This is a worrisome development -- TED metasticizing. Releasing the branded concept for free with a license ensures even more spread of this tech cult.
I hate TED. I don't hate it because it's elitist and affluent and costs $6000 -- that's normal in the tech industry and conferences have to make money.
I hate it because it pretends to be innovative and open, and even makes a cult of the innovative and open, and yet it peddles always the same geek line, never permitting debate (the format is always to have a guru speak in front of an ecstatic and unquestioning audience without even any Q&A) and it often introduces new popularized tech horrors, like this truly loathsome concept of making everything in life a game propagandized by Jesse Schell (see above). Jesse's talk is a TED-recommended video featured on its website, not TED per se, but that's just it -- TED co-opts and picks and choses what ideas it will promote, and provides no venue for debating them.
Schell's video epitomizes everything about the TED ritualistic canon -- the pompous faux laid-back geek guru bounding out on stage, speaking in flippant sound bytes and lobbing prefabricated jokes, flipping the PowerPoint -- and advancing an awful idea that further undermines the human being's individuality and context in reality, and collectivizes him into a meta-game to "motivate him". Schell didn't think this up -- ludologists such as the failed economics professor Edward Castranova writes about tapping into the autonomous nervous system with the fight/flight/reward game paradigm to get people to work or socialize better.
I called this out in my critique in the comments on the Times piece about education and the "serious games" which are a total racket for injecting ideology into education, and my question was selected for an answer.
It was an answer I didn't find on target, because James Paul Gee is just double-talking me there, in that superior tone that one can expect from one of his background and belief system, and saying that having a discussion after a game is going to cancel out the deep imprinting of habits of thinking that occur from playing the addictive games in the first place. He doesn't explain how the self-development of the brain in engagement with a text and with a teacher can take place in the rigidly game controlling environment that puts up coders' cultural cues and dictates users' answers. He also answers the longer version of my question -- I asked whether he'd rather be operated by on a doctor who learned from textbooks and labs and practice, or somebody who played WoW -- yet my question is truncated so you can't see I asked about that.
Education is where geeks are really hoping to take hold now, which explains Zuckerberg's $100 million for Newark, which I'll come back to.
The TED thing at first seems like the Crowdsourcing Chris Anderson is now finally going to democratize this elitist geek meet-up. But it's anything but that. Because the template for it -- you will require a license to put on one of his branded meet-ups -- helps disseminate his rigid unfree cultural norms.
Take a look at what you have to agree to:
Apparently you can. A TEDx license is required to organize an event. The rules: recipients must not be associated with a controversial or extremist group, and cannot use TEDx to promote religious or political beliefs, or to sell commercial goods. There are also rules governing the event format, including that speakers must be filmed and that they don’t speak for more than 18 minutes each. TEDx organizers cannot charge for tickets, though TED makes some exceptions for groups that need help with production costs. Organizers who want to charge a fee (which can’t exceed $100) must seek permission from TED.
This is wrong on so many levels:
o What is a "controversial" or "extremist group"? The Tea Party is a protest movement that the left constantly tries to portray as extremist. If anyone is a sympathizer, they couldn't put on a TED meeting. That's not just a brand; it's an ideological boot-camp. And perhaps it's justified to benefit from the lefty hippie transhumanist brand that TED wants to keep -- and of course that's their right. Except...they are packaging it as neutral "education" when in fact it's a cult.
And...what is "controversial"? Is a group I might put together of tekkies in NY who love this sort of thing going to be "controversial" because I have several blogs where I mercilessly skewer the TEDutopians? I'd likely be rejected a "license" -- which of course, is a very creepy thing to have to get to have a meeting, a very, very bad precedent in general in the Metaverse and of course indicative of the Wired State.
o The speakers can't speak for more than 18 minutes?! what's that all about?!
o You can't charge for tickets? Well that's just plain repressive. Especially when the TED people could be making money on this and license the brand in exchange for a standard cut.
o It's only on suffrance that you *might* be able to charge a fee, and then only $100. I guess that's because TED Central will still charge $6000 a pop for the real conference -- these other local ones are only sort of fan groups.
