In this entertaining TED presentation Rob Reid attempts to break down and rationalise the numbers that the studios typically throw at us to convince us that copyright infringement is a big issue. In doing so he discovers that copyright infringement costs the film and tv crowd more jobs than the industry actually has available and has a financial cost that is greater than what much of the agricultural sector can produce.
Astoundingly he goes on to show that many of the industries concerned about piracy are continuing to grow, suggesting that piracy may not be the deadly killer we have been lead to believe that it is.
Crucially though this presentation is aimed more at the funny bone than the brain. While it's good for a giggle it would not be terribly surprising if the numbers didn't actually stack up.
In the video above Jonathan Haidt argues that spirituality in the form of united religions is a by product of an innate tendency to co-operate with each other. This tendency to co-operate, it is argued, is beneficial as it helps us survive.
While this goes down a strong evolutionary line that may turn a lot of religious viewers/readers away from the contents of this page and the video itself recoiling because of the beliefs of the presenter its entirely possible that these people are missing the point. Wihle the presenter clearly argues against religion as correct he does argue for religion being beneficial.
Religion provides something for people to organise around. It gives them a common set of beliefs and a common higher goal. It gives them something that is more than themselves.
For those who have heard me say I believe in church but not in god this is what I'm talking about. Religious communities can, and should, be a powerful force for good. In the end, as long as that's what they're doing, that's really all that should matter.
Without getting to grim the take home points from this video are:
- It's important to talk about death and how we want to die
As we have extended the life expectancy we have achieved attaining more old age, not more youth. This means that the way in which we die has become a slower, more drawn out process. While there are techniques that can be used to keep us alive longer they will not help us avoid death, they will only help as delay it. At some point people may wish to opt out of these techniques. However by the time people reach that point they are often unable to talk for themselves. As such it becomes important to have conversations about death while we are still healthy enough to do so
- Ask people who they would want to talk for them if they were no longer able to.
- Ask people if they have spoken to the person who they want to speak for them about what they want.
While this video may seem like it is advocating for Euthanasia it isn't really. Euthanasia is typically seen as taking an active role in bringing about pre-natural death. What is being discussed here is more about when you should stop trying to prevent death occurring.
Vulnerability is the birth place of creativity, innovation, and change.
Creatioin is making something that has never been made before, there is nothing more vulnerable than that.
Shame is the birthplace of vulnerability.
Shame identifies a problem. Shame leads to creativity, innovation, and change as long as shame exists there will be a desire to avoid it. It is best to avoid it by removing the source. The best way to remove the source is through change.
This idea is related Adler's idea of compensating for inferiority. Shame is the idea that there is something bad about ourselves. It is the idea that you, or something about you, is unacceptable.
Shame leads to the feeling of being an imposter. Ideally this leads you to work harder to feel like less of an imposter.
Competence is no longer enough.
Laziness and procrastination are the enemy.
Madness is not a necessity.
Hard work is not enough.
Passion is important. It should be followed.
Passion is not the same as something you find interesting.
Passion is a great and consuming love.
Relationships have become a modern excuse. It is possible to be successful and be a good person.
In this Ted talk Andrew Stanton of Pixar fame outlines what he believes are the keys to a good story. Chief among these are the idea that storytelling is joke telling.
Make your audience care
Make a promise
Communicate that the story will be worth the audience's time
Ask them to solve a problem
The audience wants to work for their meal, but they don't want to know they are doing this
We are born problem solving
The absence of information draws us in
Don't give people 4, give them 2+2
Have a strong underlying theme
While it is important to have something guiding action and uncertainty moment to moment it is also important to have a larger idea or question to carry people through the entire film.
Aim to create a sense of wonder
If you capture your audience's imagination you have them along for the ride.
Use your structure
The order you present things is important to the equation of story
Should you tell your story linearly or non-linearly? What will make people care the most?
