TED Community » Kevin Tinholt

More About Me

I'm passionate about

the times we live in, such turbulence as we approach some mayor turning points in human history. I can't but feel privileged to be living in these times and given the opportunity to participate in it.

Talk to me about

anything. Do you have anything on your mind that might be of interest to me, please do tell. As I'm currently self-studying until September (University), so any mind stimulating interaction is a plus.

People don't know that I'm good at

nothing. All I wish to do is inspire life into the minds of others, I do not seek to fascinate others with any of my abilities, some how that only tends to have a negative effect on me.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: What can I trade against your data?

  May 9 2012: Hamburgers. (sorry, I had to)
  
  Personally, I don't mind. I am no criminal and most data they get from me will be for their economical gains. Or so to say that they can offer me the best services. I don't care if a big cooperation knows where I live, why should I? Doesn't the government already know? I'm quite sure I don't have any mortal enemies that are hunting for me. So where is the problem, I find this hard to understand. Freedom is just a made up term, as there is no such thing. Let see how free you are if you start a journey from India to the United States. Let's see how far you get without money.
  
  Why not accept this? I do not wish to sound cynical, but there is no such thing as pure freedom. If there was the world itself would be in total chaos (no it isn't now, we are in the most peaceful time in human history).
  
  If you want true freedom then give people a way to express themselves. Let them do what they like and what they are good at. Let humanity do what it has always been good at: progress and creation.

• A comment on Conversation: Why is there animal testing?

  May 9 2012: First give me the links, because last time I checked the alternatives were even more controversial than animal testing itself.
  
  Those alternatives are not models. It is still living tissue, and most drugs have to be tested in the body as a whole. So that means instead of complete animals you're going to use specific parts of the animals, grow them in isolation. This includes brain tissue, but I guess that is okay.

• A comment on Conversation: Given that chimpanzees are endangered, is it ethical to use them in biomedical research?

  May 9 2012: It is like asking: "Is it right to kill two whales to save one panda". Why is testing or rats valid? If that becomes invalid, why is testing on worms valid? If that becomes invalid, and so on. Here we come to the debate of whether testing at all is valid. Most of these test go through several stages before they get tested on chimps, if they get tested on chimps at all. Plus I hope I don't have to mention that all tests are done with the prospect of not harming the animal in any way. Of course this happens, because any experiment is bound to go wrong.
  
  If we were to clone a mammoth and that mammoth was the best test-subject after humans. Would it be okay to start test procedures? If the possible result is that millions (if not billions counting future generations) to be better of through this research?
  
  We could go in a different direction: Why are we still eating meat? Why are we still eating plants? Aren't plants alive? Do they not have the right to live? Even though they, like most animals, are not considered rational.
  
  Plus let me add: Most chimpanzees are born in captivity, like their parents, and probably like their grandparents. Those being "kidnapped" are not being kidnapped by the scientific community. So instead of condemning progress, why not condemn the people that kidnap them? Because last time I checked most chimps in captivity live much longer lives that those in the wild.

• A reply on Conversation: What makes a crowd-sourced (collaboration) project successful?

  May 6 2012: I understand it rises only more questions, but like I said in the end there is a myriad of variables at play.
  
  However, when you organizational design it all relies on the product you want to bright forth and how many parties have a particular role in the whole scheme. Creating an IT company is fairly easy in contrast to a drug company. The bigger the thing gets the more levels you have to create. Now I am not talking about mid-field managers, these people play no beneficial role in my eyes. Not because of their position, but because of their credentials.
  
  Free-labour? Labour is almost never free, maybe it is voluntarily, but it is rarely free. Labour can only be free in a sense if the participating people already earn more than they need and do the work for free. So in the end it only like a serious hobby, rather than a job. And when it becomes a hobby you need to adjust your organization structure. More freedom, but in what way I can't say as it against depends on multiple factors.
  
  Gamification, yes it works, but only for short-term (activist) groups. I have yet to see it integrated in a matured long-term group. Though not impossible, I have never succeeded in such and I actually come from the gaming industry formerly. Which should be the least hostile to such measures. ::: On another note, gamification does lower the threshold for community interaction if applied on a large scale, and with it being on a large scale it can be made self-regulatory. A simple example of self-regulation is thumbing up/down. Not everyone will do it, but enough will to add value to the system.
  
  May I ask what this is for? If it is for a specific task I might be able to be more thorough.