What's awful about this is how it fetched up on my Facebook "liked" by various vacuous indiscriminate tekkie types who thought this was a great way to learn -- at a free conference! "Llllearn" (they always use the jargonistic spin on the term to mean essentially "imbibe tech doctrine like a sponge" -- marked by the with rolling of the "l")
It's also disturbing to see that lazy teachers are using this in the classroom, and probably without any teaching materials that question any of the tech-religious doctrine. You can't even discuss the creationist beliefs in the classroom, but hey, you can peddle TED transhumanism.
“We know teachers are using the talks in classrooms,” said Lara Stein, TED’s licensing director. “What could we do to move that along?”
After all, as Mr. Anderson pointed out, the rise of online video means a teacher doesn’t have to be someone sitting in front of a classroom talking to 30 people. Especially if something like TEDx can make learning and social change “sexy,” as Ms. Kim of Ashoka put it.
“It’s an experience,” she said. “It’s not a lecture. It’s transformational. That’s why people like me are hooked.”
See? It's a camp meeting. Parents should question this. And make sure that if these TED cult movies are shown, that there is a Q&A that DEBATES the science-ology that gets unquestioningly disseminated through this new insidious program.
This is one of the saddest blog posts I've ever read.
I think TED is great. . It's altruistic. it's pluralistic. it's changing then world for the better. Most of the people I know who watch TED talks love them. It's very popular 300 million plus downloads, so its not exactly a tiny minority that think this way...
what has the author of this blog done in his or her life that has improved the world for other people.
The only criticism in the post that is worth considering is "why no debate" well the answer is that you do debate TED talks, but watching the TED attendees debate and question would not be compelling viewing. You can have debates and discussions later.
I'm helping organise a TEDx (for free as a volunteer, and I'm proud of what I am doing.
my comments on the content above
It's "a very creepy thing to have to get (a licence) to have a meeting"
my comment: No, only if you want it TEDx branded. not creepy at all.
"The speakers can't speak for more than 18 minutes?! what's that all about?!'
my comment: It's about keeping it short. A great feature forcing speakers to be concise. The talks are compelling and popular, partly because they are short.
"You can't charge for tickets? Well that's just plain repressive. "
my comment: No, its not, it's standard practice in Creative Commons Licence land (which is how TED talks are licenced). They give their content away for free, and expect those following their format to work in the same spirit. No one has to do a TEDx event...
"Especially when the TED people could be making money on this and license the brand in exchange for a standard cut."
my comment: No. Just because you think they could make money doesn't mean they have to. It's great that TED talks are free.
"It's only on suffrance that you *might* be able to charge a fee, and then only $100. I guess that's because TED Central will still charge $6000 a pop for the real conference -- these other local ones are only sort of fan groups."
my comment: Exactly, it's the model described in Chris Anderson's book "Free". it makes sense, is open, transparent and there is nothing wrong with it. its a cross subsidy from the wealthy everyone else. A good thing, not a problem.
"What's awful about this is how it fetched up on my Facebook "liked" by various vacuous indiscriminate tekkie types who thought this was a great way to learn -- at a free conference! "Llllearn" (they always use the jargonistic spin on the term to mean essentially "imbibe tech doctrine like a sponge" -- marked by the with rolling of the "l")"
my comment: you are being arrogant, and prejudiced. I don't know if you are English Irish, Scottish, German Polish, or Zimbabwean. It just doesn't matter and I don't care. Who cares what accent people talk in provided what they say makes sense.
"It's also disturbing to see that lazy teachers are using this in the classroom, and probably without any teaching materials that question any of the religious doctrine. You can't even discuss the creationist beliefs in the classroom, but hey, you can peddle TED transhumanism."
my comment: You obviously didn't listen to Billy Graham
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_and_suffering.html
or Rich Warren
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/rick_warren_on_a_life_of_purpose.html
(Christian Fundamentalists)
or Karen Armstrong, progressive nun) on TED.com
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule.html
TED is pluralistic. it gives a platform to lots of people with different points of view.
“We know teachers are using the talks in classrooms,” said Lara Stein, TED’s licensing director. “What could we do to move that along?”
my comment: "Oh no, teachers are using compelling free short talks as part of their lessons". It's a great idea. I am in favour. I use TED talks as part of my workshops I teach. Again, what is the problem?
