The elephants in the room at TED(scobleizer.com)
scobleizer.com
The elephants in the room at TED
http://scobleizer.com/2010/02/14/the-elephants-in-the-room-at-ted/
12 comments
You did a great job of nailing Scoble's M.O.: 'I thought X sucked, but then I got to use/be part of X and now I think X is awesome. Next year, I'll think X sucks again once Dave Winer reminds me that he thinks X sucks.'
I'm tickled to see elitists getting out elited(I'm making up words now, but you get my drift).
Upon learning about the $6,000 cost to get in, I shall think of TED Talks as a tax on rich people to provide free, online quality content to the rest of the world.
I think this is a fantastic model and would love to see it more widely used. For example, a small portion of the tuition of Stanford and MIT students (among others) finance the creation and publication of free quality education material to the rest of the world.
How much faster would our world develop if all education was made available this way, financed by people who have the money to spend to be the first to learn something/have the benefit of real-life interaction with the original professor?
How much faster would our world develop if all education was made available this way, financed by people who have the money to spend to be the first to learn something/have the benefit of real-life interaction with the original professor?
I'm actually surprised by the public spat over $6000; I figured it was much more or invite only. I mean, heck, a lot of the web conferences are $2000-3000.
It is invite only. You have to be invited, and then you have to be willing to pay $6000 to attend.
"I don’t have $6,000..."
More surprising is that Scoble's been doing whatever it is he does for so long and he doesn't have $6000.
More surprising is that Scoble's been doing whatever it is he does for so long and he doesn't have $6000.
I believe Mr. Scoble has a family. Anyone here with a family that still works for a living will tell you that you don't have $6000 to spend on yourself.
It is not a tax, because no force is involved. But you're right, it is a delightful business model.
Hmm, should I really jump into this?
Mark Thornton at Mises.org has one thing right: "I believe in the unrestricted right to gamble."
But he goes on to say: "Despite this, I oppose the adoption of a state lottery." I would like to agree with him here but I think he's missing the point.
I don't oppose people setting up a lottery, even if those people call themselves a "state." I do oppose those people forcing out competition at the point of a gun.
So go ahead, "state," and set up your lottery with your ridiculously horrible odds. But when the competition arrives and provides far better odds with ease, and you send armed men to shut them down, that is where you cross the line.
I just like to focus on the truly important moral principle at stake, which is to avoid initiating force against other people.
Mark Thornton at Mises.org has one thing right: "I believe in the unrestricted right to gamble."
But he goes on to say: "Despite this, I oppose the adoption of a state lottery." I would like to agree with him here but I think he's missing the point.
I don't oppose people setting up a lottery, even if those people call themselves a "state." I do oppose those people forcing out competition at the point of a gun.
So go ahead, "state," and set up your lottery with your ridiculously horrible odds. But when the competition arrives and provides far better odds with ease, and you send armed men to shut them down, that is where you cross the line.
I just like to focus on the truly important moral principle at stake, which is to avoid initiating force against other people.
Tax is not forced. The government doesn't force you to pay taxes. They punish you if you don't pay taxes and you earn more money than you spend keeping your business running.
However, there are myriad ways to legally pay zero tax and many people do it every year.
However, there are myriad ways to legally pay zero tax and many people do it every year.
The threat of force is still force.
> Upon learning about the $6,000 cost to get in, I shall think of TED Talks as a tax on rich people to provide free, online quality content to the rest of the world.
I would be in favor of overhauling the tax system so it's more like TED, and would happily pay TED-like taxes where I get a high level experience for an expensive price and the whole world benefits as well. Also, it's optional and you don't get arrested/shot for not buying a ticket.
I would be in favor of overhauling the tax system so it's more like TED, and would happily pay TED-like taxes where I get a high level experience for an expensive price and the whole world benefits as well. Also, it's optional and you don't get arrested/shot for not buying a ticket.
> I would be in favor of overhauling the tax system
Not gonna happen.
What could happen, though, is that you could start something like TED, and charge wealthy people for a high level experience, and let the whole world benefit as well.
Not gonna happen.
What could happen, though, is that you could start something like TED, and charge wealthy people for a high level experience, and let the whole world benefit as well.
