TED Conversations

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

How to determine ideas worth spreading...

Ted talks center on the notion of 'ideas worth spreading' and this interchange seeks to focus attention on the practice of choosing the ideas to spread, how individuals and groups determine what to share and cultivate and what to eradicate. This also includes the best practices to ensure ideas are sheared and which ideas get spread. I once read that there are more good stories than bad one, yet more of the latter get told and reported. So how to determine and choose ideas worth spreading?

Share:
  • thumb
    Nov 14 2013: Hi et I guess ideas compete for our attention and support almost in a process of natural selection

    suggest ideas might be assessed in term s of their benefits of negative impacts and whether they are accurate representations of reality.

    first you need to be aware of an idea . Learnt from others or your own conclusion or invention.

    Interesting to consider what makes it stick.

    suggest this might be a mix of intuition, fit with current world views, reason, evidence, fear or respect for the authority Etc.

    sometimes ideas are dangerous in a particular environment. Suggesting women should be able to wear what they want, drive cars in fine in some places, not in others.

    I guess values fit in their somewhere.

    interesting question

    in the end you might have a reasonable go at working out what ideas are worth spreading but the ideas that thrive may be somewhat different. Typing point concept may be useful to understand how some ideas become world changing via revolutionary change or evolutionary change.

    a some point society may be receptive and one influential and passionate person may get the ball rolling.

    Interesting to me how big changes came in waves.

    The enlightenment, civil rights, the Buddhist, Christian changes toBrahmin and Jewish religions etc
    • Nov 15 2013: Obey,

      Indeed I hold that ideas compete for our attention and support. Which ideas we think, say, share, feel, experience depends on our individual actions and other's individuals actions. Note how in both cases an idea depends on someone actions to exists and spread.

      I liked most of what you stated and basically agree with it, there where two (ok saw a third and a fourth) ideas that I notices and am aware 'snuck in' ... would point them out indirectly so as to keep them bound without feeding a bit more of my life, or yours, or whomever read this...

      Something I tend to do is observe the parade of ideas and judge them into the good, the neutral and 'the shams'... My bias is to let pass the first two and halt the last one... its similar to what you suggested "...assessed in term s of their benefits..." of course benefits come in all sort of forms shapes and directions... and personally my focus is on cultivating the positive stuff... so there you probably see the second idea that 'snuck in'... do you want to give your life to that kind of benefits? I venture to say you would rather give your life to the better and positive benefits... though looking at the words well its kind of evidence a certain idea 'snuck in'... The first idea that I consider to have passed under the radar has already been replaced within the the opening 'I HOLD' ... I think its easy to justify and find reasons to explain why one does what one does... That may be a scheme that the thoughts we have use to keep us thinking of and with the thoughts we have.

      As you said :
      - be aware of an idea
      - consider what makes it 'tick' (how I read it)
      - consider what makes it stick (how you wrote it)
      - consider the mix
      - consider the environment
      - value fit it (again how I read it)
      - work on spreading
      - observe what thrives
      - typing points may be useful
      - receptive, influential and passionate may get the ball rolling.
      - changes comes in waves - (employ natural resonance force heart-beats)

      Thanks...
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2013: I enjoy reading your comments. More flowing than my terse brain dumps.
        • Nov 15 2013: Thanks... and to give credit where credit is dew... your brain dump coupled with my scavenger brain and a process focused on cultivating positive ideas worth spreading engendered the words above...

          Earlier today I was thinking of a live interchange from yesterday, ( with someone else) and what cold be done by each to ensure a communication dialogue ensured. To me its evident that there ought to be a simple communication process followed involving three stages:
          1- First get the message
          2- Validate the message gotten, ensure correspondence to the message sent
          3- Process the message ( i-consider what it says, ii- what's our contribution to it and iii- respond)

          That is: say,hear,respond! Framed differently: recognize, acknowledge, choose what to do. ( see link at end)

          Sometimes (often times) individuals just want to 'ump' to 3...(see below)... of course there may be good reasons for this. One knows what the other is going to say and intervenes. (a more accurate claim here is: 'one believe to know'; How can one actually know what's going to happen before it happens?) Its a bit like recognizing that the road seems to lead to 'a dead-end', halting, and changing the direction to head where we want to go (evidently we could walk the extra mile there and back just for the exercise involved :-) maybe even get to the dead-end before turning around and heading in the right direction. Some do need to hit rock bottom before changing directions.

          How does one resolve who umpires? Can each call the shots and be in accord?

          ---- a bit of a side-run --- had intended to write 'jump', though wrote 'ump', checked to see if that word fits, and discovered definition stated "short for umpire", I recognized acknowledged and choose to keep the word I actually wrote rather than use the originally intended word, both fit though 'ump' seems to me a bit more of what happens, individuals want to umpire the conversation and 'call the shots'

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshaking
  • Nov 16 2013: Any idea, that expedites global peace and prosperity, is an idea worth spreading. It’s all about macro utopia, the rest is just coffee-shop conversation.
    • Nov 16 2013: Well considering that the macro utopia emerges and stems from the micro utopia... yes, indeed!

      Conversations can be viaducts to peace and prosperity when appropriately focused and implemented.

      The stories each tells can have a profound effect on what happens and what individuals choose to do.
      • Nov 18 2013: Interesting thought Esteban, certainly, macro utopia has a corresponding and harmonious micro infrastructure, but, I don't see a necessary relationship or resemblance between any micro utopia and macro utopia. I define micro utopia as synonymous with 'paradise,' from the Persian word for enclosure. Since, reality has exhibited a chronic scarcity of resources, it was the only conceivable way humans could have a good life, protected from the barbarians safely and happily within walls. So, the utopia in that personal enclosure (in a non macro utopia world) is designed by individuals for themselves and does not necessarily have any of the virtues of macro utopia.
        I see macro utopia as the only authentic utopia. The foundation would be a decent standard of living for everyone in a world without war. I think this is not only possible, but relatively easy to accomplish.
        Those who think global peace & prosperity is impossible will construct their own enclosures.
        • Nov 19 2013: Danny,

          Maybe there is an alternative where the micro and the macro synergistically co-exist...that is each one depends on the other and itself to be and thrive (mental note how 'thrive' seems to close to the notion of 'tribe' to be just coincidental). Maybe utopia is a fractal pattern with self-similar arrangements, where the individual protects the whole and the whole protects the individual, "the same from near as from far".

          Whenever I see a dualistic stance, 'inside vs outside', I tend to wonder of the alternative singularity that unites, explains and transcends the situation. For example zero-limits vs limitless both correspond to going to 'the point' where limits 'disappear' and talking about limits becomes meaningless which may happen when approaching infinity.... (Note the subtle point made with the use of 'the point'... in a way 'a point' has no size and/or corresponds to the smallest size to consider... that is 'the smallest size to consider' is no size at all! )

          I will also like to draw attention to a particular sub-idea being spread in what you said that has to do with "a chronic scarcity of resources"... considering the fact that ideas behave a bit different than matter and the fact that reality tends to exhibit a chronic exuberance and abundance over resources I would like to question the veracity of the notion. I do realize that the economic-market-dynamics and systems we have presently in place do focus on scarcity of resources to operate and how operating on infinitely abundant resources would 'collapse' such a system... Imagine I sell you a product and I give it to you while I get to keep it too... with the present economic practices infinite supply drive prices to zero... so instead of figuring out the economics of abundance many when the other way and made the abundances become scarce and kept operating under the economies of scarcity. The thing is, is that a good idea ? Maybe it would be better to operate under an abundant economy.
  • Nov 13 2013: The slogan Ideas Worth Spreading is subject to two different types of interpretations:

    1) Which means only those ideas be spread which are worthy

    2)Which means it is worthy to spread Ideas.

    You can think of Ideas as a very very very very small dot on a piece of paper . And suppose there are so many dots on a paper , and you see this with your eyes . But , when you take the paper under the highly powerful microscope you come to know that these are not dot but actually these are something else may be a image of an object , or may be a message.

    Such are like ideas , when they are at the nascent stage , you cannot figure out that what would come out of the ideas.Its only visible when the ideas gets developed spontaneously and slowly.

    For me any worthless Idea is also worthy.

    Once a seer of ayurveda ( anciant medicine) wanted to test his disciples and asked all of them to go out find the those herbs,plants which are not worthy of use in our medicines.Every disciple went into the deep forest and started to find the worthless herbs,and plants which were not worthy of use in any kind of medicine. In the evening all came back with one or more herbs and plants said to the seer that we have found the worthless herbs and plants.The seer took notice of the each disciple but said nothing. There was one last disciple who was yet to come , so the seer waited for him to come. The last disciple came to the seer and said that he has not found any herb or plant which is worthless. Then everyone started laughing except the seer. The seer then said to the last disciple that you have passed my test , there is no such herb or plant which is worthless, but it is we who due to our limited knowledge may not have yet discovered or explored the worth of the herb or plant to which we consider worthless.
    • Nov 13 2013: Santokh,

      Welcome to this conversation, and thank you for what you said at multiple levels.

      reading your message implies for me shifting a bit the question one asks.
      From : How to determine ideas worth spreading...
      To: How to worthily spread ideas ...

