Nov 20 2011: I wonder. TED has over 1000 Talks at this Web site. That leaves each of us with over 1000 choices at any one time about which one to watch, or whether or not to watch at all. That's a whole lot of potential frustration and psychological dismay to negotiate, simply to use this Web site, which is one site of maybe billions at this point in time.
Maybe we should ban the Ted.com Web site and eliminate 1000 pieces of confusion, frustration, and psychological dismay? Maybe we should ban Dr. Schwartz from the Web, so we no longer have him adding to that confusion, frustration, and dismay?
Wouldn't you agree, doctor? Doctor? Hello?
Hmm. I guess he chose to ignore me and keep on adding to the confusion, frustration, and dismay by adding more and more choices to the world.
You see, though a clever talk, the good doctor proposes a false idea: When left with too many choices, people don't make a choice. Nonsense. They CHOOSE not to make a choice.
Psychological paralysis is also a choice, minimally about whether or not to do something. To do nothing is as much a choice as to do something. To remain confused, or "alienated," the term we sociologists prefer, is still a choice. And, it may be the best choice of all at that moment. (It is amazing how many "dilemmas" resolve themselves by doing something by doing nothing.
The good doctor chose to perceive doing nothing as paralysis. I choose to perceive it as doing something concrete. Who is right? I am of course. The only time it is possible to do nothing is when dead or comatose. And if you've chosen to read this comment, you likely are neither.
Oct 22 2011: 1. People often view each other as objects, like furniture, rather than as human beings, and treat them as such.
2. Though many act as though they do, people will never fully understand either the universe within or without, though they should never stop trying (because it's fun!).
3. Everybody you have or will ever know will do something to both discourage, encourage, and to disappoint or delight you.
4. People seek power from the day they are born, beginning with the first cry that commands mother to, "Feed me now!"
5. Having things, though sometimes nice, does not make us better people; rather, things may further complicate us. Letting go of things is also nice.
6. My mother and father love(d) me, so did Mom's mother and father. I never really knew my father's parents.
7. Practicing moderation keeps me healthier.
8. Writing is my life's passion.
9. Romantic love is fleeting; the close friendship is more important and what determines whether or not the relationship lasts. (Correlation: A long, loving relationship unto death is possible-- I've borne witness to many).
10. The works of Van Gogh, like no other, make me cry, in both sorrow and joy.
Apr 28 2011: Sam, I think the way you phrased the question points to the role of irony in a presentation.
When retired military talks about empathy, it's similar rhetorically to an executioner calling for an end to the death penalty. A passivist is expected to advocate for empathy. A person who makes war his profession is not. Because the opinion is unexpected, it gives the remarks a special relevance in the audience's mind. Whether it should or not is another story.
Jul 10 2010: For some reason, I cannot respond to Kristian's odd statement that history shows no evidence that capitalism can create monopolies. Kristian, I think you need to read the history of business in the US from about 1870 until the mid-1940s.
Specifically, read about Gould and Fisk (especially their attempt to corner the gold market), Standard Oil, US Steel, Edison Electric, regional electricity monopolies, and so forth. The reason they stopped existing was because of the trust busting done by presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.
I think you should also read about the period of the late 1700s to mid-1800s in Britain, especially the Luddite episode. Why did the British government make breaking a production machine a capital offense punishable by hanging?
Present economic problems result from the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, corporations, countries, and individuals. They're hoarding it. How is it to circulate again without income redistribution?
Jul 10 2010: In response to Kristien, socialism has not failed. We have mixed socialist economies everywhere: Canada, Australia, both of whom have begun to recover economically. We have near full socialist economies, in Netherlands (5.6% unemployment) and Scandinavia. They focus on the rights of the people rather than corporations or the needs of a corporate state (fascism).
It's unfair to look at the Soviet Union and China a socialist. The soviets created a totalitarian state that had nothing to do with socialism. In China, it is fascism by another name (corporatism), with little regard for the rights of people.
A mixed economy that focuses on human rights before corporate rights is probably the best economy. It's flexible, responsive, and always seeking the common good.
Jul 10 2010: I am also a sociologist, so there's a bit of sociology shorthand in what I wrote. Sorry for the confusion.
By making a judgment about how "valuable" a creative effort is to society, he creates a power hierarchy. I am of the opinion that all hierarchies and stigmas are focused on rearranging people in our social power matrix. I think I can prove it.
Next, I know what I like and don't. But, that's opinion. No evidence to prove it. Shirky offers his opinion as provable fact, no? If it's fact, he should prove it. Why is something that gives people joy and a smile necessarily a lesser social activity? Who created this hierarchy of social usefulness? Isn't that judgment part of social interactionism and constructionism?
Anyway. Dr. Shirky may not be aware of this, but there is a much older body of work that does the lolcat thing. It's at touristofdeath.com. This stuff popped up a few months after 9/11. It's still there after all these years.