Personally, I find about 80% of TED talks to be painfully pretentious, saccharine, or so desperately worthy they just make me weary. For example: "how we rescued the dancing bears", "embrace your inner girl", "[someone] teaches kids to take charge", "the uniqueness of humans"; things I could only listen to with gritted teeth.
Solution: only watch the ones that get upvoted on Hacker News. That's what I do, anyway.
Yeah, the socio-political talks are pretty soft-ball, but I really enjoy the tech and art talks.
I call it "intellectual masturbation." Mutual intellectual masturbation in the case of TED and I participate remotely over the internet in a voyeuristic manner stroking my curiosity as I watch the people on stage.
I don't like TED, but I like information.
Don't get me wrong, there is spectacular information being distributed by TED, but I almost feel tricked into obtaining it. The conference is so heavily designed around status, and ego that it seems like more of a marketing tool for the intellectual elite to boost their personal brand than a platform to share ideas. It's inefficient, and deceptive.
What I'd like to see instead of 5-20min presentations is one html webpage with bits of text and perhaps a few high quality images, or at least the option to access the information in this format. To me, everything else is fluff. I just want the information, not the ego, not the voice, not the brands, not the emotion, not the cheering. Just the information.
I know I might be coming across as snarky, or counter-elitist, but it really isn't my intention. I love quality information, and TED confuses me. I often want to idolize and praise these wonderful people that give wonderful speeches more than their ideas, and I'm saddened. Would the information be any less profound written on a bathroom wall? I'm definitely torn, but I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter...
Don't get me wrong, there is spectacular information being distributed by TED, but I almost feel tricked into obtaining it. The conference is so heavily designed around status, and ego that it seems like more of a marketing tool for the intellectual elite to boost their personal brand than a platform to share ideas. It's inefficient, and deceptive.
What I'd like to see instead of 5-20min presentations is one html webpage with bits of text and perhaps a few high quality images, or at least the option to access the information in this format. To me, everything else is fluff. I just want the information, not the ego, not the voice, not the brands, not the emotion, not the cheering. Just the information.
I know I might be coming across as snarky, or counter-elitist, but it really isn't my intention. I love quality information, and TED confuses me. I often want to idolize and praise these wonderful people that give wonderful speeches more than their ideas, and I'm saddened. Would the information be any less profound written on a bathroom wall? I'm definitely torn, but I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter...
I can think of more than a few TED talks that just wouldn't have translated without the oral and verbal clues. The joy in Erin Mckean's voice when saying synecdochically or erinanceous would be completely lost in text.
What makes TED TED? Well, for one, it’s TED because Sarah wasn’t there (and I won’t be there next year because I didn’t pay the $6,000 in time). Its elitism and expense IS part of why TED is magical (...)
This sounds really weird to me. I think what makes TED TED are some amazing talks by interesting people.
We can watch it on the net. Who cares how rich the audience is?
If anything, I suppose the audience is partly the cause of what I dislike in TED: the almost stereotypical Stuff White People Like content and tone of some talks.
This sounds really weird to me. I think what makes TED TED are some amazing talks by interesting people.
We can watch it on the net. Who cares how rich the audience is?
If anything, I suppose the audience is partly the cause of what I dislike in TED: the almost stereotypical Stuff White People Like content and tone of some talks.
"the almost stereotypical Stuff White People Like content"
Maybe, but then where is the "stuff non-white people like" conference that everybody is watching? Everybody is free to organize a conference, so why do only the stereotypical white people seem to bother doing it?
To be clear, I don't want to imply that "white people" are better somehow, I just have troubles grasping the "stuff white people like" complaint.
Also, maybe there really is a non-white TED out there, which right now has 200 votes on non-white Hacker News. If so, it would be very interesting to hear about it (both the conference and non-white hacker news).
Maybe, but then where is the "stuff non-white people like" conference that everybody is watching? Everybody is free to organize a conference, so why do only the stereotypical white people seem to bother doing it?
To be clear, I don't want to imply that "white people" are better somehow, I just have troubles grasping the "stuff white people like" complaint.
