The Sound of TED: A Case for Distaste

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.

> middlebrow megachurch infotainment

This hits the nail on the head on so many levels. (And maybe that's enough; maybe the college-educated need their megachurches as well).

Like megachurches, TED offers highly-produced "public speaking as entertainment", but the purported content of the talks isn't entertainment, but $SERIOUS_ISSUE being told to you by $PERSON_WHO_KNOWS_BEST.

This grates because TED events are inherently artificial; everyone knows that they're there to be entertained, despite the trappings of importance. Contrast with political speech, which is (usually) ugly, but has the solidity that comes from serving real (if often equally ugly) purposes.

Once might say, hang on -- what's so bad about public speaking at TED and megachurches? What's the difference between TED/megachurches and, say, standup comedy, or storytelling, or politics?

The difference is both 1) honesty, and 2) the role of the audience.

Honesty: Speech at TED or a megachurch comes with almost suffocating trappings of weight and import. In contrast, storytelling and standup and all sorts of ordinary entertainment are much more honest and down-to-earth: they don't claim to present anything more than a good yarn, some ear-tickling.

Audience: In both TED and megachurches, their audience does not expect to think critically, or to in any way hold the speaker to account. They do not expect to ply the speaker with questions later. In contrast, the audience keeps standup comics honest and can turn on them viciously; and politics invites constant comment and criticism from all quarters, of a kind that mostly keeps politicians from indulging in extravagant and exalted speech that could distance them from the everyman.

Could we make it more honest? That's tough without making TED itself have more of a functional purpose than just entertainment. The world does need exploration and discovery and curated content, but TED's format is clearly "preaching as entertainment", not discussion, and not journalism. It's like a Church devoted to episodes of "The Price Is Right".

But apart from TED developing its own 'platform' for change in the world and becoming a more functional organization, to go along with the views it invites ... as a thought experiment, I can imagine for instance having 2 experts on the same subject, each presenting it through their own lens. This would complicate preaching tremendously and keep it much more honest, but it would probably be far more instructive and nourishing to the audience.

(somebody else just posted that phrase while I was posting)

They have today's TED nailed.

I was thinking of applying to give a TED talk. Then I watched some of the newer ones. No.