Jul 6 2010: The problem is the Austrian/Friedman school is not the only school of economics. If it worked the way that school says it should, then the periods of greatest capitalist success also happen to be economic depressions.
See, economic depressions are caused when capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists. Sadly, when that happens, there is little or no capital left in the market for buying goods and services, for normal day-to-day trade among demanders and suppliers. That's how capitalism (not free market economics, but the monopolization of capital) eventually destroys itself, as it is doing so now.
Have a look at the nine videos in this series. They are by Richard Wolff, a noted socialist economist/sociologist. See if what he says and shows doesn't make sense based on what is actually happening, not based on some lofty theory preached at the U of Chicago (and long ago debunked by its Sociology department).
Jul 6 2010: I think the problem is "free" trade, not the monetary system.
Value is relative. The baselines for value are flexible fictions. Ten years ago, an ounce of gold was worth $350 (or $350 was worth an ounce of gold). Today, it's worth $2000 and vice versa. There is no way to store value. A thing is worth what people decide it's worth (Simmel). It has no inherent value.
The problem is trade and its effect on the capital reserves of our nation states.
Let's say I'm America in the 1940s. We need brooms. I buy wood from Brazil for $100/cord, apply labor, increase the value of the wood as brooms.
Now, let's say I'm Brazil. Holy moley, we need brooms! I buy brooms from America for $1000/cord. What happened to my capital reserves in that round of trade? I lost $900 in capital, yes?
The west got rich that way (Andre Gunder Frank's "Development-Dependency Theory). Now, it's getting poor that way. In the 1980s, many western economies did away with tariffs. What happened since? Capital drain.
Jul 6 2010: When I look at companies like Halliburton, RBS, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and other capitalist panaceas, I see cumbersome behemoths who act as parasites on society.
Government only seems cumbersome now because large capitalist corporations control them. That's what fascism is all about: government and capitalists become symbiotic twins, using political power to ensure mutual survival rather than justice.
We make a mistake, I think. We believe free market economies and capitalist economies are the same thing. They are not.
In free market economies, entrepreneurs and consumers match supplies of goods and services to demand, maximizing profits and minimizing costs through COMPETITION. In capitalist economies, capitalists seek to control all capital. That requires the capitalist to MONOPOLIZE a market.
Unfettered capitalism allows capitalists to monopolize and crush innovation (something even Adam Smith feared). Dependence turns into political power, and they become too big to fail.
Jul 6 2010: Remember this. Socialism's original intent was to encourage innovation. It was thought people had three needs: food, shelter, and creativity. By creating a common wealth, people together as society would take care of some issues in common: supplying water, roads, police, military, fire, education, and so so while removing garbage and sewage.
Imagine if we had to do each of those things ourselves these days, how it would shut down opportunities to innovate. What happened when Edison was the sole, unregulated source of electricity? He sucked up profound amounts of capital that barred others from turning entrepreneur... at least he and others did until FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority, to learn what it actually cost to generate electricity per kwh.
Maybe you can explain why, after the capitalist nightmare of 2008, socialist countries like the Netherlands have far lower unemployment rates and higher gross national happiness rates than mixed or capitalist economies?
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice
Maybe we should ban the Ted.com Web site and eliminate 1000 pieces of confusion, frustration, and psychological dismay? Maybe we should ban Dr. Schwartz from the Web, so we no longer have him adding to that confusion, frustration, and dismay?
Wouldn't you agree, doctor? Doctor? Hello?
Hmm. I guess he chose to ignore me and keep on adding to the confusion, frustration, and dismay by adding more and more choices to the world.
You see, though a clever talk, the good doctor proposes a false idea: When left with too many choices, people don't make a choice. Nonsense. They CHOOSE not to make a choice.
Psychological paralysis is also a choice, minimally about whether or not to do something. To do nothing is as much a choice as to do something. To remain confused, or "alienated," the term we sociologists prefer, is still a choice. And, it may be the best choice of all at that moment. (It is amazing how many "dilemmas" resolve themselves by doing something by doing nothing.
The good doctor chose to perceive doing nothing as paralysis. I choose to perceive it as doing something concrete. Who is right? I am of course. The only time it is possible to do nothing is when dead or comatose. And if you've chosen to read this comment, you likely are neither.
A comment on Conversation: We can learn by exchanging and discussing our own lists of "10 Things I Know to be True."
2. Though many act as though they do, people will never fully understand either the universe within or without, though they should never stop trying (because it's fun!).
3. Everybody you have or will ever know will do something to both discourage, encourage, and to disappoint or delight you.
4. People seek power from the day they are born, beginning with the first cry that commands mother to, "Feed me now!"
5. Having things, though sometimes nice, does not make us better people; rather, things may further complicate us. Letting go of things is also nice.