Also, maybe there really is a non-white TED out there, which right now has 200 votes on non-white Hacker News. If so, it would be very interesting to hear about it (both the conference and non-white hacker news).
Please don't take it literally. I meant SWPL as in this:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
and thought it would be understood.
What I mean is stuff that is too "liberal", too bland, too politically correct for my taste. A bit hypocritical at times. It's just my opinion; perhaps I should have phrased it differently.
This is only tangentially related to race, by the way. People all over the world (including me) love classical music etc, but by using a derogatory term I'm implying only the stuff I dislike. ;-)
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
and thought it would be understood.
What I mean is stuff that is too "liberal", too bland, too politically correct for my taste. A bit hypocritical at times. It's just my opinion; perhaps I should have phrased it differently.
This is only tangentially related to race, by the way. People all over the world (including me) love classical music etc, but by using a derogatory term I'm implying only the stuff I dislike. ;-)
I understood you just fine, didn't take you literally, knew that you didn't mean to offend and still found your comment a bit annoying.
Annoying's not so bad, I wouldn't go as far as to say I was offended, although it's more out of repetition and boredom from the stereotype of certain subjects being cast as a white thing. I'm old enough to be over that kind of thing but can't pretend I don't notice. I'm not white and I love pretty much all the TED content - the SWPL comment just takes me back to high school.
If it makes you feel better, non-white people aren't immune to unintentional and mild racism either - nobody is. My in-laws constantly make jokes about white people and it grates my nerves when they do it too - they don't get a free pass just because they're Hispanic.
Annoying's not so bad, I wouldn't go as far as to say I was offended, although it's more out of repetition and boredom from the stereotype of certain subjects being cast as a white thing. I'm old enough to be over that kind of thing but can't pretend I don't notice. I'm not white and I love pretty much all the TED content - the SWPL comment just takes me back to high school.
If it makes you feel better, non-white people aren't immune to unintentional and mild racism either - nobody is. My in-laws constantly make jokes about white people and it grates my nerves when they do it too - they don't get a free pass just because they're Hispanic.
SWPL couldn't have taken you back to high school if you actually understood him just fine because the blog is only 2 years old.
What's the age of the blog got to do with it? It definitely takes me back to high school, because the parody culture it describes is much more in line with where I went to high school than with where I am now.
I felt the same way until I watched many of the presentations. TED has some very deep thinkers. I don't find deep, complex subjects "liberal" or "bland". Just my opinion.
I kind of understand, but I would really be interested in the "other stuff". I suppose for TED, ultimately the speakers are still selected by the organizers (don't know TED very well).
What would be a more exciting event? I suppose there already are some?
What would be a more exciting event? I suppose there already are some?
I'm curious too. It doesn't even have to be so ambitious as a whole event.
What would be an example of a talk that's more interesting than anything at TED?
And why couldn't such a talk simply be given at TED? Because "white people" wouldn't like it? Why not?
Some concrete examples would be a great help.
What would be an example of a talk that's more interesting than anything at TED?
And why couldn't such a talk simply be given at TED? Because "white people" wouldn't like it? Why not?
Some concrete examples would be a great help.
Positional goods are positional.
the almost stereotypical Stuff White People Like content and tone of some talks.
I'll take a wild guess, East Asian or South American? Yes, there is a cultural difference in a conference like TED and the rest of the world. But it is an amazing and inspiring conference that hosts some of the most accomplished people in the world as speakers. The fact that you dislike it because culturally it is different than you says more about your openness than it does about the quality of TED. Why is a cultural difference cause for dislike?
I'll take a wild guess, East Asian or South American? Yes, there is a cultural difference in a conference like TED and the rest of the world. But it is an amazing and inspiring conference that hosts some of the most accomplished people in the world as speakers. The fact that you dislike it because culturally it is different than you says more about your openness than it does about the quality of TED. Why is a cultural difference cause for dislike?
You're reading way too much into it; please see my reply to Tichy.
Oh, I happen to be South American, but it's not at all about that level of cultural difference. In my country there's a clone of the SWPL blog called "stuff middle class people like". On the other hand, someone very white like Mark Steyn would likely agree with me.
