Ric Elias' incredible story

For my eighth and final TED talk blog, I chose to watch Ric Elias’ recount of his experiences on the plane that landed in the Hudson river (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-15/us/new.york.plane.crash_1_air-traffic-controllers-bird-strike-pilot?_s=PM:US). I chose this talk for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was five minutes. Up to watching this talk, I didn’t know what a five-minute TED talk looked like. I think this will help with my own presentation greatly. Also, it was a story of survival. These kinds of stories really interest me personally. Ric’s brush with death really broadens my mind as to what my goals and aspirations are. It really makes you think about your purpose. Luckily, I already know what my purpose is. This TED talk, however, is a message that has been simpler to grasp and more clear than every other talk I’ve seen. This makes it a powerful message. I feel that this simplicity is part of what makes this message applicable to all. I will definitely incorporate simplicity into my talk, trying not to make it overly complex or confusing. Something that surprised me about Ric’s whole talk was his almost complete lack of fear. How could someone recount a near-death experience without talking about fear? All that I’ve heard so far have dealt with it in some way or another. For example, in Aron Ralston’s story, he felt fear nearly every step of the way, and told about it. It’s hard for him to even talk about his experience because his mind was in such a dark place. Ric’s ease of talking about his experience made it clear that his mind was not in a dark place. This really surprises me and changes my perspective on how certain peoples’ minds work.  During Ric’s presentation, he was never rushed to speak. He spoke slowly and coolly the entire time. I will definitely make my presentation less wordy to have this engaging effect. This presentation works because it is remarkable. Ric Elias’ views on what he went through are really unique. This unique message makes people care more. Also, I think emotionally connecting with people more creates a stronger message. I believe that an emotional connection can be made to an audience in five minutes, and this is exactly what I intend to do. This talk has really helped to inspire me to make my own better. His message is simple, his style is concise, and his vision is clear. Ric’s incredible story of survival can inspire all.

Food Revolution: More Than Meets The Eye

I have been very interested in Jamie Oliver’s work long before I saw his TED talk, so seeing it was very intriguing to me. His applications of his facts “to the room” really brings new light to his point. He states statistics that apply directly to his audience. I found this to be true throughout his presentation, and it made it very engaging. His style was what sold the talk to me. He made you notice it more, due to the way he presented the information. And that’s Jamie Oliver’s style. It makes you notice. You can also really see the passion in his presentation, enhancing it even further. His voice reflects his strong beliefs about obesity and diet-related disease. At the one point in the beginning where the audience laughed, he did not. This stood out to me as one of the most important parts of what made his presentation work. His complete lack of laughter or joy of any kind in the heat of his argument made it clear that he cared about his work. He meant business and that one moment made me see that. One thing I didn’t understand was how he got the number of obesity costing us 10% of our healthcare bills. How would this be calculated? This is one point that I would’ve loved more detail on. Overall, Jamie Oliver’s presentation is one of few that I’ve seen that seem to really utilize Daniel Pink’s right-brained attributes discussed so far in the book. I see especially large use of symphony and story in his presentation. He used symphony at the end to tie all of the facts together and make a point. He also used story by providing an emotional connection to his statistics that make them more memorable and meaningful. If you look at these attributes together, Jamie Oliver really has a powerhouse of a presentation. He has seemed to master the right-brained attributes already. It’s interesting to see someone understand them that you wouldn’t normally expect to at first. He seems to understand TED a lot better than many other presenters, which is  surprising. His point describing certain people as being at the “sharp knife edge” of this revolution really reminded me of the Civil Rights movement in many respects. The Civil Rights movement was also an uphill struggle, with many people being hurt or killed as a consequence. The Civil Rights movement also consisted of very influential leaders such as Martin Luther King. So, one could say that Jamie Oliver is the MLK of the food revolution. Imagine that. I also found it very ironic that Jamie mentioned the part about the purpose of school. Education’s purpose has been discussed in nearly every TED talk I’ve seen so far. This one kind of fits in with the rest, and I can see subtle connections between all 7 talks. The formula for each talk is relatively the same, but this one touches on specific points that they all share. His specific ideas for how to fix this issue also help his presentation’s legitimacy. He provides simple, effective solutions for all the problems affecting today’s world. If we simply listen to his message, change will be swift.

