Martin Robbins

Casting a sceptical eye on sex, media and politics

The trouble with TED talks

In the cult of TED, everything is awesome and inspirational, and ideas aren’t supposed to be challenged, says Martin Robbins.

By Martin Robbins Published 10 September 2012 13:33

A suitably vague but uplifting photo of hot air balloon. Photo: Getty Images

I’ve long been amused by the slogan of TED, makers of the ubiquitous TED talks. TED’s slogan is this: ‘Ideas worth spreading.’ Apparently TED has some ideas, and we should spread them. What ideas? Ideas that TED in its infinite wisdom has picked out for us, ideas which are therefore implied to be true and good and right. What should we do with these ideas? We should build a message around them - slick presentations by charismatic faces captured in high definition - and we should spread that message far and wide. If this doesn’t yet sound familiar, try replacing ‘TED’ with ‘GOD’. ‘Ideas worth spreading’ sounds more like the slogan of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s nearing midnight, and I’m sitting in my pants in front of the computer holding a tumbler of scotch, the curtains closed, the lights off, doing something I don’t do enough of these days – just watching. This is not how TED Talks are supposed to be consumed. The genius of the format is that nobody really watches them: we play them on iPods or we run them in our browsers while working on other things, but it’s rare that people put one on the television and sit down and really focus on them. They come at us from the side of our vision, sneaking past our preoccupied neural circuitry and planting little seeds in the nooks and crevices of our minds, like mould spores on a damp window frame. In the darkest hours of countless nights I’ve woken convinced that a solar-powered cup holder will end third world debt, but not really knowing why.

I start with a talk by Rob Legato, and sixteen minutes later I’m aware of only three things: the talk was awesome, I can’t remember anything of substance from the talk, and I’m now watching a weirdly artificial standing ovation - by sheer coincidence a camera happens to be pointed at some of the first audience members to rise to their feet; then the rest of the audience follows, compelled by social instinct to follow their peers. Of course standing ovations occur more frequently in homogenous audiences, and what better crowd could there be than social elites who’ve invested thousands of dollars for the opportunity to bask in the warm glow someone else’s intellectual aura.

I choose a talk by Ben Goldacre next, a man whose work I know and enjoy. Ben’s high-speed presentation style was once described by a fan as like being ‘skull-fucked with his data-cock’, and his appearance at TED did little to restrain his exuberance, but I found myself switching off after a while; I’d seen his talk before, at The Royal Institution. In fact, virtually none of the talks I watched were particularly new or original – presentations that are that well-polished rarely are.

One of the common charges against TED is that it’s elitist, and yet many of the speakers were the sort of people you might find at your local ‘Skeptics in the Pub’ event. The genius of TED is that it takes capable-but-ordinary speakers, doing old talks they’ve performed many times elsewhere, and dresses them up in a production that makes you feel like you’re watching Kennedy announce the race to the moon.

The videos aren’t given star ratings; instead you have to rate them by checking words from a list: ‘jaw-dropping’, ‘persuasive’, ‘courageous’, ‘fascinating’, ‘beautiful’ and an array of similarly vapid adjectives. Cameras lurk below the eye-line of the speakers looking up at their sharply defined forms, picked out by spotlights against dark backgrounds like a Greek god’s statue in a museum display case. The crowd acts as a single helpful entity; laughing when it should laugh, whooping when it should whoop, awwing when it should aww. Quotes are picked out and highlighted as if they carry some profound truth: “There's no such thing as a dumb user,” says Timothy Prestero, a designer who has clearly never read the user comments on Comment is Free. Or indeed the articles. There are no questions here: in the cult of TED, everything is awesome and inspirational, and ideas aren’t supposed to be challenged.

The problem with this evangelical approach, discarding the voice of scepticism and mindlessly parroting ‘fascinating’ ideas instead of challenging them, is that you risk spreading some utter codswallop. A couple of weeks ago, TED posted a list of the 20 most-watched TED talks to date. Occupying third and fifth place is pair of talks viewed more than sixteen million times, dedicated to a “paradigm-shifting” technology with “thrilling potential” from 2009. It was called ‘SixthSense’.

Nope, nor me. And yet its inventor, Pranav Mistry, is described by the on-stage TEDster as a ‘genius’ and “truly one of the two or three best inventors in the world right now,” the latter assertion based, amusingly, on “the people we’ve seen at TED.” That Mistry is talented and clever I wouldn’t dispute for a second, but words are cheap, and they get cheaper when overused. The presentation looks to my tired eyes like a slightly ropey sales pitch, except the ruthless interrogators of Dragons’ Den have been replaced by a whooping, clapping audience displaying the world-weary cynicism of an arena-full of Beliebers. Anyone who posed a meaningful question in this environment would be treated like they’d thrown a shit in someone’s face.