6. My mother and father love(d) me, so did Mom's mother and father. I never really knew my father's parents.
7. Practicing moderation keeps me healthier.
8. Writing is my life's passion.
9. Romantic love is fleeting; the close friendship is more important and what determines whether or not the relationship lasts. (Correlation: A long, loving relationship unto death is possible-- I've borne witness to many).
10. The works of Van Gogh, like no other, make me cry, in both sorrow and joy.
A comment on Conversation: How does the presenter impact the reaction to a talk? So how might people's reactions to my talk be different if I was retired military?
When retired military talks about empathy, it's similar rhetorically to an executioner calling for an end to the death penalty. A passivist is expected to advocate for empathy. A person who makes war his profession is not. Because the opinion is unexpected, it gives the remarks a special relevance in the audience's mind. Whether it should or not is another story.
A comment on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
Specifically, read about Gould and Fisk (especially their attempt to corner the gold market), Standard Oil, US Steel, Edison Electric, regional electricity monopolies, and so forth. The reason they stopped existing was because of the trust busting done by presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.
I think you should also read about the period of the late 1700s to mid-1800s in Britain, especially the Luddite episode. Why did the British government make breaking a production machine a capital offense punishable by hanging?
Present economic problems result from the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, corporations, countries, and individuals. They're hoarding it. How is it to circulate again without income redistribution?
A reply on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
It's unfair to look at the Soviet Union and China a socialist. The soviets created a totalitarian state that had nothing to do with socialism. In China, it is fascism by another name (corporatism), with little regard for the rights of people.
A mixed economy that focuses on human rights before corporate rights is probably the best economy. It's flexible, responsive, and always seeking the common good.
A reply on Talk: Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world
By making a judgment about how "valuable" a creative effort is to society, he creates a power hierarchy. I am of the opinion that all hierarchies and stigmas are focused on rearranging people in our social power matrix. I think I can prove it.
Next, I know what I like and don't. But, that's opinion. No evidence to prove it. Shirky offers his opinion as provable fact, no? If it's fact, he should prove it. Why is something that gives people joy and a smile necessarily a lesser social activity? Who created this hierarchy of social usefulness? Isn't that judgment part of social interactionism and constructionism?
Anyway. Dr. Shirky may not be aware of this, but there is a much older body of work that does the lolcat thing. It's at touristofdeath.com. This stuff popped up a few months after 9/11. It's still there after all these years.
A reply on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
See, economic depressions are caused when capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists. Sadly, when that happens, there is little or no capital left in the market for buying goods and services, for normal day-to-day trade among demanders and suppliers. That's how capitalism (not free market economics, but the monopolization of capital) eventually destroys itself, as it is doing so now.
Have a look at the nine videos in this series. They are by Richard Wolff, a noted socialist economist/sociologist. See if what he says and shows doesn't make sense based on what is actually happening, not based on some lofty theory preached at the U of Chicago (and long ago debunked by its Sociology department).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOD7RFpOGI
A reply on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
Value is relative. The baselines for value are flexible fictions. Ten years ago, an ounce of gold was worth $350 (or $350 was worth an ounce of gold). Today, it's worth $2000 and vice versa. There is no way to store value. A thing is worth what people decide it's worth (Simmel). It has no inherent value.
The problem is trade and its effect on the capital reserves of our nation states.
Let's say I'm America in the 1940s. We need brooms. I buy wood from Brazil for $100/cord, apply labor, increase the value of the wood as brooms.
Now, let's say I'm Brazil. Holy moley, we need brooms! I buy brooms from America for $1000/cord. What happened to my capital reserves in that round of trade? I lost $900 in capital, yes?
The west got rich that way (Andre Gunder Frank's "Development-Dependency Theory). Now, it's getting poor that way. In the 1980s, many western economies did away with tariffs. What happened since? Capital drain.
A reply on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
Government only seems cumbersome now because large capitalist corporations control them. That's what fascism is all about: government and capitalists become symbiotic twins, using political power to ensure mutual survival rather than justice.
We make a mistake, I think. We believe free market economies and capitalist economies are the same thing. They are not.
In free market economies, entrepreneurs and consumers match supplies of goods and services to demand, maximizing profits and minimizing costs through COMPETITION. In capitalist economies, capitalists seek to control all capital. That requires the capitalist to MONOPOLIZE a market.
Unfettered capitalism allows capitalists to monopolize and crush innovation (something even Adam Smith feared). Dependence turns into political power, and they become too big to fail.
A reply on Talk: Cameron Herold: Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs
Imagine if we had to do each of those things ourselves these days, how it would shut down opportunities to innovate. What happened when Edison was the sole, unregulated source of electricity? He sucked up profound amounts of capital that barred others from turning entrepreneur... at least he and others did until FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority, to learn what it actually cost to generate electricity per kwh.
Maybe you can explain why, after the capitalist nightmare of 2008, socialist countries like the Netherlands have far lower unemployment rates and higher gross national happiness rates than mixed or capitalist economies?