The two Ted Talks I will be analyzing in this journal are Sam Harris’s Science can answer moral questions and Kahneman’s Terry Wu’s Neuromarketing: The new science of consumer decisions.
In Sam Harris’s Ted Talk, he discusses how morality is not necessarily debatable; there are objectively “good” and “bad” values which Science can help us reach towards. His talk as a whole is extremely effective because he is a charismatic speaker who is able to steer our pathos into the narration he wants to give. For example, towards the end at 17:20, he argues that it is possible for entire cultures to focus on the wrong things, bringing up U.S. alt-right believers as well as Islamic extremists. He’s able to vividly convey his point by bringing up the most “evil” (at least to most people in our Western culture) examples that have surely previously penetrated our minds due to media influence. Hence, we’re able to soundly agree with him. Harris also cleverly interweaves jokes between his statements so his presentation isn’t dry, such as calling himself the “Ted Bundy of physics.” Because of Harris’s qualities as a speaker, I found his Ted Talk extremely entertaining to watch and also relatively easy to agree with.
In Terry Wu’s Ted talk, he discusses how a new field called neuromarketing (definitely informed by behavioral economics) is able to guide consumers towards making certain choices. I don’t think Wu is as charismatic a speaker as Harris, but he is still able to drive home powerful statements that make you double take. For example at 8:05, Wu begins discussing how Google tested 50 shades of blues to try to generate more clicks on their ads, and how one color was able to bring them $200 million in extra annual revenue. At this point, I’m sure most people in the crowd were in disbelief, but Wu then delivers a confirming line: “This is the power of neuromarketing.” Like Harris, Wu also uses relatable examples, like with the Amazon coffee machine review later in the talk.
Between the two talks, I feel like Wu has more “hard evidence” i.e numbers, graphs, etc. while Harris relies more on extremely convincing real-life examples as evidence, aiming to convince people’s pathos. This means they are each other’s pros and cons. Wu could be a better speaker and deliverer of his information, while Harris could possibly use even stronger evidence to convince his listeners.
Wu’s talk relates to my topic of behavioral economics because it also relies on human decision making and the subconscious biases we are often subject to, which immediately reminds me of Kahneman’s System 2. However, Wu’s neuromarketing seems to be more biological in nature, as he often refers back to specific regions in the brain.
For my final product, I think I can learn the most from Harris. Based on last year’s symposium speech, I feel like I definitely had the “hard facts” (for a high schooler at least), but was definitely lacking in charisma. I want to be able to deliver my message much more smoothly and enjoyably like Harris’s talk was. This in itself will allow my message to resonate with the listeners more.
Comments