With the world’s easiest audience, many inaccuracies and errors go unchallenged. A talk by Terry Moore on algebra was littered with unsourced claims about Spanish language and history. Their coverage of science topics is at best superficial, and sometimes downright misleading. Felisa Wolfe-Simon’s infamous claim that bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their DNA led to a huge backlash from the scientific community, during which she refused to engage with critics and said that: “Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated.” Not long afterwards, she signed up to do a distinctly un-peer-reviewed TED talk. ‘Ideas worth spreading’ . . . except in this instance the ideas didn’t survive peer-review.

Ultimately, the TED phenomenon only makes sense when you realise that it’s all about the audience. TED Talks are designed to make people feel good about themselves; to flatter them and make them feel clever and knowledgeable; to give them the impression that they’re part of an elite group making the world a better place. People join for much the same reason they join societies like Mensa: it gives them a chance to label themselves part of an intellectual elite. That intelligence is optional, and you need to be rich and well-connected to get into the conferences and the exclusive fringe parties and events that accompany them, simply adds to the irresistible allure. TED’s slogan shouldn’t be ‘Ideas worth spreading’, it should be: ‘Ego worth paying for’.

Tags: Science

More from Martin Robbins

26 comments

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:27 — Daniel Thompson (not verified)

Well put. I've felt uneasy about TED for a while, but couldn't put my finger on what it was. You summed it up perfectly.

Sat, 2012-11-24 12:34 — William_Brown

I have to agree to a large extent but, whether it can be seen as elitist or not, it's still a lot better than the celebrity BS that otherwise colonises much of the interweb. I know which I'd rather my kids get some ideas and inspiration from.

Sat, 2012-11-24 09:41 — Orinoko (not verified)

Totally agree but couldn't have put it into words, so thanks for the article. I first saw TED a while back and was inspired, nothing like a survivor story to take your breath away. But lately it is as you said, its a bunch of people congratulating themselves. Its gone all slack. We had a TEDx here and it was broadcast live and i tuned in to be terribly disappointed by rubbish talks that everybody thought were fantastic. And the announcer at the start having massive probs using an ipad on screen for no apparent reason. A friend walked away from the experience saying he learned that "learning is good". Well sure it is, but i wouldn't tune in just to discover that, honestly, its been done. FFS if this is the best n brightest, then come on, lift your game...

Thu, 2012-11-22 08:36 — Potsdam (not verified)

QUOTE "Ultimately, the TED phenomenon only makes sense when you realise that it’s all about the audience. TED Talks are designed to make people feel good about themselves; to flatter them and make them feel clever and knowledgeable; to give them the impression that they’re part of an elite group making the world a better place"

Well, durrr, yea, of course. What's wrong with that?

Quote "you need to be rich and well-connected to get into the conferences and the exclusive fringe parties and events that accompany them"

No, not well connected, or exclusive, just able to pay the $7500 and be of sufficient stature in your field to get into the main conference. If you can't manage that then try a local TEDx event. If you can't even get off your lardy arse to do that then just watch the whole lot, for free, gratis, nada, nowt on the TED website, Youtube, iPlayer, Doggcatcher...

Martin Robbins (the writer) runs Soho Skeptics (how recherche dahlink) which is basically a low rent version of TED.

So we must conclude that @mjrobbins is an hipster class idiot if he really thinks that he's suddenly come up with an idea worth spreading, patronising little well balanced chip-on-each-shoulder New Statesman Guardianista twonk that he is.

Sat, 2012-11-17 11:28 — J Nicholls (not verified)

With the world wide wubbish avaialble all over the web, you someone find time to criticise a medium that may actually inspire and/or provoke though.

As the BBC and Channel 4 begin to streamline the educational sides to their websites, years after the internet went from being a leading library to a mass appeal shopping mall, you pick on one shining light.

I was lucky enough to attend the Ted X 2.0 Salford event earlier this month, and some of the speakers were great and inspirational, some were little more than sales, others were just rubbish.
And guess what, some people are teachers, some are sellers and some are idiots. The most important thing with TED talks is that each of these speakers is doing something with their lifes, and if that inspires the internet cruisers to do the same then it's working.

Fri, 2012-10-19 09:49 — Will Y (not verified)

I find it hilarious that I had the following comment removed on a TED talk:

"Comment: I'm not the only one who can't help but notice the cult-like, almost Dianetics/Catholic/Etc-ish vibe from the rabid TED Talks community. Anything that shuns being "questioned" begs to be questioned hard."

