ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ม.ค. 2020
- Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized Talk recommendations and more.
Is our obsession with efficiency actually making us less efficient? In this revelatory talk, writer and historian Edward Tenner discusses the promises and dangers of our drive to get things done as quickly as possible -- and suggests seven ways we can use "inspired inefficiency" to be more productive.
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. You're welcome to link to or embed these videos, forward them to others and share these ideas with people you know. For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), submit a Media Request here: media-requests.TED.com
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![TREASURE - 'KING KONG' COMEBACK SPECIAL [THE TREASURE SHOW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jx1wyMaQzf0/mqdefault.jpg)
In summary:
1. Take the scenic route - There's more to learn out there.
2. Get up from the couch - Unhealthy minds and bodies are distracted and inefficient.
3. Monetize your mistakes - (and embrace plenty ) Often the mistakes have been the million dollar ideas.
4.Try the hard way - Summarizing is a more accurate way to learn, and half-assed learning can cost us more time than time spent actively learning by summarizing.
5. Security through diversity - The world is constantly changing, perspective is important as processes become obsolete.
6. Achieve safety through redundancy - Multiple well developed independent systems along with constant training prevent total failure.
7. Be rationally extravagant - The pursuit of efficiency can be just as costly as that of extravagance. Therefore, it's the balance of the two that is the most efficient.
You just saved us precious minutes.
May you live long & prosper!
🖖🖖🖖
Thank you :)
I feel like there's a lesson in potatoes in there somewhere
Thanks a lot man!
ProTip: watch at x2 speed. Perfectly understandable and saves you 7 or so minutes - efficient AF, innit?
Fanny Fanny
Just another reminder of how bad the mobile TH-cam app is.
1.5× speed is better.
Use " Shift + > " to speed-up to 2x. Way quicker than mouse-clicking, isn't it? Did you know: You can even speed up to 3x or 4x or higher using the Chrome Console (press F12 --> console) and then typing " document.querySelector('video').playbackRate = 3 " --> replace 3 with 3.5 or 4 or whatever ;)
Mighty Mouse why’s that ?
@@farenough5878 That is a superb idea! You could also 'dust the lettuce' at the same time, too, for even greater efficiency.
See, between us we have increased efficiency tenfold or more - the guy on the video knows nothing!
I often had avoided 100% efficiency by accepting the inefficiencies of experiments and failures, but now I know that what I have been doing could have made me more efficient in ways (and obviously less in others)
The recent redesign of public transport in Helsinki is a prime example of efficiency gone wrong: All previous long lines were chopped into short ones that connect to one of a few main lines. This was supposed to make travelling faster, easier, and more cost-efficient. In reality, travel times increased, difficulty and discomfort increased, and costs went up. What on earth happened!?
Short answer: Reality is messy and people want convenience.
Long answer:
Previously, people could take one bus/tram, which would drive a long, winding route through small roads and neighborhoods, taking its sweet time to get from one end to the other. It was deemed _inefficient_ , because there were fewer passengers per line, and the vehicles were empty at parts of the route, due to overlap. With the new, _efficient_ system, most routes became shorter, meaning you will usually have to transfer at least once, often twice, to get from one place to another. While this may reduce time spent inside a vehicle, that "saved" time is actually spent walking to another stop and/or waiting for the other vehicle instead, and the total travel time doesn't shorten in the end.
The more transfers there are, the harder it becomes to plan the route from one place to another. The journey also becomes more susceptible to disruptions. One vehicle being late usually means being late to all the following transfers, meaning you will have to plan the whole route from the beginning again. To prepare for the risk of disruptions beforehand, you will have to add extra time for each transfer, which will again lengthen the total travel time.
Also, the main lines simply don't have enough capacity for all the passengers that transfer from connecting lines. This has already resulted in overcrowded vehicles and people having to wait for the next one, or the one after that, because there just wasn't any room on the previous one. At rush hour, there's sometimes a whole queue of vehicles of the same main line, or additional vehicles on standby nearby in case the passenger capacity exceeds. What was saved by shortening the connecting lines comes back as added costs to the main lines and their constant maintenance due to overuse.
