TED suggestions

[Left]

This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well.  The rich don't create jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g

That ROCKS!

I want to beat Republicans over the head with it!

[The Johnny]

This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well.  The rich don't create jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g

His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...

Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).

In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well.  The rich don't create jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g

His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...

Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).

In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.

Artists sell luxury items. I made my living at it for almost ten years.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well.  The rich don't create jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g

His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...

Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).

In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.

I was just discussing the hoarding phenomenon with my lunch date (who unfortunately I was not at all attracted to) and exactly this; how after a certain point wealth is merely an accumulation of power, and how without a serfdom there can be no aristocracy, just crazy people with a lot of stuff.

[Left]

This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well.  The rich don't create jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g

His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...

Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).

In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.

Artists sell luxury items. I made my living at it for almost ten years.

Ideally they do
Meh, I think I'd rather just paint stuff.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4

[The Johnny]

This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4

Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's... what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?

USA really has 25% with mental illness population???

I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4

Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's... what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?

USA really has 25% with mental illness population???

I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)

I'm sure you already know all this, but for the benefit of others who may not, inequality also creates a particular type of relative status stress, which is why poorer countries with less inequality are healthier overall than richer countries with more inequality. Check out Robert Sapolsky's social status and stress studies, and, oh shit I can't remember her name I'll try to find it, but these finding have been replicated in study after study in different types of primates, including humans.

[The Johnny]

The particular text I read spoke of how because of inequality there's "safe zones" for the different economical classes:

If a rich looking person (attire, race, manners, behaviour) goes to a shitty part of town, it's like he's a foreigner in a different country almost, so given person is either targeted to be mugged, or with envy/hatred or sometimes admiration.

The other side of the coin, is someone with characteristics of lower classes going to the "nice" places in the city, which can translate to fear of them and being harassed by police, or not given proper service (like attending to them last, bad mannered, exacerbation of bureaucracy).

So inequality in the big picture makes for this economic tribe system ala caste system, in which, depending on who you are and where you are, is the manner in which you are treated.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The particular text I read spoke of how because of inequality there's "safe zones" for the different economical classes:

If a rich looking person (attire, race, manners, behaviour) goes to a shitty part of town, it's like he's a foreigner in a different country almost, so given person is either targeted to be mugged, or with envy/hatred or sometimes admiration.

The other side of the coin, is someone with characteristics of lower classes going to the "nice" places in the city, which can translate to fear of them and being harassed by police, or not given proper service (like attending to them last, bad mannered, exacerbation of bureaucracy).

So inequality in the big picture makes for this economic tribe system ala caste system, in which, depending on who you are and where you are, is the manner in which you are treated.

Yes, and there's more to it as well, in that even when you're "in your place" the constant knowledge of your relative social positioning can make you feel relaxed and content (if you're near the top) or anxious and threatened (if you're near the bottom) leading to varying degrees of overall health and stress-related illness. The one thing that helps ameliorate this stress, with powerful physical ramifications, is social caring; the degree to which each primate spends time grooming/having caring social interactions, in person, with other primates. Humans included. Cacioppo's work on the neuroscience and epidemiology of loneliness really drives this point home.

[Junkenstein]

This seems worth adding to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/30/we-need-to-talk-about-ted

Video halfway down presenting the text.

Some very good points here, particularity about the bad side of TED and similar ilk. Notable mainly because he seems to be fairly on the money in several areas.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This seems worth adding to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/30/we-need-to-talk-about-ted

Video halfway down presenting the text.

Some very good points here, particularity about the bad side of TED and similar ilk. Notable mainly because he seems to be fairly on the money in several areas.

I feel like he made a few points, but only after committing a fundamental error, which is "Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster".

It's an error because TED is not the model on which science, philosophy and technology are run. It's a pop science venue, designed to make science interesting and accessible to the public, and to inspire wealthy private potential donors to give to science. That's it. That's what it is. I'm sorry his friend didn't get his donation, but that's about as irrelevant an anecdote, in the big picture, as the fact that nobody gave me a full ride to school even though I'm smart and cute. That anecdote isn't a sign of a failing system. Collect a few dozen of those anecdotes, or show that private funding for the sciences is down, or show that funding is overwhelmingly going toward projects with charismatic researchers, and you have data. Data is meaningful, anecdotes are not.

TED is fun. TED is accessible. TED has nothing to do with how science is conducted.

This guy isn't a scientist. He isn't backing up his ideas with... well, with anything. He's just talking, because he's got an opinion, without any semblance of research or scientific method to back that opinion up, even though he's presenting that opinion as being relevant to science.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\

[Junkenstein]

Fair points all, I can't recall his title offhand but it wasn't hard-science based.

The bits that caught my attention were:

Phones, drones and genomes, that's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla. In addition to the other insanely great things these technologies do, they are the basis of NSA spying, flying robots killing people, and the wholesale privatisation of biological life itself. That's also what we do.

The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation" just isn't a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.

That's pretty bold and wide ranging and shows a level of awareness of what these changes are capable of in both directions. More open dialogue about all of the above is needed urgently before it's too late. In many cases of the tech in these areas it already is too late and shit's pretty fucked. So talking about how not to make it worse or easier seems worthwhile. For instance, A politicatian's stance on those three areas alone is more valuable now than knowing if they're Democrat or Republican. While "Pro-X" is essentially "Pro-company Y" It'd at least give you an indication of which business interests you would be like voting for or against.

The other:

Keep calm and carry on "innovating" ... is that the real message of TED? To me that's not inspirational, it's cynical.

In the US the rightwing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality ... other constituencies have TED.

Very sharp point. I try to view the news as cynically as possible as it increasingly seems to be the only way it makes any sense. A reveal in the future about a shady funding source or a less than ethical news baron (Not saying Murdoch, but Murdoch) getting involved in any capacity suddenly shifts the content and focus. Look at what happened to Vice.

It's pretty much because TED is fun, accessible and nothing to do with science that could potentially leave it vulnerable to some very questionable people. We all know how far you can get with just high vis jacket and air of authority.

The funding anecdote I took as butthurt and little more, but there's something to be said about the above.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\

He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.

He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.

I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.