INTP TED talk

[Analyzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5cKRmJaf0

 

[QuickTwist]

Only thing I didn't like is that there was no solution to this problem. I mean sure, he identified the problem correctly, but where's the solution? BTW obvious INTP.

 

[TheManBeyond]

^ lol haven't watched the video but... INTPs can't find solutions since they are never able to fully understand the core of the question.

 

[computerhxr]

If TED doesn't work, then what is the point of talking about it in a TED talk?

Good talk though.

 

[Analyzer]

If TED doesn't work, then what is the point of talking about it in a TED talk?

Good talk though.

Yeah although that argument is similar to, "If u think education system is shitty why do you teach at colleges? or "If you don't like the US government or think it is totalitarian why don't you leave the US".

 

[Anktark]

Everyone ought to like that video on Facebook. Let's see that man execute a facepalm.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Judging from all the hateful comments he's gotten I love the guy already

 

[computerhxr]

Yeah although that argument is similar to, "If u think education system is shitty why do you teach at colleges? or "If you don't like the US government or think it is totalitarian why don't you leave the US".

Similar but not the same.

 

[The Grey Man]

Similar but not the same.

Maybe the types of people that watch TED Talks were his target audience, since TED somewhat embodies the status quo he rails against. The opposite of "preaching to the choir."

 

[doncarlzone]

Half way in, and loving it. I feel inspired. Let's go change the world people! Wait..

 

[ginoskein]

This guy sounds like a very cynical INFP.

And if TED follows his totalitarian advice even further, it will become completely irrelevant, rather than increasingly irrelevant.

He wants us to be as myopic as he is. Increasing obsession with "history" and "how I got here" is what people who never do anything do all of the time instead of doing something inventive and different.

If I expended all my energy trying to figure out how I ended up at the end of a dead end street and thinking like, "Damn I better retrace my steps to get out of here...", I'd never notice the cool shortcut through the woods between those two houses that goes right to the main road.

The best innovators are the people who aren't focused on problems. They're the people who have no respect whatsoever for all the limitations on possibility that people like this guy try to brainwash everybody into accepting as dogmas.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't know enough about TED to have an opinion on whether what he's saying rings true, but the rant against placebo innovation feels very much like my kettle of fish. The whole time it felt like he was probably selling a lot of people short, but since his opinion is under-represented it's pretty normal and required to go over the top.

A good video, thank you.

 

[Reluctantly]

A lot of what he talks about is exactly why I could never get into TED talks. The few I saw seemed so cheap by focusing on the positive aspects of innovation, while leaving out the problems; I suppose it's not much different than what preachers do, except TED is focused on science and not religion.

 

[Polaris]

I don't watch enough TED talks to make a judgement, but the speaker certainly reflects my thoughts on the issues of science and technology -- however, I thought that was just common sense. The fact that someone has to get up there to put it into perspective is interesting, although he perhaps has failed to see the side of speakers that would be in agreement with his critique, so it may just be one great straw man

The way he presented the whole speech could thus be seen as an attack on other speaker's integrity, which is unfortunate. I think I would have approached it very differently, had I had the guts to get up there

 

[Bock]

I like it, though some at least basic examples of alternatives would've been nice. As it stands now he makes a couple of valid/good points but then leaves the whole thing slightly too open. I'm not saying that criticizing something requires that one has alternatives but he sure sounds confident, relative to what is actually delivered. Where does he want humanity to go, and how would we get there?

"The world is fucked"

yeah we know

 

[Reluctantly]

It seems all he wants is for people to be aware of the complexity of the world so that they can find their own solutions for its problems. To frame it into what you're asking, his complaint seems to be that TED talks often end up devising solutions to problems they don't fully understand, often being driven by pathos. The TED talks then become a problem in themselves, as he said.

 

[Auburn]

Analyzer, thanks for this post. It really made me reflect. It was the last critique that shifted a tendency I had been trying to isolate in myself for a while.

I guess a mind that becomes enthusiastic when something 'could be true' without bothering to check facts beyond a brief, sterile mental analysis, is deluding themselves. Getting an optimistic fix, the elation of possibility -- a conveniently positive logical hypothesis that remains unchallenged -- because believing that the future will bring greatness is more gratifying than doing the work to check if it's really likely and "how".

