The other night Geekdom embedded two reporters in the celebration of ideas which was TEDxNSW and Lachlan and Dermot (better known online as @Warlach and @Commuter_Dirge) are now here to share their thoughts on the event.
For some background, TEDx is a series a locally hosted events based on the hugely successful model of the TED talks in the US. TED is based around the phrase “ideas worth spreading” and serves to provide a accessible platform for knowledge and information. While the TED talks are all online and available to anyone, there is something to be said for experiencing talks live while surrounded by other people, and judging by last night the format can work very well.
There were four speakers, along with two pre-recorded TED talks. Speakers included Andy Ridley, executive director at Earth Hour, David Malin, who spoke about how science changes our perceptions, Paul Gilding who spoke on our demand on resources versus how much planet we actually have, and finally John Allsopp who mused on the blending virtual worlds, reality, the web and ‘the real’.
(The two pre-recorded talks were by Elizabeth Gilbert and Golan Levin – you can follow both those links to watch them on the TED site; they’ve been live for a while so we won’t focus on them here.)
As, just like TED, TEDx will be posting the videos of the talks online, we thought that, instead of rehashing every aspect of the night we’d have a quick discussion over how well the night worked, the ideas raised, and thoughts for the future:
Lachlan:
So, what would you say the high point of the night was for yourself?
Dermot:
I found David Malin’s talk the most endearing by far, but in terms of a highlight, I was most impressed with Andy Ridley’s.
Lachlan:
How so?
Dermot:
I found his survey of the mature use and understanding of social and viral media throughout the Earth Hour campaign/s to be impressive.
Lachlan:
Yeah, I found Ridley’s comments some of the best of the night in terms of statements which could be directly applied – especially regarding social media and the acknowledgement that while letting a campaign go ‘open source’ is scary, it can also be hugely beneficial.
I think describing David Malin’s talk as “the most endearing” is very apt – the man certainly knows how to create a presentation.
Dermot:
Yeah, Ridley gave the sense of an excited amateur; someone who had made the rather major decision to make this an open source campaign, to “give the brand OUT”, as he put it, and was being consistently surprised and delighted by its results. He didn’t present himself as an expert or guru spruiking a product/platform etc which was a welcome change, and Malin had the air of an avuncular college professor (Dr Karl-esque)
Lachlan:
I think the common thread through both of the first two talks was a clear message of experience and discovery changing perceptions – whether they’re about Climate Change, or the universe in general.
Dermot:
Yeah, an altering in perceptions; sought out by one, honoured and commemorated in the other.
Lachlan:
Exactly. Malin ended his talk with almost shouting at the audience that “Perceptions still needed to be changed!” after all. Which leads us well into the third speaker: Paul Gilding.
Dermot:
Yep. Paul was an interesting one for me, a man who had undergone a major shift in his approach to addressing a fundamental issue, and yet had remained steadfast in his commitment, despite the huge shift in modus operandi.
Lachlan:
Yeah, it is a major shift from the radical protestor to the corporate consultant but I think what he was really putting forward is that we need to provide the right motivation to motivate the right sectors.
Capitalist corporations and countries live and die by numbers and predictions – by using that approach to show how, on a scientific and mathematic level, our current growth is unsustainable he can present it to people in a way that they understand.
Dermot:
Actually, that’s interesting, in that he was arguing from the position of “make them change by presenting an argument of change that appeals to them / that they will understand” and yet managed to paint a radical picture of potential economic/political/population if more radical change isn’t achieved soon.
Lachlan:
I mean, he acknowledged towards the end of course that he thinks overall we’ve left it too long, and that the change needed will come as a result of the impetus of extreme situations (war etc) while still maintaining that he saw the future as a hopeful one overall.
Dermot:
Teah. He’s realistic not to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios, and he did draw a good parrallel with the seizure of the US automotive industry for war production during WWII. He still did come across as a dyed-in-the-wool radical though, which I think, by the end, had some of the crowd put offside…
Lachlan:
Finally, the last speaker, John Allsopp – I know, looking at the feedback, that he equally confused some people with the geeky jump towards the end, while personally as someone interested in augmented reality, I don’t think he went far enough, but I guess these are short presentations.
Dermot:
True, that was my problem with Allsopp’s presentation. His technological determinist arguments I’d heard (and had heard dismissed) well before, and what practical technical elements he touched on were only broached briefly, if not apologetically.