I stand corrected . : x

Tue, 2012-10-02 11:35 — NancyStCa (not verified)

Britain has faced unprecedented intellectual elitism in the hands of the coalition, university fees up to over £9000, EMAs being taken away, and insufficient wages for hardworking, dedicated teachers.

TED strikes me as an organisation which claims to provide an access to free impartial knowledge, but in actuality falls into the trap of commodifying and almost fetishising a very certain kind of wisdom. Indeed I don't quite understand how a £5,000 ticket to a three day TED event made up of an array of 17 minute talks and standing ovations can really be quantified in such a way.

I prefer to turn to The Institute of Art & Ideas and their philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn. They are a much more genuine space for debate, conversation and thought. Have a look for yourself!

Thu, 2012-09-20 00:51 — SexyLittleIdeas.com (not verified)

This article would make a great TED talk.

Thu, 2012-10-25 16:24 — LeaLondon (not verified)

that's JUST what I was thinking...

Wed, 2012-09-12 22:08 — AVM (not verified)

TED talk is one of many a fantastic initiatives "out there". However, as with all great initiatives, opportunities and sources of information, it is only what you as an individual make of it. I don’t know much about this blog and just came across it whilst looking for a TED talk that I am about to present to one of our businesses. I also don’t know the people who have taken the time out of their day to speak badly about this initiative, however I do know this - If you believe that TED talks is nothing other than another great source of information, then your comments are a reflection of yourself, not the initiative. Change your perspective, start using this great tool, and you just may find yourself a more enriched and successful individual!

Wed, 2012-09-12 09:12 — raegates

As you say in your sell "Ideas aren't supposed to be challenged" which is exactly how we create anything. You have your ideas without judgement, then you edit later.

TED is probably intended to only be the the ideas stage.

Whatever happened to Edward de Bono's PISCO system?

Wed, 2012-09-12 08:20 — New statesman again (not verified)

In a world in which Top Gear and Big Brother are considered worthwhile entertainment, I'm still in favour of people spamming each other with TED links. Better that then links of the time the fast car went fast, or when someone inserted something into themselves whilst drunk. (if they could do that whilst driving a fast car fast then I'd give it a 'Like')

Sat, 2012-11-24 09:47 — Orinoko (not verified)

Too right.. I forgot what the competition is.

Wed, 2012-09-12 07:49 — Harsha White (not verified)

Hi,
It such a great story and interesting topic...

Tue, 2012-09-11 19:33 — Ted Schrey Montreal (not verified)

I listened to a TED talk once. Don't ask what it was about but it sounded like high-powered drivel aimed at an audience who would like to pass for educated without needing to do the real work. It reminded me of the old Reader's Digest, which also cauterized the mind.

Tue, 2012-09-11 19:31 — Stanley_M (not verified)

Evgeny Morozov already did this, in much more detail and in much more devastating fashion. Perplexingly, I can't include a link to the article as the word `naked' in its title is being flagged as a profanity. Anyway, it's in the New Republic reviews section, if anyone wants to read it.

Tue, 2012-09-11 19:31 — Stanley_M (not verified)

Tue, 2012-09-11 17:49 — alternative perspective (not verified)

Spreading is something you do with manure.
It may have littlr intrinsic value but if you wait a year there should be beneficial results.
My problem with TED is that I never knew it existed until relatively recently.
If it was any good it would have spread a little further.
Like Artistic Taxi Driver.

Tue, 2012-09-11 17:27 — Korman (not verified)

Lectures are very poor at getting information over; we can mostly only remember four facts the next day, and later we can only remember that the lecturer was good or bad. But then they are performances, aren't they?

Tue, 2012-09-11 16:31 — Paulent (not verified)

I don't understand this urge to put things down, particularly with an unbalanced analysis. From my casual interaction with the TED website (some months ago), I would submit that it does not claim to be anything that it isn't - and in particular not a debating chamber or dynamic generator of ideas.

I see it as a resource for reference. You can browse, and delve here and there according to your areas of interest, and terminate any talk if style or content do not suit.

Are there potential criticisms? Absolutely, but so what? Whether or not specific talks irritate a specific journalist or me or you is neither here nor there. There is some good - possibly even 'inspiring' - stuff if you bother to look for yourself.

It seems to me it was nearing midnight, and MR was sitting in his pants in front of the computer holding a tumbler of scotch, the curtains closed, the lights off, wondering what the hell he was going to come up with to meet his deadline. As with some of the TED talks, you'd have to conclude 'could do better!'.

Tue, 2012-09-11 14:37 — martinchoops

In a cynical world you get such snipes from the wings. It might be so different if the author had been invited to speak - or am I being cynical?