Oh, I happen to be South American, but it's not at all about that level of cultural difference. In my country there's a clone of the SWPL blog called "stuff middle class people like". On the other hand, someone very white like Mark Steyn would likely agree with me.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.
I think he's trying to say that "being there feels magical". Like walking around, looking at all of the drunk, white, upper middle class people who were ridiculously elated after the election was called for Obama. Mass hysteria?
My only wish is that TED would release all the talks on the website. I think the talks are secondary to the networking that happens there, and that gives the conference its value and keeps people coming. The videos they've posted are awesome, but I always wonder on what isn't up there.
Chris Anderson said that it's mostly the second-rate stuff that doesn't get published, even over time. There must have been a handful of talks that were really disappointing and they don't seem to want them making the rounds.
Is there a list of ones they plan on posting? I was under the impression they were only posting 1 every weekday, and so far the only 2 up (at least on the official site) are Blaise Aguera y Arcas on Augmented Reality and Jamie Oliver's wish for food for every child.
While I found both of those interesting, I'm really looking forward to a few of the others and only 1/day being posted is brutal.
While I found both of those interesting, I'm really looking forward to a few of the others and only 1/day being posted is brutal.
Yet they've published Isabel Allende's talk?
Note that this is a different .com boom magazine publisher than the one of the same name from Wired: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Anderson_(TED)
Great article. I also have felt some "TED attendance envy" while really enjoying the online videos. For some people, the value of personal networking far out weighs the travel costs and conference fee. I like to write (i.e., email) people who entertain, inform and/or impress me, and I am pleasantly surprised how often people respond to questions and comments.
$6000 a ticket isn't a lot considering the caliber of speakers that they bring in. They're paying the speakers, right?
"TED has never paid speakers to attend, but we're committed to creating an experience that's tremendously fulfilling and beneficial on all sides. We do, of course, cover travel costs to Long Beach or Palm Springs, and provide excellent hotel accommodation." Source: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/73
Well, the travel expenses aren't anywhere near what a speaking fee would be, but at least the speakers aren't having to dip in to their own pockets to make a free talk happen. So where does the $6000/ticket go? It seems like a bit more than what would be necessary to cover those costs.
$4000 is a donation to the non-profit Sapling Foundation. The rest is pretty reasonable considering it's a 5-day conference with very high production values. (Except the food, which is kinda hit or miss.)
The TED conference is owned by a charity which they run the TED Prize and the TED Fellows programs.
The controversy is over a measly $6000? That's what the fuss is about? Most people on this site have had $100,000+ spent by their parents in order for them to attend an invitation-only institution at which they spent four years networking with the supposed future leaders! Gasp!
Honestly, TED seems like a much better investment than an elite college. Four years' time and $100-200k, at an age where it's mostly impossible to predict who will accomplish anything, with those "future leaders" selected by unqualified bureaucrats? Or $6000 for face-time with sure bets? Just sayin'.
There are a lot of problems with our society and with parasitic elites, so don't get me wrong: I'm all about busting and beating on those who try to hoard power. I'd love to see a car bomb hit Skull and Bones, and I'd gladly contribute to an Internet hit pool on anyone who attended the Bilderberg conference. But we have to pick our targets carefully, and TED does not seem to deserve our indignation, at least not based on what I've read. My understanding is that it's relatively easy to get in if you have the $6000 (again, cheaper than college) and sign up early; it seems like it's difficult to enter because there's so much demand that the spots fill up early. Well? That's life.
Honestly, TED seems like a much better investment than an elite college. Four years' time and $100-200k, at an age where it's mostly impossible to predict who will accomplish anything, with those "future leaders" selected by unqualified bureaucrats? Or $6000 for face-time with sure bets? Just sayin'.
There are a lot of problems with our society and with parasitic elites, so don't get me wrong: I'm all about busting and beating on those who try to hoard power. I'd love to see a car bomb hit Skull and Bones, and I'd gladly contribute to an Internet hit pool on anyone who attended the Bilderberg conference. But we have to pick our targets carefully, and TED does not seem to deserve our indignation, at least not based on what I've read. My understanding is that it's relatively easy to get in if you have the $6000 (again, cheaper than college) and sign up early; it seems like it's difficult to enter because there's so much demand that the spots fill up early. Well? That's life.
