The Naked and the TED(tnr.com)
tnr.com
The Naked and the TED
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/105703/the-naked-and-the-ted-khanna
36 comments
To me TED feels a bit like going to church, just replacing the Bible with technology in a collective experience.
"For a couple of years I've been fascinated with the idea that as intelligent people many of us are drawn to activities and consumption that makes us look more intelligent, whether or not we actually learn anything of value from them or not."
This is a very interesting thought. I suppose to some extent that effect is due to there being fewer checks of your ability once you reach a high level of competence in something, simply because there are fewer people who have the ability to do that.
One way to mitigate that could be to learn entirely new things that you don't think you have an 'aptitude' for. When you start something really new to you, and later begin to publish stuff made with those new skills, there's a huge number of people who will analyse your work critically.
This is a very interesting thought. I suppose to some extent that effect is due to there being fewer checks of your ability once you reach a high level of competence in something, simply because there are fewer people who have the ability to do that.
One way to mitigate that could be to learn entirely new things that you don't think you have an 'aptitude' for. When you start something really new to you, and later begin to publish stuff made with those new skills, there's a huge number of people who will analyse your work critically.
I suppose adhering to the echo chamber's rhetoric is where the danger lies. A savvy politician with an ear for techno babble and an agenda detrimental to the hungry listener could make a lot of headway turning his plan into concrete effects before anyone realises what is going on.
> the idea that as intelligent people many of us are drawn to activities and consumption that makes us look more intelligent
Relevant essay: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...
Relevant essay: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...
Sour sour sour grapes.
The thing about TED is, wild-eyed though it may be, it's not a political agenda. It's (trying to be) beyond that, about technology and science and understanding, and while the result is often pretty technocratic it is actually often reflecting the benefits of self-organisation through tech. Stuff like Wikipedia, for example, is perfect TED-fodder because it shows demonstrable ways of doing things better.
People who do not understand that idea (of which they are many) criticise it on their own terms, and so miss the point. If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name. However that's like religious people insisting that atheists must believe in something, even if that's belief in an idea. It is outside their framework of understanding to consider a person who does not hold any kind of belief.
So, personally (and I think the popularity of TED and RSA etc reflect this) this whole article reads like some venting from someone who doesn't really understand the concept, and so can only think of it in terms of politics. These Teddites must have a political view of some kind, right? No.
It's trans-political because it's about applied informational learning to solve problems. Politics itself being one of those problems.
The thing about TED is, wild-eyed though it may be, it's not a political agenda. It's (trying to be) beyond that, about technology and science and understanding, and while the result is often pretty technocratic it is actually often reflecting the benefits of self-organisation through tech. Stuff like Wikipedia, for example, is perfect TED-fodder because it shows demonstrable ways of doing things better.
People who do not understand that idea (of which they are many) criticise it on their own terms, and so miss the point. If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name. However that's like religious people insisting that atheists must believe in something, even if that's belief in an idea. It is outside their framework of understanding to consider a person who does not hold any kind of belief.
So, personally (and I think the popularity of TED and RSA etc reflect this) this whole article reads like some venting from someone who doesn't really understand the concept, and so can only think of it in terms of politics. These Teddites must have a political view of some kind, right? No.
It's trans-political because it's about applied informational learning to solve problems. Politics itself being one of those problems.
Is there some alternate Wikipedia out there that's not a bureaucratic, inefficient, often self-destructive mess?
If I drew anything from Wikipedia, I'd draw the conclusion that this sort of 'non-political' technological organization becomes intensely political, with most decisions made through behind-the-scenes rules-related politicking by the people with the most time to burn.
Horrifying, because the people with the most time to burn on any particular issue are usually the extremists. I can't imagine the distopia that'd result if things like zoning laws or environmental regulations were decided by the same process.
If I drew anything from Wikipedia, I'd draw the conclusion that this sort of 'non-political' technological organization becomes intensely political, with most decisions made through behind-the-scenes rules-related politicking by the people with the most time to burn.
Horrifying, because the people with the most time to burn on any particular issue are usually the extremists. I can't imagine the distopia that'd result if things like zoning laws or environmental regulations were decided by the same process.
I can't imagine the distopia that'd result if things like zoning laws or environmental regulations were decided by the same process.
You have a brutally dry sense of humor.
You have a brutally dry sense of humor.
Thank you. I like to post where it's appreciated.
