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:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.