Tue, 2012-09-11 12:56 — Grant Jacobs (not verified)

Shim Shimuzu,

Later than that; I wrote about it at the start of April, picking on the aspect of vetting the lectures from pseudoscience, etc. (some of the talks, in TEDx at least, have outright pseudoscience in them):

'Do TED lectures need better vetting?' at sciblogs.co.nz (I'd include a link, but I'm guessing this comment forums considers any links to drop the comment.)

Tue, 2012-09-11 07:23 — Shim Shimuzu (not verified)

Once again Martin Robbins latches late onto the bandwagon. This angle was was all up in Slate weeks ago.

Thu, 2012-10-18 08:54 — William J (not verified)

@ Shim:

Yes Shim, how could someone else thought of the same thing at a different time period -- a whole week later at that! Should I be crying "plagiarism!" because I had the same idea Martin AND Slate had the second I watched my first and second TED talk? Or did we, the few who dare call them out for being unchallenged knowing that the general consensus of TED followers would cling to their feigned intellectual superiority like some entitled trophy in an arena where everyone wins, call bs in the name of logic, reason, and experience?

My first impression of TED was "wow...this feels like listening to (insert type-A personality here) getting "excited!" about nothing new whatsover. Like a Tony Robbins/Dianetics infomercial. The same kinda creepy unease I used to feel as a 7 year old in my one year exposure to Catholic mass; "Why are you people chanting this? You're not puppets!"

Tue, 2012-09-11 02:27 — Jim Eis (not verified)

I like this article. It's well written, gets to the point, has examples that I haven't checked up on, but that "sound" legit. The big problem I perceive with this criticism of TED, I see in my capacity as a student in the UK who has stumbled upon a dozen TED talks in my searches for interesting content on the internet.

This article treats everybody like an idiotic machine: as a viewer from afar I don't judge the performance based upon who was filmed clapping for what. The format may embellish the talks, but that's just to make the good presentations better. I've seen a few presentations that were unconvincing, or inconclusive, or that I found badly organized. I've seen fascinating talks, that have taught me things about creativity and innovation not only in the specific field exposed, but in general. And I was able to judge, for myself, what I liked and didn't. So they have good cameras and a happy-clappy audience. I'm a conscious human being, and I won't stand to be reduced to some docile herd-animal.

I don't know, and don't care, about the internal workings of TED. The majority of viewers do so from their computers at home, and are free to judge a talk for themselves. "Ideas Worth Spreading", sure, sometimes. Sometimes, not. But the majority viewers, who get to choose what was or wasn't worth spreading, are watching all of this for free. Your criticism of TED seems to mostly be a criticism of a certain part of the audience in the talks.

However, the main point I'll be leaving on is that your protest all comes down to: TED should have more quality check. Perhaps those talks rising to 3rd or 5th most viewed have something to them that you have not, or cannot, appreciate. Perhaps people are being lied to by a pernicious presentation. Either way, it's not your problem. If you listen to a talk and are unable to think and question al the information you've been given, that's your problem. If not, a quick checking the numbers can be done using this handy website, google.com. As long as TED spreads some great talks and ideas, I'll try to find them. If a group of rich egomaniacs are paying for it, all the better. If you try not to judge an entire population by vague accusations, you might avoid insulting people for no reason other than to "make your point harder".

...I may have gotten carried away in this response. I still think many points you raise are valid, but iy's taken too far.

Mon, 2012-09-10 16:02 — Yseult (not verified)

I do get where you are coming from and I see how one from the outside might perceive it this way. Even I from a distance thought that TED was too good to be true (and above all free for the invited fellows and prize winners) and that it sounded and felt like the latest service club where you get in and then you owe somebody something.

Until a close friend of mine became a TED fellow for her research and was invited to give a talk about her work across the disciplines of sciences. I got to watch her go through the process of being supported to apply, then being in the next rounds and finally being chosen. Then, preparing her talk, having it checked and rechecked, receiving book after book after book and text on inspiration, creativity, idea spreading, social coherence and what not.
Once in California, it was all about networking. People want to see the talks (and I doubt that there isn't some kind of peer-review to get in to be honest), but it's all about exposition. Her research got a coverage that she would have never dared think about, even in 10 to 20 years of research.

Maybe contrasting your article with someone who actually has been there and lived through what TED is supposed to be, would have helped you balance your article a bit more.

While I can't discount that it's an inside hype for insiders, I do honestly think that the idea to put people from extremely various backgrounds, working fields and fields of influences can generate a lot of creative energy, that cannot be gained otherwise, simply because we have become so focused on our own niche, or else be swallowed by information overload. Or when is the last time you have checked the latest in protein research?