Yes, of course Wikipedia is often bureaucratic, inefficient, and self-destructive. I wouldn't recommend putting a lot of time into it. But sometimes it's pretty efficient: some edits are simply accepted.
Why on Earth would TED publish this garbage then? TED is at its best when it's concrete ("here's what I've done") or rigorously descriptive ("here are the statistics"). When it starts getting speculative or political (e.g. "here's how to fix education") it's ridiculous.
"Singularity may rid us of death, but it won’t abolish backscratching."
"Singularity may rid us of death, but it won’t abolish backscratching."
Wikipedia ,which is basically composed of many small non-connected parts. But a project like python where the parts are more dependent on one another do need a leader and some hierarchy.
And self organization is at the basis of market capitalism. So TED do seem like the same old political agenda packaged with a bit of techno-optimism.
And self organization is at the basis of market capitalism. So TED do seem like the same old political agenda packaged with a bit of techno-optimism.
tangential question: what's the difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I do not believe in gods"? Aren't you, in both cases, saying that the world, as you believe it exists, contains no X where X is a god? I think atheism is still a belief, even if you stick a "not" in front of "believe". (then it just seems like it isn't a belief, as an artifact of English syntax).
I think the second version "I do not believe in gods" is more like agnosticism than atheism. The law of the excluded middle does not necessarily apply to the statement "there is a god". You might consider it unknown or undecidable.
I disagree strongly with most of the points you make.
I don't think this is a case of sour grapes... and if it is, so what? Because the argument made is entirely reasonable and well done. Whether you agree or not, it is an important view point that has to be aired more often. I personally agree with the author's premise and I think your view that TED doesn't have a political agenda is naive in the extreme.
I don't think this is a case of sour grapes... and if it is, so what? Because the argument made is entirely reasonable and well done. Whether you agree or not, it is an important view point that has to be aired more often. I personally agree with the author's premise and I think your view that TED doesn't have a political agenda is naive in the extreme.
I think the argument is neither reasonably made nor well done. It reads like a laundry list of gripes the author has, like "oh yeah, and one more thing, and look at this word, and what a fool this guy is, and one more, and and and" but with some nice verbage.
What he doesn't get to the heart of is, aside from the fact that the book may not be very good (which I can easily accept), why the central systems-and-data-driven plank that comprises much of TED-esque thinking is bad.
To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out. Whereas look at the actual smart-device search-engine semantic-social world we're creeping toward and the post-political person understands that those are just inevitable outcomes. It's not whether the singularity might happen (or could be prevented) but when, and so the forward-looking thinking person should be trying to figure out the best uses of that.
He's also missed the pointed examples of Signapore and China by a country mile, mistaking older ideological associations (which, again, every forward-thinking person understands need to be resolved) for the efficiency argument. The reviewer's point is that efficiency leads to brutality, which is a very old-school political idea, but the TED-esque view generally looks for efficiency to promote/empower humanity.
Again, like Wikipedia, both more efficient and much better (but let's instead get distracted by talking about Jimmy Wales and how he named his children).
So, you know, like that. Morozov seems to want to make a middle-20th century argument about early 21st-century ideas, and it shows. He writes passably well (though this review could have been cut in half with no loss imo), but the core conceit (this TED stuff is techno-politics) is just fundamentally wrong.
What he doesn't get to the heart of is, aside from the fact that the book may not be very good (which I can easily accept), why the central systems-and-data-driven plank that comprises much of TED-esque thinking is bad.
To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out. Whereas look at the actual smart-device search-engine semantic-social world we're creeping toward and the post-political person understands that those are just inevitable outcomes. It's not whether the singularity might happen (or could be prevented) but when, and so the forward-looking thinking person should be trying to figure out the best uses of that.
He's also missed the pointed examples of Signapore and China by a country mile, mistaking older ideological associations (which, again, every forward-thinking person understands need to be resolved) for the efficiency argument. The reviewer's point is that efficiency leads to brutality, which is a very old-school political idea, but the TED-esque view generally looks for efficiency to promote/empower humanity.
Again, like Wikipedia, both more efficient and much better (but let's instead get distracted by talking about Jimmy Wales and how he named his children).
So, you know, like that. Morozov seems to want to make a middle-20th century argument about early 21st-century ideas, and it shows. He writes passably well (though this review could have been cut in half with no loss imo), but the core conceit (this TED stuff is techno-politics) is just fundamentally wrong.
That ideas are not recent is not an argument that they are wrong, it's just an excuse to be historically illiterate yet still claim credibility.