Dave Eggers: A Better World

Dave Eggers’ TED Talk was unique to me in a number of ways. Firstly, I was surprised by his presentation style. The irony is that he didn’t seem to have one at all. He has not been very involved in public speaking before, and it shows. One thing that bugs me about a lot of TED talks is the fact that some talk presenters rush through the opening/set-up too quickly, so that later, their point’s context is unclear. I definitely feel this to be true in this TED talk. I am still unsure of the context of his ideas. This entire presentation for me seems unorganized and confusing. In the end, I didn’t really understand why the audience was giving him the standing O. Why did the landlord at the building Dave wanted say that he had to sell something? Couldn’t it still technically have been a tutoring center? This is one of many things about this presentation that I don’t understand. All of his explanations seem to be circular and don’t seem to be very productive. He constantly comes back to the same point or doesn’t make a point. Much of this presentation could’ve been removed and it would not lose any meaning. His stories contain a lot of extra explanations that are unnecessary. If the fat is trimmed from this presentation, the message is pure. This message is one-on-one attention for students, which I believe helps them immensely. It is not a necessity, but it does do wonders when it is available. I’ve had great results with one-on-one attention in my academic career. Going to writing lab really helps my writing, and I think it is because there is one teacher concentrating on only you. Their undivided focus causes students to focus much more. Helping students in this way can change our education system forever. These one-on-one tutors can create a world where kids no longer stress about the heavier academic load being dumped on them every year. As Dave said, this can lead to a happy world. I very much agree with Dave’s views. I think that the writing the students did for the author led to much better writing in general. Why can’t we apply this to the rest of our lives? As a musician, I know that playing with people that are better than you makes you better. So if you want someone to improve a skill, pair them with someone who is a master of that skill. This is extremely beneficial because it raises the standard of the skill. After seeing the way someone else interprets a field, one gains new understanding of that specific field. This can be true of tutoring, writing for an author, or working with an incredible musician. If Dave’s message is picked apart, it can apply to more facets of life. The deconstruction and application of this presentation can help someone in every aspect of life. Transformative Partnerships can create a better world for all.

Biology and Technology: Like Evil Twins

I agree with many, if not all of Kevin Kelly’s views on the evolution of modern technology. His connections to evolution are very insightful and should be exposed to more people. What is technology? What does it mean to us as humans? His definition of technology that I found most intriguing was “Technology is anything that doesn’t quite work yet.” This definition can apply to many modern pieces of technology today. For example, the computer has not been perfected. It has issues sometimes. So, in a way, technology is something that works some of the time and not all of the time. Technology naturally has flaws, just as life does. Not all of the creatures evolution creates work out. Neither does all of the technology man creates. This is what makes Kelly’s views really resonate with me. What is technology’s view of the world? Personally, I can imagine what technology must think of the world. It probably thinks that life couldn’t keep up with some of the stuff that it does. It would see biological organisms as inferior to itself. Technology is so important to us today, and I think it would see that. Speaking of biological organisms, we haven’t found them all! The plan to explore random spots on the globe is smart. This can truly unlock the secrets of the specific parts of evolution and help us to advance as a society. The more we understand about life on our planet, the more we can observe from nature, giving us an edge in our modern lives. What does he mean by “hacking”? Does his definition simply mean a different way of conducting life? That’s what it appears to be, but then what do you compare that to? Different than what? How does the circular evolutionary chart work? How have organisms as simple as bacteria, etc. not seen radical changes? This is one view that I may not completely agree with. He makes an argument that every organism is just as evolved as every other organism. Could this view also apply to technology? Could one argue that the computer is just as evolved as the printing press? I believe it can. Also, could other technology help existing technology evolve through co-evolution? He gives the example about finding 6,000 species of technology in one home. My question is, what is included as a “species of technology”? This is a point that I don’t understand. Because of the issue with what is a species and what isn’t, I believe that technology is not the seventh kingdom of life. This doesn’t make sense. Technology is not alive. The coronet example did not make sense to me either. What was the man measuring? Just because a technology exists does not mean it is still alive. Just because you can still get a bone knife doesn’t mean that they are widely used. I think a piece of technology can be dead if no one uses it anymore. I agree with some of Kelly's views, but others do not make sense. I do think that his message is sound, however.

