The Problem With Benjamin Bratton's Problem With TED
From the archives ~2014
As I saw various friends share the recent Guardian article, transcribing Benjamin Bratton’s TEDx talk criticising TED, I started to feel uneasy. I’d briefly read the article, planned to watch the speech, and my initial feelings were that I disagreed. But the overtures being shared were that of concurrence. A sort of borrowed eureka, that this one 11 minute speech had won their approval, and why hadn’t they looked at it like that before? Sentiments such as, “I love TED, but this guy has a point” (I paraphrase) were declared.
I agree with thinking critically, and am certain that there will be aspects to criticise about TED, but it was uncomfortable for me to see a host of people immediately throw away their own thoughts about this organisation in favour of the alternative band wagon. And — from this one controversial speech. In fact, it pissed me off. I tried to search myself to see if this feeling was reactionary and defensive. It is probably clear, I’m a fan of TED talks. But I think it’s something a little more, so I’ll try and deconstruct this. Of course, it’s important to mention a few things at this point: I have likely watched fewer TED talks than BB, and this is all based on opinion. (Meaning, it is a musing, and not a final properly researched argument.)
He begins by wondering why “so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens”. Now, that is a big question. That’s assuming that the ideas and intentions presented in TED are about writing the future in the first place, where as my grasp of it is that these are snippets — digestible windows into current research, alternative ways of looking at things, and an open conversation (started by the speaker) to present enthusiasm and ideas.
Ideas are ideas, not final plans; Ideas are not answers, but suggestions. Let’s consider that same quote, but replace “TED” with “X political party”. And X political party’s intentions are certainly to change things. But I often am left wondering why their promised futures haven’t come to pass. At least TED never promised. He proposes TED is perhaps “the proposition that if we talk about world-changing ideas enough, then the world will change. But this is not true”. This could be argued of many institutions. City councils, politicians, charities — change is their remit. Is it really TED’s? To star the conversation and influence change, maybe. But I don’t think the plan was to enforce it via interesting lectures.
When Laurie Santos discussed A Monkey Economy As Irrational As Ours she opened the conversation about our economy, and whether the mistakes we make are almost hard-wired, genetic, unavoidable. I don’t think the intention of the Talk was designed to force the Stock Market to stop suddenly and start anew. It was about taking a deeper look at these systems though, and introduce the notion to analyse how we approach market situations, since our usual way often leads to repeated mistakes. I am certain the undertone of the talk was to take a serious look at our economy, but as for ideas not actually happening — I don’t think it’s the fault of TED that our financial institutions haven’t quit and started over.
His next critique: the “intellectual viability of things like TED” and “over-simplification”. Had Laurie Santos spent an hour and a half offering up the raw data, the endless minutiae of the research, and the deeper mathematics (etc.) I am certain I’d have been lost. And others. The reason I am able to enjoy TED is because an expert in their field approaches the stage and explains their ideas or research in a manner in which I can understand.
If over-simplification is an issue, we may as well include New Scientist, Brian Cox, politicians, and — for that matter — newspapers, as a problem. He does concede, “To be clear, I think that having smart people who do very smart things explain what they doing in a way that everyone can understand is a good thing.” Well, naturally. Because the E is for entertainment, and whether you think it should be or not is fine, but you can’t criticise TED for fulfilling the brief there. (Although, that would be based on a majority agreeing that TED is entertaining. I’m going to assume that would be accurate.)
Apparently, “TED goes way beyond that.” And he launches into a story — a one-off anecdotal piece of evidence — that his astrophysicist friend was turned down by a potential donor for not being like Malcolm Gladwell. And this one incident, in which pitch was turned down (not an instance that has anything to do with TED) somehow inspired the conclusion that TED is to blame. (This one example is, arguably, over-simplification.) Firstly, Malcolm Gladwell is not TED. (And whilst I enjoyed his book the Tipping Point, incidentally, I didn’t enjoy his delivery on TED — his was the only speech that I turned off half way through.) Secondly, this is but one incident. And whilst I agree with the shock at this singular person’s reaction to a pitch, their reason for turning it down, it’s a bit of a leap to lay all responsibility on TED.
That thought lead to this: “I submit that astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.” Sensationalism. But catchy, no? You won’t forget that concept easily, which is why you won’t forget Benjamin Bratton too easily. (Actually, I forgot his name. But I forget most of the speaker’s names, as I’m more interested in their ideas.) It’s a ridiculously over-exaggerated thing to say.
“So my TED talk is not about my work or my new book – the usual spiel – but about TED itself, what it is and why it doesn’t work.”
