[cgabios]

TED, I think, serves as a modern version of high-brow oration as the middle letter suggests: Entertainment. It's a double-ended marketplace platform of content providers (speakers) and content consumers (paid attendees and non-paid viewers). Since the cost is high to paid attendees, the content must be as good and fresh as humanly possible. From what I've seen as a non-paid viewer, I think TED accomplishes this reasonably well. It seems hard to have perfect criterion to choose whom to select and whom to not, when there is an abundance of interesting of voices, but unselected folks can always speak and publish on other platforms.

(Forward thinking can be controversial, but in order to not offend audiences and prevent attracting the wrong elements, it seems customary that such topics are passed on because the forum (e.g., intended audience/speaker experience) is inappropriate, although the topic may be vital, insightful and have a legitimate fora elsewhere. (Blasphemy, politics, etc.))

[tjradcliffe]

TED talks are predigested intellectual pablum that make the people hearing them feel smart. Seeing one is mildly entertaining. Seeing two is cloying. Seeing three makes you aware of how intolerably formulaic they are. In fairness I've only seen half of a few, because they bored me stupid by the time they were half way through and it had become apparent that the whole schtick was to make the audience feel special and insightful. So I may be missing something wonderful.

TED suffers from the same malaise as all "cutting edge" forums: it has no apparent effect on the world, other than transfering money from attendees to speakers and organizers. Which is great: taking money from willing dupes is as old a humanity, but as the years role by it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain that anything more interesting than the release of the latest forumlaic blockbuster is going on.

Refuting this claim is easy: all you have to do is show a dozen or two cases of people who came away from TED changed in a some permenant and actionable way. People who didn't just go back to the same jobs doing the same thing in pretty much the same way. Does anyone have any data rather than anecdotes on this? It would be easy to prove my judgement wrong using it.

[andrewflnr]

Besides deliberate job skill training and radical religious conversion, what educational media satisfy the "obvious change in lifestyle" test? Like any nonfictional media, the value is in perspective. Maybe you criticize newspapers and Scientific American on the same grounds, but otherwise I suspect you're holding TED to an unfair standard.

FWIW, I know my dad has taken useful insights from the occasional TED talk. The one about how the first follower is as important as a leader comes to mind.

[MCRed]

> Seeing three makes you aware of how intolerably formulaic they are.

This is certainly true of you and me. However, I believe this is not true of the vast majority of people.

Making people think they are thinking while turning off their critical thinking skills is an accomplishment in propaganda, for sure, but I don't think most people realize it's happening.

Really cutting edge forums or salons do have a measurable impact on the world-- but they are simultaneously more exclusive (because the vast majority are not aware of them) and less exclusive (Because the vast majority are simply not interested, not because they're actually excluded.)

[6stringmerc]

"taking money from willing dupes is as old a humanity"

I love that line. Well put. Reminds me of how Mark Twain actually made far, far more money on the public speaking circuit than as a writer. Granted, the writing is what got his name and celebrity going, but from what I read about him and his thoughts, it kind of surprised him that people would be willing to pay as much as they did just to hear him get up on stage and do his thing. Genius!