- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
The God Complex
- Thread starter bambam02
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 6,874
- Reaction score
- 1,357
I generally don't like Ted talks. From the many that I've watched when I had background in what was being discussed, they over trivialize or do not evenly present the multiple sides/complexities of some situation. It always feels like I'm watching a news article (if that's possible) where the journalist has selected or reports mainly on the information that is most likely to get people to pay attention to them and what they're doing.
It's a perfectly good medium for striking interest in something and then digging into it and doing some real research/analysis on stuff. However I don't think it's good to draw any kind of conclusions based on what is shown in the talk alone.
I'm aware that my response has not addressed your actual video or post in any direct fashion...and I'm sorry about that
What good is the internet if I can't use it to ramble on about my own thoughts and priorities?
It's a perfectly good medium for striking interest in something and then digging into it and doing some real research/analysis on stuff. However I don't think it's good to draw any kind of conclusions based on what is shown in the talk alone.
I'm aware that my response has not addressed your actual video or post in any direct fashion...and I'm sorry about that
What good is the internet if I can't use it to ramble on about my own thoughts and priorities?
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,616
- Reaction score
- 38
Eh, I generally find TED talks to be incredibly fascinating and well done (even on topics I had some background in). I don't think their oversimplification of some things deserves criticism because the speakers are given a relatively short time and the audience is diverse, requiring technical details to be either eliminated or simplified.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
I am god.
K
kpcrew
Agreed. I enjoy seeing what experts in the field are up to and I appreciate the fact that they present their work in such a way that a layman like me can understand what they are doing.
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,616
- Reaction score
- 38
Wait, CodeBlu is non-existent?!
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
This is what god looks like...
But back on topic... Ted Talks is done very well... but some of the stuff they say... just annoys me to no end.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
Paul411s signature move... religion/politics... it is what it is.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
I'm just happy that the evolution thread died... that thing was getting out of control.
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,616
- Reaction score
- 38
I didn't want to bring up religion/politics but TED talks are chock full of left-wing, fascist, socialist, liberal, Marxist, Muslim propaganda.
On topic: some of the actual "design" stuff on TED is very cool. They had a talk about improving the design of medical reports to make them more readable. Good stuff.
On topic: some of the actual "design" stuff on TED is very cool. They had a talk about improving the design of medical reports to make them more readable. Good stuff.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
I didn't want to bring up religion/politics but TED talks are chock full of left-wing, fascist, socialist, liberal, Marxist, Muslim propaganda.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, I will tend to agree with you on some level about the nature of the material they present.
/goes to bump thread
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 11,020
- Reaction score
- 169
I think that's the purpose exactly; to extrapolate much else from any snippet like this is stupid (though unfortunately, not uncommon). It'd be like reading an article on something in the paper and then claiming to be an expert on it--hate when people do that.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
I watch TED over TV sometimes. It keeps me up to date on what everyone is really focusing on in the different fields of science and entertainment.
I like the video cuz it reminded me of how important trial an error is in our world. I think it was very well put together
There are some video's on there that i'm just saying to myself "weakk....weakkk....weak" like this one: http://www.ted.com/talks/nina_tandon_caring_for_cells.html
It kinda made me feel embarrassed for her
I like the video cuz it reminded me of how important trial an error is in our world. I think it was very well put together
There are some video's on there that i'm just saying to myself "weakk....weakkk....weak" like this one: http://www.ted.com/talks/nina_tandon_caring_for_cells.html
It kinda made me feel embarrassed for her
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,616
- Reaction score
- 38
It's not that bad, really.
Sometimes I feel like SDN'ers have ridiculously high expectations for everything
It's not that bad, really.
Sometimes I feel like SDN'ers have ridiculously high expectations for everything
Just sometimes?
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 10
You beat me to it but Ima say it anyway.
"I dont have a god complex, (srs look) I am god"
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 83
I thought this was kind of silly for a few reasons:
1. His "trial & error" idea and the "god complex" idea are distinct; the clumping together of these two ideas seemed to have been intended for attention-grabbing than for actual synthesis. It seemed like the old issue of finding a solution first and then fabricating a problem.
2. I'm pretty sure he's conflated trial-and-error with screening...
3. Despite his attempts to claim that it is not obvious that screening & directed evolution are common tactics in industry & research, I remain unconvinced. Yes, screening works in certain design scenarios, in pharmaceutics, etc. etc. Yet he failed to apply it adequately to situations in which people are not already using this strategy. For instance, he used as example a politician campaigning about health care reform. The fact that we do have countless different health care systems around the world and that they learn from each other is an example of screening. Yet it is not feasible for each area to try out multiple health care systems at once; when one actually has to use trial-and-error, as is the case in institution design, rather than the kind of low-investment screening that he's talking about, rational design becomes much more important. You see this in chemical biology all the time; when you're just screening phages or yeast or easily synthesised small molecules, of course it makes sense to just do a high-throughput screen rather than actually spend time trying to figure out the details, since the rationalisation can happen retrospectively. But if you just have enough resources to do things one at a time, you'd better take the time to make sure the one you're trying at least has a good shot. And the politician is the one trying to convince you that his idea, rather than his opponents, has a better shot.
1. His "trial & error" idea and the "god complex" idea are distinct; the clumping together of these two ideas seemed to have been intended for attention-grabbing than for actual synthesis. It seemed like the old issue of finding a solution first and then fabricating a problem.
2. I'm pretty sure he's conflated trial-and-error with screening...
3. Despite his attempts to claim that it is not obvious that screening & directed evolution are common tactics in industry & research, I remain unconvinced. Yes, screening works in certain design scenarios, in pharmaceutics, etc. etc. Yet he failed to apply it adequately to situations in which people are not already using this strategy. For instance, he used as example a politician campaigning about health care reform. The fact that we do have countless different health care systems around the world and that they learn from each other is an example of screening. Yet it is not feasible for each area to try out multiple health care systems at once; when one actually has to use trial-and-error, as is the case in institution design, rather than the kind of low-investment screening that he's talking about, rational design becomes much more important. You see this in chemical biology all the time; when you're just screening phages or yeast or easily synthesised small molecules, of course it makes sense to just do a high-throughput screen rather than actually spend time trying to figure out the details, since the rationalisation can happen retrospectively. But if you just have enough resources to do things one at a time, you'd better take the time to make sure the one you're trying at least has a good shot. And the politician is the one trying to convince you that his idea, rather than his opponents, has a better shot.
Similar threads