In terms of convenience, transfers are also inconvenient and uncomfortable. Getting on and off vehicles, walking from stop to another, and waiting at the mercy of the elements are annoying enough even when you're not carrying anything, but they can quickly become nightmarish if you have a bag of groceries, luggage, a mobility aid or a pram with you. Besides, you're not paying the ticket fees to walk, you're paying for not having to!
kiitos tästä
Interesting, this seems to be exactly what is happening in Warsaw - we're moving towards shorter routes with a lot of getting off and on to different lines.
Thank you for sharing; it's a very interesting example, and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject.
I'm curious, are you a well-informed citizen passenger, or are you directly involved with the city's transportation industry? Mostly because I'm curious as to any proposed fixes to this new problem.
whilst this is a good critique of the transport system in helsinki im not sure you can use it to disparage efficiency as a concept. Whilst as you said the efficiency of each carriage increased, the total efficiency of travelling decreased due to other factros caused by the shorter lines and more transfers. Surely the issue here was that the people planning the routes had not taken into account the other factors that made their system more inefficient. Possibly if they had tried to gain efficiency through a different method, they could have avoided this issue altogether
Has the transport in Helsinki been fixed now?
"To be truly efficient, we need optimal inefficiency. The shortest path may be a curve rather than a straight line... Too much efficiency can weaken itself. But a bit of inspired inefficiency can strengthen it. Sometimes, the best way to move forward is to follow a circle." - Edward Tenner
"My interest is in the present"
And the whole video is full of history.
Because right after this sentence he says that the past helps us better understand the present.
@@mightymouse5930 totally does
You weren't supposed to stop the video after that sentence yadumash 😂
We forget that the last station is the same for everyone.
At the end, it is a joyful being that makes it worth living.
I'm not sure if 30 different anecdotes in 15 minutes is a great way to promote inefficiency
Paul Johnson yes agreed so I was like um.... basically just live life as per normal then is what I took away from that.
Haha I shouldn't have read this before listening to the talk
Anecdotes?
Anyone who has attempted multivariable optimization is familiar with the problem of local optima. From the vantage point of a local optimum, all directions seem to make the situation worse. Yet, what you have found is rarely the global optimum as there are typically many such locations in the variable space and it is not obvious you are in the most optimal of them. To find out you must dare to leave the local optimum and explore what appear to be less optimal territories.
This reminds me: how does Waze know the fastest route from one place to another?
Surely they have to send people the "wrong way" on purpose, just to check it's still not a good idea.
@@whateverrandomnumber Probably something like this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm
Local Efficiency vs. Global Efficiency..
Most people don't know the difference between them.
Wonderful, wonderful! Thank you, Edward sir.
Thanks for popping my cherry of seeing a TedTalk presenter (uncomfortably) read the entire thing from queue cards
what does that mean?
Whatched this on 2x speed. Didn't take much of it in, but damn it's efficient.
😂
haha
The artillery example was ridiculous. It's the same as saying "If the just didn't innovate they'd loose the war sooner." losing the war is what they _dont_ want
Yes. There is such a thing called Arms Race.
Both sides want to win, thus innovated.
The war took longer because the opponent had resources as much as they did.
Only after one side got ahead of the other did they start to win.
It could have been presented better, but the example is relevant and poignant in context.
European military leaders and developers of the pre-WWI era were... Basically meme followers. Artillery was the big new thing, so the French (and Germans, and British, and even Americans) were dumping a TON of money into bigger, faster, more efficient cannons, even though there were some well regarded generals warning against it.
Then, when the war broke out, there were all these brand new toys, but neither the tactics nor the logistics to adequately combat the same in turn. It was just More Efficient Infantry in the 18th century, More Efficient Cavalry in the 19th century, and was supposed to be More Efficient Artillery in the 20th.
