Translating my thoughts into words.
This is not about Oprah.
CHE has a very interesting little piece about presentations given at TED conferences. He contrasts two speakers, one who “got the whole nerdy hipster thing going” and another who wore a blazer (but cut brains into thin slices like deli meats. I was the MC for TEDxPSU last year at Penn State and I may offer a presentation this year, so I have been thinking about what makes a good presentation myself.
Part of the enthusiasm for these talks is the fervor of the moment, face it, TED is a geek rally, a sort of Burning Man for those who don’t want to get naked, paint themselves, and do pot (or at least none of those things while sitting in an auditorium). Still, there is great value in TED talks, they can be marvelous gems and I have found them very useful in classes. But should we go for the O or the HMMMM. I think I would rather make folks think, have them still sitting in their chairs saying to themselves, “wait a minute, he might have a point.”
Slavin [hipster] got a standing ovation, while Jones [brain butcher] received fairly enthusiastic but still-seated applause.
So what does that indicate? Well, here’s what a blog post on the TEDActive site has to say:
The standing ovation is the original test of crowd wisdom. The audience reaction (and soon the online reaction) seems like a good predictor for which ideas at TED will stick and have a lasting impact on large scale.
Really? I enjoyed Slavin’s presentation and thought it was entertaining and insightful. I enjoyed Jones’s presentation, too—though, to be honest, not as much because he’s stiffer on stage. But the dude is thin-slicing the brain, people. I’m going to argue that what he’s up to has the potential to have a more lasting impact on a larger scale than the clever stylings of an app maker.
The rise of TED in recent years is amazing. Asking smart people from diverse fields to present their most brilliant ideas in 18 minutes is, in itself, brilliant. It’s awesome that there can be viral videos, like this one, that are about education and creativity rather than overly dramatic chipmunks.
But I think whether TEDsters leap from their seats and slap their palms together says more about the polish of the performer than the staying power of a particular idea.
Scott Bailey brings up this nagging question and Jim responds with his usual…rhetoric. I am not going to try and answer the question (by most definitions I might well not be included as one), but I am going to ask, when was it that so many self-defined bibliobloggers became the TMZ or Perez Hilton or the religious world?
Perhaps we should have a new category, “The National BiblioEnquirer” for those who post solely about other stories that inflame, irritate, or otherwise make their undergarments get scrunched into uncomfortable shapes.
Anyone remember Phil. 4:8?
Jim West has a couple of posts today regarding free speech. The first was his post regarding the Supreme Courts ruling regarding the Westboro church.
Appalling: The Supreme Court Sides with Westboro Baptist…
Disgusting. Freedom of speech should never trump what’s morally right. Never. The Court blew it yet again.
(Christian Salafia agrees with him as well.) I replied via twitter pointing out that such was the price of free speech. Jim respectfully disagreed saying, “hate speech isn’t covered by the first amendment.” And then posted later today,
Many American Christians utter the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ with more love and adoration than they have ever cited Scripture. ’Freedom of speech’ as a dictum is the new American Idol. And it is idolatrous precisely because too often it trumps Scripture and silences its voice (in a most peculiar and ironic twisting).
Those who know me certainly know that I am not one of those whom Jim is describing (and to be clear, I am not suggesting that I am in his mind as he wrote this). My view of Scripture is very high indeed and freedom of speech is not an idol for me. But Jim has some facts wrong and all of it is ironic given recent comments regarding the tenor and tone of Jim’s own blog.
Freedom of speech has routinely defended religious expression rather than silencing its voice. That is not to say that the position has not been challenged, but individual rights to preach, proclaim, and post Scripture has regularly been upheld by the Supreme Court through the invocation of the First Amendment.
Second, as I said on twitter responding to Jim, Westboro’s speech is hateful but it is not hate speech. Partly this is a tautology, because the Supreme Court ruled that what they have done is acceptable behavior/speech, it is by definition protected speech. (“Hate speech” and whether it is not also protected speech is still much debated, so to say that it is not protected under the First Amendment is not yet proved.)
It is almost a maxim now but the speech that most offends us and that we most dislike is that which most needs protection. Consider Jim’s own blog. As observed in recent debate, there are many who consider his posts hateful, ugly, and offensive and would just as soon see him close shop again. Of course Jim rightly responds, “don’t read it.” The irony of this is clear for all to see, I will comment no more on that.
Finally, I feel I must make this absolutely clear: I abhor what Westboro does and I find no justification for it. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the fallen soldiers. The death of any loved one is tragic and wrenching no matter when and under what circumstances occurs.
Today’s NYTimes has an excellent article about a paper presented at a social psychology conference that brings to the fore something that many have said many times before. Social Scientist Sees Bias Within The argument is fairly simple, academics tend to fight vigorously against bias, racism, and discrimination…except where it concerns conservative social or political views.
Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
The article goes on to point out two examples where scholars pointed to social difficulties or challenges (women in higher ed and single mother homes in African American communities) and then were labelled pariahs by the academic world because their analysis did not fit with the dogma of the day. Their positions have since been largely vindicated and, more importantly from the perspective of those concerned with making positive change in the world, valuable time was lost in terms of helping others because the warnings of these scholars were ignored.
The challenge for the academy is, of course, to provide a forum for all thoughts and ideas. Every doctrine and dogma ought to be open to challenge, even this assertion.
I hope you will read the whole article and discuss it on your blog, here in the comments, or simply with those around you.
Location:Oxford,United Kingdom
