I liked this article a lot, even though I don't have as much experience with the TED community as the author does. Applying a acerbic wit and cynical eye to what we do as technical people is sorely needed.

And the author has a point: at some point the language gets so conceptual and fuzzy that it becomes more of a performance than a knowledge-sharing exercise. It's like a carnival for the wannabe Bill Gates of the world.

For a couple of years I've been fascinated with the idea that as intelligent people many of us are drawn to activities and consumption that makes us look more intelligent, whether or not we actually learn anything of value from them or not. So we listen to the right music, have the right opinions, and banter on about the right topics in the right way, all the while doing more than just a little social posturing and signalling. Vast segments of intelligentsia are little more than echo chamber. We are giving up independent analysis for pre-digested bits of feel-good junk food.

Good to see that argument gaining more traction. Healthy communities require introspection and honest conversations.

This is a very interesting thought. I suppose to some extent that effect is due to there being fewer checks of your ability once you reach a high level of competence in something, simply because there are fewer people who have the ability to do that.

One way to mitigate that could be to learn entirely new things that you don't think you have an 'aptitude' for. When you start something really new to you, and later begin to publish stuff made with those new skills, there's a huge number of people who will analyse your work critically.

Relevant essay: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...

The thing about TED is, wild-eyed though it may be, it's not a political agenda. It's (trying to be) beyond that, about technology and science and understanding, and while the result is often pretty technocratic it is actually often reflecting the benefits of self-organisation through tech. Stuff like Wikipedia, for example, is perfect TED-fodder because it shows demonstrable ways of doing things better.

People who do not understand that idea (of which they are many) criticise it on their own terms, and so miss the point. If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name. However that's like religious people insisting that atheists must believe in something, even if that's belief in an idea. It is outside their framework of understanding to consider a person who does not hold any kind of belief.

So, personally (and I think the popularity of TED and RSA etc reflect this) this whole article reads like some venting from someone who doesn't really understand the concept, and so can only think of it in terms of politics. These Teddites must have a political view of some kind, right? No.

It's trans-political because it's about applied informational learning to solve problems. Politics itself being one of those problems.

If I drew anything from Wikipedia, I'd draw the conclusion that this sort of 'non-political' technological organization becomes intensely political, with most decisions made through behind-the-scenes rules-related politicking by the people with the most time to burn.

Horrifying, because the people with the most time to burn on any particular issue are usually the extremists. I can't imagine the distopia that'd result if things like zoning laws or environmental regulations were decided by the same process.

You have a brutally dry sense of humor.

"Singularity may rid us of death, but it won’t abolish backscratching."

And self organization is at the basis of market capitalism. So TED do seem like the same old political agenda packaged with a bit of techno-optimism.

I don't think this is a case of sour grapes... and if it is, so what? Because the argument made is entirely reasonable and well done. Whether you agree or not, it is an important view point that has to be aired more often. I personally agree with the author's premise and I think your view that TED doesn't have a political agenda is naive in the extreme.

What he doesn't get to the heart of is, aside from the fact that the book may not be very good (which I can easily accept), why the central systems-and-data-driven plank that comprises much of TED-esque thinking is bad.

To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out. Whereas look at the actual smart-device search-engine semantic-social world we're creeping toward and the post-political person understands that those are just inevitable outcomes. It's not whether the singularity might happen (or could be prevented) but when, and so the forward-looking thinking person should be trying to figure out the best uses of that.

He's also missed the pointed examples of Signapore and China by a country mile, mistaking older ideological associations (which, again, every forward-thinking person understands need to be resolved) for the efficiency argument. The reviewer's point is that efficiency leads to brutality, which is a very old-school political idea, but the TED-esque view generally looks for efficiency to promote/empower humanity.

Again, like Wikipedia, both more efficient and much better (but let's instead get distracted by talking about Jimmy Wales and how he named his children).

So, you know, like that. Morozov seems to want to make a middle-20th century argument about early 21st-century ideas, and it shows. He writes passably well (though this review could have been cut in half with no loss imo), but the core conceit (this TED stuff is techno-politics) is just fundamentally wrong.

>To take one example, he seems to find the whole notion of a hybrid age, or the singularity, as dangerous technocratic political thinking, something to be stamped out.

No, he finds the idea of a immanent techno-millennium ancient, familiar to most culturally literate people, and articulated more convincingly (or rather more coherently) by people a century ago who were also wrong. He argues that the "hybrid age" is a vacuous restating of a basic condition of man that is not only older than Twitter, but older than books. He argues that the rewarming of these old ideas masks personal agendas of the traditional sort, namely the accumulation of wealth and status by serving the traditional players in their traditional totalitarian political agendas.

You may not agree, but you also are not disagreeing coherently. At least until you can define to your audience what "semantic-social" and "post-political" mean before you use them in an argument.

Consider your 'post-political person'. I believe this is a conceit. In my opinion no such person exists.

Are you seriously arguing that politicians will soon be a thing of the past? That, in essence, is the conclusion you must reach. A little further down the line, I expect the Singularity will happen as well, yet I have a sneaky suspicion the first to get there will execute the ultimate political act which will be to deny access to the several billion people that weren't part of their cohort.

-Supplemental-

Since we don't really know how the Singularity will express itself, 'get there' should be read as 'to contact', 'integrate with' etc

Actually it very very much reeks of political agenda from miles away.

There are few things more political (in that they have very specific political consequences) than denouncing politics and trying to present yourself or your activities as apolitical.

Presenting technology as beyond or above politics is even worse.

>If you are used to seeing life through a political lens (as we might hazard the New Republic does) then TED looks like an agenda by a different name.

Politics is the ideas behind our actions: what we want our actions to achieve and how we want to shape the future.

So you cannot escape politics, it's not merely "seeing things through a political lens". Things are inherently political.

It would be like saying we should not see things through a "reality lens". Reality is inescapable.

Likewise, when a publication focused on politics analyzes problems, the solutions are always political, never technological. If you follow the author's logic, most of the issues presented in TED talks could be solved with laws.

I'm quite cynical about the somewhat simplistic solutions offered by some TED speakers, but I don't see laws and political debate solving most of the problems TED discusses.

In a world where technology is relatively abundant, the hard problems are still political(at the country, industry or company level).

The money swirling around it doesn't help, in this regard.

Expand my mind with documentaries on history, science etc - not just full length hour long ones, even 2-20 minutes is good. As long as it's engaging.

I like the idea that TED release talks and books so slowly that you can consume every one (not true for talks, but they're trying with books.)

Pity TEDBooks is apparently crap (given the info from the featured article)

I don't find it strange. Having followed TED for years I have noticed the political under current become more obvious over time. The technocratic political elite like having a forum to promote their agenda, no surprise there really.

Take a gander here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/takedown

I see three definitions, two literal and one figurative that apply here:

>6. Informal . the act of being humbled.

>7. Wrestling . a move or series of maneuvers that succeeds in bringing a standing opponent down onto the mat.

>2. a crushing remark [syn: put-down]