Last weekend, I was talking with Ethan Zuckerman at a party, and we talked a little bit about the TED conferences and similar things. A few days later, there was an editorial in Nature suggesting that scientists could learn a lot from TED:
[P]erhaps the most critical key to success is the style of the talks. And here, those scientists wishing to inspire public audiences could take a few tips from the speakers in Oxford who addressed themes as various as biomimicry (Janine Benyus), the neuroscience of other people's rational and moral judgements (Rebecca Saxe) and supermassive black holes (Andrea Ghez). Their videos and many others should become available over the next few weeks.
The talks have a strict time limit of 18 minutes -- no interaction with the audience, and no questions except the informal ones asked in the extended conversation breaks. Academics used to talking for 30 to 45 minutes might imagine this to be severely constraining. But TED demonstrates that, for a general audience, 18 minutes is plenty for getting across context and key issues, while still forcing each speaker to focus on a message -- whether it be advocacy or the celebration of new knowledge.
There is also a welcome absence of PowerPoint presentations. Instead there are plenty of images -- but precious few professional scientific diagrams, which can quickly lose the audience's attention. This forces speakers to craft talks that can engage sophisticated but scientifically untutored listeners at their level. And it also encourages speakers to try for a freely flowing, relaxed presentation style, without notes. This can take hours of practice, and indeed it should -- the YouTube postings of these talks offer a potential audience of millions.
The combination of these got me thinking about what I would do for such a talk. Which in turn led to the thought that this would be a good blog topic. So:
You have eighteen minutes to talk to a general audience about something you find fascinating, and you can't use PowerPoint. What do you talk about?
I think I have an idea that would work.
If I were going to do this, I think I would talk about decoherence in quantum mechanics, and how it works to either separate the many "worlds" of the many-worlds interpretation or select out the classical outcomes in a "collapse" interpretation. The only visual that it would really need is maybe a couple of Mach-Zehnder pictures, though if forced to do without those, I could probably manage. I think I even see how to spin it in the usual way that TED talks seem to-- namely "You may ask why everyday objects don't behave like quantum mechanics says they should. The answer is that they do, you just can't see it."
I think it would be tricky to do well, but it would be an interesting challenge. It'd be a lot harder than putting together a PowerPoint presentation, which I can pretty much do in my sleep at this point.
So, if you were going to do a talk in this style, what would you talk about?
- Log in to post comments
I think I'd hold my talk about the difficulties of setting up a working economy in a simulated environment where barter doesn't replace money due to rampant inflation while keeping reasonable risk VS reward for the actors.
Or for short: How to setup a (semi-)functional economy in a massively multiplayer online game.
This is a great meme! I'd love to see SBers' TED talks.
Re: Who Cares
Bill? Is that you?
I'd comment on the secrets of TED...as here!
http://sciencecheerleader.com/tag/ted/
No Phil I'm not Bill. But now I'm curious why you ask.
The question presupposes that random blog readers have something worth talking about. Thank you for the compliment!
I would give a talk on the standard model, focusing on the geometry of gauge theories. The reason I think this is feasible is by comparison with Brian Greene's talk about string theory or Garret Lisi's talk about his E8 theory. Greene starts off discussing kaluza-klein theories and goes on to discuss string theory, without IMO conveying to the audience that these ideas are also central to the gauge theories of the standard model. At the end of Lisi's talk, the announcer/host/referree asking questions is most curious about how to understand the role in physics of this extremely symmetric E8 [manifold] which lives in a higher dimension --- the simple answer Lisi should have given is that there is a copy of E8 attached to each point of spacetime, and that it is actually the particular manner of connecting these copies of E8 to one another which determines a curvature and hence a force i.e. the basic fiber bundle picture which is common to all gauge theories, including the standard model. I really think that explaining fibre bundles, connections, and curvature using pictures would be interesting to a lot of non-specialist who would like to see something with a little more substance conscerning symmetry and higher dimensional geometry in physics, and all of this could be done within the context of the standard model, without going beyond the standard model into unverified hypothesis as in string theory or outright speculative territory as in E8 theory.
I would prefer talking how Yahoo should not consider any deals from Microsoft because Microsoft like the idea of pestering surfers and taking out their control.
Signature: Telling stories with right storyboarding presentation together with PowerPoint presentation is like owning a printing press and printing your own currency.