In summary, the blog makes one point worth making. That TED talks should feed into debate. No one in their right mind (least of all committed TEDsters) would disagree, Beyond this, the most anger filled and bitter piece of comment I have read in a long time..
Could it be you a little bit jealous.
I feel sorry for you, where ever you are and are going.
Posted by: Richard Lucas | 09/27/2010 at 11:21 AM
You're a living example of what is so terribly creepy about this, Richard, and I'm not sad, I'm a healthy dose of realism in the fact of this awful icky creepy authoritarianism coming out of Silicon Valley.
Creative Commons is hardly a model; it decouples creators' from commerce and browbeats them into giving away creations, making it seem as if they HAVE to do that to be cool. No PayPal buttons for Cory Doctorow and gang -- they earn lecture fees to go give lectures about...how you should give away your book for free.
Short? Well geez, could they go 25 minutes, even? Honestly, that's just controlling anal behaviour.
TED isn't pluralistic in the slightest. I've seen many TED videos and they are all out of the same transhumanist cookie cutter. If someone like Morozov is allowed on to play "twitter skeptic"; it's because he celebrates the tech and the devs even so, implying that it's merely about the masses getting it wrong, and not listening to experts like him on the "right" way to tweet.
Anger filled and bitter? No, just debunking bullshit. Jesse Schell is downright immoral in his notion that everything should be gamed by playing on people's worst addictive tendencies.
I notice that all the usual geeky meme-chimes are rung here -- that I didn't patch, so I should get the fuck out; I didn't "contribute to humanity" (laughs).
Shame, shame, shame on Chris Anderson, touting "Free" -- itself a bullshit technocommunist shill! -- and then only letting some of his pals charge $100, and browbeating everyone into saying they can't charge more, and then having the Big Tent $6000. If he REAAAALY believes in FREE, he needs to get rid of his big-ass freemium gimmick.
If the TED people put in a few token -- and very anodyne! -- evangelists like Billy Graham, so what? They haven't really debated any controversial people on the right -- that would be aneathema. They haven't OPENED UP DEBATE by having actual panels of people with conflicting views and QUESTIONS. The entire churchy nature of this spectacle is appalling.
But you're a good advertisement for what's wrong with the TED movement, so keep talking! I know I'm absolutely right to be appalled at a movement that deliberately erases out controversy and dumbs down debate; that undermines commerce; that creates homogenized experiences; that peddles this tekkie crap hither and yon without question. No authentic university experience or institute of debate and learning would countenance an approach that allows lectures without questions, or one person to push a point of view, without others on a panel. The token questions they might allow are so far from anything remotely like a genuine debate as to be a horrid caricature.
"Ohnoes using compellings short talks in the classroom". Oh no, indeed. Again, there is no curriculum that critically analyzes this material; it's supposed to be ecstatically used like a religious doctrine, not questioned. I'm supposed to sit still while tech loons like Stowe Boyd are unleashed on my children?! Totalitarians like Seth Godin? No one ever *debates* these gurus; they bow before them and organize one more TED talk...
Oh, but you haven't rung all the chimes. You forgot to ask me if I am off my meds, and tell me I "need help".
Posted by: Catherine Fitzpatrick | 09/28/2010 at 04:30 AM
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, or the TED speakers(by the way you could write comments on their web site).
You completely misunderstand what TED is all about.
Saying you cannot learn from a TED talk because its too short or there is no debate is like saying you cannot learn from a TV programme or book, because you cannot debate it.
of course you can debate the book with your teacher, but the same is true of your TED talk... with TED you can write your comments on their web page.
or you could sign up to one of the Question and Answer sessions for example like here...
http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/12/ted_and_reddit_1/
When I was at Cambridge in the UK lectures seldom provoked debate and there were very few questions asked. (not saying its good - it's just the way things were). Here in Poland where I live, TED talks trigger discussions and debates.
Freemium works quite well for Google...
Personally I find a lot of the TED talks highly supportive of an anti-big government approach to life. The successful outcomes are seldom to do with a wise bit of public policy.
with a constant background beat of individual effort, voluntary collaboration, making a contribution.