      In a way its a combination of: 1- what one does with it 2-what it does with one 3- care of the resulting product

      So how does the village collaborate to raise up the idea to become useful, productive and always beneficial?
      How does a villager care for and interact with the idea and the village to ensure the previous point happens?
      How can an idea freely choose not to be abused nor become abusive?

      The last question I would prefer to put through two 'affairs'/permutations/transformations/combinations :
      1- First with : to be or not to be isn't the question the question be how to be - thus
      To be abused or not to be abused isn't the choice an idea has, the choice an idea has involves how to be abused preferably not to be abused at all
      2- Second with: the positive concepts or at least the neutral ones - thus
      How can an idea freely choose to be employed for good and become always employable for good?

      I also wonder if individuals 'use' ideas or ideas 'use' individuals... then there is the whole issue of what does it mean to use something and use someone ... maybe the term 'used' here 'stand in for' an other concept... say 'love'.... I wonder: if individuals 'love' ideas or ideas 'love' individuals... maybe its a combination of the two each contributing to each-other mutual development... Of course this relationship metaphor implies the possible existence of other kinds of relationships. Say a codependent addictions (note that the core idea of addictions and habits is one and the same... kind of like stubbornness and persistence).

      BTW the worthiness of some possibilities be in them existing as possibilities and remaining as possibilities.

      Again thank you for your contribution and welcome to this conversation.
  • thumb
    Nov 13 2013: Dear Esteban,

    Even if one wants to determine such criteria, it appears to me that it is better to agree on what are ideas certainly not worth spreading (the list is shorter and easier for a civilized society to have a consensus on) and table all the remaining ideas for the audience to choose from.
    Apart from my personal observation that TED tries to be sincere in selecting ideas as worth spreading on certain principles, there cannot be any guarantee that it's ideas are the only ones worth spreading. I don't think TED itself demands so.
    It may very well be the case that ideas worth spreading follow an organic growth model, where a evolutionary principle is at work rather than a deterministic set of principles.
    My two cents.
    • Nov 13 2013: Pabitra

      Welcome to this conversation... as counter intuitive as it may be, when we focusing on what are ideas certainly not worth spreading we be spreading them worthless ideas. To me saying lets focus on what doesn't work to get to know what does works because by knowing what doesn't' work one gets to knows what does work seems not to work. Personally I prefer to just get to know what works, how it works, why it works. On a different framing its like saying lets focus on the devil to get to know God because by knowing what God is not one gets to knows what God is like. Personally I prefer to just get to know God and only that which God wants.

      My intention in starting this conversation sought to explore the topic from a more individual personal level. How do we determine and select which ideas are worth spreading? Which ideas do we spread in our conversations? How does one influence the ideas that surround us?

      I am sure TED has their practices to select talks, and someone there may want to join this conversation what I had in mind here was more of a personal practical heuristics used. Personally I think we better focus on cultivating good to do good. There was a book I read on that topic which proposed to see what works best and seek to replicate it. Creating the focus on agreeing which ideas worth spreading will begin to spread the ideas themselves. For example consider what we want to think/experience/achieve rather than the other alternatives.

      If I tell you to think of an elephant most likely you will not be thinking of an apple, yet if I tell you not to think of an apple, most likely you will be thinking on an apple and seeking ways not to think about it. I hear the air lines changed what they told passengers at the end of the flight after a study comparing the items left by passengers on board when told 'don't forget and leave what you brought on board' vs 'remember and take what you brought on board'.

      Simply one idea was better to remind them.
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: I have this notion, call it unfounded if you like, that there are way more better ideas than bad ideas. So I tend to think that identifying bad ideas and stopping them from spreading may be a worthwhile job. Someone must do the dirty work. Don't you think that's as important as spreading worthwhile ideas?

        Chief of CBI (equivalent to FBI in India) other day told in an interview : when you cannot prevent a rape, better enjoy it. I instantly thought that this is one idea certainly not worth spreading. In my first stint in TED, I found the idea of giving directions to conversations (so that those can gravitate towards a predetermined goal) not worth spreading too.

        I thought about your elephant and apple allegory. When someone asks me not think about an apple, a window opens for me where I am free to think of almost anything minus the apple. When one asks me to think about an elephant, well, after a while it does not feel as rewarding.

        We should be having freedom of having many many ideas first. Some of them will not be worth spreading. Remaining should be enough to have some ideas worth spreading. I hope you are not implying to cultivate a standard that will produce only ideas worth spreading. That will be too intellectually cosmetic.
        • Nov 14 2013: Pabitra,

          The way I look at it... an idea comes my way and I then have to decide what to do with it...

          ...deciding this may involve an evaluation to identify and categorize the ideas just as it may involve following through with a particular course of actions, that doesn't involve an evaluation to identify and categorize. Evidently its worthwhile spreading worthwhile ideas as is worthwhile for us to stop the virulent 'worthless chain-letter' . Sometimes its easier said than done. Then there is the whole issue of production and reproduction of ideas where 'degrades' somehow recombine into worthwhile ones.

          I was going along reading and responding and decided to pause and read the rest of what your wrote... was a bit surprised to see similar notions... be assured that what I intend focuses on having freedom of many many ideas and possibilities; of course recognizing that some possibilities ought to remain as such; as each and everyone determines and shares the better alternatives.

          Curious how the allegory mentioned resulted in reference to 3 apples and 2 elephants... Oh, why would one do as instructed and/or stay fixed on doing just that? Think of the elephant and then think of ... something else :-)*

          the thing about ideas is that they are curious creatures
          -- one can give them away while at the same time keeping them
          -- of course one doesn't actually give/get the idea to someone else
          each must create/recreate the idea themselves and still the idea itself is an entity itself
          -- they need us to exist as much as we need them to think
          -- sometimes we control them and sometimes they control us
          -- to have an idea one thinks of an idea
          -- to not have an idea well one can't think to not think of it because then one think of it
          -- I could endeavor to keep look for and write other characteristic related to ideas and continue on this tangental side road I seem to be on... (cut and pasted this to the end)

          * thank you for 'after a while of t...
  • thumb
    Nov 12 2013: The touchstone is: do they wotk in the objective?
    • Nov 12 2013: That was a bit to cryptic for me to decipher what you meant...please elaborate a bit more...
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: Do the ideas work or not. Can they be tested or not. The world suffers from adopting unworkable ideas. For example Keynesian economics or the idea that man is an animal as per psychology or some one else is responsible for you as per government. All of these ideas are designed to enslave.
        • Nov 12 2013: pat,

          Thanks that helps me to better understand your comment above.

          Here is the thing, with using the notion of ideas 'objectively' working ... as a touchstone.

          Some ideas may not work because of the actions of other ideas, who refuse to employ them and even seek to interfere with the ideas that work working with others. This given the fact that the ideas that do work would quickly force the ideas that do not work into working (and the ideas that don't work act to keep this from happening to ensure that even the ideas that work end up not working).

          The question is how to employ the ideas that work (but may seem not to work) and 'layoff' the ideas that don't work (but may seem to work)?

          I agree that we ought to test things out... then agains testing things out may be a way to lures us into an enslaving addiction practically impossible to escape... thus I also agree that we ought abstain from carrying out certain tests on certain stuff... The thing is how to determine that a priory and do what ought to be done without doing what ought not be done?

          Of course there are also the "accompanying parasitic 'symbiot' ideas" which piggyback and tag along. How do we identify them and deal with them effectively? Then there are the ones that masquerade as good while being something else, often going unnoticed. Take for example the following notions, "suffering" "the unworkable" "some one else is responsible for you " "design to enslave"... are those ideas worth spreading? Evidently I too have contributed even in this response to those ideas spreading... Personally I would rather choose and have other ideas to spread. Still I wanted to draw attention to them to expose them because that may help to deal with them once and for all as we choose to move on and focus on better ideas to cultivate...

          So how do we promote ideas designed to responsibly liberate individuals to do what ought to be done (and keep the other ideas and options bound within a possibility?
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: The problem is that ideas that benefit the few are spread around to be fact which are specious ideas. The opposite can also occur as it did with Thomas Paine and his book "Common Sense" was one of, if not the, the seminal event that created the republic of the US. This leads me to say that the important tool is logic or common sense.

        You don't have this problem with things as they fall into the objective category whose workability is easily checked. Ideas are not as easily checked, without some education.

        The problem is that your chances of getting false ideas are geometrically more common than true ideas. The number one source of these false ideas are politicians fighting to continue their career. As they will say anything to get reelected. So the puppet masters are cronies who pass the laws to their benefit.
        • Nov 12 2013: Note how the specious ideas depend on the crowd to spread them around! The core issue of this conversation seeks to determine how can an individual determine which ideas to spread and support and which to block, especially when confronted with an ideological stampede initiated by a few that seeks to promote and drive ideas into the crowd and push the crowd to move.

          Of course the to promote and drive ideas into the crowd and the individual can seek benefits or detriments... the things is how to ensure that the good righteous ideas spread easily independent of the dissenting vociferations that seek to overcrowd and/or emotionally active certain reflexes...

          Even in things that fall into the objective category can defy logic and common sense and some individuals will continue to embrace what they think regardless of the evidence presented to them.

