SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Megan Hustad writes in the NYT that while it’s not exactly fair to say that the TED conference series and web video function like an organized church, understanding the parallel structures is useful for conversations about faith, how susceptible we humans remain to the cadences of missionary zeal, and how the TED style with its promise of progress, is as manipulative as the orthodoxies it is intended to upset. According to Hustad, a great TED talk is reminiscent of a tent revival sermon, a gathering of the curious and the hungry. "A persistent human problem is introduced, one that, as the speaker gently explains, has deeper roots and wider implications than most listeners are prepared to admit," says Hustad. "Once everyone has been confronted with this evidence of entropy, contemplated life’s fragility and the elusiveness of inner peace, a decision is called for: Will you remain complacent, or change?" TED talks routinely present problems of huge scale and scope — we imprison too many people; the rain forest is dying; look at all this garbage; we’re unhappy; we have Big Data and aren’t sure what to do with it — then wrap up tidily and tinily. Do this. Stop doing that. Buy an app that will help you do this other thing. "I never imagined that the Baptists I knew in my youth would come to seem mellow, almost slackers by comparison," concludes Hustad. "Of course they promoted Jesus as a once-and-done, plug-and-play solver of problems — another questionable approach."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:13PM
The problem we've got is that you're comparing TED to serious academia where people are expected to demonstrate their claims meaningfully(in a way specific to their field's requirements) or to the real world(where people just want shit done).
But that's not what level TED is operating at. It's operating like a filter on shitty opinion vlogs where only ones engaging a particular issue with a degree of sincerity get through. They mostly cut out pseudoscience based on non-fact. They mostly cut out people who have literally no idea what they're talking about. If you want more than that, go find people actually doing something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:25PM
So its basically a "History Channel" dramatized documentary. At least before they went full on reality TV and you can't tell what channel you're watching anymore.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:47PM
Yeah, that's a pretty fair comparison. Pre-reality TV TLC or Discovery or History channels. A thick layer of popularization with some good material to be found underneath.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:09AM
"History Channel" runs the Ancient Aliens [wikipedia.org] show which is a complete pseudoscience- and history pile of shit. There's a lot of other programming on that channel that fit in that category too. So that TV-channel has no credibility.
If TED has wandered into to that territory it doesn't sound good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheB on Tuesday March 17 2015, @08:23PM
That's why I like listening to podcasts like The Naked Scientist who try to interview the researchers and scientist involved in the stories.