>To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out.
No, he finds the idea of a immanent techno-millennium ancient, familiar to most culturally literate people, and articulated more convincingly (or rather more coherently) by people a century ago who were also wrong. He argues that the "hybrid age" is a vacuous restating of a basic condition of man that is not only older than Twitter, but older than books. He argues that the rewarming of these old ideas masks personal agendas of the traditional sort, namely the accumulation of wealth and status by serving the traditional players in their traditional totalitarian political agendas.
You may not agree, but you also are not disagreeing coherently. At least until you can define to your audience what "semantic-social" and "post-political" mean before you use them in an argument.
>To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out.
No, he finds the idea of a immanent techno-millennium ancient, familiar to most culturally literate people, and articulated more convincingly (or rather more coherently) by people a century ago who were also wrong. He argues that the "hybrid age" is a vacuous restating of a basic condition of man that is not only older than Twitter, but older than books. He argues that the rewarming of these old ideas masks personal agendas of the traditional sort, namely the accumulation of wealth and status by serving the traditional players in their traditional totalitarian political agendas.
You may not agree, but you also are not disagreeing coherently. At least until you can define to your audience what "semantic-social" and "post-political" mean before you use them in an argument.
There is no way we are going to agree on much in this domain. I just so strongly disagree, it is painful to me!
Consider your 'post-political person'. I believe this is a conceit. In my opinion no such person exists.
Are you seriously arguing that politicians will soon be a thing of the past? That, in essence, is the conclusion you must reach. A little further down the line, I expect the Singularity will happen as well, yet I have a sneaky suspicion the first to get there will execute the ultimate political act which will be to deny access to the several billion people that weren't part of their cohort.
-Supplemental-
Since we don't really know how the Singularity will express itself, 'get there' should be read as 'to contact', 'integrate with' etc
Consider your 'post-political person'. I believe this is a conceit. In my opinion no such person exists.
Are you seriously arguing that politicians will soon be a thing of the past? That, in essence, is the conclusion you must reach. A little further down the line, I expect the Singularity will happen as well, yet I have a sneaky suspicion the first to get there will execute the ultimate political act which will be to deny access to the several billion people that weren't part of their cohort.
-Supplemental-
Since we don't really know how the Singularity will express itself, 'get there' should be read as 'to contact', 'integrate with' etc
[deleted]
>The thing about TED is, wild-eyed though it may be, it's not a political agenda.
Actually it very very much reeks of political agenda from miles away.
There are few things more political (in that they have very specific political consequences) than denouncing politics and trying to present yourself or your activities as apolitical.
Presenting technology as beyond or above politics is even worse.
>If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name.
Politics is the ideas behind our actions: what we want our actions to achieve and how we want to shape the future.
So you cannot escape politics, it's not merely "seeing things through a political lens". Things are inherently political.
It would be like saying we should not see things through a "reality lens". Reality is inescapable.
Actually it very very much reeks of political agenda from miles away.
There are few things more political (in that they have very specific political consequences) than denouncing politics and trying to present yourself or your activities as apolitical.
Presenting technology as beyond or above politics is even worse.
>If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name.
Politics is the ideas behind our actions: what we want our actions to achieve and how we want to shape the future.
So you cannot escape politics, it's not merely "seeing things through a political lens". Things are inherently political.
It would be like saying we should not see things through a "reality lens". Reality is inescapable.
>Given TED’s disproportionate influence on a certain level of the global debate, it follows that the public at large also becomes more approving of technological solutions to problems that are not technological but political. Problems of climate change become problems of making production more efficient or finding ways to colonize other planets—not of reaching political agreement on how to limit production or consume in a more sustainable fashion. Problems of health care become problems of inadequate self-monitoring and data-sharing. Problems of ensuring one’s privacy—which might otherwise get solved by pushing for new laws—become problems of inadequate tools for defending one’s anonymity online or selling access to one’s own data.
Likewise, when a publication focused on politics analyzes problems, the solutions are always political, never technological. If you follow the author's logic, most of the issues presented in TED talks could be solved with laws.
I'm quite cynical about the somewhat simplistic solutions offered by some TED speakers, but I don't see laws and political debate solving most of the problems TED discusses.
Likewise, when a publication focused on politics analyzes problems, the solutions are always political, never technological. If you follow the author's logic, most of the issues presented in TED talks could be solved with laws.
I'm quite cynical about the somewhat simplistic solutions offered by some TED speakers, but I don't see laws and political debate solving most of the problems TED discusses.