          Indeed the chances of getting false ideas are geometrically contrasted to getting the true ones which is overcompensated with the fact that for those who knowing the truth its easy to know if a statement about such thing is true or false... someone who only knows the lie has a bit more of a challenge determining if some other statement about such matter is true or false... In other words its possible to know the truth by knowing the truth (and those who know the lie may not even know the truth about such a lie). this all brings us back to the core question how to determine ideas worth spreading...
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: Examples please.
        • Nov 12 2013: I assume you mean examples of knowing the truth about something facilitating determining if some other statements are true or false. As well as knowing the lie about something not facilitating determining is some other statements are true or false

          Lets say :
          A - One knows Pat baked that cake on the table...
          B- One knows Joshua didn't baked the cake on the table...

          Now lets consider the statement:
          C- Gilbert backed the cake on the table...
          D- Esteban backed the cake on the table...

          Thus those who know 'A' can determine if C and/or D are true or false and those who know "B" can't.
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: No, something real. E.G. government spending grows the economy at a rate of $1.50 for every $1.00 spent. Or anti depressant drugs fixes people who are depressed. Or Abraham Lincoln was a hero. Or big evil business is the core of our problems. Or we need government or we could not function.
        • Nov 13 2013: Pat,

          if anti depressant drugs fixes people who are depressed
          they why do they need to keep taking anti depressant drugs?

          To focus on something real... the core of our problems resides in individuals thoughts, feelings, stores, actions. ... and incidentally the core of our solutions reside in individuals thoughts, feelings, stores, actions. ... thus back to the core question of this conversation

          How to determine ideas worth spreading...
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: No, I'm talking about something real and in your face, again how about something real, not feelings WTF?
        • Nov 13 2013: Pat,

          From your response I gather you failed to understand the significance of how "the core issue resides in individuals thoughts, feelings, stories*, actions". I also wonder about the 'tone' of your message. How do you determine which ideas are worth sharing?

          +edited 'stores' had intended it to be 'stories'
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: I understand as far as I care to (this has NOTHING to do with" feelings"), have a nice day.
        • Nov 13 2013: Maybe tomorrow you will care to respond to :
          How do you determine which ideas are worth sharing?

          Have a nice day...

          btw in my previous post I provided some observations for you to consider
  • thumb
    Nov 11 2013: Hello Esteban,
    Your introduction implies you want to have a set of criteria by which to judge "ideas worth spreading" which provides some justification to then promote them; and also to "eradicate" those ideas that fail this set of criteria.
    Why not tackle it from the other end? So here's two definitely good ideas worth spreading, and which have been around for some time:
    1). Love your neighbour as part of yourself;
    2). Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
    Now you could list criteria which support these two ideas as "ideas worth spreading" ... and you will have a starter-list for your set of criteria.
    • Nov 11 2013: Joshua,

      The idea underlying this interchange seeks to jointly wonder and ponder on how we determine and choose ideas worth spreading... (and even how we partake in which ideas get shared). It would be nice to have a set of criteria by which to judge and provide some justification or guidance as to what to promote and what to 'eradicate'. I have the feeling/hypothesis that the interchanges here will include individual exercises where we jointly explore and work things out into working models to develop.

      I perceive that you suggest: Take some good ideas and explore the reasons why its a good idea to spread and that will give us a starter-list with which to work from. I skimmed your post and left to do an errand and while returning was thinking about the response to write. My focus was on 'the golden rule' with a slight variation stemming from what someone said in a different dialogue. It had to do with a counter-inuitive premise of those who choose 'to hate' rather than 'to love'. If they hate every part of themselves then should they hate their neighbor? And if they love to hate does that mean that to actually hate their neighbor they would have to love their neighbor? Your second point centers on the burden of proof. The way it is set up, I can see how it may even enable the guilty to get a free pass, because of what it takes to prove their culpability.

      BTW for me the golden rule : Treat your neighbor as God would. The burden of proof for me would be: till proven one way or the other they are what they are... and afterwards they are what they are till they change ... then they are what they where and what they change into (that being innocent or guilty). I realize that these notions are a bit more complex and a bit abstract which may complicate sharing and perceiving. So are ideas worth spreading dependent on being simple or complex?
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: Hello Esteban,
        I can see your point that "love your neighbour as part of yourself", added together with the idea of a sliding scale from love to hate, COULD be used to "sanction" hateful behaviour. Someone who hates themselves may often project their self-hate onto others, thereby doing to others as they do unto themselves. Obviously that was not what the originator of the saying intended.
        So, do I understand correctly that you are looking for a set of "bullet-proof" generic criteria that can be applied to any idea to determine whether it is/not worth sharing?

        In one of your replies to Fritzie, you state: "My idea here centers on how do individuals ought to choose which ides to share (and give their life too)".
        This suggests a highly individual approach to sharing (or not) one's own ideas. Given the varied nature of individuals, it is highly unlikely you will find a one-set-fits-all set of bullet-proof generic criteria - especially since something that most religions promote as a good idea to share (ie: some version of the Golden Rule - "love your neighbour as part of yourself") has failed at the first test to make the grade.

        There is also another problem, as Pat has alluded to. Ideas worthy of sharing can be corrupted (as you just did with "love your neighbour as part of yourself").

        They can also grow in unexpected ways. Take, for example, the idea of a "horseless-carriage". Great idea! Around 1890 the first prototype rolls out of an inventor's workshop and by 1910-20 it becomes a status symbol to be owned by the very wealthy. Soon after The Ford Model-T makes it an aspiration for the masses and instigates two huge new industries - the oil industry, and a network of roads with regular fill-up stations. It's used as war machinery in 1914-18, 1939-45 and ever since. It has became a legal issue, a political issue as an industry to be protected, and now an ecological problem with CO2 emissions.
        A good idea can grow into less-than-good.
        • Nov 12 2013: Joshua,

          I am glad you saw the point I sought to convey related to the idea you put on the table... I too think that the originator of the saying had in mind the context of love. In a way I see that the underling idea actually identical to the underlying idea of 'an eye for an eye' 'and 'for every force there is an equal and opposite one' .

          What I am looking for in these conversations involves 'looking for' (or developing) practices related to how to determine ideas worth sharing... this also involves the practices to embrace, implement follow individually and collectively to share ideas... Yea it would be nice to have a "bullet-proof" generic criteria that can be applied to any idea to determine whether to share it or not (it is/not worth sharing). Yea its likely to be a bit of a challenge... or quite a challenge... who knows it just might be doable and quite an adventure! Yea some ideas worth sharing can be corrupted or highjacked and there might be some that are impervious and innocuous to such 'invitations'. Yea the ideas can 'mutate' ...

          So how do we go about sharing ideas and ensuring that what stems from these produces only benefits?

          You correctly assess my approach is a highly individual approach to sharing (or not) one's own ideas... I also hold that ultimately its up to the individual to determine to which ideas they will support and give their life too. Sure peer pressure, group think, indoctrination, heredity, being under the influence of... may play a role into what individuals ultimate choose to do, still I hold that the individual does have a choice into what they choose to do. Look at it this way if the individual is predestined well each will do what they will do...

          Did notice the --- it is highly unlikely... especially since others have failed in the past ... storyline. I believe when I present it that way 'alarms' will go off... lets basically observe what be happening ... and decide what we want to do next with it ... by what we do.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: "So how do we go about sharing ideas and ensuring that what stems from these produces only benefits? "

        Is this your criterion, then, Esteban, for an idea worth sharing- that the idea, or sharing it, will produce only benefits?
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Then who is to judge what is a "benefit", and what is not?
        • Nov 13 2013: It would be nice if the ideas and sharing it would produce only benefits... that would be like having energy that derives into good things... every interaction being enriching. I would like to draw attention to a subtle framing that I noticed in your statements Fritzie. It has to do with the difference between:
          a- The truth
          b- Someone's truth

          Fritzie I perceive you used the framing 'a'. To me that denotes a reference to absolute truth corresponding to what happens to be. On the other hand 'b' focuses on what someone consider to be true (which may or may not be true).

          Colleen, from my perspective its about what is 'beneficial' based on what is 'beneficial', not about who judges what is a 'benefit' and judges what is not a benefit. This focus on what is rather than on who gets to claim it or determine that it is or not can stall individual personal position confrontations. Rather than have a power struggle between participants, participants collaborate jointly towards discovering, exposing and sharing what is beneficial.

          Let me now ask what you think and perceive I am seeking to state expressed in your own words. Also let us know what you think and would like to express and share yourself.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Esteban,
          It appears that you want to make a judgment regarding what is beneficial, and what is not beneficial. Or, you would like participants to collaborate jointly towards discovering, exposing and sharing what is beneficial, as you say. It is a good idea for participants to collaborate jointly towards discovering, exposing and sharing what is beneficial. Who decides what is more beneficial?

          Consider one very well exposed conversation here on TED:
          Religion vs. Science.

          There are people who believe that religion is very beneficial, and science is not beneficial, and there are folks who believe science is the only thing that is beneficial, and religion is not beneficial.