Lachlan:
Yeah. I love the idea he raised of ARML (Augmented Reality Markup Language) but as it was sort of tacked on it didn’t do a lot to contradict my thoughts with the rest of his presentation.
Dermot:
Well, these are the questions that do need to be answered NOW when it comes to the nature of developing augmented reality tech. Yes, we know what it’ll be like but more importantly, we need to decide HOW this reality will be organised.
Lachlan:
Exactly. I guess if it inspires people to who aren’t interested in it at the moment to start looking into augmented reality implications, the talk will have done some good,
So over all, how did you find the night? Any compliments, suggestions, criticisms?
Dermot:
Hmmm, I guess it depends on what the organisers want the talks to develop into, and what determination they have to gather speakers with the sort of passion, elocution and experience that we expect from the TED experience. We don’t need more marketing presentations. Nor do we need more out-of-touch lectures.
Lachlan:
True. The fact that Andy Ridley was the closest thing any of the talks came to representing a company or service is I think incredibly important – there are plenty of places for marketing presentations, but I think for its first night TEDxNSW did a good job of providing something different.
My only criticism of the event was that not enough people seemed to hear about it in time to come along – there was a good crowd, sure, but still plenty of empty seats.
Dermot:
Ridley did stray dangerously close to that line when he did plug his blog at the end of his presentation, but I think it’s a testament to the nature of TEDx that that was the exception (and notable as such) rather than par for the course.
well, yes, I’m not sure how they went about promoting the event, but one certainly had that impression.
that said, a lot of people were at the NextByte in sydney as well…
Lachlan:
And I guess, to wrap it up: final thoughts?
Dermot:
Bring on the next one? and do yourself a favour and turn up? Please: it had 800 pound robot arms, people.
Lachlan:
Hahaha, “do yourself a favour? When did you become Molly Meldrum?
Dermot:
We’re done here.
We’ll post links to the videos once they go live, but until then check out the TEDx site – there are tons of events around the world and even more in Australia coming up.
Last night Geekdom embedded two reporters in the celebration of ideas which was TEDxNSW and, as the title of this post suggests, the night was a great achievement. Geekdom employees Lachlan and Dermot (better known online as @Warlach and @Commuter_Dirge) went along and are here to share their thoughts.
TEDx is a series a locally hosted events based on the hugely successful model of the TED talks in the US. TED is based around the phrase “ideas worth spreading” and serves to provide a accessible platform for knowledge and information. While the TED talks are all online and available to anyone, there is something to be said for experiencing talks live while surrounded by other people, and judging by last night the format can work very well.
There were four speakers, along with two pre-recorded TED talks. Speakers included Andy Ridley, executive director at Earth Hour, David Malin, who spoke about how science changes our perceptions, Paul Gilding who spoke on our demand on resources versus how much planet we actually have, and finally John Allsopp who mused on the blending virtual worlds, reality, the web and ‘the real’.
(The two pre-recorded talks were by Elizabeth Gilbert and Golan Levin – you can follow both those links to watch them on the TED site; they’ve been live for a while so we won’t focus on them here.)
As, just like TED, TEDx will be posting the videos of the talks online, we thought that, instead of rehashing every aspect of the night we’d have a quick discussion over how well the night worked, the ideas raised, and thoughts for the future:
Lachlan:
So, what would you say the high point of the night was for yourself?
Dermot:
I found David Malin’s talk the most endearing by far, but in terms of a highlight, I was most impressed with Andy Ridley’s.
Lachlan:
How so?
Dermot:
I found his survey of the mature use and understanding of social and viral media throughout the Earth Hour campaign/s to be impressive.
Lachlan:
Yeah, I found Ridley’s comments some of the best of the night in terms of statements which could be directly applied – especially regarding social media and the acknowledgement that while letting a campaign go ‘open source’ is scary, it can also be hugely beneficial.
I think describing David Malin’s talk as “the most endearing” is very apt – the man certainly knows how to create a presentation.
Dermot:
Yeah, Ridley gave the sense of an excited amateur; someone who had made the rather major decision to make this an open source campaign, to “give the brand OUT”, as he put it, and was being consistently surprised and delighted by its results. He didn’t present himself as an expert or guru spruiking a product/platform etc which was a welcome change, and Malin had the air of an avuncular college professor (Dr Karl-esque)
Lachlan:
I think the common thread through both of the first two talks was a clear message of experience and discovery changing perceptions – whether they’re about Climate Change, or the universe in general.
Dermot:
Yeah, an altering in perceptions; sought out by one, honoured and commemorated in the other.
