TED Community » Seamus McGrenery

More About Me

An idea worth spreading

Earth—the planet, all of humanity and everything else that makes up the planet, make up a single living being.

Now that being is self aware.

We are all part of one creature, and this is the creatures thought—Earth’s thought.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +2.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Should we begin teaching children letter sounds first with lowercase letters instead of letter names with uppercase letters?

  May 7 2013: Teaching by letter sounds - phonics - is widely used in some countries.
  
  See http://jollylearning.co.uk/overview-about-jolly-phonics/ for example

• A comment on Conversation: Why do we bother with spelling?

  May 1 2013: This is an example of a wider phenomenon. Our brains have to take meaning from random and incomplete stimuli in most situations.
  
  Our ancestors could not wait to see a full and clear image of a lion before deciding to take action. They needed to act as soon as they saw a flash of something that matched, in any way, the pattern of a lion.
  
  As for a use for this specific ability with spelling to enhance our daily lives, nothing springs to mind. Though being reminded that our brains are constantly jumping to conclusions, which can sometimes be incorrect, is itself worthwhile.
  
  By the way I vaguely remember being taught that, when reading signs, people only look for the pattern of the word, which is why a typeface that gives the word a clear shape is usually chosen.

• A comment on Conversation: Many people in this world are more famous than me. I guess that means they're better people than me, right? And better than you, right?

  Apr 8 2013: Dunbar's number is a suggested limit on how many people the average person can maintain stable social relationships with. A glance at a concert is not meaningful in this sense, but you can look that up for yourself.
  
  If your impression is that 'stars' don't loose fame then; You are ignoring a great theme in drama form 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane' to 'The Wrestler' that explores what happens when they do. I'm guessing you have not done that much research into, say, who were stars in a particular medium at a given date and who were well known 10, 15 or 20 years later.
  
  On the generational issue since the advent of popular culture fans have admired their heroes, One Direction are not more admired now than Elvis was half a Century ago. It seems from a quick read of this debate that no-one else is buying your suggestion that famous people are better, so unless there is more evidence I think that one is case closed.
  
  A review of 'Saul Bellow's Heart: A Son’s Memoir by Greg Bellow' described as heartbreaking the realisation that great (and famous) writers are often not great people. It is a realisation that many young fans eventually make about famous people.
  http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/books/non_fiction/article1239499.ece
  
  As for the communication technology connection, it is the means that the celebrity form of fame is created. The meaning people take from this type of connection is important to understand. For example there is the quasi-religious view of some Elvis fans that he did not die in 1977, complete with reported sightings.
  
  If a sizeable number of people started to believe the being famous had to equate to being good that would indeed be interesting.

• A reply on Conversation: Many people in this world are more famous than me. I guess that means they're better people than me, right? And better than you, right?

  Apr 5 2013: Fame as such is not of such huge interest to me, but I am interested in how people use technology to communicate and how that changes us. I am working a book looking at the long term impact of how and why communications technology changes us and our society.
  
  The reason for my engagement is that your take on fame is, I think, unusual and I wonder why. Is it a generational thing of the word changing meaning or is it something else.
  
  Dunbars number comes from a theory by a British anthropologist, and is a limit on meaningful relationships. So for example the theory would hold that while you may be Facebook friends with say 1,000 people you cannot keep up meaningful interaction with more than 150. I believe that research in this area is ongoing in the filed of social networking.
  
  There have been many stories of stars who have lost fame, such as the movie 'The Artist'. Culturally fame is fleeting, search for 'where are they now' and you will find people with just enough fame left to make it to a web page.
  
  So when it come to ' fame accompanies wealth, talent, and, I say, goodness' it will be definitely agree to disagree.

• A comment on Conversation: Many people in this world are more famous than me. I guess that means they're better people than me, right? And better than you, right?

  Apr 4 2013: Just a few points Greg,
  
  First ' much-sought-after, rarely-achieved' makes me think you are talking about national or global fame. We as humans are not really equipped to operate as a global community. I think that really only very very few people actively seek fame of this type.
  
  If you accept Dunbar's number about 150 is the maximum number of people we can meaningfully relate to. It is not that difficult to achieve a level of fame among 150 people, or in your own local community. Fame at this level is probably often sought after and quite often achieved.
  