I'd like to know where you went to pay 100-200k in tuition fees and get nothing but networking out of it.
Where I live, a bachelor's degree is about 15k (total), and is about learning engineering, physics or whatever you want to do. Going to TED twice won't give you quite the same skills...
Where I live, a bachelor's degree is about 15k (total), and is about learning engineering, physics or whatever you want to do. Going to TED twice won't give you quite the same skills...
That was perhaps a bit inflammatory... I probably shouldn't have posted it, at least not in that tone and manner.
Certainly college doesn't provide "nothing but networking", nor does going to TED. You learn a lot in the process, sure.
The reason American tuition is so high, however, especially at elite schools, is because a lot of Americans believe that attending the right college is a golden ticket of sorts.
I guess my point is that there's no sense in being indignant about $6000 to attend TED when Americans are willing to spend an additional $250k over the cost of attending a first-rate state university (including the prep high schools required for most people to have a decent chance at the most prestigious college) for the supposed networking advantages.
Certainly college doesn't provide "nothing but networking", nor does going to TED. You learn a lot in the process, sure.
The reason American tuition is so high, however, especially at elite schools, is because a lot of Americans believe that attending the right college is a golden ticket of sorts.
I guess my point is that there's no sense in being indignant about $6000 to attend TED when Americans are willing to spend an additional $250k over the cost of attending a first-rate state university (including the prep high schools required for most people to have a decent chance at the most prestigious college) for the supposed networking advantages.
Yes, it was a bit inflammatory, but I see your point now and I agree.
Most people on this site? Really?
The Elitist Dominate TED
summary: celebrity worship.
If by celebrities you mean some of the most insightful and inspiring people from many countries all over the world, then you are quite right. It reads like worshipping the effort these people have put into achieving progress, which sounds great to me. Otherwise, I guess you're just being cynical or snarky.
Some of the talks are genuinely good, but many have a sort of weird vibe to them that I find offputting, that seems to value flashiness and trends over intellectual content. Sort of like if all of academia were the MIT Media Lab. Some, especially the management/motivation/life-philosophy ones, even border on the new-agey psuedo-psych sort of stuff you find on the corporate speaking circuit.
...the talks are 18 minutes or less. If any of the talks seemed lacking in intellectual content to you it's most likely because of time constraints. For example Ken Robinson's talk on education was 100% motivation/life-philosophy, simply because he doesn't have time to present the proof he's based his opinions on. The proof does exist though; all the speakers have the credentials to back up their presentations.
I'd be interesting in a few of the "many" examples you have of this type of talk you object you. If you wouldn't mind, please link to a few here. I haven't seen a single TED talk that fits the "corporate speaking circuit" test.
I'd be interesting in a few of the "many" examples you have of this type of talk you object you. If you wouldn't mind, please link to a few here. I haven't seen a single TED talk that fits the "corporate speaking circuit" test.
Daniel Pink came to mind when I was writing that part. I agree in an 18-minute talk you can only sort of speak in generalities, but in his case, his books are similarly unscientific.
I never watched Pink's talk, but based on his bio I can see what you are basing your opinion off of. However, it's my impression at least that speakers like that are a minority.
Well said, it's that among other things, some good. But America is a lottery, everyone wants to be that celebrity, and thinks they have a pretty good shot (attention statistics deficit disorder).
[deleted](2)
If I didn't know that this is just how Scoble writes about everything, I would have come away with a worse opinion of TED than I had going into it. TED is supposedly about "ideas worth spreading", not how awesome it is to be rich and white (or fashionably ethnic). If I wanted to know about things rich people do that I will never do, I'd watch My Super Sweet 16. It's no wonder they don't hand out more press passes.
I think the way to address complaints of elitism is to not. If being an exclusive event is how the sausage gets made, great. Reasonable people understand that the hype and pretense surrounding TED does not negate the value of the content that it produces. Reasonable people skip the unbearably pompous intro music and the punctuating two minutes of advertisement for things that rich people care about and simply enjoy the talks. Reasonable people don't care about how awesome it is to get into the exclusive club.
[1]:http://scobleizer.com/2010/02/08/a-ted-responsibility/