          I am looking at your comments on this thread to try to determine what you are seeking with this conversation and I have shared what I want to share regarding the comments I wish to address and questions I wish to ask.

          Esteban, do you ever wonder if you make communications more complicated than necessary?
        • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

          Yes I do wonder about if I make communications more complicated than necessary.
          I also wonder about making communications more simple and have sought all sort of different ways to facilitate sharing information. Evidently there is still a ways to go :-) Sometimes I feel very frustrated observing how the communication goes regardless of my efforts and the steps I take. Attempts to clarify can work in the oder direction creating a snowball effect of seeking to clarify the clarifications and then clarifying the clarifications and onward...

          What I am seeking from the conversation "How to determine ideas worth spreading..." is an shared exploratory dialogue that deals with this topic and helps to incorporate better ways to determine ideas worth spreading.

          A simple heuristic that I use involves observing the words used, classifying them into positives negatives and neutrals and consciously determining which ones I want to use. I tend to bias my choices towards positives and neutrals. Sometimes I even use a 3-to-1 ratio looking to have more positives than the others. (notice what I just did in that last sentence, I put a neutral 'the others' rather than use 'Negatives' and how I chose to use two positives and four neutrals). Its amazing to observe what each constantly shares with others and oneself...

          You keep asking : Who decides what is more beneficial?
          A direct answer to that: Each one decides what is more beneficial. Let me now point out that those who decide what is more beneficial in accordance to what is actually really more beneficial get it right.

          I realize that there are people who believe 'this' is beneficial and 'that' is not beneficial. As for me, I would wonder: - how is 'this' / 'that' beneficial and right? What does 'this' / 'that' contribute? consider its about what is actually beneficial not what someone thinks/feels/imagines/believes is beneficial.
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: Good idea Joshua:>)
      As I mentioned in a comment to Fritzie, TED has an evaluation process to determine what topics and speakers support the TED mission, and we have a TED Terms of Use Agreement, which serves to guide conversations in a respectful way.

      Esteban,
      Regarding your statements..." If they hate every part of themselves then should they hate their neighbor?"

      Who are you to say that someone "should" hate or not?

      "And if they love to hate does that mean that to actually hate their neighbor they would have to love their neighbor?"

      I suggest that if a person chooses to hate, it is the behavior or practice of hating that is their preference, and really does not have anything to do with the neighbor.
      • Nov 12 2013: Colleen,

        In regard to the statement you quoted me stating...
        Keep in mind the context surrounding it and consider that my intent was to explore a statement someone presented from various angles.

        Joshua put forth the notion : Love your neighbour as part of yourself;
        I in essence responded : what about those who hate every part of themselves, should they love others as they love every part of themselves?

        Notice that I am doing an exercise considering the stated notion to explore the implications and repercussions based on a particular consideration. I agree with you in that if a person chooses to love (or hate), it is the behavior or practice of their preference, and that generally that really has little to do with others/the situation. I am also saying lets consider that 'Love your neighbour as part of yourself' statement under a certain particular belief system. I realize that an underlying assumption in the statement is that everyone loves themselves. The assumption that everyone loves and chooses to love at least themselves seems like common sense. I just wanted to present a case that would expose a certain issue.

        From your response question "Who are you to say that...", I sense that what I stated unintentionally 'triggered' something in you. Observing this and my underlying intentions please consider that the intent here is to foster an enriching dialogue where each evaluates and determines what topics to spread and cultivate themselves. In a way what my question sought to address the issue of dealing with conversational disruptors, each participant contributing and guiding to deal with the flow of the conversation towards the shared objective of " How to determine ideas worth spreading..." yea in a respectful way.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: I am aware Esteban, that you like to explore from various angles:>)

          I am aware Esteban, that Joshua put forth a "notion", to which I also responded.

          Notice Esteban, that I am participating in your "exercise".

          HOORAY! We agree that "if a person chooses to love (or hate), it is the behavior or practice of their preference, and that generally that really has little to do with others/the situation".

          I do not assume that everyone loves him/herself.

          My question, Esteban, is..."Who are you to say that someone "should" hate or not?"
          This, in response to your statement..." If they hate every part of themselves then should they hate their neighbor?"

          I personally do not feel the need to tell people what they "should" feel".

          I wholeheartedly agree....a respectful conversation is always desirable:>)
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Colleen, in response to your question above, this was Esteban's statement, so I am trying to determine what he personally means by it and whether he believes he lives by it.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: My question was to add to your questions Fritzie, and I'm trying to determine the same thing. I perceive Esteban's comments to be contradictory and confusing.
      • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

        The reason I choose to skip a direct response to your question was based on perceiving you put forth a loaded question. Let me elaborate and explain that to clarify what I mean by this.
        I put forth a consideration involving a conditional statement.
        If 'this happens to be true'
        then I ask this question?

        I am not sure why or how you reached the conclusion implicit in your question.

        You asked "Who are you to say that someone "should" hate or not?"
        In my mind I wonder: when and where did I say what Colleen claims I said? I let it slide the first time, you now restated your question and thus now would like to ask that you clarify as to where exactly did I SAY what you claim I said. There is quite a difference between asking and stating. Do notice that I even preceded the question I asked with a particular condition (If they hate every part of themselves) then (should they hate their neighbor?) Do notice the question mark.

        Like you, I personally do not feel, nor for that matter think of, the need to tell people what they 'should' feel... What people feel is what people feel... many a times (if not most of the time) its their doing. I wonder why you made that comment ?

        Fritzie, My comment sought to explore a possibility using a particular case to make evident something about an idea put forth. What I meant by it is that I do know of some individuals who if they treated others as they treat some of their parts it wouldn't be pretty. The framing I prefer is: tread others as God would.
        I realize that to some, like atheists, that wouldn't be an acceptable or meaningful statement.

        Maybe the reason some perceive the comments I make to be contradictory and confusing stems from seeking to put forth evident dualistic viewpoints that lead into a somewhat unknown territory which some find confusing, and can't readily find which side to side with. I do my and will do my best to be as clear as I can be... If you consider that I need to elaborate --- ask
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Esteban,
          As you insightfully stated in another conversation...
          "What each perceives is what each perceives".....

          I ask very simple, very related questions, based on your comments and how you present this debate. There is nothing "loaded" about my questions Esteban. But again.....what each perceives is what each perceives, and if one does not want to answer a question logically, realistically, one often says the question is loaded.....I understand:>)

          I HAVE NOT made any conclusions.....I am asking questions based on what you have written, in an attempt to understand what you are trying to express.

          You ask..."when and where did I say what Colleen claims I said". One day ago, in a reply to Joshua, you wrote..." If they hate every part of themselves then should they hate their neighbor?" Yes, I noticed the question mark, and responded to your question with my personal thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

          Apparently there is agreement with us again if you "personally do not feel, nor for that matter think of, the need to tell people what they "should" do....what people feel, is what people feel".......I wholeheartedly agree Esteban!

          So, why did you ask the question, which in my perception, suggests that you believe you CAN determine what they should feel? Why did you ask the question, if you do not want a response?

          "....should they hate their neighbor?" As you have clearly expressed several times....each perceives what each perceives...they feel what they feel.

          Estaban, the ideas you are expressing are not "unknown territory", nor is the topic confusing. Your comments about the topic seem to be contradictory and confusing, and I am only trying to understand what you express.....there is nothing "loaded" about my comments or questions.
      • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

        The thing is ... from the posts that you have made I sense and perceive a deeper genuine caring to understand... given that we each perceive what we each perceive and in principle can communicate to each other ... how about engaging in a quad-loop conversational stile where we first (1) ensure that what we perceive the other is stating corresponds to what the other is stating then (2) proceeding to consider what the other is saying, what we think of it and additional comments to share (3) make our observations to the others (4) finally ensure that what they perceive corresponds to our observation (move to (1)).

        Let me now make an observation for you to consider:
        When you declare and assert "There is nothing 'loaded' about my questions"...
        ... I perceive that you did not get what I said, and that you don't care to get what I said ...
        .... and for some reason insist on imposing what you hold to be...
        ... and a couple of other things

        When I made the observation related to 'my perception of a loaded question' I had something in mind which seems quite different from what you seem to have perceived. I had sought to clarify the point and would had hoped that you inquire as to why would I perceive such a thing. Instead you chose to assert your perception while shifting to it is what I say it is.

        Thank you for recognizing that I ASKED. When you asked "Who are you to say that..." you seem to imply in that, that I SAID something. I hope you will recognize that there is quite a difference between Asking something vs Stating it? I realize that you responded to my question with your personal thoughts, feelings, and perceptions without actually addressing what I asked nor in concordance with it. You seem to me to have reached the conclusion that I said something from something I asked.

        I put for the conditional question to wonder on a particular statement made in a particular case.
        IF someone hates THEN does it follow they should hate?
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Esteban,
          I clearly addressed your questions, and I "implied" nothing. I took your words directly from your comments. Again......I have reached NO conclusions.

          I wish to share one of my favorite quotes, because it seems to apply here....