Cognitive Surplus: Clay Shirky's confusing centerpiece

Clay Shirky’s TED talk needs to be watched multiple times. He explores high-caliber subject matter and uses big words to get his points across. I think that the way he speaks really interests people. It draws them into the presentation by reinforcing his intelligence. ‘Wait, what? Wow, I should listen. He knows his stuff.’ In the beginning of his talk, he uses the term “Media Landscape.” My personal definition of this at the moment would be the entire world of media, including TV, internet, etc. The real definition is different media outlets and brands interacting to form a broad picture of modern technology. Our modern media landscape has been described as “crowded.” I would definitely agree with this view, because it seems like technology has overtaken modern life. It is so readily available and easily accessible, which makes it no surprise that it is now everywhere. Certain projects have had more effect on the media landscape than others. Ushahidi has been described by Shirky as very influential. I took the liberty of looking on Ushahidi’s site today, and it has grown exponentially in the last year. A large title on the homepage reads “We are a non-profit tech company that develops free and open source software for information collection, visualization and interactive mapping.” Why did Shirky use Ushahidi as his biggest example? To me, it is not that remarkable. All it has done is taken information and put it onto a map. Isn’t this relatively simple? I don’t understand why Shirky seems to care so much about this project more than all the other revolutionary open-source ideas out there. I just don’t get it (shrug). The woman who started the blog about corruption in Kenya caused a government media shutdown. This reminds me of Farenheit 451 and 1984, where slightly rebellious actions are treated as more than they are. The governments of all three are harsh, so in a way, Ushahidi is defying the government of Kenya. I wonder if the Kenyan government ever became angry over Ushahidi. It was taking away the government’s power over media, and putting it into the hands of the people. After making a move to assert media power, I would be pretty pissed. What is cognitive surplus? The video defined it as “the ability of the world’s population to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate on large, sometimes global projects.” This almost makes sense to me, but I still have a few questions. How is the ability of the population to collaborate related to excess thought? I think that Shirky’s definition and the literal definition are two very different things. I just don’t understand the concept fully enough to know how the definition relates. The way he uses cognitive surplus as a noun confuses me, as I feel it should be more of adjective. I’m missing the point here. Later in the talk, Shirky begins to talk about LOLcats, and one particular statement he makes connects deeply to what I hope my TED talk will be about. He says that however non-helpful and pointless, LOLcats are still a creative act. In the world of creativity in the media landscape, they are not wrong. Just another way of using the tools presented. Hmm, how odd, that last sentence sounded like a definition of creativity. I hope that my TED talk can support both sides of something like this. He also mentions the idea of a spectrum between mediocre work and good work, and this is relevant in my life each day. As a drummer/musician, I am constantly striving for the magic of amazing creativity. And, being an artist, I can tell when I reach this and when I don’t. When it is reached, things are astoundingly brilliant. But when it is not, they are just ok, and not very remarkable. I try to reach this threshold every time I have a creative idea. Shirky states that LOLcats and Ushahidi meet in the design for generosity. Isn’t this also true of all open source projects? It seems as if people do them for fun, and not for any sort of profit or payoff. They do it out of generosity. The design of an open source project such as Ushahidi is very closely connected with generosity. This shows the intrinsic motivation that has been proven to drive so many to achieve more. This relates back to a large theme of this unit. Through the Daniel Pink TED talk, as well as other sources, I have seen intrinsic motivation as a large part of what makes society work better. All the interconnectedness I have seen through all these TED talks is fascinating, and I think when the messages from all are put together, we as students are more equipped with the tools of the future.

Daniel Pink's Motivational Conundrum

One big question I have after Daniel Pink’s video is where the hell intrinsic motivation has been in my own life? I’m seeing so many opportunities for it to be implemented in education and just life as a whole. I will definitely provide concrete examples of how this can be used in our society in my own TED talk. Another question I have is how has learning all this research about motivation not dramatically altered our lives? The workplace seems to be relatively similar now as it was before this research. Are CEO’s not looking at this information and wanting to increase productivity through intrinsic motivation right away? If I were a CEO, I would be very excited about this, so I’m not sure why it hasn’t been implemented very much, at least from what I’ve seen. Pink says that this has been replicated by psychologists and sociologists, so why does it seem like the mainstream American society hasn’t heard of it? He goes on to talk about paying people enough so that they aren’t thinking about money anymore. How would one know where this fine line is drawn? How much money is enough money? Later in the video, Pink talks about autonomy, the desire to be self-directed. His example of the Australian software company really showed how this can change the workplace. But why can’t we use more autonomy in education? I wish classes had all their work available from the beginning so you can go at your own pace and complete tasks autonomously. With autonomy in education, students will be more driven to get things done. Also, if you couple this with creativity, a personal motivator for each student, you have reached a motivational powerhouse. Imagine a system where each child is self-directed and all the work does not have to be done in the traditional way. Students should have an opportunity for nearly complete autonomy in their studies by high school, at least. I definitely noticed something in Pink’s presentation style that really turned me off to his message. He started talking about people who work on open source projects but still have jobs. He began to yell during this part. This solidifies my belief that one should never yell in a TED talk. Later in the video he talks about purpose. As the video shows it, it seems like only the CEO’s or presidents of companies have decisions of the company’s purpose. What if each employee had their own unique purpose for coming to work? Why can’t autonomy apply to purpose in the workplace? I know that for me at school, a self-created purpose does more than the one they give you. My DRIVE sentence inspires me more than the school mission statement does. If we all had a unique sense of purpose, I think we could be very inspired to come to school each day. Daniel Pink’s presentation style throughout seems almost harsh. He shoves all the facts down your throat. It seems fast and punctual, something that I don’t want my own TED talk to be. I want mine to be more like Ken Robinson’s, where there is comedy and room to breathe. However, I do feel that Pink’s messages about motivation are very important. Business leaders as well as educators should know this research and apply it. I think that’s all that’s missing now, is the application piece of it all. This research can make the world a better place, but only if it is used and not left to dust on a shelf and looked at every once in a while.