I actually hate studying that period of military history. The 30 years leading up to the war reads almost like a cheap comic book, except everyone is a dastardly, moustache-twirling villain.
The chance factor is beyond our control and the law of un intended consequences has proved that sometimes even after the best of our efforts the outcome turns out to be way too different than what anyone could have ever thought.
precisely why they are called "chance"... how right you are!
"Rational Extravagance"
I could get into that.
Every CEO should watch this talk every Monday morning
I... Actually agree with this. Moderation is important, and chasing that 0.01% profit increase for next quarter just might not be worth it.
TED talks usually teach concepts in some minutes, which could be taught in seconds.
I can recall some of the speculation from the late 50s and early 60s.
The drift was with all of the new "push button technology" (especially kitchen appliances), the big problem of the year 2000 was how to creatively use all of the "spare time" these labor saving devices were going to generate?
The thought then was that (perhaps) study of "the classics" or poetry and art would flourish!
Nobody speculated that the new standard would be that everyone's schedule would be permanently slammed BUSY.
None of the efficient devices created a scrap of "spare time". . .
“TED Readings”
I thought he was paraplegic until he said "get off the couch". And then I noticed he was in an ordinary chair.
Boa tarde Sr. Parabéns ao Sr, que Deus o abençoe Sr.
Brilliant video
Another example: because digital cameras made it quick and easy to take photos and videos that aren't permanent (can be deleted but rarely are) and cost nothing to take more of (unlike film), instead of making sure every shot counts, people now take billions, if not trillions of worthless, pointless, duplicate, blurry, unwanted photos and videos that will never be seen again and only serve to clutter drives with countless files and bury the few that are actually worth keeping. :-\
By listening the next wave of mass confusion (like this talk) makes us disagree much more efficiently
Again, Peruvian here... You're very welcome world!
Very inefficiently inspiring talk.
i made it to 1:12... and i don't think this will be an efficient use of any more of my time
What Do You Call A Cheap Circumcision?
A Rip Off..
0.0
I count three separate Jewish stereotypes in this joke. Did I miss any?
@@bordenfleetwood5773 wow xD
all this doesn't have anything to do with efficiency, it's just an outcome of particular type of production in the context of certain industries
Woot woot Muscatine native here.
Definitely one of the best inspiring talks I have ever heard on Ted.
You can choose for one of the above gifts
Interesting and worth the listen but I feel like it is less about the paradox of efficiency and more like "a few times really bad luck turned efficiency into deficiency". At least the first half.
This was very useful, I'm really glad I watched this
"Sometimes the best way to move forward is to follow a circle "
curious...
guys, can somebody explain me the school bus punching bag analogy or whatever it was?
Its hepul vedio for our futue ambations
"Serendipity mistakes are portals of new discovery"
-Google how did say it first.
compilation of unrelated examples
I can relate when playing warframe, this is true
Praise Bob! Slack for everyone!
The guy doesnt really get it, if you make one part in a chain efficient, giving more to the next chain, somewhere next in the chain a new bottleneck appears, or the chain path changes, taking routes unforeseen. So if making one part of a chain more efficient, but it doesnt make the whole part efficient, it's not a paradox, you just made the wrong part efficient, or u missed a part ;) [edit] unless I dont get that this is a paradox :P
Yup. I agree. He doesnt seem to understand the concept.
His points fell short on many examples but I saw what he was trying to do.
This felt like a lecture 😅
Character In the video It's great, I like it a lot $$
Sometimes the best way to move forward is to retrace your steps
What is the ultimate goal of more and more efficiency?
Some day, the only weak link remaining in the chain will be the human: biological, frail, fallible, unpredictable, inefficient. And it will need to be removed, corrected, redesigned, fixed.
It's not far away.
If I watch this I’ll change the world
I actually watch Ted Talks at 1.25x speed and feel called out😅
Any examples of failures of efficiency in software industries?