Here’s where he may have watched more talks than I have, as my anecdotal experience screams otherwise. I’ve seen one talk where the speaker plugged their book, and I’m not sure that I would be so keen to see a talk by someone discussing a field that wasn’t theirs. Imagine: “This isn’t my area, but here’s some thoughts.” Of course I want to hear from someone on their particular field of expertise. (Not that I think we can’t have ideas or worthwhile thoughts outside of our own area of work, but I’m sure you see my point.) Criticising TED for having experts share their current work, work which was underway with or without TED exposure, work which was already funded, seems, well… ridiculous.
Especially if the real criticism here, implied by the sarcasm, is that the speakers are more about self-promotion than sharing ideas. This would likely be true of some, but saying so with your own name in huge letters behind you, picking a topic that is undeniably antagonistic, and presented in the very forum you are criticising? (TEDx, granted.) Wow. That’s the way to get some exposure.
I don’t think Jonas Eliasson was interested in becoming a super star when he shared his findings that solving traffic jams was as much about nudging people’s decisions as it was controlling congestion, that it was more about people’s minds than rush hour. (Research which did, in fact, change Stockholm’s congestion problems.) It seems, to me in the least, that this was a fascinating find, and something worth sharing. Not for the grandeur, but to offer new insight. And whether other city councils implement his ideas is hardly anything to do with TED. Although, I wish they would.
Will BB’s critique of TED being too entertaining actually change TED? I hope not. Stephen Hawking made science digestible, Joshua Klein helped me discover how underrated and intelligent crows are, Naomi Wolf’s passion helped to form the words I was searching for in feminism, and there are many more examples of how entertaining delivery helped me to understand and take interest in a range of subjects. Doubtlessly, others would prefer the non-grey version too.
“The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an “epiphimony” if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it’s all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?“
Public speakers of all kinds use rhetoric in their messages. They also use brevity. (See point about politicians etc.) And what are we hoping for? Well, I’m hoping for knowledge, snippets to get my mind working, and will often go forward with that inspiration to look further into the subject. (I am now obsessed with crows.)
“I’m sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don’t care about anyone’s experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience’s time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.
Also, it just doesn’t work.”
Really? Just stop now. No, of course there aren’t tidy just-so solutions — but I don’t think TED is looking to showcase that. There are worse institutions to attack for that.
Then there’s the point about Kony. Yep, I agree. But, that wasn’t TED failing, that was the individual, Jason Russell. And, actually, Oxfam hasn’t fixed Africa yet. Neither has Save The Children saved all the children. Etc. “When inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation”, could apply to many organisations. “So our machines get smarter and we get stupider. But it doesn’t have to be like that. Both can be much more intelligent. Another futurism is possible.” Totally agree. Not sure how this relates to criticising TED, more the world really.
“A better ‘E’ in TED would stand for economics… ” I really liked this whole paragraph, actually. I agree, there should be more options than capitalism with a little more Keynes, etc. But it really seems we’re focusing on how the world has it wrong, at this point. Because, I would venture that the institutions in charge are responsible for this lack of change. The smart people at TED could, of course, nurture this more — but I don’t hold them responsible. But again, he has likely seen more talks than I, so perhaps there’s more to his E and D than I can debate.
“As for one simple take away … I don’t have one simple take away, one magic idea. That’s kind of the point.” Well, you know people would have you if you did come away happy-go-lucky. But it’s convenient.
“I would like new maps of the world, ones not based on settler colonialism, legacy genomes and bronze age myths, but instead on something more … scalable.” I like that. Yes please. “Problems are not “puzzles” to be solved. That metaphor assumes that all the necessary pieces are already on the table, they just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed. It’s not true.“ And I agree once again.
“If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.” Agreed — but do we blame research practices, or the organisation which shares them? I feel a bit of a chicken-egg, life-art, sort of struggle coming on. Is it really TED who BB has a problem with? Or the world?
It’s weird, because as we draw to the end of the talk, which relies on various colourful images, strong words, poetic phrasing and rousing sentiments, I do agree with the ending message as a whole — things can be amped up. Always. More depth, less rhetoric. But I’ve no problem with watching engaging talks, by experts in their field, who have been kind enough to make them both informative and entertaining enough for me to grasp. Much less, do I see this as damaging. It sets me free, inspiration by inspiration. My own personal experience has been one of illumination. And in a world which demands more time than I often feel I have, I’ll take 10 minutes here and there, to quickly get a grasp on why dieting never works, or how body language shapes who you are, so I can become a more knowledgeable person. Where it might be impossible to become a master, TED allows me to at least aim for becoming a jack of all.