Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkurz | Hacker News Reader

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision.

But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party." (attributed to Chris Anderson)

Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

View on HN

If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered.

TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking points have no place in the discussion.

After reading the transcript, I firmly believe they made the right choice. And it could simply be that the ambiguous nature of the study of economics prevents it from being an approached topic on TED, which is unfortunate, but I don't believe for one second they blacklist anything based on controversy alone.

His talk would have been better had it referenced the numerous studies showing that more unequal countries have worse results across the board. However, 3 minutes is an extremely short period of time - no one else speaking at TED is laboring under the requirement to fully document everything they are saying in a 3 minute speech.

I haven't heard or read this talk, and presume that Anderson made a correct editorial decision regarding its merits. My focus is on the statement "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US."

I'm not arguing that Ted should be pressured into publicizing this talk. But with great admiration for Ted, I think their approach to politicized topics bears further discussion. I'm stunned to think that an international organization should find it less desirable to broach certain topics due to the timing of a US election.

No one has said they will avoid any topic at any time.

Anderson has said they will avoid overtly partisan talks during an election year.

You can talk about the topic, Anderson just won't promote if if you do it in a partisan manner.

This is a great point. Not to get political myself, but if you compare this talk to Elizabeth Warren's "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class"[1] from a few years back, it's night and day. Before she made economic claims, she described her exhaustive process with government agencies to get reliable data; the ways she tested the data when it seemed implausible; the various theories she tested and rejected to explain the data ... it's gripping stuff, because she develops insights based on research and hard-nosed science. That's what TED should be about.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

I think you have it the wrong way around. It's not that this topic isn't up for public debate, but rather that the talk was part of a debate that was already highly politicized and TED doesn't want to get into that. Once the politicos see you as a good platform from which to shout their message, you will find yourself swamped by people who just want to yell party lines at each other. If you want to remain independent of party politics, you have to keep those people away.

This is also why I'm of the opinion that Internet forums which are not explicitly about politics should explicitly ban most political discussion. Otherwise the loud partisans will eventually drown out everything else. (Remember a few years ago when it came out that there was a huge conservative voting bloc on Digg downvoting anything posted by members they suspected of being liberals, even if it was non-political? You don't want those people around.)

This isn't to say that topics one party or another might happen to like better should be off-limits, but that you should be very careful when approaching those topics not to play to the political aspects of the topic. It sounds to me like this is what TED suggests as well.

Yeah, their response said exactly what I assumed had happened happened. They, like everyone else building a brand, are trying to erase the truly antagonistic dynamics of modern culture and worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence.

That myth is what TED is selling. Not truth, not even a better world, just a world where we can believe ourselves to be better people.

> They (...) worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence.

Because that is how the world should be like and they have a mission to make it real. It's not a myth. It's a goal.

where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence

Welcome to the world of science.

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

But that is the problem, in a nutshell.

We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit.

But let us not speak of it.

Attacking a political party invites various cognitive biases related to tribalism - both for the people who like and dislike that party. It makes it more difficult for an audience to evaluate your arguments on their own merit.

This is an affliction by which people muddle objectivity with neutrality. One can adopt a neutral (NPOV as they say in Wikipedia land) vantage point, yet be terribly biased, even if it is simply confined to what is filtered out. One can be biased to an intellectual (or political) plank, yet be objective in evaluating arguments and evidence.

Yes, tribalism can induce such ills as well as invoke cognitive dissonance, but it is not a default setting.

No it isn't the problem, at least not according to TED, TEDs mission is not to spread the gospel about political parties. Want to spread the truth about Republicans and Democrats? Go on CNN. That's what it's there for, you can shout about how Republicans are anti-intellectual and Democrats are communists all day long on CNN, however TED doesn't want to be CNN.

There's a big difference between saying Republicans are anti-intellectual and saying anti-intellectualism is bad for the following reasons. TED is all for the latter and completely against the former.

Don't want to get "too political"? Then don't trumpet how you're in the "business of ideas"…

Non-sequitur.

ITYM "my opinion is that". When you confuse your opinion with "the truth", that's where the problem starts. And when you are so far off course that you dismiss everybody disagreeing as anti-pretty-much-everything good, pure evil they are - you might not notice that there's something wrong about it, but other people would. Not all people are suffering from partisan blindness. Some can see that on many points are many valid opinions, and while one opinion can win in the eyes of the majority over the other and define what the priorities of the policy are - that is very far from totally denying the party that disagreeing with you any shred of possibility of having real argument.

Go ahead and speak of it. Nobody's stopping you. It just won't get you on TED's website.

Anybody who actually thinks about issues in terms of the entrenched, incumbent parties in the US political system is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Virtually everything that's broken in America today is in some fashion a consequence of the bi-polar stranglehold on power the country has been subject to, more or less since its founding.

except it calls out both Republicans AND Democrats.

...to be more Democrat-ish.

And there are other parties.

I think it's sort of like the hacker news policy, don't post stuff that people can read about elsewhere.

If you talk to most people involved in a particular issue (eg. not politicians) they tend to have views that diverge from the party line, when a talk lines up perfectly with a particular party it comes off more like talking points than an engaging topic.

Imagine a talk on states rights that comes out against abortion and for the war on drugs. Sounds to me like Republican crap rather than an intelligent debate on the separation of powers in government. I think this is what TED is trying to avoid, they're all for an intelligent debate on separation of powers, but against spewing republican or democratic talking points.

Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.

How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down.

