I spoke at TED this last week. While it was one of the most inspiring things I've ever attended, I was somewhat underwhelmed with the age demographics represented. There were maybe 10 people under the age of 25 (I'm 22). On one hand it kind of exposed the inherent agism expressed in the valley that I was/am accustomed to, on another hand it was frustrating that it seemed as if I was somehow a young'n hanging out with the adults, and on yet another other hand it was inspiring to see people who have worked on one thing their entire lives and stuck with it until they've changed the world (whereas in the Valley so many people want to make their FU money and sit on a boat for forever).<p>It's definitely elitest in the strictest sense, but you have to realize that a lot of the people (at least the speakers) have passions that they have pursued not so that they could one day speak at or attend TED but because those ideas actually matter a lot. The opportunity to attend TED is a byproduct of pursing your passion, which is infinitely more important than infinite snacks, gift bags full of stuff or even getting to meet your heroes (I met Jeff Bezos).<p>Unrelenting passion will get you farther than any ticket to a conference will. The lucky ones are not the ones who get what they want (like a ticket to TED), the lucky ones are those who get to do what they are meant to do (who change the world for the better).
"conversations are truly the only way in the world is changed, not technology"<p>No. Action is the only way things get done. Ask anyone waiting for the Army Corp of Engineers to get a plan done to relieve flooding. Lots of conversations, but no action.<p>Right now it is TED, later it will be the opposite complaints about SXSW (why are these people here?). I seem to remember a quote by one of the owners of Studio 54 about the only way they got in was to own the club.<p>It still seems, online at least, there are a lot of experiments in social networking in this area that could be the basis for someones software.
Great stuff comes to TED, but to be honest, I don't know if I've seen great stuff <i>come out</i> of it, other than videos of talks that could have been recorded at a local community college.<p>Oh, and of course it's elitist, charging $10000 for an invite-only conference is the very definition of elitist. If it was populist, I think you'd see a very different approach to organizing.<p>There are versions of TED that are more ad hoc and grassroots that happen every day, and it seems like those are the places where the cool things happen.
Reading this awful, pompous, self congratulating prose and imagining a thousand people like her gathered at the same place exchanging ideas gives me the willies.<p>I was not one of the lucky ones allowed the privilege to pay 10 k to attend, but I will have to drive by long beach today, so I must be careful to fill up my tank so as to avoid any possibility of accidentally getting stuck in Long Beach and having one of those geniuses curate at me.<p>But we have not thought of the real victims of TED. What of actual curators. You know the people in museums. They get a quiet harmless job, and then that blabbering pack of idiots pick up the word that describes their profession, and soon anybody that has anything to do with "curating" will be universally hated and ridiculed.
Technology does not change the world, are you serious? To believe that you must think that everything from irrigation techniques that allowed agriculture and formation of cities to improved forms of transportation and communication that allowed cultures to meet did not have impact.<p>She also says that the people criticizing TED have not been, when the first link she uses is the story of someone that has been to TED. The articles she talks about could use more 'journalism' and 'a simple google search' to improve them, but no mention of anything that is actually wrong with them.
TED has some really good talks. Have I ever been invited? No. But I've also never been invited over to the people who live down the street. And what's even worse, when I requested a podcast of their interior they called the police.<p>There are so many things that I don't get invited to, its the things that I do get invited to I look at with suspicion. And the fact that TED gives me free access to their talks, makes them OK in my book.
Anyone can apply to become a TED fellow (<a href="http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/247" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/247</a>). A couple of people I know personally have been past fellows. Going by what I've seen, it may be easier to become a TED fellow than to be selected for Y Combinator, but that's another argument.<p>On the contrary, the registration fee for the TED INK conference held in Lonavala, India recently was $2200 a pop for residents (<a href="http://theinkconference.com/Register" rel="nofollow">http://theinkconference.com/Register</a>), which no middle class Indian can afford. Even that didn't guarantee that one would actually get a seat, 'cause surprise! They will "..review each application form in detail to find the right match of attendees". Amazing.
I'd say that TED's weakness isn't that it's elite, but that it's become more and more overtly PC. In 2006, I absolutely loved TED. At that time, almost every talk was eye-opening. Now, some of them still are and others are random feminist/environmentalist/save Africa themes that don't really have anything to do with technology, entertainment or design.