Dare to be Remarkable

     Despite Seth Godin’s TED talk revolving around marketing, its lessons can be applied to the everyday in a variety of situations. His messages of standing out and rising above the crowd to become remarkable must be shown everywhere.

     The first example that Godin uses to illustrate his point about marketing success is the sliced bread and Otto Rohwedder. Otto was credited with the invention of sliced bread, and he poured hours into the patenting and creation of the product. However, for the first fifteen years after sliced bread had become available, no one bought it. This all changed when Wonder came around and discovered how to spread the idea of sliced bread, which made people want to buy it. Godin states that the patent or factories don’t matter and what matters is whether one can get their idea to spread. This raises an interesting point about marketing in the modern age that he goes on to discuss. He states that “Ideas that spread, win.” We are in a century of idea diffusion, and the best things for spreading ideas are TV and things like TV. TV makes ideas easy to spread through a system known as the TV Industrial Complex. It works like this: a company buys ads to promote their product, which in turn get them more distribution. This distribution helps to sell more products. The profit made from these sales is then used to buy more ads, thus restarting the cycle over again. In generations of the past, the TV industrial complex has done wonders for many of the popular brands we see today. However, the complex does not work anymore. Recently, marketers have learned that this is no longer an effective way of getting sales and making money. He says that people now have learned to not care about advertisers’ problems and to ignore messages seen on TV. Godin illustrates this through his pain reliever example. He has always bought a certain kind of pain reliever, so advertising is now not going to make him go through extra effort to change his ways. He then uses various examples to shed light on the state of marketing in the modern day. Today there are magazines dedicated entirely to water, and Coke Japan comes out with a new product every three weeks. Arby’s was even willing to pay $85 million to endorse an oven mitt with the voice of Tom Arnold. Godin states that this advertisement would not work on most people, and that consumers no longer care. He says that this is because consumers today have many more choices and much less time, making ignoring ads easier. He then uses an example to show how to break the slump many businesses find themselves in. If someone is driving down a road and they see a cow, they don’t stop. Cows are boring and normal. However, if a cow is purple, people will stop and gape. He then relates this to the business world in saying that the products that get sold and make money are those that are remarkable. He uses many examples to add depth to this point as well. He says that people see new products as “fresh” and they “didn’t know that was there.” He states that it is a completely different process to see which ideas spread and which do not nowadays. He uses an example of a baker in Paris who had the industry in need of French bread in the palm of his hand. This was because his product was remarkable and his idea spread easily. He says that we should market to people who care, and who are on the outer spectrum of marketing. You need to talk to people who care about your product and make it easy for them to tell their friends. He then uses many examples to bring validity to his ideas. Godin states that the least effective thing that you can do now is be safe. If something is very good, it is boring and will not be noticed. To truly get ahead, one must be remarkable.

     Throughout Seth’s talk, he used specific examples to back up each new idea that he brought to the table. This helped reinforce what he had to say and helped me to see how it applies in the real world. I feel that his presentation was well delivered and engaging because of the quality in his examples. He really helped me to see the bigger picture through his precise and analytical presentation style.

     The ideas discussed in this talk can change the world of marketing forever. It not only makes me interested in this field, but makes me curious as to how it will evolve with us. And I believe that it will evolve, and quite drastically. New mediums that some may never have even thought of for advertising are now becoming possible sources of profit. This marketing revolution will sweep over the world along with the conceptual age. One giant leap in our society will be seen soon, and those who can possess mastery of remarkable ideas sooner will have the edge over those who cannot. This is very similar to right-brained ideas becoming more in-demand and relevant.