May 15 2013: Completely agree! If you are defining success as "still there after two years", no wonder perseverance will turn out to be key for that! But remember, by that definition, college dropouts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs count as failures.
Of course it's not surprising that a person whose career has been made in management consulting and in US academia worships grit. I can hardly think of any area other than these two where such massive human capital is staked on tirelessly pushing on the same single predefined track for years and years on end. OK, maybe I can: West Point is another example of that, which is probably why is was used in Ms Lee Duckworth's research.
Jan 22 2012: The problem with this talk for me is not so much the lack of novelty. It's that a lot of Ashdown's truisms are, in fact, untrue. (That is what you usually get when all one does is state commonplace opinions without going through the trouble of critical reasoning.) Not only half of his (few) facts are wrong (the Ottoman empire ended less that a century ago, not four centuries!), but half of his larger points are also clearly off the mark. Should global governance be based on treaty-based organizations (like the WTO), as he seems to be advocating? Hardly: such organizations are known to be both inefficient and ineffective. Are food security and infection security new issues, as he seems to be saying? Of course they are not. Etc. etc. It would be much more rewarding to hear from people who tend to build their opinions on facts.
Dec 19 2011: Great idea and all that, BUT there's a bit between 4:20 and 6:20 which left really bewildered. Is the distinguished speaker really saying that "genetic material belongs to the local community"? Come on. That may sound right because we all tend to feel sympathetic (and perhaps somewhat guilty) towards indigenous peoples plagued by poverty and illness. But it is fundamentally untrue. The fact that certain people have lived on a certain territory longer than some others, or for that matter the fact that certain people may own the land, does not mean that they OWN the biodiversity or the ecosystem. Biodiversity and climate are the heritage of the whole planet, of all mankind.
Furthermore, Mr.Sukhdev seems to infer that it is to people who most depend on natural resources that companies should pay their externality fees. Again, that might feel intuitively just. But wait a second. That means a consumer of natural resource would pay its cost to... another consumer of that same resource! That's all wrong! Whether they are rich or poor, local or global, indigenous or immigrant, consumers of natural resources should pay for their use, not get paid. Otherwise we're just creating another incentive to burn out nature. It's those who conserve and restore those resources who should get paid. And by the way, conservation/restoration activities are a natural source of income and jobs for local communities.
Nov 1 2011: Well, it makes sense. Oxytocin is the hormone of cohesion, of emotional linkage, right? Now, the more a group is closely knit, the more oxytocin is generated within that group, the more its members will perceive their fellows as special, and treat them preferentially. That does not necessarily mean they will be aggressive towards outsiders, but it will take an extra mental effort to reduce their bias.
Nov 1 2011: This talk brought to my mind a passage by this great thinker, Mr. Joe Tribiani:
"It is a love based of giving and receiving as well as having and sharing. And the love that they give and have is shared and received. And through this having and giving and sharing and receiving, we too can share and love and have... and receive."
Jun 30 2010: At about 9:30, the speaker says that "the social constraints created a culture that was more generous than the contractual constraints." I do not see that. Actually, I see no generosity whatsoever in the daycare centers experiment.
Apr 10 2010: Actually, this speaker is not assuming rational actors. She is empirically demonstrating their rationality, which is much more persuasive (not to mention rigorous).
Mar 25 2010: It may seem like a Buddhist ideal in this respect, but in another respect it is profoundly different. Mr Rao proposes that one invests fully in the process, whereas Buddha proposes that one detaches oneself completely from the process. Mr Rao want us to be passionate, while Buddha would hate that - except He cannot, for hate is a passion :)
I think that this is the fundamental contradiction in Mr Rao's discourse. If one accepts the world exactly as it is and finds happiness inside, then why on Earth would one want to do anything at all? Things are just great as they are, why try to change anything?
Dec 25 2009: "Only "similar" already implies that it is different, and we should always remember that difference before thinking ahead."
Exactly what difference do you mean?
TEDCred score: +19.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Angela Lee Duckworth: The key to success? Grit
Of course it's not surprising that a person whose career has been made in management consulting and in US academia worships grit. I can hardly think of any area other than these two where such massive human capital is staked on tirelessly pushing on the same single predefined track for years and years on end. OK, maybe I can: West Point is another example of that, which is probably why is was used in Ms Lee Duckworth's research.
A reply on Talk: Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift
A comment on Talk: Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!
Furthermore, Mr.Sukhdev seems to infer that it is to people who most depend on natural resources that companies should pay their externality fees. Again, that might feel intuitively just. But wait a second. That means a consumer of natural resource would pay its cost to... another consumer of that same resource! That's all wrong! Whether they are rich or poor, local or global, indigenous or immigrant, consumers of natural resources should pay for their use, not get paid. Otherwise we're just creating another incentive to burn out nature. It's those who conserve and restore those resources who should get paid. And by the way, conservation/restoration activities are a natural source of income and jobs for local communities.
A reply on Talk: Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!
A comment on Conversation: Oxytocin, just a positive hormone?
A comment on Talk: Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin?
"It is a love based of giving and receiving as well as having and sharing. And the love that they give and have is shared and received. And through this having and giving and sharing and receiving, we too can share and love and have... and receive."
A comment on Talk: Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world
A reply on Talk: Elizabeth Pisani: Sex, drugs and HIV -- let's get rational
A reply on Talk: Srikumar Rao: Plug into your hard-wired happiness
I think that this is the fundamental contradiction in Mr Rao's discourse. If one accepts the world exactly as it is and finds happiness inside, then why on Earth would one want to do anything at all? Things are just great as they are, why try to change anything?
A reply on Talk: Hod Lipson builds "self-aware" robots
Exactly what difference do you mean?