Here
and
Now

opinions

The death of spontaneity

7 Comments

People have been making their ideas public for as long as there’s been conversation. There’s nothing new about that. What is new – or, rather, what’s constantly changing – is the technology that we use to share those ideas. Advances in technology have rapidly expanded the public sphere, particularly in the last 150 years. But while these technologies may improve our reach, they also increasingly encourage pre-meditated – and perhaps even dishonest – communication.

When I set up the original TED Conference back in 1989, it was with the idea that we needed to encourage sincere, spontaneous communication. But now, the TED Talks have turned that into a static conversation – something that is planned, rehearsed, recorded, and then placed in an archival state online with no connection to the rest of the conference.

We’re seeing this same trend in other areas: While many people are becoming better connected through Facebook, Twitter, email, text messages, and other platforms, these technologies in many ways screen the ideas that we’re sharing. We’re no longer speaking candidly, or engaging in spur-of-the-moment debates. Instead, we’re training ourselves to become strategic communicators, presenting our ideas – and ourselves – in the way we want people to perceive them.

This sort of communication isn’t going to get us anywhere. What we need is a 19th-century salon on steroids, where the brightest minds get together to informally exchange ideas. When people sit around and talk to each other in an unrehearsed way, they’re more likely to tell each other what they really think. Truly great ideas are created when you have people from disparate backgrounds, from disparate places, engaging in honest and spontaneous conversations.

Although I invented TED, I’m no longer associated with it. I chaired my last TED conference in 2002. It’s no longer accomplishing what it was intended to: The talks that are taking place aren’t real conversations any more. They might as well be recordings. There’s no room for debate, and there’s a falsehood to the pre-planned nature of the talks.

Conversation is fundamental. Interest, dialogue, curiosity, and innovation are the resultant threads that can arise from thoughtful, improvised public conversations. That’s what I’m trying to foster with my new WWW conference series. I’m not trying to create a better version of TED or anything else – what I am trying to do is explore alternative modes of conversation. I’m innovating by subtraction: I’m removing all the sales pitches, the PowerPoint presentations, the videos, the editing, and the rehearsals. When you clear away the rubbish, all that’s left is people talking to people, as they’ve been doing for centuries.

Yes, the public sphere is inextricably linked with the technologies of the day, but those technologies are constantly changing. Certainly, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, and all the technologies we currently think are vital parts of our lives will not exist in 20 years.

We tend to think that the technologies we have today will be around forever, but that’s simply not the case. We thought that about the fax machine when it first came out, and now the Internet has rendered it obsolete. And this is far from an exception to the rule: Already, texting is replacing email, and mobile phones are replacing laptop computers. The public sphere is a continuum, and it’s often only in hindsight that we recognize the flaws of the technologies that shape it.

Much of what the Internet has done, for instance, is trivial. What’s the purpose of Google telling you it can find 400,000 hits on a search term in 0.028 seconds? No one would ever look at them all. So while this may be an impressive technological feat, it’s essentially meaningless junk data.

Having a wealth of data at your fingertips is not enough: You also need to have information that’s relevant and engaging and, more critically, understandable. It should resonate with you personally. When you pull up 400,000 search results in Google, you’re likely to be so overwhelmed by it all that you don’t actually absorb any of it. The emphasis on quantity over quality is damaging to our public sphere, and unlikely to lead to any brilliant new ideas – and those ideas are what move us forward.

None of this, of course, is permanent. Our public sphere is constantly expanding and changing alongside our technologies, and who knows what tomorrow will bring? People who were wowed by the invention of the telephone never imagined that a World Wide Web would one day enable people to communicate, in an instant, with networks of people across the globe, spurring uprisings and revolutions, and spreading ideas like wildfire.

But just because we don’t know what’s coming next doesn’t mean we should simply “wait and see.” As our public sphere continues to expand, we would be wise to be aware of the impact that our communications technologies are having on the quality of our conversations, and, in turn, on the clarity of innovation and creative invention. In all this, we may observe the value of the truth, and of engaging in spontaneous conversations as we exchange authentic ideas.

© Japan Today

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

Brilliantly said. I can't agree more. In fact this is exactly why I left Facebook and Twitter and Linkedin and all such "social" sites.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Having a wealth of data at your fingertips is not enough: You also need to have information that's relevant and engaging and, more critically, understandable.

Very good, and I would add, be able to use the information in a creative fashion. How many people do we know that can, like Cliff on Cheers, rattle off facts and figures but not make a leap to creative and new?

A discussion about a subject should be a friendly debate that could, maybe, possibly, result in a new way of looking at things. The internet is like an encyclopaedia: it gives us facts and figures very quickly. Also, people no longer have friendly debates. They yell at each other assuming the loudest person wins. Oh well, such is humanity.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I wonder if he considers that the slide in TED quality / purpose started while he as still involved, or only began after he left?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Much of what the Internet has done, for instance, is trivial.

Nonsense. The Internet has vastly increased trade, and as a consequence, wealth. That's something these "top down" innovators can't seem to grasp.

And unless TED was a bunch of free rapping beat poets, it was ALWAYS about premeditated communication.

What we need is a 19th-century salon on steroids, where the brightest minds get together to informally exchange ideas.

Uh, we already have that. It's called the free market. This guy wants "spontaneous communication" so long as he's the one determining the content and medium of the message.

Hang out in some of the R and D departments of some of the leading companies in the world, and you'll hear plenty of spontaneous discussions and freeflowing ideas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What we need is a 19th-century salon on steroids

Somehow, a Victorian parlor doesn't evoke in me the diversity and liberal thinking he's talking about.

The inventors of the industrial revolution were unfettered: they weren't lumbered by armies of compliance officers, intellectual-rights lawyers, burgeoning human-resources departments and 'elf-and-safety wonks ready to blunt any action not enshrined in 10,000-page corporate-compliance manuals.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@gaijininfo

There is no free market. These are words, only words. These top companies have done a good job yeah, Good job of fleecing the workers and exploitation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Conversation is fundamental. Interest, dialogue, curiosity, and innovation are the resultant threads that can arise from thoughtful, improvised public conversations.

Not everyone was invited to a salon, were they? Not sure about the disparate backgrounds, but you had to be pretty bright. Rush Limbaugh need not apply. When people could draw, through their educational background, from a wide variety of dependable knowledge: literature, science, etc., you would get a different result than what you would get now.

I think people, on the average, know a lot less...because the knowledge is being stored, imperfectly and perfectly, in a place other than their brain. The effect of this is that the kindling for innovation is harder to access when you're dreaming, or thinking, or having a conversation. And then, some of the kindling you think is there is pure fabrication from blogs, or political groups, or pseudoscience.

I think there is still something to be gained, using all available tools, from working together, or studying together, but I think it's less likely that one can have the kind of productive, spontaneous conversation the author is envisioning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites