The Problem of Cowardly TED Speakers
The Problem of Cowardly TED Speakers
Don't waste the gift of a large, secure platform
I feel exasperated by how rarely “public intellectuals” speak on controversial issues.1 I speak of people who acquire huge platforms with best-selling books, widely viewed TED (technology, entertainment and design) talks, and millions of followers. I speak of university professors with unprecedented job security because of tenure.
As of this writing, over 420 people reached over 5,000,000 people with their TED talk. These talks lead to wealthy book deals, expensive public speaking opportunities, and a social media outreach to millions of people weekly. With this kind of platform, you get access to characters who engineer societal change - government leaders, captains of industry, university presidents, and four-star generals.
The purpose of a platform and job security is to do what the rest of society cannot: be a voice for those who cannot do the same because of income insecurity, obscurity, or temperament.
What do I mean by controversial issues?
I refer to reproductive justice. Abortion. Contraception. Sex education.
I refer to the criminal justice system. Capital punishment. Industries and individuals who profit from incarceration rates. Prison education programs.
I refer to privacy rights and freedom of speech.
I refer to opportunity inequalities. Suboptimal healthcare service. Large geographical distances to healthy food. Lesser quality teachers. Inaccessible slots to specialized grade schools, internships, colleges, and universities.2
I refer to undercorrections and overcorrections in organizations around sex, race, gender, socioeconomic class, and a wide range of dimensions under the umbrella of diversity. An area where we often get stuck on a strategy instead of the outcome. Whereby we forget to ask questions and test what works, modifying what we think and do as new information arise.
Despite a number of societal controversies that affect the literal life and death of citizens, the next move of top TED speakers and their ilk tend to be:
a quote on Twitter to be more mindful, gritty, vulnerable, or a general thought that toxic positivity is bad.
a picture on Instagram with a movie star, where they talked about mindfulness, grit, vulnerable, or toxic positivity
an audio clip where the suggested answer for living better is to be more mindful, vulnerable, vulnerable, and avoid toxic positivity.
Accept a Drop in Likability
Rarely do influential people name a specific adversary for the concerns that brought them wealth and fame.
Which schools kill creativity?
Which leaders are not inspiring action?
Which groups promote toxic positivity?
Which higher education institutions are “inhospitable sites to faculty of color”?
What evidence exists that a diversity initiative offers more benefit than harm?
One of the reasons highly paid authors and speakers do not use their name for advocacy is because they don’t want to lose potential consumers. If you state your position on whether women should have access to abortions, you alienate nearly 50% of the country (in the United States).3 Be brave they say. Stand up they say. While they are eerily reluctant to dissent from mainstream thinking.
I realize it is controversial for me to give greater space toward undercorrections than overcorrections on the topics of race, sex, and gender. I do so because in the arenas of TED speakers, publishing houses, Big Tech, journalism, and academia, strategic plans and initiatives exist to address undercorrections. Today, it is rarely courageous to raise these topics in these work and school settings. On the contrary, you would be far more likely to be ostracized for speaking or writing anything suggesting skepticism.
Consider the value of addressing overcorrections. This includes asking questions of what the problem is (if any), how limited or generalized the problem is, and what the trajectory of change is. Program evaluation efforts are typically designed to assess progress in the outcomes that are targeted. It is rare to find a problem that is boundless, infecting everyone and every part of an organization with no change over time. Yet, most (if not all) anti-racism sentiments suggest the absence of boundary conditions. You often find statements such as “we will never rid the community of racism” by the chief diversity officer at Tufts University. This kind of statement begs for a retort by scientists who rely on hypothesis testing and evidence in popular TED talks and best-selling books. And yet, eerie silence…
To say something counter to the mainstream is risky. Most people calculate the social persecution and potential salary loss as too big to outweigh the benefits of public communication. The academics with tenure stay silent in public, sustaining incoming invitations to lunch dates and happy hours. All the while, offering opposing remarks in short emails and small, private basement gatherings.
Fewer Words, More Action
Popular work resonates because the message matches our affinities. The authors approve our feelings and biases. The authors stay within the bounds of what we believe. They do not disturb us.
Society needs well-intentioned disturbances.
Tell a large percentage of society something they don’t already know or might not want to hear and there is an opportunity for growth.
When the teacher says something students might not know or want to hear in the classroom, education is possible.
Workers who address unspoken problems in the boardroom offer gifts that exceed reticent, head nodding group members.
Make some adversaries - pointing out concrete, questionable, dark spots.
Get a university president to experiment with a different approach to admissions, and collect data to see what works and what doesn’t, and revise accordingly.
Help a legislator progress on a messy issue where there is a deadlock disagreement.
Aim for no more than 80% approval. Any higher and you’re probably sanding off the edges.
Do not discard uniqueness to fit in - your blend of history, experience, and information synthesized that is unlike other human beings. Your rough edges reflect unshared information that the group benefits from. The world will not move toward utopian ideals by limiting platforms to charismatic, inoffensive, polite, and likeable characters.
If you are fortunate enough to possess societal reach, use the opportunity. Risk alienating a few folks for a greater cause than expanding your customer base. What’s the point of security and success in the absence of courageous action?
If you enjoyed this newsletter, please leave a ❤️. Even better, share this and initiate deep conversation. And if you read The Art of Insubordination (with the Strategies and Rules of Principled Dissent), send me thoughts, questions, or beefs. I love hearing from readers.
………………………………………………………………………………..
Extra Curiosities
The READ - Naomi Klein unearths how Big Tech is far from being a supporter of social activism. They are allowing political dissidents to be crushed in India.
The LISTEN/WATCH - I spent an hour with The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). An organization offering protection against tyrannical power. Check out our podcast episode. And if you want a energy boost, check out my interview with the boisterous host of The Greatness Machine.
Of course there are plenty of exceptions such as Sharon McMahon. Just follow her on Instagram to see what I mean. She puts skin in the game and that’s why a large subsection of society adores her. And it’s why I appreciate conversing with her.
This issue is where the largest bulk of best-selling authors and TED speakers aid society for the better. One of my favorite exemplars is Dolly Chugh, who is about to unleash a second thought-provoking book - A More Just Future - on how to be the type of person who dedicates significant time and energy to helping disadvantaged people and populations. She puts skin in the game.
I could do better but I try to leverage my voice for women’s reproductive choices, including access to abortion. I speak often on podcasts on how to be more persuasive. This includes how to avoid getting stuck into the moral morass of labeling and being labeled as either pro-choice or pro-life. This includes deconstructing the powerful tools used by modern day principled rebels such as Dr. Caitlin Bernard.