          "One of the great difficulties in the new order of thought is that we are likely to indulge in too much theory and too little practice".
          (Ernest Holmes - The Science of Mind)

          With all due respect Esteban......go back and look at your comments and see if you are practicing what you preach:>)
  • thumb
    Nov 11 2013: I think which ideas we find worth spreading is a matter of our tastes and values, so it is different for each person. TED chooses to search for ideas specifically in technology, entertainment, and design. Other communities share and spread different ideas, depending on their primary goals and interests.

    There is no single best focus or set of criteria, I think.
    • Nov 11 2013: I would like to push the envelope and jointly figure out if there are ways for individuals, groups to determine which ideas are worth spreading. On the one hand its a matter of tastes and values to cultivate. On the other hand it involves determining or developing such tastes and values. Still, on a third hand (if we had one) it could be related to certain affiliations worth having, developing or acquiring.

      My gut feeling/ideas lead me to believe that there just might be some useful processes or practices applicable by many which could help find and determine which ideas are worth spreading. If they don't exist we could create them!

      For example : I tend to look at ideas from different angels and see what 'they' promote...
      ....then ask if that is something I want to promote.
      I also question "hey are we sure that's the case" or "how do we actually know that's the case" a
      finally, What does the idea lead to...

      Lets take the last part in your response and put it under the microscope :
      (lets keep in mind: this is an exercise with a particular statement. From this point forward it just about observing the statement under the microscope and seeing it, and what we can learn )

      the statement under the microscope: ----- "There is no single best focus or set of criteria"

      First lets consider what it includes:
      1- There is no single best focus and 2- There is no set of criteria (or 3- There is no single set of criteria)
      Now let's consider that a bit... maybe even shift into an inquisitive wondering about...
      Are we sure that's the case? - Is there a single best focus? - Are there a set of criteria?
      How do those statement contribute to the adventure of exploration? What we want to cultivate? How do we cultivate it?

      Ok enough, so now what to do next.... where do we want to take this conversation towards? what do you observe/feel/consider?
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2013: Let's say you and I each read a great work of fiction and choose to relay something about it to our friends. Would you think there is one right thing to convey about the piece of work, or could you be open to the idea of many different interpretations or messages in the work and that each of us might legitimately choose to convey different things?

        Would you restrict people from sharing through channels of their own ideas that do not meet a predetermined set of criteria you would mandate for everyone, or do you favor broader freedom of expression?
        • Nov 12 2013: Could and would expect there to be infinite ideas, interpretations and messages stemming from 'the work and individual's experience of it' that each could legitimately choose to convey in multiple of ways. I also realize that there exists other possibilities. My idea here centers on how do individuals ought to choose which ides to share (and give their life too).

          Here is the thing, while I favor broad and complete freedom of expression I also hold that each ought to choose to maintain certain possibilities as such, only possibilities. To me its interesting to observe the choice of words individuals pick, to give their life too, especially when considering all the possible alternatives. To me this interchange isn't about me/you/others 'restricting' people... I see it more as guiding each other towards the better practices. Please do notice how I said 'the better practices' and not 'someone's better practices'. Please also note the 'this-or-that' form you used. There where also a couple of other particular words in your response that 'trigger' in me a desire to act and provide a ready made vaccine to immunize and render them innocuous. I chosen instead to just mention this and see what happens next... As a fun exercise, you might want to guess which two words I perceived and their shared particularity
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: I am glad you are open to individuals' having different values and criteria for deciding which ideas to share and with whom. It sounded from your earlier comments as if you thought there were universal standards for determining which ideas to share.
        • Nov 12 2013: Its more along the lines of certain ideas being worthy to be shared ... while others its just better to discard. In a way rather than determining which ideas to share its more in the lines of how to share individual ideas...
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2013: I agree Fritzie, that previous comments on this thread, and the way the "debate" is presented, sounds like there is a judgment regarding what topics will be accepted or eradicated.

          As we know, TED has groups of people evaluating topics and speakers to bring to the forum, who evaluate based on certain criteria which supports the TED mission. We also have the TED terms of use agreement, which was designed to guide conversations in a respectful manner. The Terms of Use page appears at the bottom of the TED pages.
          http://www.ted.com/termsofuse

          That being said, I am uncertain regarding the intent of the facilitator of this conversation.
        • Nov 12 2013: Colleen,

          My intent was to foster a conversation where individuals become aware of the ideas they choose to give their life to (and invite/expose/force/ others to consider) juxtaposed to what they think they promote and what they actually promote.

          In a way this is about " a judgment regarding what topics will be accepted or eradicated" as enacted on an individual personal basses - while following a particular course of action that isn't up to an individual personal preference/belief. To restate that in a more concise practical form: Its about getting individuals to choose the right answer, based on the right answer. Do notice that shifting the topic towards determining which be the right answer is a whole different concern that involves wether or not someone can actually determine with complete certainty which be the right answer. So for now lets focus on the topic of how to get individuals to consciously choose 'something' that happens to be appropriate.

          To judge or not to judge isn't the question it be how to judge; for we are forced to judge while free to choose how to judge.

          You likely seen 'those ideas' expressed in different forms in some of my other posts/conversations.

          I have often heard individuals put forth the idea "we shouldn't judge" as a way to say 'we should be tolerant of others ways'. To me that can is a really bad idea that should be eradicated and replace with a more realistic alternative "one should judge according to what be correct and always ensure tolerance prevails".

          A memory of an experience came to mind from a long ago event involving "we should alway forgive, be tolerant, help, 'do something' when someone asks us to forgive them/insists we tolerate their intolerances/request a favor/needs something". The point here is should we do that or ought we choose what to do according to what is correct to do and promote
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Esteban,
          You say "its about getting individuals to choose the right answer, based on the right answer"???

          Who chooses and judges what is the "right answer"?

          I totally agree..."shifting the topic towards determining which be the right answer is a whole different concern that involves wether or not someone can actually determine with complete certainty which be the right answer".

          You say..."To judge or not to judge isn't the question it be how to judge; for we are forced to judge while free to choose how to judge."

          I do not personally feel forced to judge, nor do I have any desire to do so, and as you insightfully write... "shifting the topic towards determining which be the right answer is a whole different concern that involves wether or not someone can actually determine with complete certainty which be the right answer".

          You are saying..."its about getting individuals to choose the right answer, based on the right answer", and you are also questioning whether or not "someone can actually determine with complete certainty which be the right answer".

          I suggest that if you did not have the intent or desire to get "individuals to choose the right answer", you may not have the challenge of determining "with complete certainty which be the right answer":>)
        • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

          You do realize that even-though you do not feel forced to judge nor do you have any desire to do so,
          you constantly do judge ... as you constantly choose what to observe/say/do/etc..

          Ok you agreed that you are shifting the topic. you probably even agree that you are insisting on shifting the topic. So why do you want to shift the topic rather stay focused and comment on the notion that was on the table?

          BTW I am glad I reread my post above your response to get the context of the quotes you used... Notice that I said "Do notice that shifting the topic towards..."

          Let me rephrase what concise practical form: "its about individuals choosing the right answer, based on the right answer" What you report as me questioning 'being able or not do 'x'' is actually more of a side comment within an observation in which I am declaring how that is a whole different concern, which incidentally I consider belongs to the intended shift (not something I am concerned about).

          I find peculiar how it seems that you are putting your concern as my concern and suggesting what I ought to do. I also found rather peculiar how I almost got lured into that storyline. As I just said, I am glad I reread my post above your response to get the context of the quotes you used...
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Esteban,
          Making choices and decisions regarding what I "observe/say/do" is NOT making a judgment.

          I am NOT shifting the topic Esteban. I quoted, and agreed with something you wrote ABOUT shifting the topic. PLEASE do not use my words out of context. It does NOT, in any way support your argument.

          I am NOT, in any way suggesting what you "ought" to do Esteban. I am also glad you reread your post above to get the context of what you wrote.....thanks for doing that.

          I repeat:
          "I suggest that if you did not have the intent or desire to get "individuals to choose the right answer", you may not have the challenge of determining "with complete certainty which be the right answer":>)

          It appears Esteban, that you are seeking YOUR right answer, and anything else is not acceptable to you.
        • Nov 13 2013: Colieen,

          According to you what constitutes making a judgement ?
          Why and how do you see that someone can make a choice and decide something without making a judgement?

          Help me out on how to proceed with a particular situation. Here is the thing we agree on many things like "PLEASE do not use my words out of context".
          Apparently you seem to think I used your words out of context.
          - Likewise I think you used my words out of context.
          You probably think "I didn't do that, you did that"! ( if you actually thought something along those lines Then thats another thought that we happen to agree on).

          What I need help with involves the issue of shifting the focus from (you/me/ others) think to be to what be (this in part involves shifting individuals projections back to the individual and actually recognizing others ideas as their ideas).

          You rightly point out: if one did not have the intent or desire to get 'individuals to choose the right answer', one may not have the challenge of determining 'with complete certainty which be the right answer'. ( do note I basically used the words you wrote with 'one' instead of 'you'). Thing is I know of at least one individual who does want to choose the right answer and consider there may be others who want to get it right.

          So how can we shift from position A to B...
          Position A focuses on : YOUR right answer, and anything else is not acceptable to you. (you being you/me/ others)
          Position B focusses on : THE right answer, and anything else is not acceptable for (you/me/ others) to be right.

