http://twitter.com/TEDNews/statuses/8170451539

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-le6ter/2010/Pages/agricultural-development-farmers-seeds.aspx

Though it's covered in a very good P/R sort of way.;

http://twitter.com/TEDNews/statuses/8180451539

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/Pages/agricultural-development-farmers-seeds.aspx

Though it’s covered in a very good P/R sort of way.

My contentions are on the question of riff-raff vs. chosen few. It matters to me who are considered the chosen few and for what reason? Is it for the qualification, is it for their wealth, is it for what they have been able to achieve, or is it because of their ideas as having merit in of itself. Since the conference is about ideas in the general sense, I think it makes sense that the ideas are considered in of themselves without attaching the bias of wealth, qualification, or achievement as a halo to them in order legitimizing them and potentially make them more viral.

I have been thinking that TED videos can be basically analysed for their content and compared to the running discourse about the subject as such. Since they are readily available, they are readily open to criticism, and as such perhaps someone should take on that task — however unpopular that might be… as I can see a lot of hissing on D’Arcy’s post there are a lot of people who passionately defend TED.

Another issue is the whole echo chamber discussion. I don’t know whether the echo chamber is the correct definition in the case where like-minded people with the same qualifications, socio-economic status, industry and so on get together. On the internet, a few years ago, someone would say something and then it would be repeated word for word with a line or two of comment — that was the echo-chamber — that effect has largely disappeared. In general the whole idea about preaching the choir or preaching to the preacher has a very specific sort of context within the church where the message is limited and is accepted as a function of faith rather than of reason backed up by debate. I find that when people who actually have ideas to say discuss, debate, or criticize ideas at length it adds to the understanding of the ideas, at least it does in my mind, if not the ideas themselves but how they are perceived and how they fit in a given ideology. In some ways, because of this, I feel that being impolite at times is necessary as it forces the other person to defend their ideas instead of just reiterating them without backing them up.

One final angle to consider this thing is from the nature of how TEDx is used to legitimize TED’s discourse. TEDx events really have nothing to do with TED, and yet the process through which they operate is decided at least in part by TED. As people popularize TEDx events, they popularize TED’s discourse while at the same time having no impact whatsoever on that discourse. Perhaps I can concede that some impact may be had, if the videos are put online for anyone to view. So the legitimate discourse (done by people who don’t have agendas to acquire more capital or power) is mixed with the illegitimate discourse (done by people and imaginary people to acquire more power or money or maintain the status quo even if it is unjust) and certain ideas like Bill Gates’ foundations’ latest support for Monsanto as a way to fight poverty and world hunger gets mixed with Lessig’s ideas about free culture and so on. So it becomes harder to question and maintain public opinion about certain issues that are no-brainier otherwise.

It just seems like the people who accumulated the capital have decided to do some good, and that good may involve a good component and another component of increasing the level of control over the system and curtailing freedom. Eventually this control leads to issues of using that control to generate profits, which then leads to other social problems.

I am also all TED’d out.

What is the difference between

* me sitting in an audience at TEDxNYED listening to David Wiley in person speak as I also tap out my reflections on twitter….
* me sitting at home in Strawberry Arizona listening to a live video a stream of David Wiley speaking as I also tap out my reflections on twitter….

’cause that is the bulk of the event.

There is participation in the moment and what I think is more important- participation *after* the moment. There is more to participating than just being in the physical space.

Unfortunately, we’d get as many bad videos as we have bad PowerPoints, bad websites and bad podcasts. Perhaps a conference on aesthetics/design aimed at educators?

I guess I’m in agreement (maybe because I’m not invited), but do all good ideas need acting on? Sometimes, the idea is too early or too late.

And your point about the attendees are the same as the video watchers – how many of them are moved to action? About the same as any other interaction I suppose.

1) Conflating TED(.com) with TEDxNYED. Especially for the “book shill” comment. TEDxNYED was focused on education, which forced the speakers (and the audience) to frame the talks within a certain set of goals. So while (for example) Michael Wesch’s talk was at least in part a “check out what I did!”, he did a really nice job of turning that into a point that was relevant and important for the people in the room. Ur-TED, being about everything and anything, has no such centralizing focus to water down the shills.

2) Conflating others with myself. I love the image Will paints in his comment of somebody having a “giddy, omg experience” of the kind that can only be had in a room full of excited people watching a live and dynamic speaker. I didn’t have that moment myself this weekend, in part because I already know and follow the work of so many of the speakers. But I’ve made contact with one or two people since then who are not in that position, and for them the conference was a bit more omgful. Moreover, I have a growing, more general sense of unease about conferences where people who are all buddies-on-the-internet get together and amplify the social club. (I say this as someone who is sometimes part of the club.) What’s great about Twitter etc is that it lets the connection be continuous. What’s bad is that, by putting individuals like myself in a constant state of listening and talking to people I agree with, it decreases the shock-to-my-system effect that a f2f conference can have. In a sense, I suppose I should be grateful that I’m lucky enough to be so connected to the online world of education that I care about that an exciting event like TEDxNYED leaves me less than omg.

On a related note: Man, how could I have forgotten the Nuge? Sweaty uncle Teddy!!