One thing people have to question is efficiency for who? Also one thing self-serving people are always good at is selling you their efficient idea as if it's efficient for you, when in reality the efficiencies they claim are inefficient for you and detrimental.
Consider a slave master finding a way to more efficiently pick cotton and make more money, who benefits in this situation? What if less slaves have jobs and they get fired or killed or sold to another company or corporation? What if it means less pay for the employee, because less skill and talent is needed even though more hours are required to make an equal pay?
"It's good for your heart and your waist line."
Did you just call me fat?! ;)
The EMR solves the problem it was intended to solve... inaccurate, hard to access medical records. OK, doctors may be able to see fewer patients, but I'd rather be able to seek advice from any doctor nationwide who are then able to accurately view my entire medial history. Quality is more important that quantity when it comes to people's health.
Not sure if taking the wrong turn counts as being entirely inefficient, rather a way to make the most utility out of that mistake I guess. Though not all mistakes are equal.
Good
The point is good but the words used seem odd.
The problem he put forward isn't with growing efficiency but with the numbers of factors involved.
His argument is that an Immediate efficiency increase when considering a subset of related factors may cause an overall reduction in efficiency.
Or at least thats how i interpretated it.
Memerlukan lebih ramai orang jadi sebarkan video ini lebih banyak
do people have to pay to listen to this in person?
yang2020.com lets move forward
Volte com a Legenda em português
But what if we always walk in a circle, which maybe is the same circle?
This was inefficient
Stanley Jevons.
Wow, I learn a lot about potatoes...
Ahh, yes... Goodhart's law. I can't believe how many people don't understand this, even when it hits them in the face. In my profession, macro-scale heisenberg uncertainty happens all the time. The act of measuring a system, for certain chaotic systems, can alter the system in such a way that your measurement is wrong. Some things are fundamentally immeasurable.
Different perspective
Ideas
Read Paul Watzlawick's book "Ultra Solutions - How to Fail Most Successfully" for more on that - with a ton of great anecdotes!
This is like watching a middle school essay. How did he get a TED talk?
Well assembled and spoken. Three cheers sir.
Was there a message here?
efficiency for what purpose and in service to whom?
Efficiency is for its own sake. Time is finite. Greater efficiency allows you to make more use of your time.
I love sir
like everything in life should be taken in moderation, also efficiency need to be taken in moderation.
I am confused...so efficiency can be a bad thing and inefficiency can be optimized,but the goal of optimizing it is to boost efficiency?
I think, he makes fundamental differences between efficiency and optimum / optimization. For him, "efficiency" is linked to data and measurements. If you can capture and manage more data with computers and so on, you're more efficient. "Optimum" is linked to how you feel and experience things. If you go to the doctor, you want to feel better and not have all data of your disease captured without you feeling better. Efficiency in that sense makes people lose their connection to what's relevant. On the other hand, it would be optimal, if the doctor just cared for you by being talkative and understanding.
Quite a lot of examples is BS like:
- french canon, it's made to not loose, not to end war faster
- batteries and smartphones - manufacturers are trying to make as powerful phones as possible, but it means that power consuption is higher, one day battery life is convenient because we sleep at night, I'm 100% sure tat if we had 10x better batteries almost all of smartphones will be slimmer or more powerful, almost none of them would have 10 day battery life, because it's not that great feature for most of population
- exercise and IOT, I mean those 2 are barely connected, it doesn't make a difference if you would walk for 6 seconds and flip a switch, what we need to do to stay healthy is to regulary exercise
and a lot of more.
Weird thing, I agree with conclusions, but from another perspective, most of those examples weren't about efficiency, they have shown short sightedness or lack of data, sometimes people try to determine what is more efficient without having enough data, what we need to do is to factor unknown into efficiency.
Watching this in 2x speed while writing this comment
Since this guy beats around the bush for 10+ minutes, I'll tell you what he's probably trying to say: Be efficient at one job at a time, rather than attempting too many at once.