Regardless of whether it's elitist[1] or not -- isn't the fact that the videos are available to the world wonderful? To me it seems like they want the world to be informed and hence inspired by all the great things people are doing in the world. They aren't necessarily fully shutting you out. If TED was available to anyone, even to go to in person, I think it would lose some of the intimacy that it has -- it would be much more difficult, if you attended, to spend time with those who inspire you.<p>[1] By Wikipedia's definition it sure sounds elitist: "Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern."
Sure it is. And that's a good thing.<p>Anything that's worth participating to is elitist. It brings together interesting, fascinating and smart people. Most admirably, TED succeeded at keeping the audience eclectic. Nobody learns from homogeneity and confirming their thoughts with people who think the same.<p>As a TED attendee and TEDx organizer, I can definitely confirm on this. Whether for my event or for TED, I see the talks as just an excuse to get amazing <i>people</i> together. Everything — from the high cost to the application process — is about ensuring that every person in the audience genuinely wants to participate and contributes to the experience.<p>Case in point: the talks are posted for free online to weed out those who attend for the information in the talks. The Internet trivializes pure knowledge and makes human interaction so much more valuable.<p>When you bank your event on people (which is pretty much the only thing you can bank on in the age of the Internet), you have no choice but to make it elitist. In a good way.
I would make a distinction here. They are <i>Elite</i>, which is good. They are the top echelon of their profession. They are also <i>Elitist</i>, which is the real problem here.<p>tl;dr... in my personal experience, TED is snobby, and pretentious.<p>I share space with a few TED fellows on a daily basis. They seemed like nice guys but after a short period of time I got the message that they were an exclusive club and I wasn't allowed in.<p>I realize these people are ridiculously smart and sometimes that is correlated with being socially awkward, but a times they were simply rude.<p>I really wanted to like these people but they made it very hard. Eventually, I stopped trying to be nice and stopped acknowledging them all together. They seemed quite fine with that.<p>(They began to seem like divas to me.)
Yes. Is that a problem? I don't know. I am not elite so I am excluded. I do not like being excluded, I do not like feeling that I am less than someone else so I do not like TED's elitism. I like the videos though.
I don't care if it's elite. Elite is not a bad thing.<p>(Speaking of elite, don't get me started on "elite" being a bad label for politicians -- I WANT the elite, the best of the bet, running our country.)
"Laura Stein has set the TEDx licensee policy so that one <i></i>cannot<i></i> charge for attendance"<p>This is incorrect, when we organized TEDxCMU in 2010, Laura Stein told us that some other events had sold tickets to cover costs.<p>Here is an extract from the TED rules: " (TED will allow certain TEDx events to charge a small admission fee -- always under $100 -- to help cover the event's production costs. In order to charge an admission fee, you must obtain permission from TED first.)"<p>- <a href="http://www.ted.com/pages/tedx_general_rules" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/pages/tedx_general_rules</a>
maybe it isnt "elitist" but it is most definitely attended by the ELITE. Sayings that $10,000 attend a conference is anything but expensive is being elite.<p>Just deal with it and roll on already. Let's face it, only the BEST speakers doing all sorts of things are invited to speak at TED.
For better or for worse... I doubt Jeff Bezos, Meg Ryan, Larry Page, or even Jacqueline Novogratz would be attending and interacting at a conference that wasn't at least some bit elitist. To know that the fellow attendees are "peers" who have some comparable "level of achievement" puts them in a different mindset than being surrounded by people who are extremely passionate about something but may not have as much of a track record. The former scenario is networking for them, the latter is putting in face time/public relations. I think that if you make the TED conference itself more open, then you'll lose some of the big name people. The big name people who do attend will be in that "lecture to the audience" mode and likely leave right after the speeches.<p>TEDx is the non-elitist version of the TED. I think these are just as inspiring and motivating, but without the distraction of the big names. The character of the event is different(less money, prestige, and social posturing in the room) but the spirit of sharing ideas and doing what we can is the same. I think there is a place for both TED and TEDx in the world. Whichever you most want to attend depends on your own personal goals and circumstances.
I have a question, who decides who gets invited to TED? Is it just the organizers? Do they just sort through the entire applicant list and determine who is getting in based on what they've done'?