Conflict is Crucial: Why TED Talks Suck
Above: A “TED Talk” depicting a bird nest with quail eggs, I think. Likely a gripping visual metaphor.
In one word: conflict. Yes, there are upsides to TED Talks. Adding a “cool factor” to generally boring, monotonous topics does increase awareness of them. Let’s agree there’s value in learning what one doesn’t know, that new perspectives broaden one’s horizons, etc.
So few reasons TED Talks don’t suck—and so many reasons they do. A presentation format that once shattered paradigms has now become stale and formulaic. Eighteen minutes of the same: personal story, presentation topic, epiphany connecting the two. One moment, we’re riding high. We’re soaring with eagles. The next, we’re suffering through heart-gripping lows—vicariously feeling the pain the presenter experienced during a troubling, though ultimately enlightening, episode of their lives.
There is a very real problem with TED Talks, and it is this: Authentic progress is a byproduct of innovation AND argument. Highlighted and reemphasized:
Authentic progress is a byproduct of innovation AND argument.
The most important ingredient in meaningful change: conflict. TED Talks offer an all-you-can-eat buffet of “innovative concepts,” all marvels to be praised. By the end of the presentation the room bursts into applause; many in tears, all on their feet, overcome by a collective, mind-blowing orgasm leaving none in the presentation hall untouched. The topic doesn’t matter—it will be met with religious zeal. After all, It’s a TED Talk. It must be legitimate.
The fundamental error here: Innovation is only half—and the lesser half—of meaningful progress. Reckless, unchecked progress is dangerous. Scientific, social, and technological advances demand representation from proponents and detractors alike. An intelligent, educated decision requires a holistic approach: Truly enlightened people seek the arguments both for and against anything.
We need peer-reviewed studies. We need counter-punches to brilliant, form-breaking concepts. We need the downside more than the upside. Let us judge for ourselves.
Unchecked social progress is, quite literally, deadly. The most dangerous regimes in history became so under the mantle of “social progress,” with dissidents stifled—or eliminated entirely. Is this an extreme example? Tragically, no. Look to the past. How many revolutions started with positive intentions only to descend into slaughter and genocide?
There MUST be voices representing each perspective.
TED Talks captivate with emotional fervor not through the truth of their ideas, but the passion of the presenter and the format of the presentation itself. Caught up in the emotional energy of the moment, dogmatic, unquestioning empathy voids truth and logic.
“TED: a monstrosity that turns scientists and thinkers into low-level entertainers, like circus performers. ”
The leadership lesson is this.
ARGUE EVERYTHING.
Groupthink is infectious. A room of decision makers often gravitate around the opinions of the leader, unconsciously aware of their conformity to the leader’s ideals. Self-preservation through favor compels this.
A presenter should present not only their innovative concept, but its pitfalls, challenges, and potential repercussions as well. As a presenter, you are responsible to give the entire story of your concept—the good and the bad alike. It is on the group to ask meaningful questions and challenge new concepts in every way they can. A vetted strategy doesn’t guarantee success, but it does ensure a greater chance for success by identifying—and planning for—unforeseen challenges and unintended consequences.
This is impossible for one person to do alone. Unconscious self-bias will trump objectivity. Unlike TED Talks, which captivate audiences by appealing to emotion, your job is to address your topic with unemotional distance—attending to the bad no less than the good. All of it. The hardest part of this: removing one’s ego from the equation. Being a catalyst for positive change is a force within each of us. That same force, however, blinds us to the downside of our initiatives. It isn’t easy to invest oneself in a project willfully critiqued by qualified colleagues.
Leaders: You must create an environment acknowledging the need for conflict, acknowledging conflict creates the strongest outcome, and that it is on us—all of us—to be skeptics of new ideas regardless of their source. Let the room know we are not attacking the person; not their effort, commitment, or engagement—but challenging their ideas only. Set this expectation at the beginning of every meeting. Demonstrate this by having employees argue for and against all concepts—it is a universal rule applying to everyone, including leadership. Including you.
Demonstrate to your team that skepticism is a core value of your culture. It is a pillar of your organization. That all ideas are challenged.
Again: Authentic progress is a byproduct of innovation AND argument. Meaningful change demands conflict.
That conflict begins with you.
Mark Joseph Huckabee