          Position C focuses on: being right by embracing the right answer, recognizing what is doing what ought to be done
          Position D focuses on: being right by claiming ones' right answer be right
          Position E focuses on : All and a bit more...

          Note that given I chosen position B it can be a bit difficult to tell it apart from position A. I keep mentioning its about what is right; not about what someone thinks is right...
  • Dec 11 2013: Ok this conversation has about an hour to close and I thought to put some last ideas forth.

    One of the crucial skills individuals can posses involves the freedom to choose what they cultivate with their thoughts/feelings/actions and the stories they tell. My appreciation is that individuals mostly operate under the influence of the ideas/feelings/beliefs/stories they support often unaware why they do what they do. In fact in many cases individuals are bound within the domain permitted by their ideas because they choose to remain constrained and follow the directives. I like tot think of ideas as entities that depend on the thinker thinking them to continue to exists. Some of these ideas inhabit human hosts in a symbiotic relationship where as some become parasitic controllers of the inhabited human hosts. When we consider that individuals give their life to the stories they tell the ideas they think, the feelings they experience and these creatures sort of have a life of their own we may begin to wonder and ponder about the underlying creatures we feed and allow to reproduce.

    My original intent was to focus on how individuals choose the ideas they spread, including the processes that individuals use to form these notions and maybe even come upon some useful heuristics to keep in mind. Evidently there is still much work to be done in this domain. Hope someone found insightful ideas to apply from these conversations.

    My advice would be
    1- Always seek a sustainable-desirable-congruent with life ways notions
    2- Always seek a positive frame using positive distinctions
    3- Meticulously observe the underlying ideas/feelings/beliefs/stories being promoted

    Would like to thank everyone who participated here...

    May your determinations of ideas worth spreading spread only good ideas and transform the rest into better ones.
    Remember when someone invites you to think of stubborn obstinate you can think of persistently convinced ... just ensure the persistence is for good.
  • Dec 9 2013: Something happened two days ago which now makes me wonder about the ideas one holds related to phobic or panic attacks. In other words can a thought/situation trigger a complex set of ideas taking over the 'Normal' thinking process to further complicate coming to terms with which ideas gets spread..
  • thumb
    Dec 5 2013: Thank you for sharing with your experience, Esteban. I guess this situation is typical and is directly related to your topic, above.

    You're doing a great work. I'm your supporter.
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2013: Hi Esteban. I've suggested a new conversation regarding after-death-experience about 2 weeks ago - a ted editor, Morton, has rejected my proposal/question, saying that it would be too extreme for the Ted members and this will put-off a lot of them.
    I just edited this question. Will let you know whether Morton will accept it or not.

    Honestly, I have never expected to receive this rejection on the subject that becomes a center of a serious research, and inspiration for new discoveries.
    • Dec 4 2013: Vera,

      The fact it took 2 weeks for them to respond may indicate them having had some serious dialogues about approving or rejecting the topic. I had some proposed ideas rejected myself ... ideas I thought where crucial to TEDsters to mull over. Keep in mind that TED caters to Technology Entertainment Design while including on the edge happenings of rather down to earth stuff. If they approve it great... if not well there might be other forums to dialogue abut that. It would seem interesting to look into what makes some ideas be accepted and what ideas be rejected...
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2013: Esteban, you're a good soul :)
    From Arthur Schopenhauer: " There are analogous stages to be passed before a genius can attain widespread fame. This is why his reputation most easily comes to a standstill at the very outset; because the highest authorities, of whom there can be but few, are most frequently not to be found; but the further down he goes in the scale the more numerous are those who take the word from above, so that his fame is no more arrested."
    • Nov 23 2013: Thanks for the kind words... and I think that everyone can attain the highest of authority holding the proper ideas... In other words a child/student/citizen may have the highest of authority when they bear witness to the truth (or hold the better option)... thing is whether someone, say the teacher, will recognize, concede and bear witness to the truth when it happens to be exposed by the child/student/citizen ... In tribes, organizations, groups and society it is the same thing will that single voice that be worth spreading be recognized and embraced, especially when that sort of changes the roles and rules? Personally I find superficial fame and reputation to be more related to theatrical toolset, which may be useful or something else. .

      I wonder if the notion that three can be but few highest authorities be a notion worth keeping alive; to me the notion anyone can be the highest authority when they bear witness to the truth seems a much better notion worth keeping alive. as you said yesterday in a different post: "Knowledge does not 'live' on its own somewhere but in each of our minds"... and with my pet-peeve to the word 'but' and a bias towards positives, I would like to reframe that as:

      --Knowledge 'lives' within each of our minds seeking to spread and reproduce...
      .... we are the caretaker that choose what ideas, stories, feelings, actions to cultivate... within us... and the groups we participate.
      .... we also are the gateways who choose what to share and seed with those we contact...

      This takes us back to wonder about how to determine ideas worth spreading... and the processes we ought to have in place to ensure ideas worth spreading be the ones being spread...
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2013: The Poor judgement of outstanding ideas and innovation is keeping our manmade society half blind and deaf throughout history.
    • Nov 23 2013: So how do we ensure that the poor judgements be completely applied to the poor-standing ideas and innovations while at the same time enabling outstanding ideas and innovation into mainstream manmade society making history transcend itself so that we cultivate the enduring perfect moment?
  • Nov 17 2013: I think ideas need to go through a cauldron of review to see if it is a good idea. A second check would be if the idea is feasible. If the person/group proposing the idea think the reviews are wrong, they have the right to do it themselves.

    Scientific papers go through this process and sometimes the authors feel that the reviews are wrong and they try other publications or present them at conferences.
    • Nov 19 2013: Wayne,

      Was away and disconnected for a couple of days....

      On the one hand I agree, "ideas need to go through a cauldron of review to see if it is a good idea", and on the other hand I realize that a good idea stands on its own 'with or without' the validation of what some reviews may think of such idea. The thing is that depending on someone's opinion, the experts option, sort of just shifts the question into : how to determine 'experts' worth listening ... with the added complication of also having to determining it their statements correspond to something actually worth spreading... so how does one do that?

      'Ceding over to the other' because the other "thinks so "/"holds the title"/"holds the gun" /"would make a tantrum" could be a good idea or a dad one, it also shifts the question towards why 'what others say' rather than "what someone said". I have had a back and forth with someone I know over this idea for quite some time... I would ask them if we should listen to 'the architect ' or 'the foreman' or 'the worker' ... the response I was seeking was along the lines that one should listen to the one who is right about the matter at hand.... I know its a bit like responding which ideas are worth spreading and responding with something like evidently the ones worth spreading... How does one know who is right? Sometimes it may be one or the other or the other and sometimes it may be two of them or just one of them... Evidently this presents all sort of subtle nuances, like how does the group/the individual listen to the good ones while muffling out the bad ones without opening the door to listen to the bad ones while muffling out the good ones.

      From what you said and what others have said the process ought to ensure that ideas worth spreading spread... and the other kind of ideas get refined to the point of being worth spreading or remaining as simply some possibility worth remaining as a possibility.
      • Nov 19 2013: Agreed a good idea should stand on its own but I always like to bounce ideas off of people to see if they can see something I can not. It does not mean I follow what they say all the time. If you have been living with the idea for a while, need someone to question your logic/sanity - 8>))
        • Nov 19 2013: Late last week I learned how "When I sublimate the solid ideological foundations upon which 'some' stand... to get 'them' moving... it can cause 'them' to clamp up, close 'their' eyes, stick 'their' head into the sand, and play dead... likely hoping that if 'they' don't see it pass by, it will not see 'them'". Especially if done suddenly without a warning of whats about to happen. In other words how can one bounce an idea when the courts grounds have been vaporized and everyone is hovering in the middle of space wondering what to do next... Of course any correlation to humans 'hovering' through space thinking they sand on solid grounds is purely coincidental. Yea we been living with the idea for a while now and may yet live with the idea for a while more especially if we make the necessary adjustments to fix up the place and our interactions with many others around here. Question is what to do with the actually bad ideas that have caused the trouble and insist on remaining as if they where good notions... what can we do to ensure better every instance we encounter?
  • Nov 14 2013: Consider crafting a game to determine ideas worth spreading....

    What would be the rules of the game?
    What would be the underlying story and objective of the game? why?

    Which ideas would win the game? Why? How?
    How would players win the game? How will they help ideas (and others) win the game?
    What would it take to 'transform' what seems like a bad idea (and actually isn't that) into a good one?
    What would it take to keep what seems like a good idea (and actually isn't that) from attaining recognition, hindering or corrupting the rules/game/objectives/others?

    What would help to differentiate:
    --- what seems like a good idea because it is
    from
    --- what seems like a good idea because it seems so
    Does differentiating the ideas distract from doing 'something' that actually determine ideas worth spreading...
    ( in other words, only the ideas that remain after the task is done are worth spreading and every idea worth spreading would be present).