Lachlan:
Exactly. Malin ended his talk with almost shouting at the audience that “Perceptions still needed to be changed!” after all. Which leads us well into the third speaker: Paul Gilding.
Dermot:
Yep. Paul was an interesting one for me, a man who had undergone a major shift in his approach to addressing a fundamental issue, and yet had remained steadfast in his commitment, despite the huge shift in modus operandi.
Lachlan:
Yeah, it is a major shift from the radical protestor to the corporate consultant but I think what he was really putting forward is that we need to provide the right motivation to motivate the right sectors.
Capitalist corporations and countries live and die by numbers and predictions – by using that approach to show how, on a scientific and mathematic level, our current growth is unsustainable he can present it to people in a way that they understand.
Dermot:
Actually, that’s interesting, in that he was arguing from the position of “make them change by presenting an argument of change that appeals to them / that they will understand” and yet managed to paint a radical picture of potential economic/political/population if more radical change isn’t achieved soon.
Lachlan:
I mean, he acknowledged towards the end of course that he thinks overall we’ve left it too long, and that the change needed will come as a result of the impetus of extreme situations (war etc) while still maintaining that he saw the future as a hopeful one overall.
Dermot:
Teah. He’s realistic not to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios, and he did draw a good parrallel with the seizure of the US automotive industry for war production during WWII. He still did come across as a dyed-in-the-wool radical though, which I think, by the end, had some of the crowd put offside…
Lachlan:
Finally, the last speaker, John Allsopp – I know, looking at the feedback, that he equally confused some people with the geeky jump towards the end, while personally as someone interested in augmented reality, I don’t think he went far enough, but I guess these are short presentations.
Dermot:
True, that was my problem with Allsopp’s presentation. His technological determinist arguments I’d heard (and had heard dismissed) well before, and what practical technical elements he touched on were only broached briefly, if not apologetically.
Lachlan:
Yeah. I love the idea he raised of ARML (Augmented Reality Markup Language) but as it was sort of tacked on it didn’t do a lot to contradict my thoughts with the rest of his presentation.
Dermot: Well, these are the questions that do need to be answered NOW when it comes to the nature of developing augmented reality tech. Yes, we know what it’ll be like but more importantly, we need to decide HOW this reality will be organised.
Lachlan:
Exactly. I guess if it inspires people to who aren’t interested in it at the moment to start looking into augmented reality implications, the talk will have done some good,
So over all, how did you find the night? Any compliments, suggestions, criticisms?
Dermot:
Hmmm, I guess it depends on what the organisers want the talks to develop into, and what determination they have to gather speakers with the sort of passion, elocution and experience that we expect from the TED experience. We don’t need more marketing presentations. Nor do we need more out-of-touch lectures.
Lachlan:
True. The fact that Andy Ridley was the closest thing any of the talks came to representing a company or service is I think incredibly important – there are plenty of places for marketing presentations, but I think for its first night TEDxNSW did a good job of providing something different.
My only criticism of the event was that not enough people seemed to hear about it in time to come along – there was a good crowd, sure, but still plenty of empty seats.
Dermot:
Ridley did stray dangerously close to that line when he did plug his blog at the end of his presentation, but I think it’s a testament to the nature of TEDx that that was the exception (and notable as such) rather than par for the course.
well, yes, I’m not sure how they went about promoting the event, but one certainly had that impression.
that said, a lot of people were at the NextByte in sydney as well…
Lachlan: And I guess, to wrap it up: final thoughts?
Dermot: bring on the next one? and do yourself a favour and turn up? Please: it had robot arms, people.
Lachlan: Hahaha, “do yourself a favour? When did you become Molly Meldrum?
Dermot:
We’re done here.
We’ll post links to the videos once they go live, but until then check out the TEDx site – there are tons of events around the world and even more in Australia coming up.
The landscape of the internet is always changing. It’s the biggest problem with terms such as Web 2.0 – by defining the web as something that has changed rather than something that is changing it misleads people who are less web savvy into thinking there’s a finite amount of things to learn. A perfect example can be found in internet marketing tools where it’s more important to focus on how usage is changing than on any individual system.
we tried a seeding campaign (although we were honest and transparent about who we were and what we were trying to achieve) and the simple fact is that the people we were trying to reach weren’t interested in what we had to say. They wanted to hear from someone who’d taken the time to build up a relationship, listen, develop rapport, engage…and that isn’t achieved by a three line forum comment posting complete with a backlink.