  Sometimes people do get diamonds or the equivalent for free. Look at the Australian man who found a huge gold nugget in January. Or what about all of the people who inherit great wealth or win when gambling. It might be scary to think that aspects of the world can be unfair, but that should never stop us from doing, and being, the best we can.
  
  But fame is definitely not like diamonds. It is a fleeting fickle gift that some people have for a while. It is not the same as wealth or goodness or talent or any other positive quality you can name. That is why we have a separate word for it.
  
  Fame can go as quickly as it comes precisely because it is not tied to any other positive quality.

• A reply on Conversation: TV by the people - Can the audience come up with a better show than TV professionals?

  Apr 3 2013: What a pity. That sounds so much like whats out there already.
  
  The best bit of crowd sourcing is engaging with lots of new minds, some of whom will have fresh ideas.
  
  There have already been TV shows which have crowd sourced clips for entertainment, similar to Mark's example, and I have seen example of game shows using viewers clips. The web has had quite a few web cam reality shows which have been used for source footage for TV shows.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: If you could, what kind of superpower would you choose?

  Apr 3 2013: Personally I believe that we already have superpowers.
  
  The theory of evolution tells us that we are a species of ape, yet we can do things that are far beyond the capabilities of our bodies. We can; lift great weights, fly, talk to people on the other side of the planet. We are super apes.
  
  As for what new super powers there are lots that I would choose: To travel through space, to live a healthy engaged life beyond one hundred.
  
  The great thing about being a super ape is that, if enough of us want something, we can make it happen. We can create new super powers.

• A comment on Conversation: What good is being able to control our dreams?

  Apr 3 2013: One short answer seems to be that we can use our dreams to make better use of our mental resources.
  
  Napoleon Hill, in his 1937 book Think and Grow Rich, which has formed the basis for a great deal of personal development literature, urged readers to ask their dreams for answers to difficult questions. He seems also to have developed a personal waking dream capability.
  
  While I can't make any claims on behalf of his approach - and there are things in the original book which are, to say the least, dated - there may be some value in asking questions of our dreams.
  
  If our brain is, at least in part, a bit like a computer then there may be a lot of spare processor capacity available when we are asleep. Some of that might be able to be accessed a bit like the way SETI at Home uses distributed spare processor power. Of course like seti@home our 'dream processing' may suffer from errors creeping in either accidentally or through one part of the system trying to promote its own bias.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: TV by the people - Can the audience come up with a better show than TV professionals?

  Apr 2 2013: Good luck with your project, it should come up with some great ideas. Can I offer a few thoughts.
  
  The concept of having lots of people come up with ideas, of which a few are developed and some produced seems fairly similar to the idea behind the BBC Community Programmme Unit, where professionals developed and produced the chosen idea. This idea morphed, over thirty years, into the Video Nation. It would be worth checking out experiences from there.
  
  I have to declare a vested interest I wrote a book called 'Anyone can make TV', when I was working as a TV professional. The reason I wrote the book was because I believe people stories are important. But when they are excluded from TV, which is still mainly the dominant medium for storytelling, peoples can come to see their beliefs and values as somewhat less important.
  
  Too many professionals who come to crowd-sourcing, or community involvement to use a more dated term, think first of political stories, of viewpoints which challenge official and establishment voices. That need not be the case. There are I am sure many subjects, with great stories to be told, which have so far not made it through to TV screens.
  
  From my experience, most people can be semi-professional TV makers in that much of the technical skill can be handled by technology.
  
  Where they need help is in how to tell their stories on TV: How they will need a range of shots, how they will need to edit them into a coherent statement. How TV can be much more effective when it touches people emotions. People who do not work in the industry also need to understand the etiquette of how to use other peoples work, and what they can and can not control. It is also worth explaining to people in simple terms why you cannot say or show anything you like on TV, there have to be limits.
  
  While for TV you have to work within the framework of slots and strands the web offers the possibility of adding colour and depth to whats broadcast.

• A reply on Conversation: When is it time to quit? And how does one know?

  Apr 2 2013: What about quitting smoking?
  
  That should be seen as a good choice and a positive outcome.
  
  There are often wise choices that involve quitting.
  
  Gaining the wisdom is the tricky part.