I can understand their reluctance to give Fox News ammunition to smear the TED brand. But it was the parties who chose to politicize ideas and issues which should belong to all humanity. Whatever happened to respectfully listening to people you disagree with?

Getting locked up for speaking your mind is only one way for free speech to be stifled; another is to convince people to self-censor for the sake of their reputation, and whether he admits it to himself or not, this is exactly what Chris Anderson is doing. And alas, in today's media-political landscape, one is hard-pressed to find organizations and individuals for whom this is not the norm.

I believe this particular decision was not about the message but about the way it was delivered. My hypothesis is that the same topic presented in a wikipediish NPOV style would fare much better. And symmetrically if you spiced a talk about climate change with jabs at replublicans it would share the fate of the talk in question.

Admittedly, the one reference he made to parties at the beginning was unnecessary (somehow, I hadn't even heard it). But he isn't calling out any party; he is calling out a particular policy, and the way of thinking that pre-dates it, that he feels is counter-productive. There is no way to criticize the ideas he does without being "political".

To put the shoe on the other foot: let's say someone had data which demonstrated that welfare and affirmative action are bad for the people they purport to help (just an example, I'm not making a case for or against either). How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way, when those issues have been politicized to death for decades?

You couldn't. You'd have to either state your case bluntly and take the heat, or shut up and go away. Though the talk could definitely have been better (more data, please), I'm glad the speaker chose the former, and I think he made the best attempt possible at being neutral.

> "let's say someone had data which demonstrated that [partisan policy X is] bad.... How could one make that argument in a neutral, non-partisan way"

"It is important to help [group] overcome [disadvantage]. We have new data showing that [policy], while stemming from admirable goals, is ultimately counterproductive, leading to worse outcomes than would be expected without such a policy in place." Then discuss the data, without specifically naming any politician or political party or questioning anyone's motives. Make recommendations based on the idea of doing right by those you're trying to help, rather than making accusations based on the idea of the other side being evil or stupid.

It's certainly true that some people would interpret your statement in a partisan way. Some people would assume you were secretly funded by the Association of Partisan Conspirators. But by focusing on data rather than partisan cheap shots, you would give them little to go on, and you would be more engaging to those who are honestly interested in doing the right thing.

Based on what Chris Anderson said, if a talk about global warming made direct statements about political parties, they would reject it. That's the difference between controversial and partisan.

How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down.

I've never attended Ted, but I've been to a few TedX events in San Jose as a small sponsor. For Global Warming and some other business issues, I was happily surprised that it had a lot of diverse viewpoints, and that the after event discussions indicated that people were considering these thoughtfully.

But I still fear that there is a political correctness at play, independent of the 'partisan' aspects. Al Gore is welcome as a speaker, and clearly is a partisan giving a partisan speech. That's good. But I don't know that Steve McIntyre, who has strong non-politically correct views on Global Warming but is extremely non-partisan, would be welcome.

I'm not painting Ted as being left-wing or right-wing, or unfair to either party. But I worry that if they start playing the game of avoiding topics because they are "partisan", the give up too much room to both of the major US political parties to declare topics untouchable. I'd rather they ignore the political implications, and help the search for truth.

The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs.

The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

Are actually making that claim, or is that an attempt to archly demonstrate the point being made? Because if you're seriously making that claim as others had, I can barely count the number of fallacies and debate style errors it contains with both hands.

If you weren't trying to provide an example of how explicitly partisan debates can just shut down all conversation, you still did a good job.

I actually posted it initially without the double quotes, but then realized I would see a lot of posts like yours so edited it very quickly to add the double quotes in.

The same guy who said "I dream of a world where reality and truthiness can be one."- Stephen Colbert

Jon Stewart said the other 'liberal/reality' quote

Did he say it first? The first page of Google hits is covered with Colbert saying it at the Correspondents' Dinner in 2006.

Edit: here it is, "I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

'Reality has a well known Google bias'

This is what I get for trying to be smart on the internet

Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form.

And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED.

But that said it's a really good talk.

>> "Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party."

This would imply that climate change would also be off limits at TED, which it isn't.

It's fine as long as you don't name any political party by name I think.

Unless the lead spokesperson is a leading political figure.

>Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

When money and power is involved, you don't get to be independent in the US (or a lot of other places for that matter).

You have the right to free speech as long as you talk for inconsequential issues, if you talk for anything else you are labeled a "partisan" (that goes for both republicans and democrats, and even every other stance).

You are of course free to raise very important issues for society as a whole, but not in a way that implies that the way the power/financial system works is bad in toto -- the best you can get away with is "inefficient".

That is, you have free speech as long as you don't use it for real political causes. Any other partial view is allowed (gay or anti-gay, abortion or pro-life, etc...).

There are many politicians and public figures that say exactly what you just said - that the way the financial system works is bad (actually, IIRC, no other than Obama himself reiterated that talking on the news about huge Chase loss) - and the way the political system works is bad (they even try to organize third parties and independent candidates, which inevitably result in pathetic failure at the polls) - so making it sound as it's somehow topic that no one dares to talk about for the fear of all-powerful 1% is baloney. This topic is talked about far and wide. You can publish any opinion, and even for the most outrageous ones, you get a pretty good chance for your 15 minutes of fame - actually, if it's outrageous, your chances are higher, TV shows need ratings and outrage means notoriety means ratings.

Of course, it's one thing to talk about everything being screwed up and quite another - having any practical recipe of how to fix it and being able to convince enough people to follow you. Words are wind, you know. Allowed is one thing, effectual is another. But not because there's an evil 1% conspiracy - but because mainstream is mainstream for a reason, changing people's opinions is very hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com