About Reza

Bio

Reza Ghiabi is an entrepreneur, event organizer and management consultant for start-ups, small businesses, organizations and individuals. Reza gives consultant to various firms, from international trade companies to NGOs. He is co-organizer of the TEDxTehran and program director of TEDxYouth@Tehran.
Reza is also co-founder of the TICK language club, exploring the potential of individuals to Talk, Interact, Challenge and leveraging community's Knowledge to teach English and build value.
He recently co-founded and became co-organizer of Tehran Art Walk, an event and soon to be organization to help young and talented Iranian artists to reach their highest potential.
When he isn't glued to a computer screen, he spends time watching and translating TEDTalks, attending social events and jogging.
Reza holds MBA in information technology from Industrial Management Institute of Iran and a BS in industrial engineering from Qazvin Azad University.

Languages

Dutch, English, Persian

TED Conference

TEDActive 2014

Areas of Expertise

Event Planning & Organizing, Entrepreneurship , Management Consulting, Business Process Architecture

An idea worth spreading

Let's make world a better place by spreading good thoughts; person to person, heart to heart. Let's not rush to "mark" others, let's be simple, honest and truthful.
Let's find out why we are who we are, what to do with our lives and how to do it in time.

I'm passionate about

Communities; the synergy of individuals with the same vision; interaction of ideas worth spreading. Oh, and coffee. Black.

Talk to me about

Your TED story.
Your moments of engagement.
How to reach people to their highest potential.

People don't know I'm good at

Playing Santoor (Iranian music Instrument)

My TED story

It all started in 2007, when I watched a TEDTalk named "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz for the first time.
At the time I was confused, I didn't know anything about my desires and expectations. I was trying to fit in to "routines", not sure if I WANT them or not. That simple low quality talk by that simple wise man, changed my life: I chose to be simple. I try to think simple and act complex.
Being a part of TED community, watching, translating and sharing TEDTalks, contributing in TED conversations and other TED activities is a part of my daily life. I hope and help TED change other lives as well as mine.

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Thanks Ben but I'm not really sure about the first paragraph. Because sometimes we do need a source to see if the other systems are working correctly or not. That's why they have cesium clocks, etc., so they can compare other devices to them. Regarding the second paragraph, is it really luck? Because we can't predict luck but we can definitely predict that when the stopped clock is going to be right. For instance if the hands of the clock shows 8 o'clock and right now the time is 4 o'clock, we can says in exactly 4 hours the stopped clock would be right! On the other hand if we assume that it is luck, does it make a difference? Cause at exactly 8 o'clock we can't tell the difference between the stopped clock and other working ones. What I'm trying to say is, at certain times or situations even a broken or stopped system can take us to the results and therefore at that moment the system is not broken and working well.
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Your comment made me think of Alpha and Beta product inspection systems. They use these two methods when they are trying to get a sample of a product and check it for quality control. The difference is the assumption or as you say "approach". Alpha inspection - All products have problems unless the opposite is proven. Beta inspection - All products works fine unless the opposite is proven. Obviously alpha counting system is more expensive as they need to inspect all products. The point is experience made that clear none of these methods are acceptable but the combination of these two sounds promising. So they use Alpha then Beta. So maybe here it's not bad to take the same approach and trust the systems that passed the alpha phase...
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Good description Barbara. The statement is the statement here, it's us that can look at it simply or with complex approach. Personally I believe simple approach works here more, just like you described it. With this approach the message would be: "Don't be judgmental". But that raises at least one question: Is any one or any Ideas should be treated this way? History of a phenomenon is a part of it's context. And we need the context to make a good decision.
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Actually I just had a second understating of this metaphor: Sometimes it means that the person who lives in this mind set, is trying a stopped or broken system (another human being, a company, etc.,) over and over again and gets the same unsatisfying result and hopes that maybe giving it another shot may ends up in a better result. On another hand, there is this meaning that, the person who uses this mind set, tries to see something good in any of system's outputs. I personally believe that in the first approach if we have other sources and we keen to use that one malfunctioning source, it is a complete waste of time because we can reach the same result less costly. But regarding the second approach, I truly believe that there is something good and fruitful in any phenomenon and we should wash our eyes and look again to find it out.
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Thank Fritzie, I think what you are emphasizing here is "system's reliability". And you are suggesting that we can increase system's reliability by multiplying our sources. There are systems like human being judgment system that have limited sources. When the time is limited and we are making a decision, like in our day lives, we can only rely on our feelings. Can you describe some more about this "reliability"?
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Thank you for mentioning my point Pat. Yes, by this metaphor, I mean we should see the possibility of being correct in any words, but another point here is that "standard" I mentioned. In the metaphor if we don't have another clock to use it as reference, we can't find out if the clock is right or not. So we can assume that unless we have a reference, it is useless to know that the clock is right twice a day. Hence in real life, can we say that "Maybe that person is right?", "It is possible." or etc? or do we need to have a reference all the time? And yes Pat, you are right. Time is limited but I think there are certain little precious things that we are missing in our every day life and considering the possibility of others to be right even the ones that we don't like much, may increase our chances to mine this little ideas, thoughts, etc.
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
First of all thanks for the information and the point about the 24-hour clocks. You are right. This sentence of yours: "Metrology is always an ongoing process, with constant adjustments being made." seems like a matter of personal experience. Would you please explain it some more? I always had this assumption that although everything thing is changing, there are phenomenons that we can measure and they are fixed or even if they change, we can predict their changes as well...
222167
Reza Ghiabi
Posted about 1 year ago
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. " Is it really right?
Well said Paul, I think as you say the "scope" matters and by scope I mean the level of details that we intend to use or they are useful to get us the results. in this metaphor it's important that we define a scope too, for example if we want to count the hours, minutes, seconds, etc... Hence, if we are going to trust a random "other", we need to include the "scope" as a variable too. I hope I get your point correctly.