I challenge you to name five talks that would be powerful evidence in favour of voting for a left wing political party.
I personally don't agree with a lot of TED talks but that doesn't matter. they make you think. Some of them are quite "preachy" but you don't have to agree with a book or talk to find it valuable. Further a well expressed wrong argument helps crystalise your own thinking.
You may not be happy about it but you've helped me understand why I like TED, because your extreme position makes me think
Is there a left wing bias? maybe by American standards but I am not sure.
On a lot of the talks, its not at all about right/left or technology related issues at all.
its about topical problems and interesting solutions, whether in areas of anti corruption, slavery. health care, education, music or introducing concepts of leadership
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/patrick_awuah_on_educating_leaders.html
or takr this one about getting people to listen to classical music
http://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html
I fail to see a left right techno silicon valley angle at all
its just an impressive guy describing what he does and why to a global audience. its great that people like this are given a platform
Granted some TEDsters are a little bit smug, and self important. but...
I am far more impressed by the ones who bother and make and effort to do this, than do what most rich successful people do with their $6000 and time.
Its a powerful and positive role model in my opinion...
so seeing as you like debate, and discussion, please answer the questions
1. What in a world where you were in charge, would you rather Benjamin Zander were doing than telling people about his activities on TED?
2. What is wrong with giving a platform to someone like anti sex slavery activist
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sunitha_krishnan_tedindia.html
3. Derek Sivers idea about how to start a movement here is original and well delivered.
http://blog.ted.com/2010/04/01/how_to_start_a/
is he correct ? well you can discuss that. what do you think?
4 Taking a non TED talk you probably hate as well, Guy Kawasaki's 10 20 30 rule
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liQLdRk0Ziw
well its a powerful argument in favour of being short. its not a debate, its a talk and its something that many people could benefit from...
I think the most important point is that just because TED isn't exactly what you want it to be doesn't mean it should change. it's very good at what it does. it is moving in the direction of more user generated content (though I am not sure that is a good idea as we will drown in too much content..
Richard
Posted by: Richard Lucas | 09/29/2010 at 11:12 AM
Are you a paid evangelist for the TED set or are you just playing along at home, Richard?
You're using the usual silly geek distractor of claiming that because I've *criticized the lack of debate and openness around the sterile TED cult* -- rightfully so! -- I've somehow a) denied TED's right to express a point of view b) denied any value in these various homogenous exemplars of the techno cult.
They're right to freedom of dissemination of information is fortunately secured in the U.S., and needs no special defense from me, nor have I undermined it *by using that same right*.
And...Um, I didn't get into their "value", which for you is "self-evident" anyway because I'm concerned about *process* and *context*. We can't debate the value on the merits because of this set-up. Anybody who is "controversial" can't even have a TED event. And at these TED events, there is no debate; the UR-TED productions don't have Q&A, and don't have panals of debates. THAT is the issue.
I'm not going to be frog-marched into what geeks like you try to do when the discussion is actually about freedom and open context, and somehow make a begrudging admission that yeah, there's decent content in TED. Because TED is a cult. It's not about content, but process. You're examples of the "range of opinions" that have...Billy Graham are laughable.
Question and answer sessions like that get controlled for "trolls" who are simply people persistent in their obvious questions about how rigged this is.
And now, a completely laughable argumentation from you with the contrasting of apples and oranges. Your particular experience at Cambridge in the UK involves "no debate", although Cambridge is a recognized university which competing perspectives and debates in it of every kind. Um, perhaps you feel it is all neoliberal policies and running dog imperialists, but whatever, most people can concede Cambridge's reputation.
Then you play three-card monte and take us to...Poland...a place where people have struggled and died for their freedom of speech and the right to debate and the right to be wrong, and suddenly hijack that demonstrable record as a mantle to wrap your TED cult in. Devious, devious! I saw what you did there...
Rather than me spend time drumming up five TED talks that "talk you into voting for a left-wing party," why don't you take any random 10 TED talks and ask how those speakers voted and what kind of following they had, even if they talk about...server stacks and widgets.
