Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label Comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comments. Show all posts

Monday, January 28, 2013

Comments we loved this year: The polite critique

Jon-Ronson

TED Talks often get 100 or more comments — a mixed bag of kudos, critiques and questions. Looking back on the year, here are a few comments that wowed us.

Every video on TED.com is carefully selected, but not every TEDster will like every talk. Disagree with a speaker’s logic, methods or sources? We want to hear why. This comment begs to differ without getting hostile, leaving the door wide open for anyone — maybe even the speaker himself — to feel comfortable responding.

Below, commenter Anthony Townsend gently critiques Jon Ronson’s “Strange answers to the psychopath test”:

 “A visually striking and rhetorically powerful talk. However, I’m afraid that I must forward my opinion that this talk is peppered with gross oversimplifications and distortions of psychiatric and psychological diagnostic procedures and practice. Blind adherence to criteria and checklists has never been the practice of mental health professionals nor are grey areas overlooked.

The DSM-IV-TR is here presented as a ‘bible’ of mental health when, in fact, it is simply a descriptive taxonomy intended to supplement professional assessment and treatment planning rather than exclusively inform it. I did enjoy this talk but I feel that Ronson fell into the very trap that he mentioned at the outset: He took a misinformed and superficial glance at the mental health profession and explored those fringe elements unaided by trained professionals who could speak to the contrary.

As a practicing clinician I can attest to the value of diagnostic manuals, but it should be noted that professional judgement, recognition of the subjective meaning of the patient’s experiences and sources of collateral information all work together to create a picture of an individual’s mental state. While Ronson pursued an interesting topic, I feel that his sources were misinformed, his data biased and his motives perhaps misguided as he came to pursue that which is interesting rather than that which is true.”

Bookmark and Share

View the original article here

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Comments we loved this year: The speaker query

Amy-Cuddy-Wonder-Woman

TED Talks often get 100 or more comments — a mixed bag of kudos, critiques and questions. Looking back on the year, here are a few comments that wowed us.

Our speakers want to hear from you! If something in the talk was unclear or you’re wondering where the research will go next, don’t be shy – ask about it. Many speakers check their talk pages routinely, so it’s the perfect place to seek answers and updates.

Here, commenter Adel Alsuhaimion asks a question of Amy Cuddy about her talk “Your body language shapes who you are”:

“Well presented topic & very useful tools. Thank you.

You’re absolutely right, Amy, that body language can and will change the outcome of many situations where face-to-face contact is the case.

I wonder if the same conclusions can be generalized to present time visual/audio communications via laptops and or iPhones? Would body language effect still prevail or contract due to limited viewing through the 4?X6? tiny screens?

Just curious!”

Read Cuddy’s response »

Commenter Karim Nasser addresses a question to Max Little about :A test for Parkinson’s with a phone call”:

“This is truly amazing, I don’t know much about PD and I wonder, does early detection help treat the disease?”

Read Little’s response »

Commenter Michael Bois on Margaret Heffernan’s talk “Dare to disagree “:

“I notice that some comments suggest it’s difficult to develop such an organisational culture. If you’re part of this school of thought it is possible that you are either the fearful employee or the unchallengeable leader. World class businesses – and people for that matter – are seekers of truth. We don’t mind if you ruffle our feathers provided your aim is to find the best solution.

That said, this can be dangerous ground for many organisations. If you hope to foster a culture of ‘disagreement’ it’s important to provide a structure for disagreements to be raised and managed. This will differ of course from one business to the next.

While the notion is undeniably beneficial, can anyone provide examples of its effective (or ineffective) implementation? How was the culture taught and to what demographic? What resources were required to facilitate disagreements? What happened if disagreements got out of hand? How were boundaries set to manage interpersonal relationships and boss vs employee expectations? If there are any texts or journals on this topic please post a link as a reply.”

Read Heffernan’s response »

Bookmark and Share

View the original article here