TED Community » Luis Javier Salvador

Comments

• TEDCred score: +38.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Talk: Cesar Kuriyama: One second every day

  Feb 8 2013: I totally agree with you. Additionally, I think It doesn't even have to be a fixed amount of time. One day you could record a few seconds and the next day 1 minute. Some days are more eventful than others.
• +2

  A comment on Talk: Cesar Kuriyama: One second every day

  Feb 7 2013: Even though I like the idea, one second is too short for a video, it would be more convenient to just take a photo instead. I think 10 seconds or so would more genuinely capture the essence of a day (in these 10 seconds you could briefly sum up your day). If my math is correct, 1 year would thus be compressed into 1 hour of video and after 50 years you would end up with a 50-hour video, which is not that long, like 25 movies or so. And once you retire, you will have plenty of time to thoroughly watch it.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Please define: Leadership.

  Jan 25 2013: The act of guiding one or more people to a collective success.

• A comment on Conversation: Can one teach young people to be moral? Is morality something that must be taught in the home? Is it innate?

  Jan 25 2013: I do not think that morality is innate. I strongly believe that It is learned from our environment, as shown by the fact that our moral codes have changed throughout history.

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: Thank you for that wonderful advice! I'll try to do that when possible :)
  
  Focusing on self-improvement is a sensible approach, as releases some of the pressure of catching up with others. Unfortunately, competition is ubiquitous in our society. For example, every time we get a job, someone else is rejected. Every time we occupy a parking space on a packed street, someone else won't. In general terms, every time we make money, someone around the globe loses it. We can't help getting caught up in competition, even if indirectly.
  
  But I guess we can reduce the exposure to it by following your advice.

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: I agree with much of what you say, but the point is the terms of the contract are mostly based on morality. Otherwise, we wouldn't think of beating competitors up as a bad thing. Today, there are many more instances where it seems acceptable to take advantage of intelligence (almost every single activity) than there are by means of strength. Which is a clear advantage for innate intelligent people over innate strong people. Survival of the smartest. And from an abstract moral standpoint, some could say it's not fair that the chances at birth of surviving and succeeding are not the same for everyone.
  
  But as I said throughout the course of this discussion, I don't think we can change that and probably shouldn't, of course.

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: I like your vision on morality and agree that kindness should rank up there, but what I meant is that Intelligence ranks the highest in morality when it comes to competition in this ruthless world. Getting rid of competitors by means of intelligence is fine by most people, or at least, it is the approach that is least frowned upon.

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: Of course not. But that's not really what I meant. What I meant is that you can outsmart people and get away with it more easily than if you outmuscle them, for example. People would view you as a winner even if those poor people went bust because of you.
  
  You don't receive the same accolades either if you take advantage of your natural good looks, to give you another example.
  
  It seems as if intelligence ranks highest in the morality scale (when it comes to competition.)

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: I agree with you on the fact that It would be inappropriate to use physical strength to gain advantage in white-collar jobs, that would be kind of absurd. Although, it's interesting to note that one of the reasons why we find that absurd is because we have a moral code that tells us what is right or wrong.
  
  But the truth is intelligence can be used to one's advantage in both physical and intellectual activities, whereas strength is reduced to a limited number of activities. As a result, strong people don't get the same opportunities to succeed in life as smart people do, which is, from a strictly moral standpoint, unfair. That's why I said "survival of the smartest", which is not to say that we can change it.
  
  Success depends on characteristics other than intelligence. I agree, however, you can actually train "hard work", "determination", "social skills", etc...but cannot change your innate intelligence. In my view, intelligence ranks up there when it comes to success by itself. So, brains over almost everything, not only brawn.
  
  But as you correctly said, there's no way to prohibit the use of intelligence and it wouldn't make much sense. However, that was not quite my point, rather the socially accepted abuse of less intelligent beings, even if we can't change it.

• A reply on Conversation: Survival of the smartest: Brains over brawn, why? (moral question)

  Jan 25 2013: That's indeed another good way to see it.
  
  But the fact remains that intelligence enjoys a higher moral regard in our society than all other attributes. It seems as if when your get outsmarted, you don't have the right to complain (except when deceit is involved.)