Cassie Jaye, for example. Or Jordan Peterson, who has done two TEDx Talks. (Link#1, and Link#2)
Maybe it was first envisioned as a Church of Technocracy, but that’s not necessarily how it has developed over time.
That being said, I still agree that the formula of the talks tends to encourage less-than-critical consumption of the lectures, in much the same way that theatrical documentaries do.
Ouch.
And I’m in full agreement.
WoW! what a great article! Benjamin Bratton better watch out, or he’ll be banished to the intellectual dark web.
The line that most resonated with me:
Thanks for posting the article.
“The Natural History of Innovation” sounds a lot like “Timetable of Technology” which was one of the 3 great books a was given as a child or teen.
https://www.amazon.com/Timetables-Technology-Chronology-Important-History/dp/067188767X
To this day, its one of my coffee table books, that can spark interesting conversations while sitting around the living room.
< devil’s advocate mode = on >
Yabbut, it’s hardly like TEDx talks are the only place where astrophysics is discussed, or even the only place where it’s popularized.
Firstly, there are the peer-reviewed journals and the serious academic conferences where peer-reviewed papers are presented.
Then, there are the popular scientific magazines, websites, and tv shows that report on new scientific developments.
Then, there are the ever-so-many “explainer” videos on YouTube, or the ever-so-many scientific podcasts, all competing against each other.
Bratton seems to be arguing against TEDx being the only channel for scientific popularization. Well, d’uh! Of course no single organization should be the sole channel for scientific popularization, and TEDx is far from being such a monolithic channel.
It’s the 21st Century. If a TEDx speaker makes a serious error in their talk, it WILL be exposed. Firstly in the YouTube comments section, but also in the blogs and on Facebook and on Twitter etc. etc. etc.
Or maybe Bratton is simply against science popularization altogether? Like, maybe he thinks any form of “dumbing down” of the content for a popular audience is a threat to civilization?
Does Bratton also have a problem with Popular Science magazine, or NOVA on PBS, or Space-Time on YouTube, or a radio show like Quirks and Quarks, or a podcast like Freakonomics? Seems to me they have many of the same “failings” that TEDx does. How is a layman supposed to catch an error in any channel of scientific popularization?
Maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to read anything but peer-reviewed journals or attend anything other than the academic conferences where peer-reviewed papers are presented?
That sort of sounds like Brave New World, where the smartest people are sent to live on an island away from the regular folk.
< devil’s advocate mode = off >
This also came to mind:
He backs up his point about research funding with a single anecdote. An anecdote is not data.
What sort of peer-reviewed empirical research did HE do on how research is funded? What sort of peer-reviewed empirical research did HE do on how research is popularized? What was the last peer-reviewed empirical social-science paper he’s published at all?
His TED talk is nothing but his opinion, with a couple of anecdotes dropped in here and there.
Classic arts professor.
In short: I think he makes some interesting points about TEDx, but he’s way too apocalyptic about TED’s power and influence. His point about how research is funded seems to me to be much more important, but without real data about how research is funded he’s committing the same sin that he’s accusing of others.
(To be fair, he does have a PhD in Sociology, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s done any empirical research. His current job is Professor of Visual Arts at UC San Diego. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Bratton )
There’s the question of what type of screening there is of TED speakers. Is any fact checking done on them.
I haven’t encountered Mr. Benjamin Bratton before, but he made a nice introduction of himself in his TED critiquing TEDs. I suppose his critiques are largely valid in that they’re too (not in the contemporary political sense) conservative, that most speakers don’t truly challenge current regimes at their core, and that they don’t aspire to be more than middle-brow.
All of these things are true, and worse. I’ve seen TED Talks about “what Bruce Lee would say to us today,” for crying out loud! It was a true psychotic mess where this woman talked to an imaginary father figure conjured up from old Kung Fu films.
I’m surprised no one in the thread is offering greater sources of “talks”. Perhaps that’s because not enough people are contributing to this thread, or not enough people are trawling the web for great lectures.
Or, I’ll posit a theory; lectures aren’t actually the best means of transmitting meaningful ideas. Perhaps the alternative to TED is Socratic dialogues. Problem is, not many people seem to record them with the aspiration to become as big as TED. Eric Metaxas puts on a pretty good symposium on some weighty topics, but his theologically-heavy talks don’t offer so much in the secular realm (God’s a great topic, don’t get me wrong).
I’ll float a perhaps crazy idea. A lot of academians are under pressure to output scholarly work. Colleges want papers written, and not all professors are producing. These lecture circuits and talk shows have a strong need for thoughtful thinkers that aren’t just out plugging their books.
Perhaps academics taking part in these discussions should satisfy the university’s demand for academic output.
Or maybe this would just churn out more banal content.
A few years ago I saw a link to a collection of the best TED talks under five minutes. Those are the only TED talks that I’ve watched and most of them were interesting. The one that I remember the most was an explanation for why we represent unknowns by the letter ‘x’ in algebra.
This is pretty shocking, yet somehow not surprising in these times. We’re on our way to becoming the Eloi.
I love these
I watch some TED, on subject of which I have an interest, but in the same spirit in which I used to watch Walter Cronkite (remember him?); it’s not necessarily “The Way it Was.” I don’t suspend my own experience and discernment; I take it as the presenter’s opinion, or experience, not necessarily the last word on the subject.
I enjoy TED talks, but too many of them are more like the sendup Onion Talks.
And if you ever post anything even mildly critical of the ideas presented in a TED talk, it will be deleted.
Worst TEDx talk ever:
Good heavens. Did she sublet her voice to Michelle Wolf?
That was painful.
Instead of focusing on the negative, lets try some find positives. How about posting a few good or your favorite TED talks:
I think the absolute worst Ted Talk is the “Aquatic Ape” theory. It’s really hard to match the level of stupidity on that one.
I like this one.
Mermaid Denier! <lolz>
I’ve never watched a single one (shoot me). Did these used to be called “lectures”?
No, “preaching.”
This is the best one:
Hilarious!