Good Stories are inevitable but not predictable
Good stories are propelled forward by something. Often something within one of the characters, something that drives them forward. This drive makes the progress of the story inevitable but, hopefully, not predictable. There must be something of which we are unsure in order for us to want to learn more.
Avoid Static points in the story.
When stories go static they die
Create characters that have a spine
Great characters have an unconscious itch that they can't scratch, a driving impulse such as a need to please one's father
Wall E's was to find beauty
Nemo's father's was to prevent harm
Woody's is to protect his child
This itch can lead to 'bad' but understandable choices
This is the WHY idea again
Make your main character likeable
Woody was likeable despite a need to be the top toy
Drama is anticipation mingled with uncertainty
What will happen next?
How will it all conclude in the long term?
Don't be afraid to break the standard rules of story telling
Pixar's rules for Toy Story
- No songs
- no I want moments
- no happy village
- no love story
- no villain
These went against all the standard rules of animated films at the time (think of any standard animated Disney film ever)
Use what you know
All writers write from experience (in fact there is a deeper argument here about how imagination necessarily relies on experience but we won't go into that)
Andrew Stanton uses the particular example of how, early in life, he was given a second chance. It is that idea of a second chance that comes through in Finding Nemo. Nemo is the father's second chance.
In this video Barry Schwatz argrues that incentives are a poor way to create better workers not only when better is defined by morality or ethics, but also when it is defined by efficiency. The talk focuses on the importance of moral character and addresses the fear that we may be losing it in the modern corporate environment.
Often when I'm tutoring the personality course students seem to misinterpret Introversion as some kind of undesirable, disease-like state. This Ted talk seems to suggest that this is a misunderstanding that extends beyond the classroom.
One key misunderstanding about introversion is that it is the same as being shy. In fact many people believe that introversion is essentially being painfully shy, this is incorrect. In its simplest way introversion reflects a preference for quiet activities rather than noisy activities. This includes smaller social situations rather than rowdy parties. If introversion were shyness introverts would not simply express a preference for quiet small gathering with friends over large parties. Instead they would seek to avoid any social contact at all. Finally it should be noted that introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum. It is not a binary state of being, everyone is a little bit of both.
There are arguments that introversion (or extroversion) is biologically based and this is reflected in the way that the preference for quiet activities emerges. Introverts require less stimulation to reach the same level of internal neural excitement as extroverts. In fact if they are given the same level of stimulation that extroverts require they may become overloaded leading to an unpleasant experience. One popular example of this is the lemon drop test. In response to a drop of lemon being placed on their tongue introverts produce more saliva and introverts. A more practical difference is found with risk taking beavhiour. As increased risk equals increased stimulation introverts typically seek out options that are less risky than their extroverted counterparts.
With these things in mind we can now move from an understanding of introversion as shyness to an understanding of introversion as a different level of optimal stimulation. In this way it should become obvious that introverts should be able to thrive in areas where extroverts will find it difficult to do so as well as the other way around.
One key area where introverts tend to pull ahead is with creativity. Creativity requires an incubation period. Such incubation is often induced through isolation. People more comfortable with isolation are more likely to get to this point.
In the video above Susan Cain argues that the modern emphasis on Extroversion is the result of cultural accumulation. The focus on the doer rather than the thinker, the salesman rather than the inventor, who you know not what you know, the extrovert rather than the introvert. She argues that this is potentially dangerous primarily because there is no correlation between the person with the loudest voice and the person with the best idea. To put it another way the introvert and the extrovert are equally likely to be the person the group should listen to but society teaches us to listen to the one who is likely to spread their words or volunteer their voice. Society volunteers the extrovert leaving 30-50% of people's ideas in the dark.
Susan's calls to action:
- Stop the madness of enforced and constant group work
It's also important to work on your own
- Go to the wilderness
Isolate yourself for a while to help ideas form
- Examine your 'suitcase' and ask why it's there
Share and engage with these things, make sure that the whole population is heard not just the loudest 50-70%
Will you enjoy reading Outlier's by Malcolm Gladwell? The short answer is almost certainly yes. Gladwell is an excellent story teller and here he puts those skills to use in a way that is both entertaining and educational.
