TED Community » Jason Huffman

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: What are some big social issues that need to be discussed, but aren't?

  Dec 4 2012: I actually meant that it was interesting that a Harvard prof. agrees with a political operative for the GOP. haha
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What are some big social issues that need to be discussed, but aren't?

  Dec 3 2012: My former post on this topic should be viewed below as it is directly vindified by something I ran onto today. Quite satifsfy when (in the midst of my reading of Tocquville) I happened to find that a greatly more intelligent individual (and Harvard prof.) agreed with me.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149292503121124.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: What are some big social issues that need to be discussed, but aren't?

  Nov 30 2012: The principals of accountability for our actions as individuals, be they detrimental or supplemental along with the concepts of honor, loyalty, respect, wisdom, & liberty (as it should be discussed). Society has somehow forgot about those baseline ideologies and I think it has a far reaching effect on the entire fabric of our society- all other social issues included in that spectrum.

• A reply on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?

  Nov 29 2012: What else would we call free will? It goes like this, you either have choices that matter or you have choices that don't matter at all. The irony is that we must chose which of those sides we believe. It is prudent to utiize empiricism in shuch a case. I find the former, not the latter, rings more true. But thats because my life would devolve into fatalism if otherwise.

• A comment on Conversation: What is truth?

  Nov 29 2012: A response I had made to the debate, "Telling the truth: are there limits?"
  
  There is no utter truth. There are only things that exist to our senses as being more probable or less probable. If we concentrate on those things that exemplify a certain "reality" to our senses then our most probable situation (i.e. our truth) will be different than that of someone with dissimilar sense stimulation.
  
  This is why it is wise for people to gain insight into as many experiences and perspectives as possible, albeit with open minds, in order to derive what is the most probable for one's self. This relates directly to telling the truth or telling a lie in that what may seem absolute for one person may be far-fetched or seem lacking in any validity at all. This is not to say that all is relative, for if that is the case then there is no cause for order- if murder is relatively acceptable for someone and that perspective must be respected by society, then expect a chaotic society. The rule of law inhibits those perspectives with good cause, as doe’s society with certain norms. It is with the evolution of these laws and norms that a sensible society can sort through what rules should exist as being more probably acceptable and therefore more "true."
  
  Lying is all about perspective, and carries an undue negative connotation. If deception is used for a cause that is deemed by the enlightened mind to be of worth (more probably good than bad) then, perhaps it is simply a tool in the tool belt of the good willed. Regardless of your personal perspective of Jesus Christ, it can be said that he was quite benevolent- having said that we must remember that, even he deceived the Romans. Perhaps, we would be better to call it being savvy or witty or able to paint a good narrative. Just like anything else, lying is not a bad thing unless used by bad people toward mal ends.

• A comment on Conversation: In what ways do non-democratic systems help to achieve or undermine economic growth and economic development?

  Nov 29 2012: http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/the-1930s-all-over-again
  
  
  Just happened upon this today. I think it might add some historyical insight and parallel to the discussion.

• A comment on Conversation: Is the world Super-deterministic or not?

  Nov 29 2012: If I'm given a choice to reject such a theory, does it not insist that such determinism is false based off of the stimulus of my senses (the most basic recognizable fact we can exhibit empirically ) indicating that I have made a choice?
  
  The only validity we have is our sense experience and when we discount that what we are left with is the condition of servitude to the universe- we are merely robots living out our days with a fated end. BUT, it is less empirically probable that "I am a robot person" than, "I make choices everyday" based off of sense experience. It comes down to a probability and people will decide if they are fated or if they make their own fate based off of sense experience.
  
  I prefer to trust my senses as it simply makes more sense to me that I have choices than that I don't.

• A reply on Conversation: Debate: Are humans better than other forms of life?

  Nov 29 2012: Interesting that you would bring up Thanksgiving as my mindset immediately went to the Native Americans who inhabited North America pre-colonialization. The had a great respect for the earth and her beings ad only took what they needed to survive, not wasting a scrap of any animal that they harvested in order to survive. If our society was less wasteful it would, therefore, be more profit oriented in that nothing is excluded as potential profit.
  
  Our aptitude and clever nature does make us innately "better" (I prefer more advanced) than our animal counterparts, but, as such, we should have the presence of thought to give respect to creatures beneath us in due process.

• A comment on Conversation: Should we aim for mediocrity?

  Nov 29 2012: Two adages:
  
  "Some men are born to greatness; others have greatness thrust upon them."
  
  "Most people will not do great things, but they can do small things in a great way."
  
  I find that, in terms of our lives, society has penned so many fantastic stories hitherto that it is difficult to become a part of history oneself. But that is because of a fervent desire of the world to take things out of context. Behind every great event or person there were others who helped to achieve that goal. While history might not remember them verbatim, they contributed to something bigger than themselves. A great man once said something like this: "It is amazing what people can get done if they don't care who gets the credit."
  
  We should strive to place ourselves in positions that, when a certain door is opened, we can do all the good we can for all the people we can in all the ways we can wherever we can. And maybe take pretty good care of ourselves and family along the way...

• A comment on Conversation: Shame is a hinderance to education.

  Nov 29 2012: We strive for greatness in order to escape mediocrity and in doing so we are in a perpetual footrace, if you will, to avoid the "shame" of living what our individual subconscious considers "shame."
  
  In that token, we thrive because of a fear of failure. Thus, "shame" is the most basic catalytic agent responsible for success. Taken to the context of education students will immerse themselves in study in order to reside above the status quo. Therefore, shame is the emotion responsible for competition and competition is the great inventor of progress. Without shame we lose our primal fear of losing. It seems only natural that it would exist as a natural emotion to drive us to be better at whatever field we attempt in life.
  
  However, when an individual dwells on shortcomings instead of simply redressing them or doing something different that they are more inherently versed as persons to accomplish we see self-loathing which is a detriment botht o the person and the progress that person might derive within their brief time in existence. Shame should be embraced for its sheer horror and then displaced by either redress or understanding that not everyone will be good at everything. So it goes...