    I am curious as to what games others will come up with...

    yea this involves stepping into the unknown ... to play... that's part of what makes the games fun
    Remember it's a way of being… and a process... and a game
    1. Celebrated at the opportunity to play.
    2. Adapt to the challenges
    3. Open the imagination
    4. cooperate to produce a richer brilliance than the sum of the part
    5. Remember we play to play and learn and have fun and have a good time and win
  • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

    Indeed I posited (set firmly) a claim. Depending on what happens to be that claim will be right or wrong. My expectation is that the forthcoming evidence will show that indeed you disagree with the notion "its a matter of our tastes and values". Of course I may be surprised and find out that you maintain an agree with the notion even when presented certain cases.

    I would like to know if what I claimed to be actually happens to be or not.

    Consider cannibalism, do you maintain that that is a matter of one's tastes and values?
    Consider principles, do you maintain that that is a matter of one's tastes and values?

    BTW my posit had a basis in fact...
  • thumb
    Nov 13 2013: Would you be willing to put forward how you believe "individuals and groups determine what to share and cultivate and what to eradicate" or how you personally make the decision as to which ideas you spread?

    This may help to move your thread forward productively.

    Others could then respond to your ideas with their own.
    • Nov 13 2013: Sure. From readably available evidence individuals and groups can reach ideological 'confrontational' position based on what each thinks. Each side may be in "I want this and you want that, my way or the highway". That could also be expressed in many other forms "This is my business, you stay out of it. That's your business, I will say out of it. Each mind and attend to their businesses". The underlying idea being "my will vs thy will". Note that this is also present within the individual vs collective stances; and the means and ends philosophical debates. So how are we to resolve the situation and move forward productively, especially under 'particular special cases'?

      One way involved everyone adherence to the set rules.
      Another way involves everyone reaching a mutual agreement.
      Another way involves to each their own
      Another way involves each doing what ought to be done as it ought to be done.

      The preceding ways may beg the question as to who/how to determines 'stuff'?

      Evidently by focusing on individuals perceptions/thought/wants/beliefs/wills we may create collaborations and/or confrontations dependent on what each individual chooses to spread... so how do we get individuals to choose to collaborate especially when they want confrontations and refuse to collaborate by all means? How do the tolerant 'affiliate' tolerance on the intolerant without ceding tolerance to the intolerant nor imposing tolerance on the intolerant ?

      The way I have found to resolves the situation involves moving from someone truth to the truth. Its about embracing what is right not about who happens to be right. So how do we determine and embrace what is right? and how best to share it, especially when some think to be right and insist of being right and refuse to recognize what be right ? I use a simple filter that involves sustainable-desirable-congruent with the ways of life where each gets their own with the same thing (hint: note how everlasting life is the death of death)
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Please explain your statement: "I use a simple filter that involves sustainable-desirable-congruent with the ways of life where each gets their own with the same thing."

        I believe if you explain this, people WILL understand your approach and be able to respond to it!
        • Nov 13 2013: A couple of examples hopefully will suffice...

          Lets have 'life' and 'death' be in an state of "my will vs thy will"... and for this particular case just focus on each gets their own; life lives and death dies. The stand of resolves by life living! Now if death dies it creates more death, thus to actually die it must just live everlastingly. When everything lives forever death is no more, there are beginning that continuo on to exists into eternity.

          Truths are sustainable-desirable-congruent, where as deceptions are not... for when one knows the truth the right choice, no one in their right mind will be deceived.

          Congruent involves something like if I want something for myself I want it for others...
          Sustainable involves what can in theory be continued indefinitely ... (death can't for in the end death will kill itself, besides death depends on something living in order to exist... life can for it can expand and continue to expand throughout the known and unknown universe and beyond...)
          Being desirable involves sustainable-congruent...

          BTW notice that the opposite of sustainable-desirable-congruent, is unsustainable or undesirable or incongruent... Here again to give what is undesirable to the undesirable one resorts to what be desirable... if one makes the unsustainable be unsustainable what results is a sustainable state.

          I like the idea that God being perfect created perfect beings and have them a choice to be good or be bad. Being God perfect and His creations perfect whatever one chooses reaches perfection. Those who choose to be good end up perfectly good only doing good and knowing what they do. Those who choose to be bad are perfectly bad doing badly bad things ending up doing only good and not knowing what they do. Of course here in the temporal plane where what appears to be because it be seems identical to what appears because it seems that way... we need to hedge what we do so be it real be it a dream we always choose to do whats right.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: So you would say that you personally spread an idea if it seems correct and also promotes sustainability and equal positive outcomes for yourself and others?
        • Nov 13 2013: I would say: one personally spreads ideas. Which ideas each spreads makes a difference to their existence and the existence of others. I prefer to spread correct sustainable enriching ideas that promote wellbeing. What seems correct and what be correct can be the same thing or quite different. I prefer what seems correct because it is correct and would embrace what is correct over what seems that way rather than seek to seem correct independent of what is correct.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: Understood. You mean to spread ideas that are actually correct.
        • Nov 14 2013: Actually correct, actually useful, actually beautiful, actually fun, actually beneficial... yes the thing is how individuals actually determine those things rather than spreading things they think to be those things...

          so what do you think? what does it take? how do you do it?
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: As a practical matter, different sorts of evidence convince different people, which is why there are disagreements as to what is likely to be correct. People also tend to have biases that fill in the gaps where there is no clear evidence.

        Similarly, the likely consequences and the distribution of consequences for different policies and actions can often not be established with certainty in advance, and different people trust different sorts of theories and evidence in making their best predictions.

        When problems and policies are situated in complex systems, these differences in judgment tend to persist until the evidence tips the balance and leads to nearly universal acceptance.

        People will have a greater chance of learning how things work if they consider evidence that becomes available. Again practically speaking, none of us will have the expertise to evaluate evidence pertinent to every important problem. It is useful to know who are the most trustworthy people who do have the expertise to evaluate the data at hand.
        • Nov 14 2013: Fritzie,

          So how do we shift from disagreements towards agreements?

          On a secondary level I would like to explore the underlying idea in :
          " none of us will have the expertise to evaluate evidence"
          "know ... the most trustworthy people who do have the expertise"

          Keep in mind that the intended focus on this conversation centers on:
          -how to determine ideas worth spreading...

          BTW I happen to agree with much of the assessments that you wrote above... what I wonder is what each ought to do to in practical ways to foment sharing the better ways (of course that involves figuring such ways out too).

          In our daily lives, we constantly are exposed to a bunch of ideas and have to decide what to do with them... friend, foe, partner, ignore. What I observed is individuals tend to express grievances and disagreements rather than appreciated agreements and better possibilities. I include myself in doing this, and would like to foster more rewarding and enjoyable dialogues. The expert is often the one in the field...,

          I often am in a bit of a catch-22 situation... individuals want to put forth their notions without wanting to discuss what they put forth... or focusing on exploring 'better' notions. Often biases get in the way of seeing the truth of the matter... I am confident that everyone would welcome from having revised and improved skills in this domain.
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: Oh, I think people are also quite interested in finding and acknowledging common ground, particularly if they are engaged in collaborations to get things done. Collaboration seldom works without it.

        How do you think you can shift from disagreement to agreement with people in your life? There are probably some areas where you can find common ground easily. If you have done this, how did it happen and with whom? Did you share information that you had but the other didn't that he accepted as valid and therefore changed his mind?

        If you seldom find common ground with people or have the sort of rewarding and enjoyable discussions you seek, you might want to consider whether you are doing something inadvertently that alienates them or reduces trust and goodwill rather than building connection. In fact, you might ask people in your life with whom you find you can seldom reach agreement what you might do differently.

        Scientists, for example, can come to agreement when they present to their colleagues new evidence acquired and analyzed using standards accepted in their discipline. But those outside that discipline who happen to distrust science do not accept scientific information which they cannot personally verify.
        • Nov 14 2013: Something I learned just recently in a ted talk was the challenges of stepping into uncertainty territory can be hard or easy depending on how one feels about change

          Now that you mention it... Something I kind of do involves 'puffing away' the common ground... to get things moving... sublimating the solid certainties into amorphous variants uncertainties that on the one hand shift form in relations to individuals beliefs, while on the other maintaining a semblance of cohesiveness, and can become realities.

          I should probably provide a heads up flag and signpost of whats likely to happen...

          On a humorous sort of way.
          I find certain common ground with people all the time
          Its the people who can't find the common ground with me :-)

          how can there be certain common ground in uncertain terrain?

          So it seems now I ought to do something to 'adverten' and ensure sufficient trust and goodwill connection.

          Yea its simpler to reach agreement with colleagues using standards accepted disciplines ... specially if they aren't rocking the boat... an outsider to the clique who happen to sublimate the solid certain foundations everyone be on will likely face a bigger challenge when they strive to expose a fact that changes it all. especially when the agreement involves conceding to a belief, that involves giving up what one believe ( changing what one believes to include something more may be a bit simpler ). Add to that that to personally verify it requires a leap of faith... or two...

          That explains and clarifies quite a bit... well at least to me :-) hope you enjoyed and found the above enricheing.

          Thanks you a bunch . Evidently what I said is highly condensed and codified. Let me know if there are points that you would like me to expand or clarify. Its been a while since I had an insight liken what I just had now. I would put it close to a realization of belief languages in use.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2013: I am glad for your insight. That is what exchanges should yield if people are open to it- new angles to think about.
        • Nov 14 2013: As I just wrote in a different conversation...