Outliers will challenge the world view of anyone who comes down hard on the Nature side of the Nature Nurture debate and should even force willpower preachers to re-examine their view that success comes down to individuals. Throughout the book the role of the environment is thrust forward and championed in areas ranging from professional baseball to rice paddy farmers. Even Bill Gates and Steve Jobs fail to emerge unscathed. In all cases it is suggested that, while the individual's interests, preferences, and tendencies helped them to succeed, the environment provided the necessary soil for the flowers of their talent to truly blossom. Interestingly in many cases Gladwell seems to suggest that the emergence of talent is a necessary consequence of the environment working on the individual rather than the other way around.
Click the image above to buy the book
Click the image above to buy the Audio Book
Watch a video of Malcolm Gladwell discussing a different topic below:
Digital Art is the art of creating photos that cannot be taken with a camera - the creation of impossible photos.
Erik Johannsen is interested in what you can do with a photograph after the shutter button is pressed. He felt that traditional photography was limited to essentially being in the right place at the right time. He felt that anyone could do that and he wanted to do more (arguably though anyone can do what he does as well, it will just involve more work in post than 'simply' taking a photograph).
So why not abandon photography completely and pick up a paintbrush instead? Photography portrays a level of realism that other mediums do not offer, or at least do not offer as readily. It is the subversion and manipulation of this realism that Johannsen enjoys and requires in his art.
Successful subversion primarily requires planning - knowing what you want the end product to look like before you begin so that you can collect the pieces necessary to complete the puzzle. Key considerations include perspective, lighting, colour, contrast, brightness, and how you will make the end product appear as a seamless solitary image despite the fact that it's made of many different images.
Skip to 9:00 for the most practical/applicable part of the video.
If you know everything about a person's external environment you can only predict 10% of their happiness
The absence of disease is not health
Happiness doesn't come from success, success can come from happiness.
When you are happy all business outcomes improve.
It is fairly common for photographers to offer clients a few packages to choose from. Some photographers offer more choice, some less. Which is best?
Despite what you may initially think less choice is usually better than more choice. Fewer choices mean that fewer decisions must be made while more choices means more decisions must be made. More decisions = more fatigure = less enthusiasm = less sales.
In this video Alexis Ohanian uses the example of a Greenpeace 'name the whale' poll to demonstrate how losing control of your message can be a good thing. While Greenpeace wanted the whale to have a sensible name they got more attention by providing a silly name then conceding to the wishes of their audience. Importantly while they didn't achieve one small goal, giving the whale a sensible name, the attention that they garnered through the process helped them achieve bigger goals. The most important being that awareness of the issue was increased.
While Mr. Splashy Pants was not their first choice it was their BEST choice.
Here the examples of how the Chinese Government and Barack Obama use and control social media is highlighted. Here it is suggested that a lack of control can be beneficial.
What is a VC looking for?
The single most important thing is YOU
Most pitches are 15-30 minutes if you're lucky.
In Reality you have far less time than this to make your first impression
What then do you need to convey?
- Integrity
- Passion
- Experience
- Knowledge (domain expertise, know your market and your area)
- Skills (in you and/or in your team)
- Leadership (especially when leading a team)
- Commitment
- Vision
- Realism
- Coachability (You must be prepared to listen and learn)
How deliver these and other messages?
All pitches are emotional.
At the start you have about 10 seconds to get people's attention.
Make sure you grab their emotional attention and keep the emotions positive.
Make things better, and better, and better until you reach your knockout punch at the end.
Things that will help your pitch:
- Logical Progression (don't skip steps)
- Link to things your audience will understand
- Validate your idea (sales, success, evidence that the world wants your product)
- Show a believable upside
Things that hurt
- Things that are untrue
- Things your audience doesn't understand
- Things that make the audience think for you
- Inconsistencies
- Basic errors including typos etc.