Even when there exist technological solutions to big problems , there's usually a need for strong political component to make them work. Two examples are the birth control pill and the industrial revolution. After the birth control pill finally enabled women to develop careers, it took and is taking a long political struggle for them to have equitable jobs. And even as the industrial productivity increased productivity greatly, people were forced to leave their homes and work long hours for barely subsistence pay , until the worker movement succeeded in helping them.
In a world where technology is relatively abundant, the hard problems are still political(at the country, industry or company level).
In a world where technology is relatively abundant, the hard problems are still political(at the country, industry or company level).
The author almost but not quite describes "the singularity" as a kind of secular pseudo-intellectual rapture. Nailed it.
That's an idea that does get thrown around fairly explicitly now and then: https://www.google.com/search?q=singularity+%22rapture+for+n...
"who doesn’t fancy uploading his soul to the cloud so that it can commingle with the soul of Steve Jobs?" is a great line
The herd of independent minds.
Morozov (the post's author) has also written a book called The Net Delusion that provides a good background on the less-friendly parts of the Internet. I recommend it for those just entering the IT/Internet-based business world.
I don't have the experience with it to make informed comments, but I can't help feeling increasingly that TED is or has become another version of "the beautiful people".
The money swirling around it doesn't help, in this regard.
The money swirling around it doesn't help, in this regard.
[deleted]
TED and HN provides me better "entertainment" and some knowledge than TV. For learning there is stuff like Coursera, Udacity etc. But I still wished there was something between entertainment and academics. I hope some entrepreneur jumps into this area and creates an awesome solution. It may not make him a billionare. But his/her impact on humanity would be truly great.
+1
Expand my mind with documentaries on history, science etc - not just full length hour long ones, even 2-20 minutes is good. As long as it's engaging.
I like the idea that TED release talks and books so slowly that you can consume every one (not true for talks, but they're trying with books.)
Pity TEDBooks is apparently crap (given the info from the featured article)
Expand my mind with documentaries on history, science etc - not just full length hour long ones, even 2-20 minutes is good. As long as it's engaging.
I like the idea that TED release talks and books so slowly that you can consume every one (not true for talks, but they're trying with books.)
Pity TEDBooks is apparently crap (given the info from the featured article)
[deleted]
tl;dr - Reviewer didn't like the book.
It might seem odd that Parag Khanna would turn his attention to the world of technology. He established his reputation as a wannabe geopolitical theorist, something of a modern-day Kissinger, only wired and cool
I don't find it strange. Having followed TED for years I have noticed the political under current become more obvious over time. The technocratic political elite like having a forum to promote their agenda, no surprise there really.
I don't find it strange. Having followed TED for years I have noticed the political under current become more obvious over time. The technocratic political elite like having a forum to promote their agenda, no surprise there really.
"takedown"? I don't think it means what you think it means.
As for the article, I kept wanting to nod off. I guess it's just not my style.
As for the article, I kept wanting to nod off. I guess it's just not my style.
>"takedown"? I don't think it means what you think it means.
Take a gander here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/takedown
I see three definitions, two literal and one figurative that apply here:
>6. Informal . the act of being humbled.
>7. Wrestling . a move or series of maneuvers that succeeds in bringing a standing opponent down onto the mat.
>2. a crushing remark [syn: put-down]
Take a gander here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/takedown
I see three definitions, two literal and one figurative that apply here:
>6. Informal . the act of being humbled.
>7. Wrestling . a move or series of maneuvers that succeeds in bringing a standing opponent down onto the mat.
>2. a crushing remark [syn: put-down]
I liked this article a lot, even though I don't have as much experience with the TED community as the author does. Applying a acerbic wit and cynical eye to what we do as technical people is sorely needed.
And the author has a point: at some point the language gets so conceptual and fuzzy that it becomes more of a performance than a knowledge-sharing exercise. It's like a carnival for the wannabe Bill Gates of the world.
For a couple of years I've been fascinated with the idea that as intelligent people many of us are drawn to activities and consumption that makes us look more intelligent, whether or not we actually learn anything of value from them or not. So we listen to the right music, have the right opinions, and banter on about the right topics in the right way, all the while doing more than just a little social posturing and signalling. Vast segments of intelligentsia are little more than echo chamber. We are giving up independent analysis for pre-digested bits of feel-good junk food.
Good to see that argument gaining more traction. Healthy communities require introspection and honest conversations.