TED Community » Fatemeh Khatibloo

Comments

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

• +9

  A reply on Talk: Neil MacGregor: 2600 years of history in one object

  Mar 13 2012: John, you may want to do a bit more homework. "Iran" comes from Middle Persian, and has NOTHING to do with Nazi sympathies. In the 17th century, the country self-identified concurrently as "Iran" and "Pars" or "Persia."
  
  While it's true that Reza Shah, in the mid-30s, asked to standardize the country's name to Iran from a foreign affairs perspective, his own son in the '60s reopened the door to its being referred to as Persia once again. This is why so many Iranians refer to themselves as Persians.
  
  The term "Aryan" in its purest form refers to speakers of the earliest Indo-European languages, which just so happen to be Indo-Iranians. Illogically, Hitler appropriated the term, and effectively redefined it to suit his own political and xenophobic ideology.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Fill in the blank: I would like ________ (a living expert) to give me a 5 minute lesson on ________ (a creative topic).

  Nov 17 2011: Daniel Kahneman | How To Recognize Your Own Cognitive Biases

• A comment on Talk: Kate Hartman: The art of wearable communication

  Sep 16 2011: Inspirational? No, maybe not.
  
  But a cleverly engaging "I-see-what-you-did-there" sort of talk? You bet.
  
  The wearable wall and the discommunicator are especially delightful (in the very literal sense of the term) as they're the physical manifestations of social behaviors we display and deal with every day.

• A comment on Conversation: LIVE CHAT With Adam Ostrow: What should happen to your digital identity after you die?

  Aug 9 2011: This raises a much bigger question: "what is identity?" It's not just about me as an individual entity; it's also about the footprint I've created, and interactions I've had with other entities. Identity in the absence of context is meaningless.
  
  I'm loathe to think that the lovely and wonderful things a friend may have written on my Wall, or the photos a family member posts on Flickr are ephemeral -- that they will be eradicated upon deactivation of that person's account. On the other hand, it's important to provide users a choice about whether they want to be exposed to photos and memories of a person they're grieving.
  
  As to the question of AI-created interactions post-mortem, I frankly don't think we're ready for that, psychologically. Mourning is a critical part of the human condition, and there have been SO many changes to how we undertake that process already. I don't think we've adapted fully, and the very notion that some insentient, digital version of my father could continue to interact with me feels like it would be horribly detrimental to my ability to grieve.

• A reply on Conversation: LIVE CHAT With Damon Horowitz: When have you realized that you were wrong about what you once thought was right? June 8, 2011, 5-6PM EDT

  Jun 8 2011: As I think on this, I realize that many of the decision that I later decided were ethical mistakes were made after too MUCH contemplation. In contrast, those decisions that were made wholly by gut, and which seemed to have no other possible outcome are rarely the ones I regret or feel were wrong.
  
  This seems paradoxical, but it somehow calls to mind the concept of kin selection in genes. Is my ability to see something as "wrong" affected by how viscerally I felt (or feel) about its value or importance to me?
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Deb Roy: The birth of a word

  Mar 21 2011: There's something of a disconnect for me between the birth of a word in a developing child's lexicon and the social graphing you showed in the second half of the talk.
  
  It would have been more interesting to identify neologisms you found in your model, and trace their adoption across and between the social layer and the content layer. For example, which is more influential in the adoption of a new word: repetition in mass media or repetition in the social graph?
  
  That, to me, is the next iteration of studying the birth of a word, no?