Presentation tips
- Keep the focus on YOU during a presentation. That is what they are interested in afterall
- Avoid bullet points, aim only for images
Include:
Company Logo
Business Overview
Management Team (highlight relevant experience and skills)
Market
Product
Business Model (how do you make money?)
Strategic relationships (helps with validation)
Competition and how you're different (all companies and products have competition, even if it's only the old way of doing things)
Barriers to Entry
Financial Overview
Use of Proceeds
Capital and Valuation (how much do you want?)
In the video above there will be a phrase that will catch your attention:
Find the Pepsis
At first this is unlikely to make sense, afterall surely there is only one Pepsi, right? Wrong is actually the correct answer.
Instead of looking for the single best combination of ingredients to satisfy everyone you should look for the combination of ingredients that satisfies each group.
With the right data this could be achieved through Factor Analysis.
This review of Freakonomics may look a little different to other book reviews you may have seen. This may be related to the fact that Freakonomics is likely to be different to others books you have read but is most likely due to the fact that most of this review is a video. Why review a book with a video? The answer is simple - the video is the book. Rather the video is one of the authors of the book presenting information outlined in the book in a similar style to the way the book is written. As such if you enjoy this presentation, in terms of information and style, chances are you will also enjoy reading Freakonomics.
Oddly enough while people are quick to criticise news networks, such as Fox in the US or even the Herald locally, our new information source, the internet, is not yet subjected to the same critical eye. Yet in this age of increasing personalisation Facebook, Google, and other providers using similar algorithms to determine the relevance of information are acting as the new censors. Ironically though this censorship does not (yet) serve to expose you to the views of the censor, instead it seeks to expose you to your own views. In so doing it will reinforce your existing beliefs at the expense of providing opposing viewpoints.
This is especially dangerous given the way that we work psychologically. If we hold a particular viewpoint we are likely to hold onto it even in the face of conflicting evidence. In fact we will use any supporting evidence at our disposal, no matter how weak, to counter any perceived need to adjust our viewpoint. Furthermore instance of information that are in line with our viewpoint are more likely to be remembered than those that do not. This all culminates in an idea known as confirmation bias - essentially our tendency to continue to believe things that we already believe.
When our innate confirmation bias is combined with an external confirmation bias the danger is that false/incorrect beliefs may be held even more deeply. Afterall instead of information in line with our thoughts being the exception to the rule the additional filter will now ensure that our belief is the rule.
In the video above the presenter rightly points to the importance of being exposed to information outside or personal bubble and suggests that those from Facebook and Google should listen. Arguably they may feel that the focus on social networking should achieve some of this already as we are being exposed to the filters of others. However in order for this to hold the exposure to these filters needs to be immune from the relevance shaping that we have seen occuring, so far it is not.
New dog, old tricks?
In the video below Joe Sabia talks about how storytelling has changed over time...
Or should that be how it has stayed the same over time?
Really the take home message in this presentation is one of consistency rather than one of change.
Ironically it is also worth noting that while the technology he has chosen to tell his story does enable him to tell his story it is little better than a powerpoint presentation. While one could argue that some of his examples are performed live or on the fly, such as the use of google, these examples would need to have been pre-prepared. As such the live on-the-flyness of them becomes somewhat irrelevant. In fact the one thing that could not be easily replicated in powerpoint is the use of the camera at the end of the presentation. However this adds very little to the presentation as a whole and could also be replicated (or outdone) by cutting to a live feed of the audience..
At this stage then he has failed to make a strong case for the basis of his argument - the idea that storytelling evolves to take advantage of new mediums. In order to truly demonstrate his point greater interaction with the device or the audience would need to have formed a key component of the presentation.
However this does not mean that the ipad has failed where other mediums have succeeded. It simply means that storytelling has not caught up with this particular piece of technology just yet - that or this particular piece of technology has nothing new to offer and/or is merely a passing fad that will not need to be adapted to.