• A comment on Conversation: How important "YOUTH EMPOWERMENT " is in any nation's development?

  May 5 2012: Empowering the new generation does help out a country. However, what you must not forget that these people have to fit into a system (how else are they going to partake?) and for that you need mentors and institutions that provide the basis for such growth. I have yet to see a project being formed by youth without having devastating structural issues, which then later cause a divide in the original group.
  
  Liberty, I would say, is not the right premise for youth empowerment. They always need to follow a cause, now you might call it an idea or a leader, to have any real impact on society. That means sacrificing some liberties for the well-being of the group.
  
  So why focus on the phenomenon itself? Why not focus on the structure that gives birth to such a phenomenon?
  
  I might have misunderstood you, but what I hear is that you hold in believe that youth empowerment is an event separated from the rest of society. Which it is not, it is always caused by triggers in society that do not only hold true to the youth of the country. If they did, the youth would be ignored.

• A reply on Conversation: What makes a crowd-sourced (collaboration) project successful?

  May 5 2012: Then let me tell you about my experiences, as I do have some.
  
  With crowd-sourced I think you mean free labor right? The essential thing is a goal, without a goal there is no development. However picking out what the main goal is is crucial. It should be inspiring and promote a better future, the next thing you have to look for is short term goals. The next thing that is on your mind is: how big is our group? How many people are working on it actively without being paid until the end? A small group means freedom and close interaction, however the bigger the group becomes you will need to divide it up between departments. However, not separate them, direct interaction is still needed. So as organizer, when you are talking about a thousand people, you have to make sure it self-organized. Create a flow system so people know what things they have to complete, just like when you are learning a new trade. Instead of focusing on organizing the whole thing you now have the time to spend your time on the so called "positive deviants": people that will take action themselves because they seek a solution and do this without being recognized for their actions (say irrational). By putting them in the spotlight you boost the morale between the short term goals.
  
  With self-organizing I also mean the monitoring of tasks, but this can be done through software (if the resources are there).
  
  The next important thing is to not overflow the project with new people. People that are unaware of the progress being made. It is better to let outsiders have access to the development and any interested can still apply for the job. Though adding modules to the already existing project will bring in new people involuntarily. This is however not something bad. It requires the people working on the projects to see it through novice's eyes, which in my experience has always lead to solving some of the most crucial problems.
  
  I hope this is what you're looking for.

• A comment on Conversation: What makes a crowd-sourced (collaboration) project successful?

  May 5 2012: Kind of black and white don't you think? Like normal society all the things being done on the internet are a myriad of different practices with different goals and background. I don't personally think there a specific approach towards the internet that differs from real life. The only thing that might change is the technology in use.
  
  So in my opinion a crowd-sourcing project would rely on good marketing and a vision that is attractive.
  
  There are so many different ideas about this, so why not make a debate. Then we can also start debate about the meaning of success.

• A reply on Conversation: Does genetic engineering help us to make a better human?

  May 5 2012: I don't really think it is about intelligence, but rather a debate about how do we organize society.
  
  However, there is a problem. We already have to many people, so if you are talking about more intelligent people they'll have the be re-educated from birth so that means more people. Still we approach the problem through the wrong means, especially when it is about awareness. Because the ability to share and transfer information is unprecedented, however I have yet to see it being used for the betterment of society. No offense, but projects like TED are not going to create a better world. People do. So yes, we could use some more skillful/creative people, but how? I can tell you how, but such a thing would be against the declaration of human rights as you take away privileges.
  
  I am actually studying human engineering, however I do not think I will get the possibility to engineer human beings. Not within my lifetime. However dissapointing, it is more than reasonable.

• A comment on Conversation: If every act is selfish, is it impossible to perform an unselfish act?

  May 5 2012: In my opinion it depends on what you think is selfish. What if your goals are not focused on yourself, but rather on the wellbeing of other people, would it be selfish? Even if you let them take their own decisions and only give them the resources or opportunities to achieve a more virtuous life?
  
  
  Now, you could say the choice is not yours. You let chance (tossing a coin) decide what your goal in life is, even if it is the opposite of what you want: would that be selfish? Maybe you can only be unselfish if you are unaware of the effects and have not defined any goals to chase after. Though most people would call that insanity I believe.

• A comment on Conversation: Does genetic engineering help us to make a better human?

  May 4 2012: Yes. No.