To fail to see any leftwing agenda in Silicon Valley is to fail to see the enormous role of the tech devs of social media in the Obama campaign. Just because some big IT is Republican or the governors are Republican doesn't mean that these new media moguls don't have tremendous influence. Also, um, please point out the place where Chris Anderson espouses conservative Republican views ROLF.
I don't need these technocommunists to serve as platforms for causes like anti-sex trafficking. Good Lord, that's a load of sophistry and a half.
Um, Benjamin Zander is just a conductor, not political? I guess you missed this birthday party notice!
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/05/nation/na-trailbirthday5
This is where you truly #fail, Richard, when I can easily Google up links like that. Admit defeat, and come over to the light side.
Guy Kawasaki? Are you daft? I follow Guy, but he's Just a Guy. An inch deep and a mile wild, and also an Obama voter, dearie.
It's not about TED changing its orthodox technocommunist content shrouded in a million silly arguments in favour of being short. It's about creating a context to challenge these homogenous viewpoints by having free discussions, even by controversial organizations TED doesn't like. I'm not the problem here with not liking something; TED is for blocking progress and making its followers conformist little myrmidons.
Posted by: Catherine Fitzpatrick | 09/29/2010 at 04:12 PM
lara Stein -- part of TED.that answers alot.. wow
the NYC creative community remembers...
Saul got a big house...he deserved it for his design work, not for giving us TED (at least the folk that hanger on around it all)
ever the proof that technocommunists are thieves.
i really do know where so many bodies are buried.:)
Posted by: cube inada | 09/29/2010 at 08:30 PM
Richard is the TEDx organizer in Warsaw, so he's wedded to TED.
cube, this is a non-sequitor. Who?
Posted by: Catherine Fitzpatrick | 09/29/2010 at 11:46 PM
in your story.. the TED moychandizing director...
she was the "MSN" queen B back in NYC in the early mid 90s....
if i told you the truth of stuff back then, you still wouldnt believe me;) and maybe thats better..but if you think Linden had its full of disasterous execs... MSN had nothing on them:)
im being polite and not telling the whole stuff:)
Posted by: cube inada | 09/30/2010 at 09:46 PM
http://www.fastcompany.com/1734356/blind-people-drive-paralyzed-people-walk-at-ted?partner=homepage_newsletter
Posted by: Catherine Fitzpatrick | 03/04/2011 at 10:11 AM
Another good critique of TED meetings:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/against-ted/
Posted by: Catherine Fitzpatrick | 02/16/2012 at 09:40 PM
After being hit with a terrific TEDache, I accepted that I too hate TED. The epiphany struck me as I was watching a talk on a topic that's dear to me--introversion. While I enjoyed what Susan Cain had to say (especially about group work), I couldn't help feeling dirty. The headset microphone, the high ceilings, the blue background signifying heaven, the mysteriously darkened and vast audience is just kinda cheesy. As a result, I lost my desire to read Cain's book QUIET. Sadly, her blood and sweat were tainted by the perversion of production. So, in a fit of irritation, I googled "Cult of Ted." That's how I found you.
Your critique of TED is very funny and smart. Personally, I don't mind that TED denies fringe groups like the Tea Party a forum, for me it's mainly the god/guru-making aspect of the program that's so gosh darn chafing.
In Los Angeles there's no shortage of public forums, author talks, discussions; we have the LA Public Library, Skirball Center, PEN, Hammer Museum, etc. Most of the time the authors are sitting down, and in conversation (always a Q&A); the lights in the house are on. And the speakers are not at all deified--even a god like Salman Rushdie! I don't want to sound like a communist, but it's just more egalitarian.
TED (and its metastasis) is symptomatic of our viral culture. People want to be smart without putting in the work, and they want to be the first one to show off their smartiness (by sharing what they find). Unfortunately, by watching a 19-minute presentation, they think they are taking the great leap to intellectual autonomy. I guess my rhetorical question is: should we be praising these people for not watching reality shows (or playing Farmville), or chastising them for not reading books. (Disclaimer: I do know some good people who watch TED talks AND read books.)
I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Posted by: Femecovert | 03/24/2012 at 09:51 PM