*ponders*

 

[QuickTwist]

Good to see you back Auburn.

 

[Auburn]

...o-oh.. i'm not back... ...i-i'm not even here..

 

[ginoskein]

Analyzer, thanks for this post. It really made me reflect. It was the last critique that shifted a tendency I had been trying to isolate in myself for a while.

I guess a mind that becomes enthusiastic when something 'could be true' without bothering to check facts beyond a brief, sterile mental analysis, is deluding themselves. Getting an optimistic fix, the elation of possibility -- a conveniently positive logical hypothesis that remains unchallenged -- because believing that the future will bring greatness is more gratifying than doing the work to check if it's really likely and "how".

*ponders*

No one who ever invented anything thought the way you're recommending. Inventors ALWAYS want and try to do what everyone says is logically or factually impossible.

The biggest difference between inventive people and non-inventive people is that the former are able to act and think illogically and irrespective of facts and the latter are not.

What this guy is really criticizing are creative people. My only guess as to why he'd be doing that is the fact that he's not creative, and he's troubled by that.

 

[Auburn]

@ginoskein - Well, something has to be done in accordance to causal/rational laws for it to manifest. I think inventors have to be very practical, yet innovative within that practicality. If irrationality means not thinking causally, ignoring legitimate dead-ends, then your creativity actually doesn't come into fruition. And I have ample experience with this. xD

My current stance is that an intermediate approach is critical. The thirst for creation has to be as strong as one's thirst for a proper, logistical understanding of the world. An even dose of both is needed, otherwise one ends up being either a wishful idealist or an uncreative nay-sayer (like this guy)

It might be true that this guy isn't really practicing what he's preaching, because he's giving no more tangible solutions than the optimists are, but it doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

Granted, if everyone at TED had his attitude plus his absence of ideas, I think things would be worse off. I wouldn't recommend that. The way I see it, he is a critic, and his critique can help steer the innovators (and their audience) into a more useful direction if they keep his words in mind while they continue producing innovations.

 

[ginoskein]

Excellent points. Always when I have this discussion, I find myself in the position of feeling defensive of the non-rational as the basis of creativity. Certainly, though, a rational framework is always essential to construction, yet (truly) novel facts seem only ever to emerge from outside a rational construct.

My most acutely felt contention with the speaker in this video is his commendation and recommendation of the decision by TED to curtail the presentation of topics that are incommensurable with currently widely accepted rational frameworks. How, I ask, is it possible to make progressive discoveries if novelties or the seemingly outlandish are (not only ignored) but outright censured from public hearing?

 

[Coolydudey]

Excellent points. Always when I have this discussion, I find myself in the position of feeling defensive of the non-rational as the basis of creativity. Certainly, though, a rational framework is always essential to construction, yet (truly) novel facts seem only ever to emerge from outside a rational construct.

My most acutely felt contention with the speaker in this video is his commendation and recommendation of the decision by TED to curtail the presentation of topics that are incommensurable with currently widely accepted rational frameworks. How, I ask, is it possible to make progressive discoveries if novelties or the seemingly outlandish are (not only ignored) but outright censured from public hearing?

because they're complete tosh? Even if these things exist, no serious scientist takes them seriously, so no progress is ever going to be made in a reasonable time scale. Speaking from experience, the sort of people who beleive these things are ill-suited to make and spread scientific progress in them (they're either somehow deluded, unintelligent, etc.). And talking about them is simply wasting time in present culture, it's not going to convince anyone to study them. Also, I think it's pretty safe to say they're complete shit anyway.

EDIT: the reason why nobody takes these things seriously, their biggest issue? Saying it took the likes of Copernicus to suggest and make people accept the heliocentric model isn't support for the possible existence of ghosts. Copernicus was examining physical phenomena, in which humanity had made and was making much progress. Ghosts, and whatever such like as you might care to mention, fall into categories such as metaphysical. We have never made progress in such things, and have no reason to beleive we can.