          The depth of vision comes from appropriately integrating both views... when you only have one view its practically impossible to perceive depth... the depth of understanding comes from appropriately integrating ALL senses (corporeal incorporeal ++).
  • Nov 13 2013: Colieen,

    On one level I agree and like your favorite quote...
    can relate to indulging on too much theory and too little practice
    can also relate to indulging into practice without a thought of reflection
    can even relate to the 'reflective practitioner' dilemmas, indulgences and other acts
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_practice)

    Please notice the difference between what each perceive to be, the claims each is making and their particular focus and how that relates to what happens to be.

    please take particular note how I stated " ...you seem to imply in that..."
    where as you stated "I 'implied' nothing".

    In a way 'you claim something' 'I claim something' and to resolve incongruence the key resides on focusing on something and how it corresponds to the claims each makes. Easier said than done, especially under the influence of certain ideas and thoughts.

    Yea you said that with your response you clearly addressed my question and I said that your response actually did not address what I asked, it addressed something else. BTW if you clearly addressed what I asked we should be able to go back and read if certain kind of individuals should treat their neighbors a certain way--- I do not recall you writing if they should or should not proceed to treat others as they treat their parts... that was my question considering a certain particular case.

    We could choose to get into who is right and who is wrong on this or that matter though I consider that the thing to do here is just observe the situation taking place... that is to jointly observe and inquire into each other observations...

    BTW I agree with : "With all due respect (__________)......go back and look at your comments and see if you are practicing what you preach:>)". Of course, we could also just focus on our comments and actions as we comment and act to see what we are practicing and doing. What ideas each spreads... as we jointly seek to focus on spreading better understanding.
  • thumb
    Nov 13 2013: I agree with Fritzie...."...which ideas we find worth spreading is a matter of our tastes and values"....different for each person or groups of people. TED has groups of people evaluating speakers and topics which support the TED mission, and the criteria used, depends on the topic.

    That being said, I believe it is important for any group of people who wish to evaluate what ideas are worth spreading, to have an open heart and mind, and genuinely consider all relevant information.
    • thumb
      Nov 13 2013: I don't think he is asking which ideas TED should choose to spread. I mentioned TED in my reply to him only as an example of how one entity may choose to specialize in spreading ideas in specific areas.

      It's a little like the way that being a doctor is a worthwhile profession and some will specialize in it. Being a teacher is worthwhile also, and others will specialize in that.

      The teacher may be ill-equipped to identify ideas it would be worthwhile for one doctor to communicate quickly to others for the benefit of their practice and vica versa but also not be the one who was qualified to understand and communicate the idea effectively. This does not mean there are not medical ideas worthwhile for doctors to spread among themselves or that the teacher believes there are no such ideas.

      The doctor may not choose to stay abreast of ideas in oil painting technique, not because he does not think those ideas are worth spreading but because he cannot keep track of ideas in every area and has selected his specialties from among worthwhile specialties he might have chosen.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: I also mentioned TED as an example Fritzie. I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your comment, and that is why, in my previous post I mentioned "any group of people who wish to evaluate what ideas are worth spreading", and "relevant information":>)


        EDIT regarding comment below...

        "Esteban Trevino
        45 minutes ago: Colleen,
        I posit that you will utterly disagree with the notion "its a matter of our tastes and values" especially when I present a particular case latter on in this response."

        My response:
        Esteban, the meaning of "posit"....
        1. "to dispose or set firmly; fix".
        2. to assume or affirm the existence of".


        Since your posits have no basis in fact, it is folly to try to set firmly, or affirm the existence of.
        Therefor, you are assuming.
      • Nov 13 2013: Fritzie,

        I too wholeheartedly agree with the essence of your comment, especially if we take what you said into an abstraction higher notch, where the teacher, the doctor, and 'the idea specialist (everyone who thinks)' dialogue about effective dealing with ideas, the ways to identify worthwhile ideas, to share them, to evaluate them, etc...

        Imagine a worthwhile profession that specializes into ideas, with the practices associated to them (including the interventions to root out (or encapsulate) ideological cancers and put in healthy ideological tissues as well as the better learning/ sharing practices that individuals ought to employ). Of course everyone ought to be familiar and abreast and contributing to this practice. In principle everyone evaluates what ideas to keep, feed, spread throughout their activities/feelings/thoughts/dialogues, in practice most 'obediently' follow the script presented by the ideas, beliefs, feeling they have cohabiting within them.

        My intention for setting up this conversation centered precisely on jointly figuring out "How to determine ideas worth spreading"... as a way to better focus and guide our spreading of ideas... Hope this makes more sense now...
    • Nov 13 2013: Colleen,

      I posit that you will utterly disagree with the notion "its a matter of our tastes and values" especially when I present a particular case latter on in this response.

      While I welcome and even invite the TED group members to come into this conversation to share the what, how, and why of how they do stuff... the focus here (well at least what I had in mind when initiating the conversation and which I hope will remain as the focus ) centers on: How to determine ideas worth spreading...

      Notice the subtle though important matter that seeks to center this conversation on the evaluation of ideas. In a way this sublet point also relates to the idea "its a matter of our tastes and values".
      Is it a matter of our tastes and values?
      Is it a matter of tastes and values?
      (and something additionally I observed : Is it a matter of values and our tastes?
      I consider you meant : it's a matter of our (tastes and values). that corresponding to : our tastes and our values. )

      I too "believe it is important for any group of people who wish to evaluate what ideas are worth spreading, to have an open heart and mind, and genuinely consider all relevant information" while also believe that it is important for them as a group and as individuals to have a 'closed' heart and mind, towards certain considerations.

      WANING : What follows is a particular case to show how in fact "its a matter of our tastes and our values" would NOT be an acceptable criteria to keep unless our tastes and our values corresponded to THE tastes and THE values worthy of spreading...
      Is it a matter of our tastes and our values if we had a taste for 'hate' ? ( I was thinking of using another even more 'revolting' notion though reconsidered it and considered it would suffice to use the term I used). I

      Is it a matter of what we think to be ? is it a matter of what happens to be? Is it a matter of what ought to be?

      Of course the underlying idea being : How to determine it and what to do about it.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2013: Hello Colleen. I've suggested a new conversation regarding After-Death-Experience about 2 weeks ago - a ted editor, Morton, has rejected my proposal/question, saying that it would be too extreme for the Ted members and this will be "putting-off" a lot of them.
      I just edited this question for "What do you think about Out-Of-Body experience?" (not exactly what I wanted to ask). Will let you know whether Morton will accept it or not.

      Honestly, I have never expected to receive this rejection on the subject that becomes a center of a serious research, new inspiration of all sorts, and new discoveries.
  • Nov 12 2013: As a suggestion it may be simpler to respond at the top when one considers the response has drifted down or there isn't a reply option in the message you are responding too...
  • Nov 12 2013: well all arguments must be logically consistent (and that also means being consistent, at least provisionally, with the entire spectrum of the already determined objective world). They should be verifiable through experiment.. and they must have a constructive impact while having limited potential for misuse and negative consequences.
    • Nov 12 2013: Keith,

      Welcome onto the conversation...

      I understand the desire to make all arguments logically consistent and wonder what to do with the logically inconsistent. Note that from within the illogical frame, the logic is consistent (that is consistent with the illogical) and the logical is inconsistent (to the inconsistent frame).

      I like the notion of ensuring a constructive impact while having limited potential for misuse and negative consequences. So how do we achieve that?

      The notion ob being verifiable through experiment or not seems to imply that they should actually work in practice.

      To recapitulate :
      -ensuring a constructive impact
      - ensure the potential misuse remain as potential misuse(limit misuse and negative consequences)
      - Ideas to spread should actually work in practice.
  • thumb
    Nov 12 2013: I've always been a fan of the free market in deciding what innovations gain support. Crowd funding systems are the next step in that paradigm. One of my goals is to start a crowd funding system designed specifically to support research and development.
    • Nov 12 2013: Daniel,

      Of course within that paradigm you and each one in the crowd would have to address the issue of which research and developments to support and feed ( and which ones to eradicate (not support and not feed)).

      In a way the issue here would be 'How to determine worth '... in addition to the other parts of the funding system. Within the frame of ideas each individual gives a bit of their life energy towards the ideas they tell / think /remember every time they think/feel/share such notions.

      On a side note I would love to have my research, development, work funded through crowd sourcing...
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2013: Sorry for taking so long to reply. It's difficult to determine which ideas are worth pursing. With the market based model, the answer would be the one predicted to generate the most profit. In the market model that I wish to implement with crowd funding, it would simply be the ones that receive enough funding through campaign contributions.

        I think there's a lot of potential for crowd based funding for research projects. Right now I am working with an upcoming crowd funding site to fund the initial projects, but in a short time I hope to have my own crowd funding system geared specifically for research and development. If you're curious about specifics, I can discuss it more in email. My email address is politicoid@gmail.com
        • Nov 12 2013: Indeed it can be quite a challenge to determine which ideas are worth pursuing, especially within certain models. Who get attention and who doesn't can be critical. Who we give our attention to contribute to help support feed etc now there is the key...