* I am glad you had put this professor as a speaker! He is not only knowledgeable but very intelligent and his inability to stand isn’t the problem, however his i engagement with the audience isn’t doing so well.
However, if I was up there, I would flop so bad in all levels, so I have no place to take!
This lecture is a masterpiece for anyone who wants to practice their speech.
Here’s an example of a man I had watched who also didn’t stand and/or move around, but he connected!
th-cam.com/video/apbSsILLh28/w-d-xo.html
Interesting talk but big mistake about potatoes. Ireland was exporting food during the hunger. It was the terrible British policies that caused so much pain in Ireland. Other countries with similar issues never suffered a famine during the same years...
"more words per minute"
Watch at x2 speed.
I feel like he was confused about his topic and used the wrong words to describe things, I don't care enough to untangle it perfectly... efficiency is not a problem, he cites examples where the pursuit of efficiency led to inefficiency - big surprise, then it wasn't overall efficient, duh. You experience this a lot in programming, you keep iterating smaller and smaller except at some point the program breaks from attempting to be too efficient, so you undo the last attempt and accept it. He also suggests being purposefully inefficient for serendipitous moments, except he's looking at it the wrong way, you could spend your entire life doing things inefficiently and never experience serendipity, you will have just wasted a lifetime. A more reasonable suggestion would be to allow time for living in the present which may or may not generate serendipitous moments, but as a time-gamble, even if you lose you will have enjoyed your time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I won't be letting this inefficient video waste more of my time.
This is cool and all, but when are we getting a Ted reveal?
Reggie watts meterial.
The same goes for labor migration! Importing cheap and unprotected workers from other countries, and exploiting them will have a negative impact on society and interethnic relations! This is not a call for stopping immigration but rather to treat labor migrants in an appropriate and civilized manner (as cocitizens) instead of exploiting and excluding them!
It seems the narrator is hitting around the bush a lot instead of getting to the point...
Gonna be honest, I didn’t understand a thing. I think my understanding of the word efficiency doesn’t line up with the talks.
Listen to this guy if you need help falling asleep. Get to the point sir!
This is stupid and the examples are bad. Its like saying "you can walk 30 mins a day to work and youll be healthier. Thats more efficient!" Comparing 2 different aspects is stupid.
Instead of going to gym twice a week
Лучшее -- враг хорошего.
" best is the enemy of good"
Nothing paraldoxicle about it. In the examples, they just did not take all variables into account.
As good as the term "inspired inefficiency" sounds, this talk was poor. Whilst I don't fully disagree with the concept, the examples the talker gave were just poor examples of technology, or he created a different metric to measure efficiency with.
Efficiency is only relative to a specific metric. For example talking about smart homes being more inefficient because it means you walk less and therefore is worse for your heart is true... but only in terms of heart health. I'm certain that the measure of efficiency others are using relates to the savings in their bills.
Decent concept, poorly executed.
Who else feels like this talk was dragged on
I don't think we will understand what he wish to convey, we are already efficiency junkie... What he is trying to say is that by selecting best option available we are closing any chance of alternative outcome (innovation)... We try to see everything from logic(of money) instead of actual experience....
Ok so all I got from this is that it isn't always helpful to look at something and optimise/problem solve it in isolation, we should consider the broader context and the effects it could produce in all aspects of life over time.
A simple, pretty obvious warning I suppose. The cynic in me thinks that it's just an old guy who can't keep up with the pace of technology and wishes things went back to a simpler time when things we 'better'.
Moin Leude.
Moin
This was a really boring list. It sounds like one of the end segments for 60 Minuets.
🦋love potatoes 🥔 I have an amazing recipe for mashed potatoes
The Flaneur 🦋I kick it old school using a masher!
Too bad he couldn't have a more efficient way of reading off of 3x5 index cards to give his TEDTalk.
he's taking the hard route
Hahahahahahahaha
oof
Not feeling these examples
Painfully obvious this dude doesn't know what efficiency is.
Don't confuse efficiency with effectiveness